SUMMERHILL SCHOOL: COMPLAINT TO OFSTED REGARDING THE HMI INSPECTION of March 1999

Summerhill School, June 2000

OUTLINE OF COMPLAINT

The outline of this complaint is as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. OFSTED v SUMMERHILL: THE PHILOSOPHICAL DISPUTE

2. EVALUATION OF HMI’s CLAIMS AGAINST SUMMERHILL AS EVIDENCED IN

THE INSPECTION REPORT FOR 1-5 MARCH 1999

(a) The claim that the Inspection Report does not pass judgement on Summerhill’s

unique philosophy

(b) The validity of HMI’s process of inquiry and evidence base

(c) ‘Standards’, ‘attainment’ and ‘progress’: evaluation of Summerhill by reference

to ‘national’ age-based norms

(i) Normative and ipsative comparisons: national testing

(ii) Criterial and intuitive judgements

(iii) Unexplicated judgements

(iv) Absence of construct validity

(v) Unwarranted generalisations

(vi) Lack of content validity

1

(vii) Bias

(d) Conclusion

3. EVALUATION OF SUMMERHILL: COMPLAINTS 4 AND 6 – ‘EFFICIENT AND

SUITABLE INSTRUCTION’?

(a) Complaint 6

(b) Complaint 4

(c) Conclusions

REFERENCES

APPENDICES A - H

INTRODUCTION

1. The evidence on which this Complaint is based comes from a number of sources. The first of these is

an Independent Inquiry Report produced by Professor Ian Cunningham and a team of experts from

education, business, and psychology. The team comprised Drs Cunningham, Gray, Honey and

Rosen, two boarding school headteachers, Colin Reid and Jill Horsburgh, and Stuart Ainsworth of

Strathclyde University. The ‘Report of an Inquiry into Summerhill’ (January 2000; 29 pps) is based

on a 17 fieldwork days at Summerhill in November/December 1999 (Appendix A; page references in

this document are from ‘Report of an Inquiry into Summerhill School – Leiston, Suffolk’

http://www.selfmanagedlearning.org/Summerhill/RepMain.htm).

2

2. The second source is the ‘expert witness’ account of Professor Ian Stronach and his research team.

That report was based on 24 days fieldwork in December 1999/ January 2000. The team included

Professors MacDonald, Torrance and Kushner, and Dr Allan. They produced a 100 page re-appraisal

of the HMI Inspection and a re-evaluation of the school in terms of educational processes and

outcomes (Appendix B).

3. The third source is the ‘expert witness’ statement of Dr Alan Thomas, which examined the out-of-

classroom learning of pupils at the school (Appendix C). In addition, the report draws on the witness

statements of Goodsman, Warder, and Butterfield (Appendices D, E and F), and makes reference to

the witness statements of MacBeath, Grenyer and Phipps.

4. The fourth piece of evidence is the HMI Inspection Report (and associated documentation) on

Summerhill School, March 1999, which was based on a 3-day inspection by 8 inspectors led by HMI

Philip Grenyer (Appendix G). The rest of the HMI team were Chris Gould, Tim Brand, [ADD THE

REST]

5. Consequent to the above inspection the Secretary of State issued a number of complaints against the

school. The school appealed and a Tribunal hearing in March 2000 ended with the withdrawal of the

Complaints following a negotiated settlement, an agreement whose terms are recorded in Appendix

H. This current document constitutes a formal Complaint against the Ofsted inspection process. It

examines the Inspection Report which followed HMI’s full inspection of Summerhill in March

1999.The report also addresses the more general nature of Ofsted inspections, since HMI inspected

the school (and determined that the school fails to provide efficient and suitable instruction) by

reference to guidelines published by Ofsted. These principally are the Ofsted Framework, and in the

case of independent schools, the relevant guidelines in Inspecting Independent Schools: a Framework

(Ofsted, 1997) and Inspecting Independent Schools: HMI Methods and Procedures (Ofsted, 1996

reprint). In turn these documents derive from an Ofsted literature on the philosophy, procedures and

practice of inspection (see references and fn 2 below).

6. In summary, Summerhill’s rebuttal of these complaints is as follows.

Complaint 2 was conceded by Counsel for the Secretary of State in the first day of the Tribunal hearing.

In relation to Complaints 4 and 6, in particular, the school claims that it offers an alternative approach to

education, consonant with the philosophy of A.S. Neill, the wishes of the parents, and subject to the

3

agreement of the pupils in what is held to be the ‘oldest children’s democracy in the world’. That

alternative approach is based on notions of freedom of choice for pupils, the equality of children and

adults in a friendly and democratically governed ‘community’, and the conviction that such liberties

enable pupils to establish an authentic sense of themselves out of which emerges an intrinsic motivation

to learn. The school therefore disagrees with certain aspects of the models and outcomes of education,

teaching, and learning explicit or implicit in the Ofsted Framework and offers its own alternatives.

7 In particular, it is the claim of Summerhill School that there are sound educational and philosophical

reasons for rejecting the Respondent’s Complaints and Remedies, arising out of HMI’s evaluation of

the school, particularly in so far as they seek to deny voluntary attendance at lessons, impose

compulsory assessment, insist on national norms in relation to ‘efficient’ performance, or assert

‘education’ to be a continuous, linear and teacher-led progression through a specified curriculum.

Additionally, the school claims that it offers an unusually effective personal and social education to

its ‘community’, and that its academic results are in any case satisfactory, in terms of pupil and

parental evaluation, as well as in terms of national averages.

8. In relation to Complaints 4 and 6, the School also wishes to identify flaws in the principle and

practice of this inspection that make the subsequent Complaints by the Secretary of State invalid.

Consequently, in accordance with Ofsted quality assurance procedures, we ask that the report be declared

‘null and void’ (Ofsted http:/www.ofsted.gov.uk/pubs/complain/content.htm: 2).

.

9. This report has four main aims:

(1) The first aim is to clarify the nature of the educational issues involved in the

disagreement identified immediately above. These issues concern differing educational

philosophies, as well as notions of learning, teaching, assessment and development. They

are important to clarify because Ofsted and Summerhill make very different assumptions

about the nature of ‘education’. Further, these assumptions affect the interpretation of the

requirement that Summerhill provide ‘efficient and suitable instruction’. The second aim

is to examine in detail the sorts of claims made against Summerhill school by HMI’s

Inspection Report (1-5 March 1999), and to consider the validity and force of these

criticisms in the light of Ofsted criteria and in the light of evidence deriving from

research into the school conducted for the purpose of this Report in the period December

1999 - February 2000.

4

(2) The third aim is to examine Summerhill’s counter-claims, in regard to the educational

nature of its aims and the practical outcomes as perceived by the school, the pupils and

parents. Their validity and force will be evaluated in the light of available evidence, and

contrasted with Ofsted’s findings in the 1999 Inspection Report.

(3) The final aim is to offer an overall judgement on the nature of educational aspects of the

dispute and therefore on the question of whether Summerhill fails to provide efficient

and suitable instruction to is pupils. It is important to note that such a judgement is

limited by the amount of evidence that has been gathered. Nevertheless evidence to

enable a well-founded judgement in relation to the ‘security’ of the Ofsted judgement on

Summerhill, and sufficient evidence on the nature and functioning of the school to enable

an informed judgement of its worth. In particular, it is worth noting that the various

external evaluations involved more than twice as much fieldwork as HMI undertook in

their inspection, and were conducted by independent experts in education and

educational research.

We emphasize that it is our intention as a School to offer this Complaint in as objective a manner as

possible. In this we are fortunate, since two separate external evaluations of Summerhill have recently

been conducted as a result of the Secretary of State’s issue of a Notice of Complaint. The Independent

Inquiry Report by Professor Cunningham offered a counter-evaluation to that performed by HMI. In

addition, Professor Stronach undertook a critical analysis of the HMI Inspection, as well as gathering data

on school processes and outcomes. This Complaint is based largely on his findings, which have been

altered only in so far as the School wanted to add to or subtract from his evidence and conclusions. In a

similar way, this report has drawn greatly on the findings of Cunningham and his team, and on Thomas’

‘expert witness’ statement. It is, therefore, a research-based analysis of the ‘security’ of the Ofsted

verdict, drawing on much more evidence than the HMI team were able to draw, and offering a

professional judgement against the inspection process that is also based on considerable expertise. We

have adopted this strategy in order that this Complaint will be seen to be well-founded, disinterested, and

undeniable.

1. OFSTED v SUMMERHILL: THE PHILOSOPHICAL DISPUTE

5

Ofsted and Summerhill are united in at least three things. They believe in the

education of the whole child (cognitive, personal, social, moral, cultural etc). They aim for the

realisation of the child’s ‘full potential’. They expect that a major outcome of such education

should be the ‘active citizen’ participating constructively and productively in social, economic

and cultural life1. But they see the realisation of these aims in diametrically opposed ways. What are the

main differences?

(a) The Ofsted ‘Framework’ for the evaluation of schools is centred on teaching as the

key intervention. It is preoccupied with instructional theory, based on the

systematic teaching of knowledge and skills. It is teaching-centred in its focus:

(i) ‘Teaching is the major factor contributing to pupils’ attainment, progress and response’

(Ofsted 1995: 43, 71). Inspection should ‘concentrate particularly on the quality of

teaching’ (Ofsted 1995: 1). Inspectors should ‘focus on teaching to explain why pupils

achieve as they do’ (Ofsted 1998: 5). That priority is also clear in the document relating

specifically to the inspection of independent schools (Ofsted 1997: 17)2 where HMI are

enjoined to evaluate quality in terms of the ‘extent to which teaching meets the needs of

all pupils’.

(ii) The Ofsted ‘framework’ (Ofsted 1995) refers to the ‘quality of education’ (5.1) and

immediately translates that into ‘the quality of teaching’ (5.1). The Education Act’s

criterion of efficient and suitable ‘instruction’ is re-expressed as ‘efficient and suitable

full-time education’ by the DfEE (letter, 29.12.97). The words ‘education’, ‘instruction’

and ‘teaching’ are thus used somewhat interchangeably.

1 These claims are based on a critical evaluation of: Ofsted documentation relating both to state and independent schools; the aims and objectives identified by Summerhill School in its publicity material; interview data deriving from the school; questionnaire data addressing pupils, ex-pupils and parents of the school.2 The Ofsted inspection framework is elaborated in a series of documents (see references). These documents are produced by HMCI to cover state and independent schools, although of course they are designed in the first instance to relate to state schools. It is relevant, therefore, both to address all the documents in order to establish the overall Ofsted inspection rationale, and to look more specifically at those documents which indicate differences between the overall approach and its application to independent schools (e.g. Ofsted 1997). There is, in relation to the latter schools, a shared educational rationale expressed around a separate legal basis. The differences are important in that some aspects of the Ofsted rationale do not translate successfully to the independent sector, such as relations with the community and notions of partnership.

6

(iii) Ofsted criteria offer 18 elements concerning teaching, formal curriculum and assessment,

and 4 concerning personal, social, religious and cultural development (Ofsted 1997). It is

also significant that Ofsted address ‘education’ - a matter of ‘standards’ and ‘quality’ -

somewhat separately from issues of ‘development’ , which is used to express religious,

moral, personal, social and cultural learning (Ofsted 1995, 1997).

(iv) The HMI involved in the inspection of Summerhill (March 1999) also believe that

successful learning is essentially a matter of good teaching: ‘Where the teaching is

particularly stimulating (...) good attitudes to learning are promoted’ (HMI Report 1999:

35). The HMI Report offered 11 sections on teaching and formal curriculum, and 3 on

spiritual, moral, social and cultural development (see 40 - 53).

(b) In contrast, the Summerhill model is child-centred in terms of learning and

development. It prioritises the child’s current needs, and sees motivation to learn

and subsequent learning as ‘caught’ rather than ‘taught’:

(i) ‘Education is much wider than school subjects’ (Neill 1945: 7)3

(ii) ‘Only through free, imaginative play can a child develop the skills needed for adulthood’

(Neill, cited in ‘A brief history of Summerhill’)

(iii) ‘Summerhill runs on the principle that if the emotions are free the intellect will look after

itself’ (Neill, 13.1.72)

(iv) ‘One cannot teach anything of importance (...) to love, to have charity.’ (Neill 13.1.72)

(v) It is essential to allow children ‘to define who they are and what they want to be’

(Summerhill General Policy Statement)

(vi) The 4 aims of the school are: ‘to allow children freedom to grow emotionally; to give

children power over their own lives; to give children the time to develop naturally; to

create a happier childhood by removing fear and coercion by adults’ (‘A brief history of

3 Neill’s educational beliefs belong to a wider ‘progressive’ education movement that was also connected to the psychoanalytical movement. Neill was eclectic, drawing variously on Reich and Lane, but also remaining very much a practitioner of the free. His focus was certainly individualisation, the child as an autonomous self-directed individual.

7

Summerhill’: 2)

(vii) Consequently, the school argues that it does not ‘agree with the inspectors’ judgements about

provision because the beliefs that underlie their judgements are not ones that the school believes in.’

(c) The Ofsted model of educational progress is based on a progression of key stages.

Learning is seen as continuous, linear, and progressive. Questions of pace, progress,

and outcome are measured through comparison with other pupils, schools and

educational systems:

(i) The Ofsted Framework identifies targets of attainment at key stages 2, 4 and 6. These

concepts are central to the notion of progression embedded in the National Curriculum.

They also connect with National Targets for Education and Training (Ofsted 1997: 4.1).

The concepts of ‘attainment’ and ‘progress’ relate to comparisons with ‘national

standards and expectations’ (1995: 43; 1997). Key indicators of attainment are typically

expressed thus: ‘At the end of Key Stage 2: proportion of pupils attaining Level 4 or

above in the specified subjects or attainment targets’ (Ofsted 1997: 13). The National

Curriculum is used as a reference point.

(ii) The 1999 HMI Inspection Report on Summerhill stressed the need to ‘ensure that all

pupils are fully engaged in study across a broad and balanced curriculum throughout

their time in school’ (16); the Report, and the School Profile (called the Record of

Evidence in the case of maintained schools) on which it was based, make frequent

reference to failures to meet ‘national expectations’ or ‘standards’ (e.g. 22; 25; 27; 60;

62)

(d) The Summerhill model of educational development, on the other hand, is voluntary,

discontinuous and transformative4. Pupils come to a realisation of themselves and

their wants, and may only then become authentically-motivated, enthusiastic

learners. Progress is valued as an individual rather than a comparative matter.

4 Models for curricula and learning vary greatly, and over time. Bruner advocated the ‘spiral curriculum’ (1966) whereby concepts were revisited in more complex ways. Piaget attributed learning to a series of stages. A general misinterpretation of his work led to crude assumptions of cognitive stages which all children pass through, and thence to simplistic ‘readiness’ theories of learning. There is strong current interest in Vygotsky’s notion of learning as an essentially social phenomenon, the individual learning through the group. Such a theory finds resonance with Neill’s work, and with contemporary educational practices at Summerhill. The notion of a ‘community’ of learners is currently of interest to researchers, such as Lave (1991).

8

Assessment criteria, therefore, are ipsative (referring to individual progress) rather

than normative (comparing performance in relation to a relevant cohort).

(i) ‘As an integral part of freedom at Summerhill children are able to define and control

their own ideas of success and attainment. This might give rise to situations of conflict

with the adult use of assessment’ (Summerhill General Policy Statement).

(ii) The school has long argued that pupils from conventional schools go through a phase of

‘breaking out’ when they first attend Summerhill (Goodsman 1992: 57). They do so in

response to ‘the emotional damage and the social evils bred by the pressure on him [sic]

from his parents, his schoolteachers, and the pressure of the coercive quality of our

civilisation’ (Neill, in Summerhill Policy Statement, n.d.). Such ‘breaking out’ often

involves a period of non-attendance at lessons. This necessary regression is followed by

a ‘catch-up’ phase in the current view of the school.

(iii) The voluntary nature of lesson attendance is held to be a defining characteristic of Neill’s

philosophy: ‘it is this act of choosing that is educational’ (Goodsman 1992: 161).

(e) Essentially, the Ofsted model sees childhood education as a preparation for life,

work, and citizenship which involves accumulating the knowledge and skills that

enable an effective adulthood. Such knowledge and skills offer a freedom after

knowledge. Summerhill sees childhood as an expression of life, work and citizenship

wherein the necessary values, dispositions and actions are internalised through

their exercise in the lives of the Summerhill ‘community’. In summary, it might be

said that Ofsted and Summerhill ask two very different questions: the former asks

‘how will children learn in order to live well?’ while the latter asks ‘ how will

children live well in order to learn?’ Thus, for example, one might contrast the two

models, in broad pedagogical and political terms, as an education for democracy as

opposed to an education in and through democracy. In general, the Ofsted goals

are centred on subject attainment, normatively assessed and outcome-oriented,

whereas Summerhill emphasises an education of the emotions as well as the

intellect, stressing the processes of learning and living rather than the outcomes.

9

8. Such differences in philosophy lead to highly discrepant evaluations of educational worth. To

illustrate, the HMI Inspection Report foregrounds knowledge and skill acquisition and reaches the

following conclusion: ‘Quite how the school reconciles such high levels of under-achievement

together with a high proportion of unsatisfactory teaching, with the democratic principles it purports

to promote is very difficult to understand.’ (Ofsted 1999: 60)

8 Yet Summerhill claims the following outcomes of its educational provision, while also

claiming satisfactory examination outcomes and criticising conventional education: ‘self-

esteem, tolerance, integrity, fairness, understanding, sensitivity, compassion, assertiveness,

management skills, creativity, humour, personal interaction skills, motivation, common-

sense’ (Summerhill, ‘A book of questions and answers’, July 1998). Such learning is held to

derive from learning by living within the ‘community’ of Summerhill, much more than from

‘lessons’. At the same time, Summerhill would criticise conventional education as neglecting

the ‘whole person’ as defined above, and particularly the education of the emotions and the

development of social competencies5, while retaining a tolerance in stating that ‘we

[Summerhill staff] are not trying to impose our values on anyone else’.

9 It is important to note that these educational claims and counter-claims are part of a long-standing

disagreement between HMI and Summerhill. Even the broadly favourable HMI Report in 1949

criticised the ‘unimpressive’ and ‘surprisingly old-fashioned’ formal teaching at Summerhill (HMI

1949: 81 - 82). The 1990 Report, while also positive about the social and personal education that the

school offered, criticised teaching: ‘Urgent attention should be given to providing all pupils with a

clearer and more stimulating view of what is offered in the schools’ formal curriculum’ (HMI 1990:

71). The 1999 Report concluded: ‘The poor attitudes to learning and failure to address or even

recognise the issue is a major cause of the school’s failure to provide efficient and suitable

instruction’ (HMI 1999: 37).

5 These concerns, as the Independent Inquiry Report fully indicates (Cunningham et al. 2000) are currently being emphasised both by government and by educational researchers and psychologists. The most widely disseminated account is Goleman’s ‘Emotional intelligence’ (1996) which places the emphasis on ‘the capacity for self-regulation’ (Broadfoot 1999: 9). She offers Sir Richard Livingstone as a marker of the antiquity of such ideas. In 1941 he apparently wrote: ‘If the school sends out children with the desire for knowledge and some idea of how to acquire it and use it, it will have done its work (...) The good schoolmaster (sic) is known by the number of valuable subjects that he declines to teach’ (Broadfoot 1999: 7). But ‘progressive’ ideas can be found much earlier, of course. The Blue Book of Guidance for teachers issued by the Board of Education in 1905 stressed the need for teachers to make learning a matter of ‘partnership’ between teachers and pupils.

10

10 Neill noted in 1972 that “every Report [HMI] in essence said: ‘The school does not come up to our

standard and we give you a year to pull up your socks if you want to remain on our list of registered

schools’. Dismissing HMI as ‘little people with a narrow vision’ he made the following prediction: ‘I

prophesy that when I am gone the Ministry will make demands that will kill the principles of

Summerhill’ (13.1.72). He referred specifically to ‘making lessons compulsory’.

11 Behind these differences in approach lie important, familiar and recurrent philosophical

preoccupations. For example, an inductive notion of education (Hirst) confronts an experiential one

(Dewey). A largely behaviourist and/or ‘effectiveness’ approach (Reynolds; Rutter) faces a much

more holistic one (Neill). Assumptions about the essential nature of children also conflict, in terms of

presumed innate goodness, essential ‘wildness’, ‘blank slate’ nature and so on. A philosophy

concerned with epistemology (the nature of knowledge and its efficient acquisition) faces a

philosophy more preoccupied with ontological concerns (concerning the nature of ‘being’). Or we

could translate these oppositions into a disagreement between the priorities for an instrumental rather

than an expressive education6. And so on.

12 These differences and disputes, in various combinations and compromises, have preoccupied Western

European educators throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Indeed, much would be familiar to the

Ancient Greeks (Elliott 1991).

(f) The above illustration of philosophical differences is specifically relevant to the

educational adjudication of the Respondent’s Complaints and Summerhill’s Appeal

in a number of ways.

13 First, these philosophical differences suggest that notions as to what ought to count as the

‘curriculum’ are open to different interpretations, and that therefore simple descriptors of the

curriculum are actually coded in complex ways. Ofsted’s definition of ‘narrow’ gives priority to a

necessary spread of disciplinary or subject knowledge. On the other hand, Summerhill’s definition of

‘narrow’ rejects the notion that ‘education’ can be expressed mainly in terms of subject learning (as

Danë Goodsman’s witness statement confirms, para 25). Similarly, Ofsted’s demand for ‘continuity’

and ‘progression’ implies a linear and cumulative notion of learning that does not fit the Summerhill

6 Neill’s and Summerhill’s call for an education founded in values rather than in skills is also a matter of contemporary debate. See for example Alisdair Macintyre’s Dependent Rational Animals: why human beings need the virtues’ (1999). The same emphasis on values can be seen in John Raven’s ‘Managing education for effective schooling: the most important problem is to come to terms with values’. Oxford: Trillium Press (1994).

11

model, which anticipates processes of readiness, rebellion, and transformation7. Each model makes

very different assumptions about the nature of, and appropriate stimulus for, ‘learning’8.

14 Thus words like ‘narrow’, ‘broad’, ‘continuous’, ‘progression’, ‘holistic’, ‘fragmented’ are all

aspects of different and sometimes conflicting theories concerning what ought to constitute an

‘education’, comprise an effective way of ‘learning’, or realise some form of virtuous

apprenticeship, induction or learning experience. They are far from neutral words of description.

But a conclusion that we can quickly and certainly draw is that similar debates on the nature and

purpose of education in the West have often covered this sort of disputed range. In mainstream

schooling in the UK the emphasis switched from a student-centred approach to learning that

characterised the government’s policy from 1984-88 to a more curriculum-centred approach with

the introduction of the National Curriculum. It follows that both Ofsted’s and Summerhill’s

views of what constitutes an ‘education’ are historically familiar: indeed it might be held that

‘Ofsted’ and ‘Summerhill’ symbolise different positions on the spectrum of the educationally

defensible, and that the current dispute reflects a broader and recurrent conflict between child-

centred and society-centred goals, or between instrumental and expressive emphases regarding

the purposes of education. The independent researchers all concluded that there are certainly

conflicting approaches to ‘education’, but there are no a priori grounds for excluding either

position in terms of a possible notion of what might count as an ‘education’, or indeed as a

possible model for teaching and learning. As the Independent Inquiry put it: ‘.. we strongly

believe that in a democratic and pluralist society such as ours the distinctive culture of

Summerhill is one which deserves to be accepted and valued as part of a diversity of educational

approaches’ (Cunningham 2000: 9).

2. EVALUATION OF HMI’S CLAIMS AGAINST SUMMERHILL AS

EVIDENCED IN THE INSPECTION REPORT FOR 1-5 MARCH 1999

14 The Inspection Report makes a number of claims which form the basis of the Notice of

7 Neill called the rebellious reaction to ‘lessons’ a ‘gangster’ stage. He believed it to be necessary to the child’s development as a ‘free’ person. Readhead, in interview (24.1.00), added that many of the school’s current roll had bad experiences in their previous schools. The responses of parents to the Questionnaire for Summerhill Parents support this. These experiences included behaviour disturbance, truancy, bullying, and school ‘refusers’. Such experiences needed to be worked on by the child, and part of that working out often involves a period of non-attendance, when the child sorts himself or herself out. The eventual decision to attend lessons is seen to be a critical incident for the child, and to reflect an authentic realisation of aims and ambitions for the future. It is, therefore, an uncoerced commitment. As such it is held to be enduring and the product of mature reflection.8 This point is supported by the witness statements of Dr Alan Thomas and Professor MacBeath.

12

Complaint. The Report is based on HMI notes and judgements recorded in the School

Profile. The inspectors were required to employ the 1997 Framework and HMI Methods and

Procedures in collecting data at the school, and in evaluating whether Summerhill was

failing to provide ‘efficient and suitable instruction.’ This section of our Complaint

therefore examines the validity of the claims made in the Inspection Report which formed

the basis of the Notice of Complaint issued by the Secretary of State at the recommendation

of Ofsted. The ‘expert witness’ statement of Stronach et al examined the validity of HMI

claims by reference to the School Profile (the inspectors’ evidence base) and the Principles

and Code of Conduct which govern Ofsted inspections (para 6-8 of the 1997 Framework),

in order to determine whether there is a defensible basis for the conclusions reached and thus

for the grounds of complaint set out in Complaints 4 and 6 of the Notice of Complaint. We

draw on the findings of the Stronach team, adding illustration of our own and corroborating these

conclusions with those of the Independent Inquiry team.

15

(a) The claim that the Inspection Report does not pass judgement on Summerhill’s

unique philosophy

16 The HMI Report claims not to attack Neill’s educational philosophy: ‘[t]his report cannot and does

not pass judgement on the unique philosophy on which Summerhill is founded. It focuses upon the

issue of whether the quality of the education provided is effective in practice.’ (HMI Report 1999: 5).

This intention was previously underlined by the DfEE in a letter to Summerhill parents: ‘The

Department does not seek to impose a particular pattern of provision or philosophy on schools.’ (M

Phipps, 29.12.97). A more recent letter stresses that ‘it is not the Secretary of State’s intention to

force the school to close or to abandon its educational philosophy’ (DfEE 29.7.99). This is repeated

in the witness statement of Michael Phipps (paras 27, 112).

17 Yet HMI attack elements of Summerhill belief and practice that Neill expressly defined as central to

his philosophy, such as the appropriate balance between lessons and other aspects of community life,

the voluntary nature of attendance at lessons, and the necessary phase of ‘breaking out’ through

which children deal with their pasts and come to terms with their future. The Ofsted vocabulary of

continuity, progression, pace of learning, breadth and balance is incompatible with Summerhill

educational philosophy [as indicated in 1 (a)(i) – (e)].

13

18 In addition, the HMI inspection neglects the unusual aims and methods of the school, which are a

direct expression of Neill’s philosophy, and inflexibly applies an Ofsted Framework designed for

conventional schools (Fn 8a, cf the 1997 Framework and the 1995 Framework for maintained

schools). The witness statement of HMI Neville Grenyer offers a ‘general objective’ for inspections

that was not realised in the case of Summerhill: ‘Schools are judged on how well they fulfil their

stated aims and on whether these aims are appropriate in the context of the school and the pupils it

serves’ (Grenyer, 11). This requirement is also to be found in Inspecting Independent Schools: HMI

Methods and Procedures which states at para 7 ‘(iv) HMI .. take account of the circumstances and

priorities of the particular school. (v) .. Schools are judged on how well they fulfil their stated aims

and on whether these aims are appropriate in the context of the school and the pupils it serves.’ There

is little in the School profile and nothing in the HMI Report to indicate that these aims were

addressed, let alone achieved.

Attack on Summerhill’s philosophy

19 On this first point, the Ofsted approach to school inspection makes the following claims against

central features of Summerhill philosophy:

Purpose of education:

Attainment is ‘at the heart of education’ (Ofsted 1999: 62). It should meet ‘national

expectations’; HMI note that ‘... it remains clear that there are major areas of unresolved

difficulty where the school’s philosophy (our stress) is in conflict with wider external

expectations of pupils’ levels of achievement and progress’ (ibid: 60). ‘The school’s

values and ethos are a very significant barrier to real improvement’ (School Profile)

Voluntary attendance at lessons:

‘A root cause of these defects (at Key Stage 2) is non-attendance at lessons’ (ibid: 10);

there is ‘insufficient progress’ because of ‘erratic attendance’ (ibid: 10); the remedy is to

‘ensure that all pupils are fully engaged in study across a broad and balanced curriculum

throughout their time at school’ (ibid. 16).

14

Nature of pupil ‘choice’:

‘[M]any pupils have been allowed to mistake the pursuit of idleness for the exercise of

personal liberty’ (ibid: 11); too much is ‘left to each child’s inclination’ and as result

many are ‘allowed to drift and fall behind’ (ibid: 6); choice therefore imposes an

‘unacceptable burden of responsibility on these pupils’ and should instead be carried by

‘the professional responsibility of the school’ (ibid: 62).

20 The DfEE also denies that it is ‘requiring Summerhill to abandon its educational philosophy and

force children to attend all lessons’ (letter 24. 6. 99). But ‘forcing’ children to attend any lessons

would clearly breach Neill’s philosophy for Summerhill. Issues of freedom of choice for pupils are

argued by the HMI Report to place an intolerable ‘burden of responsibility’ on the pupils and to be a

matter rather for the ‘professional responsibility’ of the staff (Ofsted 1999: 62).

21 These points, the tenor and content of the Inspection Report and the School Profile on which it is

based, lead to the conclusion that the Inspection Report does constitute an attack on the basic

philosophy on which Summerhill is founded.

Failure to address Summerhill’s unusual aims and methods

22 The Inspection Report stresses that it seeks only to assess whether such an educational philosophy is

‘effective in practice’ (Inspection Report 1999, para 5). That assessment is based on a ‘framework’

which derives from, and very closely resembles, the framework developed by HMI for assessing

‘conventional education’ (ibid: 4; see also Ofsted 1995 in contrast with Ofsted 19979). The notion of

'effective practice’ therefore derives from experiences of evaluating conventional schooling.

23 HMI note that Summerhill is unusual in that it challenges ‘many of the values inherent in

conventional education’ (Inspection Report 1999, para 4), but they make no attempt, (a) to consider

whether these unconventional goals are educationally admissible (e.g. is the ‘happiness’ of pupils an

9 The instructions for the assessment of independent schools are in effect a condensation of earlier ‘framework’ documents. Differences relate to the different legal requirements in relation to the National Curriculum, and the nature of residential schools. Despite these legal differences, the National Curriculum is strongly recommended as a model that schools should consider. In addition, Ofsted documents for independent schools’ inspection rely on the ‘key stages’ and ‘levels’ prescribed for the National Curriculum (Ofsted 1997: 13).

15

educational purpose? what weighting can be given to personal and social as opposed to other goals?),

(b) to take into account the different nature of the school’s goals in the design of their inspection and

evaluation, (c) to evaluate the extent to which the school achieves those goals which HMI accept in

the light of point ‘a’ to be ‘educational’ or ‘developmental’ in nature, and (d) to devise methods and

foci of inquiry that will enable relevant and credible evidence to be gathered. It is not clear,

therefore, how the design of the inspection meets the Ofsted requirements that ‘inspectors should

consider the school’s own priorities for development’ (Ofsted 1995); nor the requirement that

inspection should cover ‘the quality and range of opportunities for learning’ (Ofsted 2000) and ‘the

whole range of the school’s work’ (Ofsted 1997: para 19; Ofsted 1995: 13); nor the claim that

‘[s]chools are judged on how well they fulfil their stated aims and on whether these aims are

appropriate in the context of the school and the pupils it serves’ (Ofsted 1997: 9, see also HMI

Methods and Procedures).

24 Ofsted reporting procedures also emphasise the need to take into account previous inspection

findings (Ofsted 1998). In that perspective, these are puzzling omissions since the 1949 HMI Report

made clear the need to evaluate Summerhill in its own terms. HMI noted that such inspection was

‘exacting because of the wide difference in practice between this School and others with which the

Inspectors were familiar, and interesting because of the opportunity offered of trying to assess, and

not merely to observe, the value of the education given’ (HMI 1949: p 78 in Summerhill). They noted

also that ‘lessons’ constituted ‘education in the narrower sense of the word’ (ibid: p 81). The 1990

HMI Report was critical of many features of the school but it did at least acknowledge the different

nature of the school and the breadth of potential experience within it:

‘Within this framework of freedom, community self-government and classes, pupils take advantage of

the scope for a considerable range of experiences’ (DES 1990: 5).

25 As a result, the rigid application of the Ofsted ‘Framework’ by HMI when inspecting Summerhill in

March 1999 resulted in an unduly narrow definition of education, a preoccupation with formal

lesson-based teaching, a less flexible response to “unconventional” (in Ofsted terms) educational

methods and goals, and therefore a poor quality of inspection. It is significant that Summerhill

teachers (interview data, December 1999/January 2000) and parents (inspection questionnaire data

1999) frequently pointed to the lack of match between school educational goals and the Ofsted

Framework. Analogies of inappropriateness ranged from ‘measuring weight in centimetres’, ‘apples

16

and oranges’, judging ‘tennis by the rules of basket ball’, to entering a ‘racoon at a dog show’.

26 These are criticisms of the design of the inspection10. Criticisms of its execution follow at (b) and (c).

(b) The validity of HMI’s process of inquiry and evidence base

27 The Inspection Report makes a number of claims against the educational effectiveness of

Summerhill. The purpose of this section is examine the validity of the process of inquiry, data

analysis, and reporting through which these criticisms came to be made. Such an examination draws

on the Inspection Report itself, the School Profile containing the evidence base collected by each

member of the inspection team and the experiences of inspection as reported by the teachers, the

parents, and particularly the pupils (interviews December 1999/January 2000; Independent Inquiry

Report 2000).

28 The 6 categories which underlie the inspection process in relation to independent schools (Ofsted

1997: para 3) comprise the ‘quality of education’, the ‘educational standards achieved by pupils at

the school’, ‘management and efficiency of the school’, ‘the spiritual, moral, social and cultural

development of pupils’, the ‘additional experience afforded to boarders’ and whether the other

requirements of the 1996 Education Act are met. Ofsted’s current literature also identifies the ‘main

stakeholders’ of the inspection process. They are ‘pupils, parents, governors and teachers’ (Ofsted

2000: p 1). Ofsted guidance on the inspection of independent schools offers the ‘recognition that the

interests and welfare of pupils are the first priority in relation to anything that inspectors observe’

(Ofsted 1997: 5). See also the ‘code of conduct’ which requires inspectors to ‘act in the best interests

of the pupils at the school’ (ibid: para 7 i – v; and see also para 8 of the 1997 Framework).

Broad and balanced appraisal of Summerhill?

29 Ofsted refer to both ‘education’ and to ‘development’. In our opinion these categories adequately

cover the range of educational aims at Summerhill. However, Ofsted identify 18 evaluative

categories for teaching, curriculum and assessment, and only 4 for spiritual, moral, social and cultural

development’ (Ofsted 1997, Inspection Schedule 5), an area of greatest priority for Summerhill.

10 This is not intended as a general criticism of the Ofsted inspection procedures. It is relevant, however, to note that general criticisms of the narrowness of the Ofsted framework focus, and its preoccupation with formal teaching are common in research-based literature (see Cullingford 1999 for a recent critical review). Carol Fitz-Gibbon offers cogent criticisms of Ofsted methodology in general (Fitz-Gibbon in Cullingford (ed.) 1999; 1998].

17

Ofsted make it clear that inspection reports should ‘concentrate particularly on the quality of

teaching’ (Ofsted 1997, Inspection Schedule 1), and that inspectors ‘should focus on teaching to

explain why pupils achieve as they do..’ (Ofsted 1998: p 5; see also Ofsted 1995: 43, where it is

claimed that ‘teaching is the major contributing factor to pupils’ attainment, progress and response’).

As the Independent Inquiry notes, HMI seemed blind to everything outside the classroom: ‘[I]t is as

if something that is not organised and controlled by the teachers does not count as a learning

opportunity’ (Cunningham 2000: 19). This emphasis on the formal curriculum and teaching is clearly

reflected in the 1999 Inspection Report on Summerhill, and is still more pronounced in the inspection

process itself where only 1 of the 53 Observation Forms collected as evidence by HMI concern out-

of-classroom activities11. Such an emphasis means that the Inspection demonstrates a skew against

the philosophy of Summerhill, by both ignoring out-of-lesson learning and the views of the pupils in

an avowedly pupil-centred educational environment. The conclusion of the Stronach team was that

the failure to record interviews with pupils and staff means that a crucial element of the evidence

base was wholly missing. Nevertheless, as the Independent Inquiry Report note, these in adequacies

were not apparent to HMCI Woodhead who wrote that his team ‘talked with many of the children in

the school and inspected a sample of the activities taking place during the time of the inspection’

(Cunningham 2000: 20).

30 Further indication that HMI’s inspection of Summerhill tended to reduce the broad notion of

‘education’ to a narrower notion of the ‘curriculum’ can be inferred from a sentence repeated almost

word for word in the Report:

version 1: ‘..their curriculum is fragmented, disjointed and likely adversely to affect their

future options’ (Ofsted 1999: para 10)

version 2: ‘..their education is fragmented, disjointed and likely to adversely affect their

future options’ (Ofsted 1999: para 60).

‘Education’ and ‘curriculum’ are apparently interchangeable terms, separable only by a split

infinitive.

31 In conclusion, there is clear evidence that the inspection process was skewed in terms of its focus,

11 The Ofsted HMI Report on Summerhill indicates that 55 lessons were observed.

18

and failed to meet Ofsted requirements for a broad and balanced appraisal of the whole school. HMI

recognised this failure, and apologised to staff that they had not ‘seen more of the activities outside

lessons but they did not have time’. Beyond that, as noted above, lies also the neglect of

Summerhill’s unusual aims, claims and methods.

Pupils and parents

32 Ofsted offer a ‘stakeholder’ model of inspection, and identify these stakeholders as ‘pupils, parents,

governors and teachers’ (Ofsted 2000: p 1; see also Ofsted 1997, para 18). The School Profile offers

very little evidence indeed of pupils’ views being sought, and our interviews indicated that many

pupils felt that the HMI had ‘harassed’ them personally as well as defaming their school. Staff found

that some students had already decided that they would not attend lessons whilst the inspectors were

present. Pupils reported that the question most often asked of them was ‘how often do you go to

lessons?’ Pupils commonly complained that their views of the education they were receiving at

Summerhill were not sought. This is not in accord with the ‘stakeholder’ ambitions of the Ofsted

inspection model. The failure of HMI to undertake observations of the school’s entire educational

provision, and in particular the absence of pupil interviews from the School Profile, is a remarkable

omission. This is particularly the case in a “community” like Summerhill which operates as a “child

democracy”. Pupils’ interests and rights, then, were inadequately addressed. This is contrary, as

Cunningham et al point out to Article 2, protocol 1 of the European Convention for the protection of

Human Rights: ‘No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions

which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents

to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical

convictions’ (cited Cunningham 2000:27).

33 Parents were consulted through the HMI Inspection questionnaire12, but it is not obvious from the

HMI Inspection Report that their views on the school had any impact on the inspection verdict, as is

anticipated by Ofsted: ‘In determining their judgements, inspectors should consider the extent to

which parents are satisfied with what the school provides and achieves’ (Ofsted 2000: p 41). Indeed

HMI were surprisingly dismissive of the parents’ very strong support for the school: ‘[g]iven the

unique nature of the school it is not surprising that parents who choose to place their children in its

12 The parents did not find the questionnaire appropriate in terms of the questions it asked. The questionnaire was designed initially for use in state schools: it did not address the unusual aims and methods of Summerhill. Several parents pointed to these discrepancies when filling in the questionnaires.

19

care are strongly supportive of its values and philosophy’ (Ofsted 1999: para 54). As the Independent

Inquiry Report points out (2000: 18) there are remarkably favourable levels of satisfaction from the

parents, and from pupils and ex-pupils as well (2000: 16, 17, 18, 20, 25).

34 There was a further puzzling aspect to HMI’s reporting of parental approval. The survey returns

showed that 100% of parents felt that their children benefited greatly from the school, a question of

outcomes rather than values or philosophy. This was reported as ‘Most parents (our emphasis) who

responded to the questionnaire are strongly assertive of the beneficial effects of their school on their

children’s character and confidence’ (HMI 1999: para 54). In the language of objective reporting

‘most’ is not ‘all’. The witness statement of Hester Butterfield testifies to the anger felt by parents at

what was felt to be an indifference to their views on Summerhill’s success with their children (paras

51, 69, 83). Again, this does not accord with a ‘stakeholder’ approach. The former Ofsted inspector

on the Independent Inquiry concluded that parental responses were ‘the most positive had ever seen’

Cunningham 2000: 28), while that report noted the far higher response rates and reports of

satisfaction in comparison with national averages. The authors concluded that ‘the views of the

parents alone justify the continued existence of the school’ (Cunningham 2000: 29).

35 It is clear that ‘stakeholder’ principles13 did not apply to this inspection process, and that HMI

definitions of the ‘best interests’ of both pupils and parents did not involve taking their views of the

school into any account.

HMI interpretation of school policy

36 A comparison of the documents produced by Summerhill, and interviews with the staff and students

suggest that HMI formed opinions of school policy and practice, past and present, that are

overdrawn.

37 For example, HMI in 1990 asserted that the school ‘advocates (our emphasis) non-attendance so

making it necessary for individual’s (sic) to become very strong indeed if they are to stand out

against the pattern’ (HMI 1990). In a similar vein, one of the HMI in the current inspection, referred

13 The term ‘stakeholder research’ derives from educational research methodology in the US in the 1970s. It implies that those who have a legitimate interest in any inquiry activity are entitled to have a say in its construction or conduct. Weiss identifies three goals for ‘stakeholder’ approaches: to improve subsequent use of findings; to empower interested parties in determining aims; and to shift from sole to shared control of the inquiry process (Weiss 1986: 186). The pupil, parental, and staff data do not suggest, in this instance, that such goals were attempted or met.

20

to the ‘school’s policy (our emphasis) of not seeking to establish a secure body of knowledge and

understanding with these pupils’. Another HMI makes a similar sort of claim: ‘The principal and

staff do not see their responsibility as including improving standards of achievement or pupil

progress’. This charge recurs in the School Profile. The HMI Report also refers to an ‘ethos’ that is

against attendance and which promotes the ‘negative right not to be taught’ (Ofsted 1999: 16).

Stronach concluded that it would be more even-handed to interpret the school as anxious to achieve

many sorts of ‘progress’ and ‘achievement’, subject to the freedom of children to choose. The school

response is that freedom to choose leads to commitment and that commitment accelerates learning: as

staff put it: ‘..[I]n some ways, sporadic attendance is a sign that Summerhill is actually working. The

advantage of non-attendance at lessons is that it allows students to explore their own motivations and

choices in an environment free of judgement, so their choices become as much as possible their

own.’

38 There is also, in the 1999 Inspection, a clear misunderstanding of what Neill and Summerhill

mean by ‘self-regulation’ or ‘self-directed learning’: ‘[t]he ethos supports social and personal

development in some respects but not in terms of giving them the skills to be independent

learners capable of self-directed learning’ (School Profile). The first confusion is between

the notion of ‘skills’ and ‘values’. The second is to define ‘independent learners’ not as

people who may or may not choose to learn this or that, but as people who can learn – when

so directed - on their own.

39

(C) ‘Standards’, ‘attainment’ and ‘progress’: evaluation of Summerhill by reference to

‘national’ age-based norms

47. HMI inspections focus on ‘standards’ and use age-related and “national” norms. These standards

derive from ‘national expectations’ based on testing and examinations and provide ‘national, comparative

data’ (Ofsted 1997: p 13). Pupil ‘attainment’ is measured in terms of these norms, and is related to the

levels of achievement attained at different key stages. Thus ‘typical’ performances give indication of

‘progress’ over the years. Ofsted define progress as ‘gains in knowledge, understanding and skill’

(Ofsted 1995: 55). The witness statement of HMI Mr Neville Grenyer accepts that these sorts of measure

are the ‘readiest gauge to actual attainments’ (para 19).

21

48. HMI judgements of attainment and progress are informed by 4 types of criteria. The first is

normative and based on national testing and examinations: ‘[t]he basis for the grades is how the

characteristic standards of work in the class compare with what is usually seen at that age in the average

school’ (Ofsted 1998: p 8). The second is criterial, and defines the appropriate components of proper

‘judgement’, such that it be ‘secure’, ‘first hand’, ‘reliable’, ‘valid’, ‘comprehensive’, and ‘corporate’

(Ofsted 1997: para 8). The third is ipsative and based on the individual progress of the pupil (Ofsted

1998, p 7): ‘..inspectors should concentrate on looking at pupils’ work, talking to pupils and observing

them in the classroom to judge how well they are moving forward’. The fourth is intuitive: ‘Inspectors

should view the work in individual lessons in the context of what has gone before to gain a feel for the

speed, depth, breadth and consolidation of learning. This judgement is a professional one based on their

experience and knowledge of the National Curriculum’ (Ofsted 1998, p 7).14

49. HMI apply that framework and those criteria to Summerhill School despite inadequate samples

of pupils, the heterogeneous nature of the pupil population in terms of ethnic background, and different

prior school experience and abilities. The majority of pupils are not English, and English as an additional

language is the norm. As HMI have previously noted, ‘.. many [of the children] have experienced little

success in conventional schools’ (HMI Report, 16-18 June 1993: para 4); see also Parents’

Questionnaires). In 1997 the DfEE claimed that around 40% had learning difficulties’ (DfEE letter to

Summerhill, 16.9.97). The 1999 Report noted that ‘[s]ome pupils have learning difficulties: a large

proportion are from overseas: many having experienced little success in conventional education’ (Ofsted

1999: para 4). The evidence from the School Profile, in particular, suggests that HMI faced a daunting

task in being required to judge the attainments and progress of such a disparate school intake, both

individually and in relation to national averages and expectations. It is not to their credit, in our opinion,

that they succeeded so readily in reaching such judgements. Their evaluations can mainly be criticised on

the grounds of unexplicated judgement, a lack of construct and content validity, unwarranted

generalisation, and bias (see xx – yy). It is significant that both of the major external evaluations of the

school disagreed with the HMI findings, focus and methods, while corroborating each other’s

conclusions (Cunningham et al 2000: 10 – 24; Stronach et al 15 – 40, especially).

(i) Normative and ipsative comparisons

14 Gilroy and Wilcox offer an interesting critique of Ofsted criticism in relation to Wittgenstein’s discussion of criteria (1994: 32). They conclude that ‘Ofsted’s, neat, but artificial world of judgement collapses into a never-ending search for criteria to support impossibly objective judgements’ (p 33). The difficulties, in principle and practice, of developing a coherent inspection practice are often under-estimated.

22

50. Although the 1999 Inspection Report refers initially to the untypical nature of the intake at

Summerhill compared with other schools in England, the Report thereafter makes its judgements in

relation to notions of national typicality, despite Summerhill being an international school with a multi-

ethnic intake and a large proportion of pupils for whom English was an additional language. No

allowance seems subsequently to have been made for the unusual nature of the pupil intake and therefore

the need to consider ‘progress’ in terms other than implied national averages (the school has calculated

that 63% of the 1995 – 1998 school population were not originally from the UK). This is despite such

recognition of diversity occasionally occurring in the School Profile (‘that is one year after the national

norm, but then over half of the intake is from overseas’). Fitz-Gibbon puts the dilemma succinctly: ‘[i]f

the sample observed is inadequate and judgements do not agree, there’s an end to the issue: inspections

are not secure judgements’ (Fitz-Gibbon 1999: 103). Comparing a complex and highly differentiated

sample (Summerhill) with an English national average, therefore, is statistically meaningless and

politically insensitive. The Independent Inquiry also found that the HMI’s lack of concern for the multi-

national intake at Summerhill indicated the ‘ethnocentrism of Ofsted’s inspection’ (Cunningham 2000:

22).

51. A further weakness is that such ‘comparisons’ neglect the ‘added value15’ the school may (or may

not) have contributed to its pupils. The inspectors were simply not in a position to comment on this

aspect. Instead national ‘comparisons’ are made where like is clearly not compared with like: ‘..it is

usual for pupils of this age to be able to..’(School Profile); ‘[m]ostly below expectations for the age of

these pupils..’; ‘English well below average’; ‘at lowish levels for English (one is German, the other

Taiwanese [scored out] Korean’; ‘Numerical skills were sometimes much below the national level of

expectation for pupils of similar ages’; ‘[t]he majority do not make the progress expected for pupils of

similar age nationally’. That latter remark is made by an HMI who clearly recognises that diversity

makes planning difficult, but does not note its consequences for making valid comparisons: ‘Given the

range of subjects and the differing ages and abilities; (sic) cultural backgrounds and previous experience

of students the planning of such provision is exceedingly difficult’.

52. There is no implied criticism of individual HMI in this aspect of our analysis: their brief as

evaluators of independent schools was to comment on the ‘attainment of pupils at 7, 11, 14 and 16 years’

and determine whether such attainment could be said to ‘meet or exceed national standards’ (Ofsted

15 Comparative performance may be established by ‘raw’ ordering of attainments. Taking into account the different nature of school intakes, as Ofsted seeks to do in the state sector, allows notions of ‘added value’ to be worked out.

23

1997: p 15; see also ibid: p 23). It is not their fault that they failed to make valid comparisons. The task

was impossible. They can be criticised, however, for claiming to have succeeded.

(ii) Criterial and intuitive judgements

53. The above relates to normative and ipsative comparisons. The following comments refer to

criterial and intuitive judgements made by HMI, as evidenced in the School Profile and the Inspection

Report. These refer essentially to the need for inspectors to ‘inspire confidence in their work and their

judgements’ (Ofsted 1995: 18) through a demonstration of ‘honesty, clarity, consistency and impartiality’

and a ‘concern for accuracy and respect for evidence’ (Ofsted n.d.: 4-5; Inspecting Independent Schools.

HMI Methods and Procedures). Here it has to be noted that ‘objectivity’ is not a possible goal. Criteria

never define absolutely what will count as their precise fulfilment. Professional judgements always rely

somewhat on the individual experience and wisdom of the practitioner16. One-week inspections of

complicated social phenomena such as the Summerhill ‘community’ and its long-term impact on

learning, development and personhood can never be more than rather hasty and blurred snapshots: there

is no ideal of an instamatic anthropology. Nevertheless, where such verdicts have serious consequences

for the parties involved, it is vital that they should be ‘secure’17 (see Ofsted 1997, para 8(i)).

(iii) Unexplicated judgements

54. HMI conclusions in the I999 Inspection Report reveal a number of flaws in relation to awarding

grades in the context of lesson observation. The first is unexplicated judgement. For example, an

unsatisfactory grade (‘5’)18 was awarded in terms of ‘attainment’ to an inspection of a class with two

pupils, one of whom was German, the other Taiwanese. The inspector offered as evidence of his/her

judgement the comment ‘Proficiency is variable’. Against the category of ‘progress’ he noted ‘hard to

gauge’. Nevertheless, an unsatisfactory grade was awarded (‘5’). Another inspector awarded a ‘6’ for

attainment; commenting in the ‘evidence and evaluation’ section of the Observation Form: ‘Pupil is

16 The essentially indeterminate nature of professional judgements and the difficulty in reducing them to ‘evidence-based’ decision-making is a current controversy in education and professional work generally. On the one hand there are those who believe (and often support) the inherent indeterminacy of decision-making (e.g. Elliott 1991, Schon 1983). On the other hand there are those who believe that a more prescriptive evidence-based professional decision-making is a possibility (Hargreaves 1996, Woolf 1994). 17 The ‘security’ of Ofsted judgements in law is an issue raised by Fitz-Gibbon. She argues that Ofsted judgements are inherently flawed on a number of grounds (1998).18 Grades are awarded on a scale from 1 (excellent) to 7 (highly unsatisfactory). ‘0’ denotes insufficient evidence. Ofsted stress that the outcome is “not a grade: it is a judgement, in words (). The grade follows the judgement” (Ofsted 1995) cited by Gilroy and Wilcox, p 26.

24

Taiwanese. Not fluent in English’. In another grading exercise, an HMI made what appeared to be a

favourable note in the ‘evidence and evaluation’ section: ‘[f]or the two pupils present progress is evident

in terms of depth of understanding, breadth of knowledge’. Yet a ‘6’ was again awarded. A final

example is the inspector who commented against the ‘progress’ category: ‘Must be some - but impossible

to measure in one lesson’. Nevertheless, he or she measured it, and gave it an unsatisfactory ‘5’ grade.

55. The Observation Form requires inspectors to offer ‘evidence’ in support of their evaluation. The

1997 Ofsted Framework stipulates that judgements should be ‘secure, in that they are rooted in a

substantial evidence base..’ (Ofsted 1997, para 8). Ofsted guidelines also stress the need for direct

observation of teaching: ‘Judgements will be ... (ii) first hand, in that they are based largely on direct

observation of ... teachers’ work’ (Ofsted 1997, para 8(ii)); ‘[o]verall judgements about teaching will

derive from those made in each lesson observed’ (Ofsted 1995: 71). In this Inspection Report HMI

deemed 25% of the teaching unsatisfactory (grades 5 - 7)(HMI Inspection Report, table at paras 18-21).

Even the arithmetical basis for this statistic is unsound. 8 of the 33 lessons observed were deemed

unsatisfactory. To this HMI added 4 lessons that were ungraded, or where the grading space had been

marked ‘n/a’ by an HMI, or where pupils failed to turn up. As elsewhere, all judgements were coloured

by the central issue of ‘non-attendance’.

As these examples suggest, the validity of that grading process is open to question19.

56. Ofsted guidelines require that judgements should be ‘reliable, in that they are based on consistent

application of the evaluation criteria..’ (Ofsted 1997: 8). As we saw, they should also be ‘first hand’.

Inspection of the School Profile shows that these requirements were not met by the inspectors.

(iv) Absence of construct validity

57. A second weakness of the Inspection is the absence of construct validity, that is to say, key

evaluative words like ‘progress’ and ‘teaching’ appear to mean different things to different inspectors.

Sometimes progress grades appeared to be awarded on the basis of observed learning during the lesson:

‘The one student develops their (sic) knowledge and understanding of the function of the fish’ (‘4’).

Sometimes they emphasised the apparent absence of prior preparation: ‘progress in terms of written

19 I have been unable to find out precisely how these grades are arrived at. Do they reflect only the ‘teaching’ grade itself? Are they an aggregate of ‘teaching’, ‘response’, ’attainment’ and ‘progress’ categories? An Ofsted inspector (not HMI) informed me that only the ‘teaching’ category counted. Gilroy and Wilcox, on the other hand, suggest that gradings are based on an aggregate of these categories, 1994, p 26.

25

preparation is very limited but in many cases pupils can talk about what they hope to do very

convincingly. Progress in the lesson was there but slow’ (unsatisfactory grade ‘5’). Sometimes the

criteria also seemed to involve patterns of attendance. In awarding an unsatisfactory ‘5’ grade, an

inspector commented ‘50% turnout for this lesson makes for difficulty with continuous activity’. Another

HMI judgement also marked attendance rather than progress: ‘[f]or the two pupils present progress is

evident in terms of depth of understanding, breadth of knowledge’ (unsatisfactory ‘6’). These

judgements, therefore, are based on a mish-mash of categories, ranging across observation, preparation,

and even attendance itself.

58. There was a similar lack of consistency in relation to ‘teaching’: ‘Grade 5 for teaching

[unsatisfactory] is in view of disorganised and unsatisfactory written standards in folders. The lesson per

se is sound’. Sometimes the ‘teaching’ grade seemed a criticism of the overall Summerhill approach

rather than based on observed teaching and learning. A highly unsatisfactory ‘6’ grade was accompanied

by the comment: ‘Because teaching follows pupils’ choice their (sic) purpose, relevance and coherence

within a curriculum is highly questionable’. Similarly, a grade ‘6’ was awarded against the category of

‘progress’; the comment was: ‘[t]hose who are here clearly progress but the low turnout must raise

questions on progression’. Drawing a distinction between observed ‘progress’ and inferred ‘progression’

recurred. A ‘6’ was accompanied by the following observation: ‘Pupils who had missed this lesson will

be (sic) severely disadvantaged as the understanding of the processes involved is greatly helped by the

video’20.

59. Ofsted inspection criteria require judgements to be ‘secure, in that they are rooted in a substantial

evidence base’ and also ‘valid, in that they are based on consistent application of the evaluation criteria.’

(Ofsted 1997: para 8). Ofsted further stress that ‘[i]nspectors must ensure that the full range of age,

gender, attainment, special educational need, ethnicity and background is taken into account, including

the provision for, and attainment of, pupils having English as an additional language’ (Ofsted 1995: 10).

These requirements were not met.

(v) Unwarranted generalisation

20 Ofsted guidelines indicate that evaluations should combine an assessment of the quality of what is observed with evidence of prior attainment. For example: ‘Overall judgements about teaching will derive from those made in each lesson observed, covering the subjects inspected and all year groups in the school. Pupils’ work provides supplementary evidence’ (Ofsted 1995a: 71). A companion publication suggests that the emphasis of the inspection should be on ‘what is taught rather than what is documented’ (Ofsted 1995b: 75).

26

60. There is also evidence of unwarranted generalisation. HMI noted in the School Profile some of

the difficulty of their task in relation to the peculiar nature of the Summerhill sample: ‘Given the small

size of each cohort comparative statistics would be invalid’ (School Profile); ‘[t]here is no clear evidence

to judge whether the pupils attain to their full potential or not’ (School Profile). Qualifications were also

expressed by a further HMI concerning the small cohorts, the inadvisability of year-on-year comparisons

and the absence of base-line data on pupil performance. Yet he/she then went on to claim: ‘[t]hese figures

indicate, though not conclusively, that there is considerable under-achievement. If pupils were able to

obtain A - C grades in a few subjects, why were they not studying more? They clearly have the potential

for success in a wider range of subjects’ (School Profile). A third inspector also noted that ‘[j]udgements

of attainment and progress across the school are impossible to make..’ while simultaneously reaching the

generalisation that ‘[p]rogress is seriously inhibited at all stages by the lack of continuity of attendance’

(School Profile).

61. In a different sort of case of unwarranted generalisation, an HMI reviewed evidence of

Mathematics outcomes. The pupils were ‘well-prepared’; the ‘majority of the teaching is very good’.

Pupils had an ‘excellent rapport with their teacher’. The national award that had been won was noted, and

the inspector decided that ‘[t]he results are a considerable improvement on the 1997 results’. Yet his

overall comment on Key Stage 3 and beyond was as follows:’ [f]or the great majority, attendance is poor

and their mathematical education is fragmented and piecemeal. Many do not make the progress of which

they are capable’. Apart from the apparent discrepancy between the detailed evidence and the consequent

generalisation, there are two other concerns about this judgement. Firstly, the notion of failing to achieve

‘full potential’ is invoked in instances where results in terms of national averages are actually good (a

tendency which recurs in HMI comments). Secondly, the ability of HMI to determine the meaning of

‘full potential’ or ‘progress of which they are capable’ in each individual instance is not explained21.

62. A further weakness is that judgements were often based on very few children, and sometimes on

very brief observation. For example, one inspector noted that there was ‘no planned programme of work

and several pupils have poor levels of mathematics understanding (...) The majority do not make the

progress expected for pupils of similar age nationally’ (School Profile). These generalisations were based

on a 20 minute session in one class which had two pupils in it, and a further lesson with 1 pupil in it.

63. The Inspection Report itself made no reservations about sampling or generalisation, although

21 The notion of ‘fulfilling potential’ in educational terms is not necessarily a coherent one. It tends to assume that pupils are vessels waiting to be filled up and therefore belongs to the bucket theory of the mind.

27

these issues are raised in the School Profile. As indicated, HMI nevertheless reached firmly negative

conclusions both about ‘national expectations’ and unfulfilled ‘potential’. Difficulties resulting from the

unusual backgrounds of the Summerhill pupils have already been pointed out. Other problems arise from

the unique nature of the Summerhill sample. Inspectors were observing tiny classes, with a considerable

mix of ethnic backgrounds. For example, an HMI observed a single Taiwanese child beginning to learn

English. It was, the HMI noted, ‘the earliest stage’. The attainment was unsatisfactory (6). Attainment, as

an Ofsted notion, is tied to national standards. But what conceivable standard applied in this instance?

What counts as an average ‘national standard’ for a Taiwanese-child-learning-English? And which nation

should we have in mind? The Independent Inquiry team were similarly baffled: ‘[w]e cannot accept that

Japanese, Taiwanese, Korean, German or American children should be subject to the requirements of the

British government as regards what is appropriate for them to study to prepare them for life in their own

countries' (Cunningham 2000: 22). We suggest, therefore, that the application of native-speaker English

national norms to a school whose roll is multinational suggests discriminatory practice, and is

educationally unhelpful as well as statistically meaningless. Even more startling was the case of the HMI

who sat in on a lesson which he notes was conducted in Japanese. Presumably not a Japanese speaker

himself, since no such specialism is recorded by the HMI team, he awarded the lesson a satisfactory ‘3’

and even commented: ‘[s]tudent is already conversing in Japanese, with some confidence’ (School

Profile)22.

(vi) Lack of content validity

64. A fourth weakness of the evidence base and the Inspection Report is a lack of content validity,

in that the HMI did not see the school working in its normal fashion. Ofsted criteria make clear that

inspectors must ‘disrupt the normal working of the school as little as possible’ (Ofsted n.d.: 10). This

condition is virtually unrealisable in most schools23, but the 1999 inspection had a particularly negative

impact at Summerhill. As many as half of the pupils interviewed in January 2000 reported that they had

stayed away from lessons, and that some of the inspectors had been unfriendly. Teachers also reported

22 HMI specialist expertise is recorded in the Witness Statement of Neville Grenyer. HMI seem to have behaved somewhat similarly in inspecting an Orthodox Jewish school. An NOC was issued, because the school while producing ‘literate, articulate and numerate’ pupils who had ‘high levels of logical thinking’ (2), fell below ‘national expectations’ in English as opposed to Yiddish. It seems oddly ethnocentric to require a strict Orthodox Jewish sect to fit in with ‘national expectations’ in this way. There seems to have been a similar puzzling confidence in relation to inspecting lessons conducted in a lesson HMI did not understand: ‘Hebrew studies were not inspected by specialists during the inspection, although HMI observed lessons in order to evaluate the general quality of the education taking place’ (Appendix, Summary of Inspector Evidence, Ofsted 1997).23 Ferguson, Earley, Ouston and Fidler note the stress and anxiety Ofsted inspection (1999). So too does Fitz-Gibbon (1999).

28

that pupils had stayed away. As earlier noted, pupils claimed that they had not been asked for their

opinion of the school and been asked closed questions like ‘how often do you go to lessons?’. Another

pupil reported that she did not talk to the inspectors: ‘Not really, you’re shy even to talk to them. I did go

kind of ‘Hi!’ just to be nice and friendly’ but she received no response.

65. Two typical pupil responses:

‘When we were being inspected I felt really harassed by the inspectors in such a way that

I did not attend very many of my lessons as they were always looking over my shoulder

to see what I was doing.’

‘When the inspectors came in March, they did not talk to the children, or ask how they

felt about their school.’

The ownership should be noted: “their school”. This attitude to the school was also reflected in a

letter written by a 14 year old Japanese student to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair: ‘How would

you feel if someone closed down your home?’ (1999 Leavers’ Survey).

66. The ratio of inspectors to pupils (1: 8) was very high. The witness statement of Hester Butterfield

supports the view that HMI disrupted the normal working of the school. Such disruption was not

confined to the classes. As we saw, there was only one attempt to assess out-of-lesson learning registered

in the 53 observation forms. But there was a further occasion when an HMI is said to have followed two

girls through the woods in order to inspect their learning:

‘People said she was following us - I don’t know if that was true - I wasn’t aware of her -

I didn’t see her. I mean, if she was following me she was quite a good hider.’

No relevant Observation Form has been filed.

67. Staff felt that the recent ‘barrage’ of HMI inspections was ‘intrusive’ and ‘negative’.

Learning outside the classroom was wholly neglected, despite weekly meetings such as the

Social Committee being moved into the inspection days so that HMI might attend. The notion of

Summerhill as a ‘learning community’ was ignored in the inspection. Yet, as the Independent

29

Inquiry noted that ‘many children had become fluently bilingual while at the school’ as a result

of informal ‘learning by immersion’ that was quite the opposite to the ‘idle’ conversations to

which the HMI objected (Cunningham 2000: 19). The staff concluded that the ‘inspections have

been a determined attempt to fit the square peg that is Summerhill into the round hole that is the

Ofsted framework and values’. The Independent Inquiry concluded that some of the unfair and

and carping criticisms of the school ‘appear to suggest ill-will to the school’ (Cunningham 2000:

12).

Suffolk Social Services has commented sympathetically: ‘Staff, pupils and parents (...) feel that

they are subjected to inspectorial scrutiny more often than other establishments and there is some

understandable resentment, concern and anxiety in their response’ (Suffolk County Council

1997: 3).

68. A further threat to the validity of the inspection may arise from the ‘natural’ attitude of staff and pupils. The openness of staff and pupils is commented on by HMI, the Independent Inquiry Report and was noted by Stronach’s research team. Inspectors are used to seeing schools in very well rehearsed performance mode. While fear of inspection was clearly present at Summerhill, the school lacks the kind of organisational culture where rehearsals are important: perhaps HMI were also misled by the school’s honesty.

69. The evidence indicates that classroom attendance and behaviour was influenced, and pupil responses to HMI constrained, thereby weakening the claim of the inspection to be ‘valid’ (Ofsted 1997: para 8). Teachers also reported that the HMI had at times been hostile to the staff of the school, showing anger and impatience in meetings. The Independent Inquiry Report reports ‘aggressive and uncaring’ behaviour to one pupil (2000: 18).

70. Ofsted require that inspections be conducted ‘objectively’, and that inspectors should report ‘honestly and fairly’ (Ofsted 1997: para 7). There is convincing evidence from both Cunningham and Stronach that HMI failed in this requirement.

(vii) Bias

40 A further issue is the question of bias in terms of the 1999 inspection. Clearly, teachers and pupils thought the HMI were biased. They pointed to the neglect of the ‘school’ as opposed to the ‘lesson’ aspects of Summerhill. They also complained about the failure of the evaluation to address Summerhill’s own educational purposes, or to inquire into the ways in which children built or rebuilt their lives through play, and the various learning activities in the community. It should also be noted that the parents found the inspectors arrogant, considered their inspection an abuse of power, and accused them of being dictatorial

30

‘Gradgrinds’ (parental survey).

67. There is further evidence of bias in some puzzling signs of re-writing in the Observation notes in

the School Profile. It is normal practice in qualitative research to go over written notes taken during an

observation, adding context or clarifying first thoughts. But, in Stronach’s judgement it is very unusual in

research-based observations to see corrections which radically alter the tenor of a passage. (It is not

possible to reproduce these corrections exactly. The final version is given first, and then, below, the first

draft.)

final draft: ‘It [the Action Plan] had led to some debate and the beginnings of some

early work on planning assessment, record-keeping and peer support.’ (School Profile)

first draft: ‘It had led to some constructive debate and the development of some

innovative work on planning assessment, record keeping and peer support. All of these

aspects are being addressed and tried out over a specified time.’ (School Profile)

In another instance an inspector sought to understand the children’s good behaviour in class. The

final account read:

‘Behaviour is good and they are able to work co-operatively when the opportunity arises’

(School Profile)

The first draft read:

‘Behaviour is good - perhaps because they can leave if they choose - and they are able to

work co-operative..’

68. In respect of the ‘catch up’ phase alleged by the pupils and the staff, another HMI noted that

‘there is some regaining of lost ground, but not sufficient to enable pupils to attain their full potential by

any means.’ He then scores out the following sentence: ‘By the time they are 16, pupils attain reasonable

standards’ (School Profile). This is evidence that an element of prejudiced reporting crept into the

Inspectors’ account of the school. It is presumably not a coincidence that where alternations were made to

draft reports they were almost always in a negative direction.

31

69. It is an Ofsted requirement that inspection judgements should be ‘corporate, in that conclusions

about the school as a whole reflect the collective view of the inspection team’ (Ofsted 1997: para 8). It

may be that there were tensions within the group, and pressure for unanimity that spilled over into the

revision of Observation Form notes. According to Stronach’s previous research, where working groups

report on educational matters (Stronach 1992) tensions also become evident in the discrepant nature of

some of the assertions in the final Inspection Report. An example from the 1999 HMI Report:

‘Quite how the school reconciles such high levels of under-achievement, together with a

high proportion of unsatisfactory teaching, with the democratic principles it purports to

promote is very difficult to understand’ (Ofsted 1999: 60)

Yet six lines later Mr Grenyer writes:

‘The democratic ethos of the school, its philosophy and values, put it [Summerhill] in a

very strong position to claim to meet many of the aims of education for citizenship and

the teaching of democracy in schools.’ (ibid: 62)

(d) Conclusion

70. The conclusion is clear. It is that the rigid application of the Ofsted Framework by HMI skewed

the inspection in ways indicated above, although there are signs in the School Profile that some HMI, at

least, had already made up their minds about voluntary attendance at classes and the ‘poor’ achievement

levels at the school. The main evidence for this conclusion is the way in which the Inspection Report and

the School Profile acknowledge, and then discount, the nature of the pupil intake into Summerhill.24 The

inspection process was also flawed in terms of its validity and objectivity. No inspection or research

process is without faults, but the firm overall judgement of Stronach was that the HMI inspection was

inappropriate to the school, and inadequately performed according to Ofsted’s objectives, inspection

criteria, and procedural protocols. Cunningham came to the same conclusion – ‘that the inspectors have

failed to meet Ofsted’s own criteria for effective inspections’. Consequently, the 1999 inspection does

not provide a ‘secure’ basis for judgement and should be declared ‘null and void’ in accordance with

Ofsted appeal procedures.

24 Gilroy and Wilcox make the more general claim that the Ofsted framework is too inflexible even for the less discrepant variety of state provision. They doubt whether the framework is in principle capable of valid and objective judgement.

32

3. EVALUATION OF SUMMERHILL: COMPLAINTS 4, 6 and 2 – ‘EFFICIENT

AND SUITABLE INSTRUCTION’?

The aim of this section is to review the available evidence relating to Summerhill school

in order to reach a conclusion on the fundamental issue at stake in the HMI inspection;

whether Summerhill did or did not offer ‘efficient and suitable instruction’. The first

concern is to address the areas covered by Complaint 6 (assessment), and then Complaint

4. A second concern is to offer some research-based insight into areas that the HMI

inspection missed, drawing on the ‘expert witness’ statements of Stronach and Thomas,

and the findings of the Independent Inquiry. Again, our aim as a school is to portray the

school in a research-based rather than a subjective way. We have already noted the flaws

in the HMI inspection process, conceptually and practically. Now we seek to present a

more accurate picture of the school’s educational processes and outcomes.

(a) Complaint 6

71. HMI raise a number of concerns about assessment practices in Summerhill. They concern the

voluntary nature of assessment, the absence of ‘marking’ or ‘testing’ below GCSE. These features are

taken to imply inadequate diagnosis of educational problems and needs, which in turn inhibits pupils’

progress. Evidence from the School Profile also suggests that HMI were happier with the teaching and

learning they observed than with the written record of teaching and learning: ‘planning is not adequate

because it is not written or formalised in a coherent way’; ‘very little formal marking occurs although

many teachers do make oral comment about work produced..’; ‘some informal assessment is done

through questioning of those attending lessons - but no record is kept’; ‘no assessment recorded; teacher

keeps ideas of general ability and progress in his head’. As we saw earlier, HMI tended to award lower

grades to what they ‘observed’ (in terms of ‘progress’, ‘teaching’ etc) because of the absence of written

records of what they tended to call ‘progression’ rather than ‘progress’.

(i) Nature and efficacy of assessment

72. . The research data collected by Professor Torrance and Dr Allan both show the nature and

33

efficacy of assessment at Summerhill. Dr Allan finds that the processes of diagnosis, sharing of

information, and planning of responses are effective, and criticises HMI for a ‘lack of understanding of

the procedure for identifying and meeting children’s special educational needs’.

73. Staff were particularly critical of the inspection process in relation to Special Needs.

The school had explained to HMI the policy of general responsibility for Special Needs to HMI

at the time of the inspection, in that individual teachers took responsibility for particular students,

based on need and the ‘particular teacher-pupil relationships that would best support the

student'. . The policy, then, was based on the real qualities of teacher-pupil relationships. Staff

reported that the Special Needs HMI examined only one Special Need’s student folder yet felt

able to pronounce that ‘no clear individual programmes are provided to support the pupils and

targets are not set’. Professor Torrance also notes the open and positive nature of interactions

between teachers and pupils in relation to subject learning: ‘almost like a very relaxed parent

helping their individual child with their Maths homework’. Teaching/learning interactions, he

judges, are highly ‘effective’ in that they are intensive, very task-oriented, and pragmatic. In this

way, he suspects that it is quite possible for pupils to ‘catch up’ quickly, especially given the

highly favourable teacher:pupil ratios. He concludes that ‘Summerhill teachers do do assessment

but perhaps don’t say they do’.

74. Professor Torrance also argues that assessment knowledge really has to be carried by the pupil if

Summerhill’s philosophy is to be realised. To extend his point, the issue is one of self-advocacy, with

the child as an ‘expert’ on himself or herself, particularly in relation to needs, aims and motivation.

Professor Kushner and his colleagues offer evidence on this aspect of self-knowledge. From their data

they identify two kinds of knowledge that Summerhill pupils seem to have: ‘personal’ and ‘collective’

knowledge. His conclusion was that ‘self-learning’ was a central characteristic of the school, although

that was accompanied by (and no doubt associated with) knowledge of others. As a pupil said to him:

‘Everybody knows you inside out’. The Independent Inquiry report reached a similarly positive

conclusion: ‘.. members of our team were struck by the remarkable self-assuredness, maturity and

openness of comparatively young people, allied to what seemed to be a sense of integrity and

responsibility’ (Cunningham 2000: 20). That report also castigates the failure of HMI to note such

outcomes: ‘[w]hat does seem clear is that, apparently being unable fully to understand the philosophy of

Summerhill, the inspectors were not in a position to give this aspect of it [personal and social

development] anything like due consideration’ (Cunningham 2000: 20). Instead HMI criticised ‘poor

34

attitudes to learning’ (Ofsted 1999: 37), clearly believing that regular classroom attendance lay was a

necessary indicator of good attitudes to learning. Once again, the Ofsted inspection proved incapable of

dealing with the different educational philosophy of Summerhill, and deeply reluctant to note positive

outcomes. As usual, the battlelines are drawn up around the issue of non-attendance at lessons, with staff

believing that their ‘enthusiasm for learning’ was communicated to the students, but that any steps to

coerce or manipulate children to attend classes would be inimical to the school philosophy and damaging

to the long-term interests of the students.

(ii) Talk culture or written culture

75. It is clear from the data gathered by Cunningham et al , Stronach et al, and Thomas (both pupil

and teacher) that people do know each other very well at Summerhill; that their knowledge is mutual,

spans ethnic identities, includes teachers as well as pupils, and crosses age barriers. The Stronach and

Cunningham reports confirm the claim of staff that they have a very good knowledge of their pupils (as

Ian Warder’s witness statement also suggests, para 26). Such intimate knowledge is a feature of most

small ‘communities’, although highly unusual in most schools. As a result Summerhill operates as an

informal ‘talk culture’. The contrast between a ‘talk culture’ (eg the girl who defined Summerhill in part

at least as a ‘conversation’, Stronach et al, Appendix B) and a ‘written culture’ is important to

understanding the school, according to Stronach et al. In Charles Handy’s organisational taxonomy

(Handy 1993) this is a ‘family’ organisation, although without much of the hierarchy of the small firm.

In such organisations, much of the business is carried in people’s heads. Writing things down, drawing

up plans, setting up portfolios, and so on are much more features of the large organisation. Indeed, the

organisational metaphor behind the Ofsted Framework is that other Handy model, the Apollonian

organisation, a classic bureaucracy in terms of separation of functions, and precise allocation and

recording of tasks and specialisation.

76. The Ofsted model is designed to measure the effectiveness of large organisations, and its

definitions of good practice do not envisage teacher/pupil ratios of 1 to 7, nor indeed schools with a

combined primary and secondary roll of 59. Much of assessment ‘good practice’ (individual action plans,

portfolios, record cards, registers) are attempts either to keep track of an individual, or to make her or him

feel individualised in a class, cohort or school where it is easy for the individual to be overlooked.

Stronach et al concluded that Summerhill had no need for some of these practices. One of the HMI

objections in relation to Special Needs illustrates this well. There was no single person identified to deal

35

with Special Needs. But that was because everybody did it (interview data 24.1.00). The School’s

conclusion was that there was no need to change that latter policy, but that they should nominate one of

their number to be the ‘official’ person. The other change would be to write down their practices and

procedures so that strangers like HMI would be better informed. There is, therefore, a tension between

what the school does well and what it documents well, as in most small organisations. The Ofsted

inspection failed to note this distinction.

(iii) Did the inspectors look for written records rather than good practice?

77. Summerhill offers a contrast between a talk and a written culture. The inspection process

addresses principally the written culture. As in all external audits, records are vital if evidence of proper

procedure is to be gathered. But there is a danger that paper trails can become more valued than real

interactions, that evidence of performance in general becomes more salient than actual good practice.

78. Did this happen in the case of HMI’s inspection of Summerhill? In order to illustrate what we

argue is an imbalance in HMI priorities, we have analysed a report by one of the inspectors on

assessment in Mathematics (School Profile). The HMI lists with approval a range of mainly informal

actions that the teacher undertook in order to assess his pupils.

They are:

- review written work individually

- assess homework

- keep on-going records of attendance

- observe progress

- keep record of progress

- write end of term summaries (‘good reports’)

- use assessment for forward planning

- provide instant feedback in class

(School Profile).

79. The HMI also notes elsewhere in the School Profile that the teacher interviews each pupil at the

end of class 3 in order to ‘discuss with them which Maths course they should sign’. There seem to be a

36

lot of good things happening. On the other hand, the HMI believes that there is little testing, that pupils

are not prepared for the pressures of examination conditions, nor informed of national norms. He uses the

word ‘formal’ twice in the context of these criticisms.

80. If we now examine how this HMI reports his conclusions, we find that the headline sentence at

the beginning of the HMI’s first paragraph reads: ‘Assessment in mathematics is its weakest feature’.

This is a serious charge since HMI have already criticised ‘poor levels of understanding’ in Mathematics

elsewhere in the school. The assessment procedures and practices he has witnessed are apparently of still

poorer quality, being the ‘weakest feature’. Yet the evidence that the HMI presents is not convincing and

is self-contradictory. His critical conclusion rests solely on an alleged lack of formal testing, since the

other criticism - that the pupils lacked knowledge of national norms - makes no sense given the very

successful examination results of the teacher (elsewhere acknowledged by the HMI), and the noted use of

National Curriculum assessment items, which express national norms (I footnote the two paragraphs so

that readers can reach their own conclusions.25). It is relevant also to refer to Ian Warder’s detailed

account of his assessment practices in his witness statement (paras 44-45). In a separate comment, Ian

Warder criticises HMI’s ‘continued lack of imagination in being unable to step outside the restrictions of

their viewpoint and their framework, so that they can do a fair evaluation of Summerhill. He also objects

to dishonest reporting by HMI of his views. Having explained to HMI Brand the preparations that he

would be making to offer ‘a carefully planned series of timed tests and mock exams’ and to introduce

non-calculator elements in the curriculum for the first such examination a year hence in June 2000, he

was disappointed to this represented in the HMI Report thus:

‘.. [t]hey have little knowledge of its standard [national examination] against national norms.

Pupils are not prepared for the pressure of formal examinations, nor yet for non-calculator

papers’ (Ofsted 1999: 49)

25 ‘Assessment in mathematics is its weakest feature. Assessment is based informally on the teacher’s observation of classroom work. The teacher generally has time to review written work individually with the pupil and this is helpful, enabling progress. There are very few tests or mock examinations. For pupils taking GCSE some assessment occurs by setting long homework tasks to be completed individually or over long holiday breaks.

The teacher keeps ongoing records of class attendance, and by observation assesses each topic as satisfactorily understood or not. A progressive record is maintained and this is used well to write end of term summaries for each pupil. The records provide summative assessments, and are used for curricular planning of future work. However, although pupils present in classes receive instant feedback of the quality or accuracy of the work they have produced, they have little knowledge of its standard against national norms, nor yet for non-calculator papers. NC assessments are not used formally but some questions are used as part of everyday teaching and learning’ (School Profile).

37

1 In the opinion of the school, HMI have reported these assessment practices unfairly.

Finally, it should not be surprising at this stage of our reportng that it was the two negative remarks that

turned up in the HMI Inspection Report (national norms; formal examination pressure; see HMI Report

1999: 49): ‘[t]hey have little knowledge of its standard against national norms. Pupils are not prepared

for the pressure of formal examinations, nor yet for non-calculator papers’. Cunningham also noted

HMI’s eagerness to accentuate the negative, concluding that ‘we might reasonably assume that the

inspectors were expressing a general antipahy to the notion of voluntary lessons’ (Cunningham 2000:

18).

(iv) What constitutes good practice

81. In any school there is a gap between the ‘paper’ and the ‘real’, between interactions and events,

and records and assessment. In small schools the gap is bigger because the ‘talk culture’ carries the

organisation. In a ‘community’ like Summerhill the gap is still larger because it seeks to operate as an

extended family, and centres on relationships (as Danë Goodsman’s witness statement attests, para 43). If

we think of organisations running along a continuum from the classic bureaucracy (secondary schools are

a good example) to the family-like unit (small firm) then we need also to appreciate that assessment

procedures that are rational and necessary at one end of the continuum may be inappropriate at the other.

In particular, one might imagine running an actual family according to the Ofsted Framework, drawing

up action plans with one’s partner, portfolios on the children, and testing outcomes in the light of

national expectations. Would standards of parenting rise? It is necessary, then, to place Summerhill

sensibly on that continuum before deciding what sorts of assessment constitute good practice. The HMI

did not do that. In assessment as in other aspects of education, one size does not fit all. In the judgement

of Stronach et al., the assessment requirements set out in the remedy specified for Complaint 6 would

involve an excessive amount of paperwork and simply duplicate knowledge held more informally. The

procedures are suitable for the school-as-factory but not for the school-as-family. Cunningham reaches a

slightly different conclusion, affirming that the school had a recorded assessment policy and practices,

but noting that they felt that it was ‘desirable’ that the school ‘develop its procedures while keeping to its

educational philosophy’(Cunningham 2000: 12).

82. Our conclusion is that HMI neglected the nature of the Summerhill community, with its intimate

and friendly relationships. They sought to make criticisms and suggest remedies much more appropriate

for a large organisation. In his ‘expert witness’ statement Stronach agreed with Dr Allan that the

38

criticisms of Special Needs were unfounded, and with Professor Torrance that assessment did take place

and was both sufficient for the needs of the pupils and efficient in relation to the size of the school and

the nature of its aims.

(b) Complaint 4

83. Complaint 4 contains the major arguments against Summerhill’s principles and practices. It

alleges a failure to provide efficient and suitable instruction as a result of the ‘school’s practice of

voluntary attendance’ at lessons. It should be noted that the latter allows two different possibilities, (a)

that voluntary practice is in itself a bad idea, and/or, (b) that the particular practice at Summerhill is

deficient but that other versions of voluntary attendance are not. At any rate, such a policy is held to

result in the ‘arbitrary’ narrowing of the curriculum, a loss of continuity and progress, and a lowering of

expectations concerning achievement. The witness statements made by both Michael Phipps and Neville

Grenyer claim that children have an ‘entitlement’ to ‘minimum standards of [accommodation and]

instruction’ (Michael Phipps, para 112), that this has not been met, but can be remedied without

‘requiring Summerhill to abandon its educational philosophy and force children to attend lessons’

(Michael Phipps, para 107). HMI Grenyer agrees that ‘[t]his did not and does not mean that merely

because attendance at lessons was voluntary that the instruction was inevitably unsuitable and inefficient’

(witness statement, para 25). Alternative provision to compulsory attendance at lessons could involve

self-supported study, provided a broad and balanced curriculum was thereby achieved, regular attendance

established, and satisfactory minimum standards reached. In theory, then, HMI seek to remedy option

‘b’, finding that the particular practice at Summerhill is deficient.

84. Stronach et al have already criticised the validity and integrity of the 1999 HMI Inspection

Report on Summerhill, but it is worth addressing the major claims of failure it makes which are

accessible to evidence. The School wishes to present the research-based grounds, established by the

Stronach and Cunningham reports, for addressing the HMI’s claims.

85. The grounds of complaint, as they relate to Complaint 4 are as follows:

- low achievement

- a narrow, fragmented and ‘arbitrary’ curriculum

- lack of necessary continuity and progress

39

- voluntary attendance and ‘idleness’

We take these in turn.

(i) Exam outcomes

86. Having studied the school’s results at GCSE and the patterns of attendance especially at Key

Stage 2 Stronach concluded that attendance was irregular, continuity difficult and progress uneven. But

he went on to argue that if the nature of the Summerhill intake is taken into account (see 2 (c)(i) above),

both in terms of non-English speaking pupils sitting examinations in English, and in terms of special

needs of one kind or another, his judgement would be that the results, even in terms of formal

examinations, can just as easily be interpreted as quite remarkable. The Independent Inquiry Report

concluded (the Independent Inquiry Report 2000: ) that since Summerhill averaged 46% against a

national average of 42.7% (5 or more grades A-C averaged over 1995-1998) it was doing well. It helps a

little to average Summerhill results across several years of entry, but not a lot. It still remains invalid

when like is not being compared with like. Cunningham came to the conclusion that GCSE results,

taking into consideration the number of foreign students and the nature of the intake, constituted a

‘noteworthy achievement for pupils and teachers..’ (Cunningham 2000: 14).

101. Stronach was more sceptical of any comparisons in such a small school, but concluded that there

did not seem to be a problem at GCSE. HMI Grenyer’s witness statement reaches a very different

conclusion (para 68), and it is important to consider his interpretation of the results. He makes

three comparisons (a) with Suffolk County results, (b) with English national results, and (c) with

the School’s record over time. They are all meaningless. As has already been pointed out, given

the multinational intake, the prevalence of English as an Additional Language, the different goals

of the school, and the inspectors lack of data on pupils’ entry characteristics, no such

comparisons can meaningfully be drawn26. It is also the case that comparisons discounted any

passes at ages other than 15 years, and fail to include IGCSE results. The instability of

Summerhill results (Mr Grenyer offers 33%/42%/20% in consecutive years by reference to the

School League Tables), and the ease with which a different baseline constructs a different result

26 Readers are reminded that the School Profile makes it clear that some HMI were aware that these comparisons were invalid. For example, one inspector noted the small cohorts, inadvisability of year-on-year comparisons and the absence of baseline data on the pupils. It is not clear why they failed to pass on this knowledge to their colleagues.

40

(say, 25%/20%/33%/42%27) is illustrative of the futility of these ‘comparisons’. Stgronach

pointed out that if we accept the logic of offering comparisons that are invalid both normatively

and ipsatively, we can end up claiming that the school in 1999 was half as good in its

‘attainment’ as it was the previous year. Or, if we want to feel upbeat, that it doubled its

attainment over two years. Both claims are nonsense. He argued that such instabilities are a

property of chance, not indicators of ‘progress’ or regress. Fitz-Gibbon, writing more generally

about year-on-year results in school, and relying on an extensive and comparative data base of

‘performance’ has concluded that they should more generally be regarded as ‘random’ (1998: 2).

102. Stronach also concluded - with some surprise - that the ‘catch-up’ theory expressed by

the staff and pupils (who called it ‘speeding up’) was supported by the data. Such a

finding, in his judgement, would be inconceivable in a conventional school and points to

the need to understand more fully the out-of-lesson learning experiences of Summerhill

pupils (see Specialist report by Kushner et al. in Appendix 3; see also Dr Thomas’ expert

report).

(ii) Other educational outcomes

103. The minimum ‘entitlement’ is defined by Mr Grenyer in his witness statement (para 18) as that

which succeeds in ‘equipping a child for his future life’. Does Summerhill do this adequately?

There are two ways of addressing this issue. The first is to look at the social and educational

processes within the school and ask whether these seem likely to equip children in this way. The

second is more longitudinal: to look at the school outcomes, that is, by consulting pupils and

parents about their satisfaction, by considering in so far as it is possible the future careers and

lives of ex-pupils and the degree to which they feel the school influenced them. This would be a

‘stakeholder’ evaluation consonant with Ofsted’s current rationale. It was also the approach

adopted by Cunningham.

104. It is noted that the HMI inspection made no empirical attempt to determine school ‘outcomes’

except by inappropriate reference to league tables of exam results. Teachers reported that HMI

took the view that it was up to the school to provide such evidence. This is an unusual

methodological and ethical stance for an inspecting body to take in relation to an audit process.

27 These are the Suffolk Improvement Measure figures for 5 or more Grades A - C, 1995 - 1998 (Summerhill).

41

In the latter perspective, it is a case of ‘guilty until proven innocent’, since in that instance the

negative verdict is based on a lack of evidence for which they take the school to be responsible.

105. In terms of personal, social and cultural development, HMI have usually given at least a qualified

approval to the ability of the school to address the ‘development’ goals Ofsted specify (Ofsted

1997):

“Pupils are well-adjusted, effective decision-makers; they talk well and relate easily to

adults. They show a high degree of self-confidence and the general level of their personal

development is high.” (HMI Report 1990, para 26)

“Pupils’ personal development is in some ways strong but their social development is

weaker.” (HMI Report 1993, para 11)

106. The 1999 Inspection Report reached a Jekyll and Hyde conclusion, praising the effects of the

‘democratic ethos’ on learning about ‘citizenship’ (HMI Report 1999: para 62), while

simultaneously criticising the school for being prepared to ‘sell pupils short rather than prepare

them fully for living in a democratic society’ (HMI Report 1999: para 60).

The interviews Stronach conducted, along with those of his colleagues, as well as observations in the

December 1999 - January 2000 period, suggested that Summerhill had strong positive effects on personal

development and awareness that were, in the team’s experience of educational evaluation, unique. He

was most struck by their sense of personal identity:

‘I am already the person I’m going to be’ (Leavers’ questionnaire)

(Ian Warder’s witness statement supports that conclusion, para 18). The pupils seemed articulate,

thoughtful, self-aware, and considerate (Danë Goodsman makes a similar claim in her witness

statement, para 48). They had a strong sense of fairness and empathy, and the same qualities

seemed evident in the current pupils as those remarked upon by the Independent Inquiry Report

in relation to the former pupil survey:

‘self confidence, interpersonal skills, caring about and respect for others, sense of

42

personal responsibility, ability to take own decisions’ (2000: 25)

107. There is also very clear evidence of the therapeutic effects of Summerhill for children coping

with trauma. As one child surviving a divorce commented,

‘I’d just like to add that Summerhill was and remains hugely important to me. It is still

the place I return to in my dreams during periods of stress in my life!’

‘I know for sure that I wouldn’t have made the Abitur if I hadn’t been to Summerhill

because before I went there I hated school and didn’t like learning.’

‘Prior to coming to Summerhill I had no self-confidence or self-worth. I believe that I

would not have even lived to write this letter today.’

(All ex-Summerhillian Questionnaire returns)

108. The Independent Inquiry evaluation concludes that the school does not disadvantage the ‘future

options’ pupils in the way alleged by the 1999 Inspection Report (1999: 24), based on a survey

of 40 former pupils28. (This finding is supported by Danë Goodsman’s account of Summerhill

values and outcomes in her witness statement, paras 30, 33, 49; see also Ian Warder, para 32.)

That survey has now contacted a much larger sample of former pupils of Summerhill (n = ). The

results are that INSERT UPDATE

109. If we then recall that the Summerhill intake included a lot of children who were failing at their

previous school, as HMI have previously noted, or with behavioural ‘problems’ of one kind or

another, we have grounds for concluding that Summerhill is exemplary in its ability to promote

the personal, social, moral and political development of young people. A thirteen-year old even

displayed his social skills in offering a diagnosis of the HMI who inspected his school:

‘I don’t know how they [the inspectors] did it, how they managed to miss the point so

badly. Maybe subconsciously they want Summerhill to fail because they missed the

chance to come here themselves. Maybe they should come and finish their childhood so

28 The intention, as I understand it, was to interview leavers over the last ten years. The sample is small and not necessarily representative, although the numbers of leavers in that period is not likely to exceed 90 (estimation in discussion with Summerhill staff) and around half have so far responded.

43

they can leave everyone else to get on with theirs’ (interview 18.1.00).

Such a verdict is echoed in the Independent Inquiry report, where the team note that it is ‘ironic that the

Secretary of State’s civil servants are now having to learn, as adults, what children at Summerhill at an

earlier age’ (Cunningham 2000: 23).

110. Nor does evidence from the survey of Summerhill leavers and ex-Summerhillians indicate

subsequent problems in terms of education, employment or social adjustments of other kinds.

Indeed, having read the raw data and seen the Independent Inquiry Report evaluation, Stronach

and Cunningham both agreed that ex-Summerhillians believe that they have benefited greatly

from the nature of their school. So too do their parents (see Questionnaire for Summerhill

Parents).

The Independent Inquiry team found that 92.3% of their survey of the leavers and ex-Summerhillians

found an advantage in such learning (which is what they took it to be rather than ‘non-attendance’). The

most frequent category in the leavers’ data relating to non attendance [according to Stronach’s analysis]

was ‘positive attitudes to learning’. Note also that this is quite opposite to the claims of HMI in the 1999

inspection of ‘poor attitudes to learning’. Such an favourable outcome was often held to result from the

free nature of the choice, and the need to make a personal commitment to learning. In general, few felt

differently, and where they did their attitudes were still positive: better GCSE results might have been

obtained, mused one respondent ‘but I’d rather be a stable happy individual’.

111. The accounts of the parents in my experience give unparalleled support and praise to the school

for the effects it has on the personal and social development and especially the happiness of the

children. A German couple wrote of their son moving out of the ‘non-attendance’ phase and

starting to learn “out of inner motivation, enthusiastically and joyfully”. Their full account is at

Appendix 4.

112. Summerhill children, then, seem to be excellently ‘equipped for life’ (Danë Goodsman’s witness

statement supports such a conclusion for herself and for her child, 20). Cunningham addresses

the DfEE’s notion of ‘key skills’ and concludes that Summerhill pays great attention to most of

them, and that some of its practices are in advance of government thinking and conventional

practices: ‘..Summerhill is already doing this [ developing confidence and ability to self-manage

44

learning] for its children and the Government should be more worried about schools that are not

doing this’ (Cunningham 2000: 23). The breadth and qualities accord with those identified as

necessary for the future by Professor MacBeath (witness statement, para 7). The failure of the

HMI to enquire into the social learning of the school is a serious deficiency in their inspection.

HMI had no substantial and valid evidence base from which to criticise the outcomes of an

education at Summerhill. Yet such social, personal, moral and cultural outcomes were part of

their inspection brief. The evidence is clear: the school fulfils such aims.

(iii) Curriculum inadequacies

113. Was the curriculum narrow, fragmented, and arbitrary? It has already been argued above

that Ofsted and Summerhill could quite legitimately, in terms of educational

philosophies, regard each other’s curriculum as narrow (see paras XXXX above).

National curricula which stipulate what will count as breadth, balance, and standards are

by no means universal (e.g. USA) although they are currently fashionable in other

English-speaking countries (e.g. New Zealand). The curriculum at Summerhill could

certainly be argued to be fragmented and arbitrary from an Ofsted point of view. But

such a view requires one to subscribe to a theory of learning based on continuous,

incremental knowledge-building. That theory is contested by Summerhill and by Neil’s

philosophy (see 1 (d) (i)-(iii), footnote 4 above). It is refuted also by the Independent

Inquiry Report (Cunningham 2000: 15). The assumptions Ofsted make about the nature

of learning and how it can most effectively be promoted have little, if any, basis in

research.

114. There was no evidence to suggest that pupils made arbitrary or ill-informed choices.

They seemed to have a very clear ideas of who they were, what they wanted to achieve,

and what they would need to do to get there. Staff accounts of the ‘signing up’ process,

and the detailed guidance given to students seem to have been wholly discounted by HMI

on the familiar ‘audit’ grounds that what is not written down does not exist. In the

opinion of the School, backed up by external and independent research and evaluation,

Complaint 4 is groundless: the evidence points firmly to a school that successfully

45

educates children according to its aims.

115. CONCLUSIONS

(1) Summerhill and the Ofsted inspection Framework are based on very different educational

philosophies but both are recognised as promoting a form of ‘education’. The extent to

which they differ raises the requirement for flexibility in inspection.

(2) The research of both Stronach and Cunningham indicates that the Ofsted inspection of

Summerhill in March 1999 did not meet that requirement. The inspection was

inappropriate to the aims of the school in terms of focus and method. The views of the

pupils and especially the parents were very poorly considered. The whole range of the

school’s provision was not addressed. The inspection failed to meet Ofsted’s own criteria

for quality. There is convincing evidence that the inspection process was invalid, and

some evidence that it was biased. There are no grounds for believing that it offers a

‘secure’ basis for judgement29 in relation to Complaints 4 and 6. The Ofsted inspection

was not a fair test of the education provided by Summerhill, being neither

comprehensive, valid or objective in nature.

(4) In the judgement of Cunningham and Stronach the evidence demonstrates that

Summerhill leavers have reasonably good examination results. In the area of personal,

social, cultural and moral development the school is better than most. As a form of

values education and a preparation for citizenship (both current government goals)

Summerhill is an important exemplar, nationally and internationally. It remains an

outstanding example of a school democracy. Current pupils, former pupils and parents all

agree that Summerhill pupils benefit greatly from their education. Many parents, in

particular, spoke powerfully of how their children’s lives had been transformed.

We submit, on the basis of these findings that Ofsted should declare the 1999 Inspection of Summerhill

School ‘null and void’, in accordance with itws own quality assurance guarantees.

REFERENCES

29 HMCI Chris Woodhead wrote to the Appellant on 26.5.99. He said of the Report: ‘I am satisfied that its findings are objective and founded on substantial evidence’. (26.5.99)

46

Ofsted (1995) Framework for the Inspection of Nursery, Primary, Secondary and Special Schools,

London.

Ofsted (1995) Guidance on the inspection of nursery and primary schools. The Ofsted handbook,

London.

Ofsted (1995) Guidance on the inspection of secondary schools. The Ofsted handbook, London.

Ofsted (1996 reprint) Inspecting Independent Schools. HMI Methods and Procedures, London.

Ofsted (1997) Inspecting independent schools. A framework, London.

Ofsted (1997) Talmud Torah School. Ofsted Inspection Report, London.

Ofsted (1998) Inspection 98. Briefing for schools on the new inspection requirements, London.

Ofsted (1999) Report on Summerhill School (March), London.

Ofsted (2000) Inspecting Schools, The Framework. London.

HMI (1990) Report on Summerhill School, London.

Broadfoot, P. (1999) ‘Culture, learning and comparison. Laurence Stenhouse’s vision of education for

empowerment’, British Educational Research Association Conference, Sussex University.

Bruner, J. (1966) Towards a theory of instruction. New York: Norton.

Crimmins, J. (1998) ‘Summerhill: the affect of choice on motivation to learn’, MA dissertation, London

Institute of Education.

Cunningham, I. et al. (2000) ‘An independent inquiry into Summerhill School’. Brighton: Centre for Self

47

Managed Learning.

Darling, J. (1994) ‘Summerhill: from Neill to the Nineties Education’, Forum 58.

Elliott, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Ferguson, N., Earley, P., Ouston, J. and Fidler, B. (1999) The inspection of primary schools: factors

associated with school development.

Fitz-Gibbon, C (1998) ‘Ofsted: time to go?’ Managing Schools Today, 7.

Gibbon, C. (1999) ‘Is Ofsted helpful? An evaluation using social science criteria’, in C. Cullingford (ed.)

An Inspector Calls. Ofsted and its effect on Schools Standards. London: Kogan Page.

Gilroy, P. and Wilcox, B. (1997) ‘Ofsted, criteria and the nature of social understanding: a

Wittgensteinian critique of the practice of education judgement’, British Journal of Educational Studies,

45 (1), 22-38.

Goleman, D. (1996) Emotional Intelligence: why it can matter more than I.Q. London: Bloomsbury.

Goodsman, D. (1992) ‘Summerhill: theory and practice’, unpublished PhD, CARE, University of East

Anglia.

Hammersley, M. (1997) ‘In defence of research for evidence-based teaching’, British Educational

Research Journal, 23 (4): 405-419.

Handy, C. (1993) Understanding organisations, 4th edition. London: Penguin.

Hirst, P. (1974) Knowledge and the curriculum: a collection of philosophical papers. London: Routledge

and Kegan Paul.

Lave, J. (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation.

48

Macintyre, A. (1999) Dependent rational animals: why human beings need the virtues.

Neill, A. (1962) Summerhill: a radical approach to education. London: Gollancz.

Neill, A. (1971) Talking of Summerhill. London. Gollancz.

Neill, A. (1968) Summerhill. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Neill, A. (1985) Summerhill: a radical approach to child-rearing. Harmondworth: Penguin.

Peters, Richard S. (ed.) (1967) The Concept of Education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Peters, Richard S. (1969) The Concept of Motivation, 2nd edition. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Peters, Richard S. (ed.) (1973) The Philosophy of Education. London: Oxford University Press.

Popenoe, Joshua (1970) Inside Summerhill. New York: Hart Publications.

Reynolds, D. (1996) Making good schools: linking school effectiveness and school improvement

(Educational Management Series). London: Routledge.

Raven, J. (1994) Managing education for effective schooling: the most important problem is to come to

terms with values. Oxford: Trillium Press.

Rutter, N. (1979) Fifteen thousand hours: secondary schools and their effects on children. London: Open

Books.

Schon, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: how professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.

Stronach, I. (1992) ‘The Howie Report: a glossary and a commentary’, Scottish Educational Review, 26

(2): 93-104.

Suffolk County Social Services Department (1997) Interim Inspection of Summerhill School (June),

Suffolk.

49

The Plowden Report (1967) Debates on the Plowden Report in the House of Lords.

Vygotsky, L. (1962) Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Walmsley, J (1969) Neill and Summerhill: a man and his work: a pictorial study. Harmondsworth:

Penguin.

Weiss, C. (1986) ‘Toward the future of stakeholder approaches in evaluation’, in E. House (ed.) New

Directions in Educational Evaluation. London: Falmer.

Woods, P. (1986) Inside Schools, ethnographical approaches in educational research.

Woolf, S. et al. (1996) Developing evidence-based clinical practice lessons by the preventive services

task force, American Review of Public Health.

50