Follow-through visits are a well-established part of the process of HMIE inspection of schools. Since 2003 we have revised the arrangements for follow-through to achieve an increasingly proportionate approach. From then, our engagement with a school following inspection has been directly related to the school’s overall performance and its capacity for improvement. This proportionate approach allows our resources to be targeted on direct involvement where it is most needed and can have most impact. We carry out follow-through visits to schools around two years after the original inspection. In some cases we carried out interim follow-through inspection visits within one year.
This report is mainly based on an analysis of the progress found in over 300 HMIE follow-through inspections on which reports were published between 2005 and 2008. The work was undertaken in schools in which we had previously identified important or major weaknesses in key aspects. In those follow-through inspections we found much evidence of improvement and were able in most cases to disengage from further inspection activity in connection with the original inspection. This report identifies the key factors which led to improvement. It also draws on evidence from other HMIE tasks which identified successful approaches to school improvement.
We think that the key improvement factors which we have identified are relevant and applicable to all schools. We therefore believe that education authorities will be able to use the advice as they work to improve their schools, sustaining high performance and helping good schools to become even better and to demonstrate all the features which are required for Curriculum for Excellence.
In this section we set out some key statistics about school improvement. The next section sets out general factors which are important in ensuring that schools improve. The following sections contain detailed and specific advice about key levers for improvement related to the ten dimensions of Journey to Excellence. We include a number of case studies of improvement in individual schools.
Follow-through decisions and the factors influencing them
From 2005 to 2008, the overall proportion of inspections of primary schools in which HMIE follow-through was necessary was 20%. HMIE follow-through was necessary in 33% of secondary schools and 29% of special schools inspected.
Follow-through took place when we found important or major weaknesses in key aspects of a school’s work. Among the most significant factors were the quality of the school’s self-evaluation processes and the quality of leadership. If there were weaknesses in these aspects then the school’s capacity for improvement was low. The extent to which pupils’ learning needs were met, and the quality of pupils’ learning experiences were important factors too, as were the quality of a school’s curriculum and learner attainment.
More recently, the proportion of schools in which HMIE carry out follow-through has fallen to around 10% of all schools inspected. This reduction has come about because we decided to be more proportionate in our inspections and carry out follow-through in a smaller proportion of schools. As a consequence we are now able to focus our resources more closely and carry out interim follow-through visits within one year in almost all schools which require follow-through.
Findings in follow-through reports
In follow-through inspections in primary schools from 2005 to April 2008, we judged that, in most cases (86%), the school had improved to at least a satisfactory standard and further inspection was not required. This represents considerable improvement. Only 14% of those schools required further follow-through visits. Overall then, only around 3% of all primary schools1 inspected were not at a satisfactory standard at the time of the original inspection or by the time the follow-through inspection was carried out.
In follow-through inspections in secondary and special schools over the same period, we found that in around three-quarters of all cases (73% and 75% respectively) further inspection activity was not required. This represents considerable improvement too. It means that fewer than 10% of secondary and special schools inspected were not at a satisfactory level at the time of the original inspection or by the time of follow-through.
In all sectors, only a very small number of those schools which required a further follow-through visit were unable to improve to a satisfactory standard by the time of the second follow-through visit.
From April 2008 to the present, the proportion of schools in which we were able to disengage from further inspection activity after a second, two-year follow-through visit has remained similar to previous figures – around 85% of primary schools and 71% of secondary schools. The number of special schools in which follow-through inspections were carried out over that period is too small to quote accurate percentages, but the number requiring a further follow-through visit was very small.
These more recent statistics indicate significant improvement in schools which previously had important weaknesses. It is to the credit of staff in these schools and education authorities that they worked effectively together and with partners to address weaknesses in provision and improve outcomes for their learners.
What has helped me most has been the continuing discussion with HMIE and my education authority about how to take the school forward, and now, the clear endorsement from the follow-through inspection that we are moving in the right direction and making very good progress. This is a huge boost to me and to the confidence of the staff. Headteacher of a primary school |