Full download ebook at ebookname.

com

School Inspection and Self Evaluation Working with

the New Relationship 1st Edition Macbeath

https://ebookname.com/product/school-inspection-and-self-
evaluation-working-with-the-new-relationship-1st-edition-
macbeath/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWLOAD NOW

Download more ebook from https://ebookname.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Democratic Learning The Challenge to School

Effectiveness 1st Edition John Macbeath

https://ebookname.com/product/democratic-learning-the-challenge-
to-school-effectiveness-1st-edition-john-macbeath/

Working Systemically with Families Formulation

Intervention and Evaluation 1st Edition Arlene Vetere

https://ebookname.com/product/working-systemically-with-families-
formulation-intervention-and-evaluation-1st-edition-arlene-
vetere/

The Heart of Coaching Supervision Working with

Reflection and Self Care 1st Edition Eve Turner
(Editor)

https://ebookname.com/product/the-heart-of-coaching-supervision-
working-with-reflection-and-self-care-1st-edition-eve-turner-
editor/

Kohut Loewald and the Postmoderns A Comparative Study

of Self and Relationship 1st Edition Teicholz

https://ebookname.com/product/kohut-loewald-and-the-postmoderns-
a-comparative-study-of-self-and-relationship-1st-edition-
teicholz/
Aggressivity Narcissism and Self Destructiveness in the
Psychoterapeutic Relationship New Developments in the
Psychopathology and Psychotherapy of Severe Personality
Disorders 1St Edition Edition Otto Kernberg
https://ebookname.com/product/aggressivity-narcissism-and-self-
destructiveness-in-the-psychoterapeutic-relationship-new-
developments-in-the-psychopathology-and-psychotherapy-of-severe-
personality-disorders-1st-edition-edition-otto/

Working with Disaffected Students Why Students Lose

Interest in School and What We Can Do about It 1st
Edition Kathryn Riley

https://ebookname.com/product/working-with-disaffected-students-
why-students-lose-interest-in-school-and-what-we-can-do-about-
it-1st-edition-kathryn-riley/

A 21st Century Approach to School Librarian Evaluation

1st Edition Patricia Owen

https://ebookname.com/product/a-21st-century-approach-to-school-
librarian-evaluation-1st-edition-patricia-owen/

Literacy with an Attitude Second Edition Educating

Working Class Children in Their Own Self Interest
Patrick J. Finn

https://ebookname.com/product/literacy-with-an-attitude-second-
edition-educating-working-class-children-in-their-own-self-
interest-patrick-j-finn/

Russia and the European Union Prospects for a New

Relationship 1st Edition Oksana Antonenko

https://ebookname.com/product/russia-and-the-european-union-
prospects-for-a-new-relationship-1st-edition-oksana-antonenko/
School Inspection and
Self-Evaluation

Around the world school inspection is subject to critical scrutiny. It is too

cumbersome? Too expensive? Too disruptive to the normal flow of school
life? Does it actually improve schools? And, what does the new relationship
between inspection and self-evaluation mean for schools?
School Inspection and Self-Evaluation: Working with the New Relationship
addresses these issues, and unpicks the legacy of an Ofsted regime
widely criticised as invasive and disempowering to teachers. In this book,
John MacBeath:

● examines in turn each aspect of the ‘New Relationship’, its potential

strengths and some of its inherent weaknesses;
● debates issues that confront school leaders and classroom teachers,
including Every Child Matters;
● offers advice on how schools can marry ongoing self-evaluation with
Ofsted’s expectations;
● describes how to deal with PLACS, PANDAS’ and other beastly
inventions’;
● shows how to use web sources to best advantage;
● explains how to reconcile the tensions between accountability and
improvement;
● provides a guide to a repertoire of tried-and-tested approaches to help
teachers embed self-evaluation in day-to-day classroom practice.

The book also contains case studies from schools that have adopted
innovative approaches to self-evaluation.
While of immediate practical interest for school leaders, managers and
teachers in England, the book also speaks to an international audience, as the
issues raised here have resonance in every country where quality assurance
and standards are at the forefront of policy and practice.

John MacBeath is Professor of Educational Leadership at the University of

Cambridge, UK.
School Inspection and
Self-Evaluation
Working with the new relationship

John MacBeath
First published 2006
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada
by Routledge
270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group,
an informa business
© 2006 John MacBeath
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2006.
“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s
collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter
invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available
from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested

ISBN10: 0–415–39970–X (hbk)

ISBN10: 0–415–39971–8 (pbk)
ISBN10: 0–203–96710–0 (ebk)

ISBN13: 978–0–415–39970–8 (hbk)

ISBN13: 978–0–415–39971–5 (pbk)
ISBN13: 978–0–203–96710–2 (ebk)
Contents

List of figures vii

List of tables ix
Acknowledgements xi

1 New relationships for old 1

2 A view from the schools 17

3 A view from the Bell tower 29

4 Inspection and self-evaluation: a brief history 38

5 Lies, damned lies and statistics 47

6 Self-evaluation, review, audit, self-assessment

and self-inspection 56

7 Hearing voices 70

8 Learning in and out of school 80

9 PLASCS, PATS, electronic PANDAS and

other beastly inventions 91

10 Every Child Matters? 100

11 The SEF and how to use it 109

12 Who needs a School Improvement Partner?:

critical friend or Trojan collaborator 120
vi Contents
13 Googling around: the connoisseur’s guide 133

14 The tools of self-evaluation 143

15 The leadership equation 162

16 What can we learn from other countries? 173

Notes 184
Index 195
Figures

1.1 The seven elements of the new relationship 3

2.1 Teachers’ preferred audience for school self-evaluation 20
6.1 Self-inspection and self-evaluation 57
6.2 Blood pressure: reading over time 66
6.3 The weddingcake: pupil, professional and
system learning 67
6.4 Sources of pressure and support 68
9.1 Key stage scores and the value added line 96
10.1 Carole, her family and social/educational agencies 103
10.2 Inspecting for improvement (2003) 105
10.3 Probing the evidence base: a starter for discussion 106
11.1 The Leicestershire plan 112
11.2 Do’s and don’ts of SEF evidence 118
11.3 The relationship of the parts to the whole 118
12.1 A suggested calendar for the work of the SIP 124
12.2 Guidance on inputs, focus and outputs 126
12.3 The ‘do’s of critical friendship 129
12.4 The ‘don’ts of critical friendship 130
12.5 Roles behaviours, qualities and skills of
the critical friend 131
13.1 Checklist for evaluating current state of health
and well-being 135
13.2 The BECTA matrix, learning and skills 138
14.1 Circle of influence 144
14.2 A rhythm of learning 147
14.3 Observing and being observed 150
14.4 A 7-year-old’s eye view of school life 153
14.5 Assessing social capital 154
15.1 The paradoxes of leadership 163
15.2 Adapting to the flow of change 165
Tables

1.1 Some features of Ofsted’s new approach to inspection 7

2.1 Favouring and constraining factors for SSE 25
6.1 The seven elements of self-evaluation 63
9.1 Data table for primary school (Key Stage 2) 94
9.2 Five exemplary pupils 95
9.3 The revised points system 96
11.1 The SEF summary 116
11.2 The views of stakeholders 117
14.1 Evaluating the learning culture 151
14.2 Construction sites 155
14.3 The toolbox 156
Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Janet Gibson for putting up with the constant revisions
and search for missing page numbers and references, to my colleague,
Sue Swaffield, for the eye of the critical friend, to HMCI David Bell for
admitting me to inner sanctum of Ofsted where I was much less welcome in
the past and to Anna Clarkson and Kerry Maciak of RoutledgeFalmer for
their support and guidance.
1 New relationships for old

‘She who has a hammer sees only a world of mails.’

This opening chapter sets the scene for the New Relationship with Schools,
(NRwS), examining the perceived need for a new relationship in light of what
had gone before. Each of the seven elements of the NRwS jigsaw are examined in
turn, arguing that schools need to view these with a critical and enlightened eye.

There is a new relationship between government and schools. It is an implicit

recognition that the old relationship had been damaged by a decade of
tensions and antagonism between agencies of government and schools. The
legacy of the Thatcher regime, which cast teachers and ‘progressive educa-
tors’ as the enemy within, was little attenuated under a Labour government
which did not want to be seen as soft on teachers. The retention of Ofsted
and its Chief Inspector were a signal to teachers, but primarily to a wider
public, that this administration too could be tough. After nearly a decade in
power it became increasingly apparent that the old relationship was no
longer sustainable and that it was time for a new approach.
The concept of a new relationship was first spelled out by the Government
Minister, David Miliband in a high-profile policy speech on 8 January 2004.

There are three key aspects to a new relationship with schools. An

accountability framework, which puts a premium on ensuring effective
and ongoing self-evaluation in every school combined with more
focussed external inspection, linked closely to the improvement cycle of
the school. A simplified school improvement process, where every
school uses robust self evaluation to drive improvement, informed by a
single annual conversation with a school improvement partner to debate
and advise on targets, priorities and support. And improved information
and data management between schools, government bodies and parents
with information ‘collected once, used many times’.

The New Relationship, elaborated in subsequent documents, promised to

allow schools greater freedom, to free them to define clearer priorities for
2 New relationships for old
themselves, get rid of bureaucratic clutter and build better links with parents.
Advances in technology promised improved data collection and streamlined
communication. A School Improvement Partner, described as a ‘critical
friend’ would liaise with schools and support them in achieving greater
autonomy, releasing local initiative and energy. The seven elements of the
new relationship were portrayed as an interlocking set, framed by trust,
support, networking and challenge (Figure 1.1).
It is not hard to imagine hours spent in offices of government, redrafting
and refining images and terminology to achieve the right register and to
convey a genuine conviction that things could be different. While it is impor-
tant to welcome the apparent goodwill and the government’s desire to build
bridges, it is important to understand the political and economic context in
which that relationship is set. On the economic front its main driver is the
imperative to reduce public spending. Drastic reduction in the Ofsted
budget, spelt out in the Gershon Report1 specified the need for ‘light touch
inspection’, as much a concomitant of reduced funding as an argument for
‘grown up’ quality assurance. The political driver, closely allied to economic
policy and New Labour’s embrace of the internal market2, required funding
to be pushed down to front line services, accompanied by consumer choice
and institutional accountability.
The good ideas inherent in the New Relationship, symbolised in the inter-
locking pieces in the jig saw need therefore to be examined with a critical and
enlightened eye.

Elements of the New Relationship with schools

Self-evaluation
Prior to the election of New Labour in 1997 the Conservative government and
its Chief Inspector of Schools rejected self-evaluation as a soft option which, it
was claimed, had done nothing in its previous incarnations to raise standards.
The 1997 election of a Labour government was a watershed for self-evaluation
as, over the following years, it moved gradually but progressively towards centre
stage. With the coming of a new Chief Inspector, David Bell, it was given a new
status at the very heart of the new relationship. The key difference in this reborn
self-evaluation was its liberation from an Ofsted pre-determined template,
schools now being encouraged to use their own approaches to self-evaluation
with the self-evaluation form (the SEF) serving simply as an internal summary
and basis for external inspection. That at least, is the theory.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
In theory self-evaluation allows schools to speak for themselves, to deter-
mine what is important, what should be measured and how their story should
be told. In theory self-evaluation is ongoing, embedded in the day-to-day
work of classroom and school, formative in character, honest in its assessment
of strengths and weakness, rigorous in its concern for evidence. The New
 New relationships for old 3

Networking and Collaboration

Data

C Self-
Communication evaluation
h S
a u
l p
l Single p
e conversation o
n r
g t
e Inspection
SIP
Profile

Trust

Figure 1.1 The seven elements of the new relationship.

Relationship explicitly accepts these tenets and advises schools to adopt and
adapt their own approach.
In practice it is a different story. A recent study for the National College
of School Leadership (NCSL)3 asked schools to describe the framework or
model currently used in their school. The predominant response was simply
‘Ofsted’, ‘the SEF’ or its predecessor the S4. Asked for reasons for their
choice the following was fairly typical. ‘We use Ofsted because we will be
inspected and need to be prepared for that.’
While it was equally common for schools to say they used a combination
of local authority guidelines and the Ofsted framework, the NCSL survey
revealed that these are now closely matched to Ofsted protocols. Previous
research by NFER4 in 2001 surveying 16 schools in 9 LEAs reported that
10 were using a local authority model, 4 were using the Ofsted framework
while others used a ‘pick and mix’ approach, in one case Ofsted, plus
Investors in People plus Schools Must Speak for Themselves. Since then the
convergence between local authority models and Ofsted has gown stronger
and the earlier more creative models tend to have been marginalised.
However strong the disclaimer by HMCI that the Ofsted SEF is not self-
evaluation it is clear that self-evaluation is seen by the large majority of
schools as a top-down form of review closely aligned with the criteria and
forms of reporting defined by the inspectorate. Faced with an array of
consultant leaders, LA advisers, school improvement partners and governing
bodies all urging conformity to the SEF, it is only a brave, and perhaps
reckless, headteacher who would not play safe. The availability of on-line
4 New relationships for old
completion of the SEF is a further impetus to see self-evaluation as forms to
be filled and an event to be undertaken rather than a continuing process of
reflection and renewal.

Inspection
The new inspection process takes the SEF as its starting point, so allowing a
shorter and sharper process, given that schools have laid the groundwork and
provided the Ofsted team with a comprehensive, rounded and succinct
picture of their quality and effectiveness, strengths and weaknesses, allegedly
warts and all. The main features of the new inspections are described in
NRwS in the following terms:

● shorter, sharper inspections that take no more than two days in a school
and concentrate on closer interaction with senior managers in the
school, taking self-evaluation evidence as the starting point;
● shorter notice of inspections to avoid schools carrying out unnecessary
pre-inspection preparation and to reduce the levels of stress often asso-
ciated with an inspection. Shorter notice should help inspectors to see
schools as they really are;
● smaller inspection teams with a greater number of inspections led by one
of HMI. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector will publish and be responsible
for all reports;
● more frequent inspections, with the maximum period between inspections
reduced from six years to three years, though occurring more frequently
for schools causing concern;
● more emphasis placed on the school’s own self-evaluation evidence as
the starting point for inspection and for schools’ internal planning, and
as the route to securing regular input and feedback from users – pupils,
their parents and the community – in the school’s development. Schools
are strongly encouraged to update their self-evaluation form on an
annual basis;
● a common set of characteristics to inspection in schools and colleges of
education from early childhood to the age of 19;
● a simplification of the categorisation of schools causing concern, retaining
the current approach to schools that need special measures but removing
the categorisations of ‘serious weakness’ and ‘inadequate sixth form’,
replacing them with a new single category of ‘Improvement Notice’.

‘Shorter’, ‘sharper’, ‘smaller’ are key downsizing elements of the new

inspection. ‘Shorter’ applies to less notice so that schools may be seen ‘as
they really are’, while a short stay in the school is premised on the school
having ‘hard’ evidence of its practice, not preparing for inspection but always
prepared. While it may easily be assumed from this that the purpose of the
new inspection is to validate the school’s own self-evaluation, Ofsted is quick
 New relationships for old 5
to disabuse people of that notion. While self-evaluation is described as an
integral element of the process, inspectors will continue to arrive at their own
overall assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of the school. They
reserve their judgement on the capacity of the school to make improve-
ments, taking into account its ability to assess accurately the quality of its own
provision. ‘Taking into account’ is an important caveat as it signals clearly the
nature of the relationship between the external and the internal team. There
is no pretence that this is an equal partnership.

Every Child Matters

A key constituent of the new relationship takes account of the five outcomes
for children and young people defined in the policy document Every Child
Matters.5 These are:

● staying healthy
● enjoying and achieving
● keeping safe
● contributing to the community
● social and economic well-being.

In judging leadership and management and the overall effectiveness of a

school, inspectors examine the contribution made to all five outcomes.
Claims made for validity and objectivity have, however, to be open to
question given the breadth and ambition of the issues addressed. The highly
subjective and sensitive nature of enjoyment, personal growth, parent and
community links and equality belie any bold claims to objectivity and
quantifiable ‘outcomes’. While now deeply internalised in the linguistic
canon of school improvement, outcomes in relation to these five areas of
growth seems singularly inappropriate.
Undaunted by complexity and subtlety inspectors are required to quantify
their judgements on the following four-point scale, while schools are
enjoined to do likewise.

Grade 1 Outstanding
Grade 2 Good
Grade 3 Satisfactory
Grade 4 Inadequate

These rest on very broad and, to a large degree, impressionistic

judgements. They are necessarily selective as to evidence that can be found
and can be measured. It is open to question whether these labels enhance or
diminish the nature of the judgements made. While their virtue is simplicity,
their weakness is the gloss which undermines the nuance and complexity of
what is being evaluated. As with summative assessment of pupils’ work which
6 New relationships for old
is more likely to inhibit than motivate,6 these categorical judgements do not
of themselves provide the formative criteria which might qualify as evaluation
for learning. While much thought and agonising within Ofsted has gone into
these four descriptors they remain contentious, in particular the ‘satisfactory’
category which may be read either as a half full, or virtually empty glass.

A rush to judgement?
Inspection is judgement not description. In the New Relationship it is judge-
ment rendered within the parameters of a two-day visit, and while there is a
strong case to be made for a shorter more focused visit (see David Bell’s
rationale in Chapter 3) NRwS has in fact widened the scope of inspection to
include Every Child Matters, so while not relinquishing its traditional commit-
ment to rating the quality of school provision, as well as the robustness of its
self-evaluation, inspectors are required also to make summative judgements
including the five broad and often intangible ECM outcomes (Table 1.1).
These are the foci of inspection in the new relationship.

Overall effectiveness, including training, integrated care and extended services.

Achievement and standards, targets, qualifications, and progress relative to
prior attainment and potential, workplace skills and positive contribution
to the community.
Quality of provision, rigour of assessment, planning and monitoring learners’
progress, provision for, additional learning needs and involvement of
parents and carers.
Programmes and activities, matched to learners’ aspirations and potential,
responsiveness to local circumstances and contribution of extended
services to learners’ enjoyment and achievement.
Guidance and support, safeguarding welfare, promoting personal develop-
ment, guidance on courses and career progression and provision which
contributes to pupils’ capacity to stay safe and healthy.
Leadership and management, performance monitoring, high-quality care,
equality of opportunity and tackling of discrimination, links with other
services, employers and other organisations and governors discharge of
their responsibilities.

Provision causing concern

Inspectors must consider whether provision is failing to give learners an
acceptable standard of education, in which case they must state this clearly in
the report. There are two categories of schools causing concern:

● Schools which require special measures because they are failing to

provide an acceptable standard of education and show insufficient
capacity to improve.
 New relationships for old 7
Table 1.1 Some features of Ofsted’s new approach to inspection

Previous inspection NRwS inspection

6–10 weeks’ notice before an inspection Shortening the notice of an impending

Ofsted visit. 2–5 days notice prior to
inspection
Large inspection teams visiting for Small teams visiting for not more than
around a week 2 days
A maximum of 6-year interval between A maximum 3-year interval
inspections
Inspections cover: standards and quality Inspection to cover standards and
of education; leadership/management; quality of education, leadership/-
and spiritual, moral, social and cultural management; and spiritual, moral,
development social and cultural development
Self-evaluation not structured across all Self-evaluation as for all schools, the
schools nor is it part of the inspection starting point of Ofsted inspection
process
Collection of a wealth of information – Focus on core systems and key
extensive use of lesson observation outcomes, informed by lesson
observation and other indicators
of pupils’ progress
Detailed and lengthy (30 pages⫹) Short, sharp reports (around 6 pages)
inspection reports produced. focused on key outcomes with clearer
recommendations for improvement
Reports produced within 40 days of the Reports to be with the governing body,
inspection event at least in draft, by the end of the
week of the inspection
Schools required to prepare a separate Schools feed their intended actions into
post-inspection action plan the school development plan
Various categories of schools causing Rationalised system with two
concern – special measures, serious categories – special measures and
weaknesses, underachieving and improvement notice
inadequate sixth forms
Inspection usually conducted by HMI leading many inspections and
registered inspectors involved in all inspections

Source: Ofsted (2004) ‘A new relationship with schools’.

● Schools which require significant improvement in one or more areas of

activity, which should be served with an Improvement Notice.

A code of conduct
Inspectors work to a code of conduct7 which stipulates that they uphold the
highest professional standards in their work and ensure that school staff are
treated fairly and that they benefit from inspection. They are required to
evaluate objectively and have no connection with the school which could
undermine their objectivity. They should report honestly, ensuring that
judgements are fair and reliable, treating all those they meet with courtesy
and sensitivity; minimising stress and acting in the best interests of those they
8 New relationships for old
inspect, engaging them in purposeful and productive dialogue. They should
communicate judgements clearly and frankly, respecting the confidentiality
of information and about individuals and their work. To this are added four
demanding criteria:

● that the findings of the inspection are valid

● that findings of inspection contribute to improvement
● that the process of inspection promotes inclusion
● that inspection is carried out openly with those being inspected.

These are demanding principles and may, with shorter sharper inspections,
be difficult to realise. It is, however, crucial for a school to be familiar with
these principles as they offer a set of criteria which can be used by the
school to evaluate inspectors and the process of inspection. The reciprocity
of accountability in inspection’s new clothes needs to be put to the test.
Cast as friendly, collaborative and founded on a relationship of trust,
schools, it is said, should feel safe enough to honestly disclose their
weaknesses while inspectors listen sensitively to the school’s own account. It
is an ideal and idealistic scenario which appeals to the very best of collabora-
tive quality assurance systems but nonetheless raises a number of prickly
questions:

● How feasible is it for inspectors to render accurate and valid judgements

across such a wide range of objectives?
● In what sense is the accountability agenda different under the NRwS?
● On what basis would schools be happy to be honest with Ofsted about
their most serious weaknesses?
● To what degree is there a genuinely reciprocal relationship between a
school staff and an inspection team?
● What is the nature of ‘productive’ dialogue?
● What does it mean for an inspection team to claim objectivity?
● What test may be applied to conform or contest inspectors’ judgements
as ‘valid’?
● Is inspection under the new relationship any less ‘high stakes’ in its
consequences than before?

The school improvement partner

For each of the schools that it maintains, the local authority appoints a
school improvement partner from a pool of the people with current DfES
(Department for Education and Skills) accreditation. The local authority is
expected to consult with the school and to take account of objections for not
accepting a particular individual but the final choice rests with the authority.
The School Improvement Partner, in most cases should be someone with
current or recent headship experience, is accountable to the authority which
 New relationships for old 9
carries responsibility for his or her performance, carrying out functions
previously performed by the External Adviser.
The SIP, is the ‘conduit’ between central government, the local authority
and the school. It is a telling descriptor. A conduit suggests a flow in a given
direction, and to a degree this is true of the SIP’s relationship with the
school. The direction of communication flow is from the government to the
LEA to the school improvement partner and thence to the school, instru-
mental in the service of mandated target setting and establishing priorities in
line with government policies.
As a school’s governing body is responsible for the strategic direction of
the school, the SIP also offers them ‘advice’ on the overall direction of the
school as well as on the headteacher’s conduct of performance management.
In their monitoring role SIPs are also required to advise the local authority
if they believe a school is causing concern. The authority may then use its
statutory powers to intervene, and may want the SIP to take the lead in insti-
gating action. So the SIP, described in the documentation8 as a ‘critical
friend’, may also make a ‘friendly’ intervention to move the school towards
special measures. His or her accountability is to the local authority, which in
turn accounts to government through the DfES’s National Strategies
contractor who, in partnership with NCSL, is responsible for the assessment,
training and accreditation of SIPs. The renewal or ending of the SIP’s
contract is down to the National Strategies Contractor who also holds the
local authority accountable for the performance management of SIPs in their
bailiwick.
The SIP also has a relationship with Ofsted inspectors. It is spelt out9 as
follows:

● They may be inspectors of schools but must not inspect in schools where
they have a connection or where they are SIPs.
● Their reports on schools are made available to inspection teams.
● They must not seek to secure information about a forthcoming inspec-
tion nor divulge it to schools if they become aware of it.

The SIP clearly has a complex relationship with the school, with the local
authority, with Ofsted and with the DfES. It not only demands of SIPs that
they tread a very fine line among their various accountabilities but their remit
also casts a shadow on their relationship with their adoptive headteacher,
raising some essential questions about that relationship.

● Where does the power lie within and outside the head–SIP relationship?
● What, in these circumstances, does it mean for the SIP to be a ‘critical
friend’?
● What is the nature of the SIP’s accountability to the school?
● How should the success of the SIP’s performance be judged? By the
school? By the local authority? By government agencies?
10 New relationships for old
● On what basis would a SIP report the school as causing concern?
● What is the latitude for autonomous self-improving schools to dispense
with the services of their SIP?

These and other questions are explored further in Chapter 12.

The single conversation

A single conversation with a wise man is better than ten years of study.
(Chinese Proverb)

The single conversation is the occasion for the SIP and the headteacher to
discuss how the school is performing and for the SIP to ensure that key
policy priorities are being addressed. The rationale for this is to reduce the
multiple accountabilities and need for schools to report to a variety of agen-
cies, a slimming diet widely welcomed by schools.
The agenda for the single conversation is laid down rather than negoti-
ated, with a clear focus on attainment data, variations in pupil performance,
monitoring and planning for pupil progress and evidence as to achievement
of outcomes identified in Every Child Matters. The nature of the school’s
self-evaluation is also on the agenda, framed primarily in terms of measure-
ment of pupil progress and interpretation of attainment data. Under five key
headings the nature of the ‘conversation’ is made clear.

● How is the school performing?

● What are the key factors?
● What are the priorities and targets for improvement?
● How will the school achieve them?
● How are the school’s performance management systems contributing to
raising attainment and achievement?

While it is acknowledged that the single conversation will vary from school
to school, it ‘will’, have a common core as detailed in the guidance docu-
ments.10 The single conversation, in common with other aspects of the New
Relationship deserves closer interrogation.

● What is the nature of the ‘conversation’?

● What latitude does it offer for the headteacher to set or negotiate an
agenda tuned to the school’s current and future needs?
● What latitude does it offer for the SIP to be responsive to the school’s
current and future needs?
● What is the essential difference between an accountability conversation
and an improvement conversation?
● Where, how often and for how long should that ‘single’ conversation
take place?
 New relationships for old 11
School profile
The government intention for the school is to reflect the breadth and depth
of what the school does, but contained in a short accessible document. It is
a document designed for parents, as well as for a wider readership, including
the DfES, and should contain the following information:

● data on students’ attainment and progress, set against benchmarks for

schools in similar contexts;
● how the school serves all its students, not just the average student;
● the most recent assessment by Ofsted, set against the school’s own
self-assessment;
● what the school offers, in terms of the broader curriculum;
● how the head and governors see the priorities for future improvement;
● what the school offers the rest of the system.

This ‘short, focused report’, it was foreseen,11 would be pre-populated by

the DfES, containing standardised comparative performance data about a
school and its students, derived from information held on the National Pupil
Database, coupled with information provided by the school on its own view
of its priorities and performance. It was described in Ministerial terms12 as
follows:

To supplement the data contained in performance tables, parents also

have a right to a broader and deeper understanding of what the school
is doing. We think the answer lies in an annual school profile which
would replace the annual statutory report to parents and increase flexi-
bility around the statutory elements of the school prospectus. It will be
light on bureaucracy, easy to access and powerful in impact. It will place
new and challenging information in the public domain.

The school profile was envisaged as another conversation piece – ‘We want
to see the profile become an important part of educational discussion in the
home and the school, as well as in Whitehall’.13 It stretches the imagination
to envisage the nature of the fireside chat that might take place in the home
or the nature of the conversation that might transpire in the corridors of
power. The tenor of the above Ministerial speech is worth a conversation
analysis of its own:

● In what way will the school profile lead to ‘a deeper understanding’

among parents?
● What ‘flexibility’ will it allow?
● In what ways will it be ‘light in bureaucracy’?
● What is meant by ‘powerful in impact’?
12 New relationships for old
● What will make it appealing enough to provide a conversation piece for
parents? And what is likely to be the focus of such conversation?
● What from your own experience might encourage a rich conversation
with parents?

Data
Data is the sixth piece of the seven piece jigsaw. It is in some respects the
most significant as official documents and pronouncements insistently
emphasise that data is the alpha and omega of school life in the new century
and in the New Relationship. Data is in the driving seat. It is the centrepiece
in the single conversation, the overriding concern of the school improve-
ment partner, the focus of inspection and the litmus test of the school’s self-
evaluation. The Ministerial speech14 describes data as the most valuable
currency in school improvement.

Data helps teachers, heads of department and the senior leadership team
identify underperformance, and do something about it. In this sense it
is the most valuable currency in school improvement. When data makes
it evident that the same pupils are thriving in History but struggling in
Geography, decisions about performance management and professional
development suddenly become much clearer.

‘Data collected once but used many times’ has achieved the status of a
mantra. While left open to wide interpretation it appears to imply that the
annual sweeping up of performance data and its reproduction in multiple
disaggregated forms provides enough riches to last a school until the next
sweep.
‘Schools are infuriated when different bits of government make their own
data collections and waste valuable time and effort at school level’, acknowl-
edges the Minister. He makes reference to complaints from heads and gover-
nors at having to ‘wade through mounds of paper and points to progress
made in the last few years in reducing demand by 50 per cent. Life is being
made simpler by the development of one simple set of what the Minister
describes as ‘binding protocols’15 to ensure ‘the full benefits of the national
pupil level data that is now available through PLASC . . . .to make a reality of
the statement “collect once, use many times.” ’
It should, the DfES suggests,16 boast the following elements:

● data that helps teachers develop themselves;

● data that helps school leaders promote high performance;
● data that helps parents support their children’s progress;
● data that helps LEAs target resources;
● data that helps the DfES fine-tune its interventions to spread good
practice and of critical importance;
 New relationships for old 13
● the combination of qualitative as well as quantitative data that is the foun-
dation for any intelligent conversation about public service improvement.

What form this helpful data assumes is not made explicit but refers
primarily to the plethora of statistics on student attainment, aggregated and
disaggregated in relation to a cluster of variables on home background, prior
attainment, gender, and ethnicity. These are, in Ministerial parlance, a core
data set which ‘drive the data demands of the education system’.17 The
implicit is made somewhat more explicit however in this Ministerial rhetorical
flight – ‘and we will really achieve take off when there is a maximum use of
data and benchmarks by all those with an interest in pupils’ progress’.
A number of critical questions follow:

● What does the term ‘data’ mean to school staff and what is the
emotional resonance of that term?
● What kind of benchmarking does this imply?
● Who is data for? To what extent are they for consumers or critical users?
● What are the potential disadvantages of a single simplified data system?
● In what ways may data be used many times?
● If data are described in terms of ‘binding protocols’ what flexibility is
there for schools to be autonomous, to be creative and to speak for
themselves?

Communications
Communication, the seventh interlocking piece of the jigsaw, is the necessary
precondition of any relationship. The New Relationship promises a ‘stream-
lined communications strategy’. It includes an on-line ordering service
‘giving schools the freedom and choice to order what that they want, when
they want’.18 Documents and resources that would previously have been sent
out, encumbering the headteacher’s desk, and possibly waste bin, are now to
be available on-line, easy to find and with detailed summaries of key policies.
Schools are kept up-to-date with the latest additions to the on-line catalogue
via a regular email notification – providing a direct web link to the latest
information available online. Schools are able, therefore, to choose whether
to download electronic versions or order paper-based copies of the informa-
tion they need in the multiples required to be delivered to their school.
Choosing to ignore them does not appear to be an option suggested. It is
important to consider:

● What key elements would you want to see in a ‘communications

strategy’?
● What kind of documents are most, and least, helpful for school leadership?
● To what are teaching and other staff included in a communication
strategy? And what is most, and least, helpful to them?
14 New relationships for old
The four framing values
Easily overlooked in the NRwS jigsaw are the key words that frame the seven
jig saw pieces. These words are challenge and support, collaboration and
networking and trust. The implication is that a new relationship is founded
on these and that it would be difficult to realise without these values being
in place. But what do they mean?
The key word on which the others depend is trust. This could be inter-
preted in a number of different ways. For example:

● Teachers trust the goodwill of the government’s intentions

● Teachers trust that Ofsted will be fair
● Teachers trust their own management to have their concerns and inter-
ests at heart
● The government trusts the professionalism and integrity of teachers
● Ofsted trusts the integrity and honesty of the school’s own self-evaluation.

These are ambitious and probably unrealistic expectations because they

imply some form of unconditional trust, whereas trust in an essentially politi-
cised context is both conditional and calculative.19 Trust, says Harvard’s
Richard Elmore20 is a fragile commodity, hard to construct and easy to
destroy. The very processes by which ‘the connective tissue’ of trust are
created in schools are too easily reversible. At any point, for any reason, indi-
viduals may revoke their consent to have their interests encapsulated in
others. Trust, says Elmore, is a compound of respect, listening to and valuing
the views of others; personal regard, intimate and sustained personal
relationships that undergird professional relationships; competence, the capacity
to produce desired results in relationships with others; and personal integrity,
truthfulness and honesty in relationships. He calls these ‘discernments’
exemplified as the way in which people make sense of one another’s
behaviour and intentions.
A measure of trust, however conditional, is a prerequisite of support, as
support implies a relationship in which people experience a genuine intention
to help on the part of the other without a hidden agenda, without a sense that
this comes with caveats and some form of payback. At an individual level
we experience support from friends and colleagues as an expression of
genuine concern given unconditionally and without charge. The same prin-
ciple applies at organisational level, yet in an accountability context it is hard
to conceive of support which does not come with conditions and caveats
attached.
Implicit in the New Relationship is that support is accompanied by
challenge. These are uneasy bedfellows because they can only co-exist where
the quality of support allows challenge to be heard and accepted. When
people do not experience goodwill and genuine support they are very likely
to respond badly to challenge. The combination of support and challenge is
 New relationships for old 15
implicit in the role of a critical friend – friend first and critic second, but the
critical hat is only donned once a mutuality of relationship has been estab-
lished. Schools’ experience of Ofsted has in the past typically been one of
challenge – often fruitful and appreciated but not always accompanied by a
sense of support, critical but not always friendly.
It is through the fourth of these framing words – networking – that support
and challenge are most likely to be bear fruit. Networking implies a collegial
relationship, founded on voluntarism and initiative. It is built on reciprocity
and a measure of trust. The ties that bind are conditional not on authority but
on mutual gain, give and take, learning and helping others learn.

Accountability drives everything

It is not accidental that the Miliband speech quoted at the beginning of this
chapter justified self-evaluation in these terms: ‘An accountability framework,
which puts a premium on ensuring effective and ongoing self-evaluation in
every school combined with more focussed external inspection, linked closely
to the improvement cycle of the school.’
Accountability drives everything. ‘Without accountability there is no legit-
imacy; without legitimacy there is no support; without support there are no
resources; and without resources there are no services.’ In this conception of
accountability it is realised through data, attainment related, comparative
and benchmarked.21

The data upon which we base our accountability mechanisms must

reflect our core educational purposes. It must be seen to be objective.
And it must allow for clear and consistent comparison of performance
between pupils and between institutions.

This, as government sees it, is ‘intelligent accountability’, a term attributed

to John Dunford of the Secondary Heads’ Association (SHA), demon-
strating that government can at once be intelligent as well as tough and that
it can listen to the voice of the profession. But what does intelligent
accountability mean? Its origins are in the 2002 Reith lecture given by
Baroness O’Neill in which she pleads for an alternative to ‘perverse
indicators’ which erode trust, distort purpose and provide signposts which
point people along diversionary paths.22
Elmore makes an important distinction between internal and external
accountability.23 The former describes the conditions that precede and
shape the responses of schools to pressure originating in policies outside the
organisation. Internal accountability is measured by the degree of convergence
among what individuals say they are responsible for (responsibility), what
people say the organisation is responsible for (expectations), and the internal
norms and processes by which people literally account for their work
(accountability structures). He concludes that with strong internal
16 New relationships for old
accountability schools are likely to be more responsive to external pressure
for performance. Intelligent internal accountability suggests that schools will
respond critically to external pressure, confident in the knowledge that they
have a rich and unique story to tell, a story which rises above and goes
beyond the mean statistics and pushes against prevailing orthodoxies of
competitive attainment.
2 A view from the schools

The New Relationship has been given a cautious welcome by schools. This is
because some of the seven elements of the NRwS jig saw are seen as a positive step
forward while others are viewed as potentially problematic. This chapter draws
on recent studies which elicited teachers’ views as to the perceived strengths and
potential drawbacks.

What is the purpose of self-evaluation? What does it mean for schools? For
heads? Teachers? Learning Support Assistants? Pupils? Or parents? Much of
the rationale is taken as implicit rather than explicitly discussed and none of
the suggestions for involvement of parents or any other group proposes a
critical dialogue as to its essential purpose. The government’s view of
purpose appears to be uncontested, or uncontestable although within their
public pronouncements we can identify a number of different purposes.
These may be seen as incompatible, or complementary, depending on where
you sit or stand.

Preparation for inspection

Self-evaluation may be introduced by a school as a prelude to inspection, and
although this is a pragmatic response to external pressure it may then come
to be seen as the primary rationale for engaging in it. In other words, its
essential purpose is regarded as one of accountability to an external body
rather than as something owned by teachers themselves. However, the SEF is
not self-evaluation, insists HMCI David Bell, reiterating what is clearly
articulated in the guidelines. It is simply a way of recording a school’s own
self-evaluation process which needs to be driven by a school improvement
motive. Ofsted, for its part, encourages schools to use a variety of approaches.

Raising standards
For many, staff self-evaluation has as its key purpose to raise standards. This
is in tune with what is widely seen as a key purpose of school education.
‘Standards’ may, however, assume either a broad or narrow meaning, and
18 A view from the schools
when interpreted narrowly, refers simply to the raising of pupil attainment
scores. Interpreted more broadly, standards may apply to more effective
learning and teaching in which attainment levels rise as a natural consequence
of improved pedagogy. Where this is the case self-evaluation then serves a
broader and deeper purpose.

Professional development
Self-evaluation may be seen as a handmaid of professional development.
When this is its rationale the impetus is for teachers and other staff to use
tools of self-evaluation to develop professionally, becoming more self-aware,
more reflective and more self-critical by virtue of how they monitor their
own performance and professional growth. When this happens, it is argued,
pupil learning should logically follow in its wake.

Building capacity
If an essential purpose of school improvement is to build the school’s
capacity to respond to and manage change, such a goal cannot be achieved
without a commitment to self-evaluation. This rationale sees self-evaluation
as a multi-layered process, employing a diversity of approaches to measure-
ment and evidence. Terms such as social capital or intellectual capital refer to
the synergy within a school which has the knowledge and know-how to
become more intelligent than its individual members.

Putting views to the test

How teachers and headteachers view the purposes of self-evaluation was one
of the questions in a study for the National Union of Teachers in 2005.1
Focus groups were conducted with 192 teachers, asking them first to
complete questionnaires, following this up with discussion asking them to
elaborate on their responses. The following is a summary of their views.

A question of purpose
Asked to choose among six possible purposes of school self-evaluation almost
half of all teachers who completed the questionnaire identified raising
standards as a fundamental purpose of self-evaluation in schools. Next to
raising standards was providing teachers with tools which help evaluate pupils’
learning (29.7 per cent). 10.4 per cent thought its primary purpose should
be the extension of the school’s capacity to respond to, and implement change.
Few of them (6.3 per cent) identified the primary purpose as helping staff to
share ideas and practice more widely, while even fewer (3.1 per cent) thought
self-evaluation should provide opportunities for the school to hear the views of
pupils. The smallest response, however, was the 2.1 per cent of teachers who
 A view from the schools 19
thought that self-evaluation should be geared towards providing Ofsted with
evidence on their schools’ quality and effectiveness.
The priority given to different purposes was clarified during group discus-
sion. Raising standards was put into a broader perspective. The purpose of
looking at the school through the lens of self-evaluation was seen as making
the school a better place for learning. ‘That leads us to raising attain-
ments . . . . We’re in the business of raising our standards through learning,’
argued one primary teacher, while a secondary colleague in another school
made a similar point – ‘Student learning is vital, if we can understand self-
evaluation this way, we can make something of our teaching. It will enable
schools to respond to and implement change.’
A consistent theme was that self-evaluation was for a school’s and teacher’s
own improvement in learning and teaching and not for the benefit of Ofsted
or other extrinsic purposes – ‘Raising standards of learning isn’t limited to
what we do towards Ofsted inspection, we aren’t talking about league tables,’
said one primary teacher, while a secondary teacher argued ‘Basically, what we
want in self-evaluation is to help pupils learn and see them learn better . . . . It
shouldn’t therefore be a part of any external assessment standards.’
Although teachers used the language of raising standards their views typi-
cally went beyond examination results or performance measures to embrace
the totality of the child’s development: ‘Standards in self-evaluation
shouldn’t be interpreted in a very narrow sense – exams. We’re not just
getting examination results . . . We’re talking about the attainment of every
individual capacity: academic, moral, spiritual etcetera’ (Primary teacher).
Beneath the rhetoric of standards there emerged a learning-centred view
in which pupil ‘needs’ were paramount.

To me the priority area is meeting students’ needs. Standards must be

seen in this light. Hence I will put that at the top, after identifying their
needs in terms of their views and opinions that would enable you to go
ahead and implement the change that would meet their needs.
(Primary teacher)

While only a handful of teachers had seen the purpose of self-evaluation as

to hear pupil views, there was, in fact, the finest of lines between those who
chose standards and those who chose pupil views.

If the pupils know what they want it helps them. Pupils need to plan
their learning and they also need to have some plan for them. It’s got to
be a dialogue. We can’t always dictate to pupils . . . we are very aware now
of the need to hear the student’s voice.
(Primary teacher)

A secondary teacher, explaining why he had not chosen the provision of

tools, also brought the discussion back to issues of student needs.
20 A view from the schools
I did not choose the provision of tools to help teachers to evaluate
pupils’ learning because if we have the pupils themselves evaluating their
own needs . . . we are going to look more into motivation and that would
influence their attitude towards learning etcetera leading to the attain-
ment of standards.’
(Secondary teacher)

Those who chose the capacity of the school to respond to change could be
seen as simply entering the standards issue by another door, arguing that the
starting point for thinking about standards in self-evaluation should be ‘the
school’s own culture, its systems and processes and their effects on students’
holistic learning’ (Secondary teacher).
What is perhaps surprising from the apparent disagreement among
differing choices of purpose was the degree of consensus in how teachers
appeared to be thinking about self-evaluation. Whatever their choice and
wherever they placed their tick on the questionnaire, self-evaluation, was
seen to serve one clear primary aim – to meet pupil needs and improve the
quality of teaching directed to that end.
Providing Ofsted with evidence on their schools’ quality and effectiveness
was rejected by all but 2 per cent of the sample.

Who should be the audience for school self-evaluation?

Teachers were asked to rank audiences for self-evaluation from 1 to 5. In
order to compare these, a mean score was calculated as a measure of the
primacy given to different audiences (Figure 2.1). The school itself emerged
as the first preferred audience with a mean of approximately 5.0. This was
followed by parents, with a mean of 3.5. The LEA was ranked third with a

4
Mean

1
Parents School Ofsted LEA Media

Figure 2.1 Teachers’ preferred audience for school self-evaluation.

 A view from the schools 21
mean of around 3.2. Although Ofsted might have been seen as the obvious
focus for a school’s self-evaluation, teachers did not rank it highly, with a
mean of 2.3, while the media was least preferred with the lowest mean – 1.0.
Asked to justify why Ofsted, the LEA, parents or media should not be the
primary audience of self-evaluation there was a widely shared view that self-
evaluation was a matter for the school and not for a wider public. As one
primary teacher remarked, ‘if we are talking about school self-evaluation,
then it is the “self” – the school – which should use its outcome’, while
another argued, ‘It should be the school itself because we’re the workers. We
need to internalise things that go on in our school and how we can change
our school.’ A similar point was made by a secondary teacher who main-
tained that ‘self-evaluation is an internal affair . . . It is for internal guidance
especially when it comes to the implementation of school initiated change’.
A secondary teacher using the business sector as an analogy, argued as follows:

Our first and fundamental mission is to deliver a suitable and appropriate

service to our primary client – our pupils . . . If you put it in the business
context, you share views about the business internally before it goes
externally to shareholders . . . Equally the school’s staff/employees have
a right to that information before it goes outside. I don’t see why an
Ofsted should have it before those within the school.

What should be the components of self-evaluation?

Bearing in mind Ofsted’s third principle that ‘effective self-evaluation should
ask the most important questions about pupils’ learning, achievements and
development’, teachers were asked what they saw as the most important
components of self-evaluation. From a list of eight2 they were asked to choose
three which they considered to be the most important. The majority
(34.4 per cent) chose pupil motivation and interest followed by school
conditions and factors that promote learning (22.9 per cent). Value-added or
measures to ensure progress between key stages and/or exams was a third choice
with 20.3 per cent. The remaining five components assumed less importance.
Few teachers (10.4 per cent) gave priority to the quality of relationships
between teachers and pupils and few (6.3 per cent) opted for KS4 and KS5
examination results while only 2.6 per cent identified pupils’ attitudes to school
as most important. The least preferred components were pupil performance on
key stage tests (1.6 per cent) and pupils’ performance in test and examinations
in relation to school background (1.5 per cent).
Reflecting on their choices during the group discussion, the interconnec-
tions among these varying purposes was highlighted. The consensus was that
motivation of pupils, school conditions and value-added are both inseparable
and indispensable in the school’s pursuit of improvement. These are reflected
in the following statement. ‘The first should be school conditions and
factors, which promote learning. There’s a symbiotic relation between
22 A view from the schools
conditions and motivating pupils to learn. This will lead to value-added
because we’re trying to add value to children’s learning’ (Primary teacher).

Who defines criteria of quality?

Given the first Ofsted principle that ‘intelligent accountability should be
founded on the school’s own views of how well it is serving its pupils and its
priorities for improvement’, teachers were asked where the criteria for self-
evaluation should come from. A majority of teachers (55.2 per cent) were of
the view that the criteria should be jointly developed by the school itself and
a critical friend. 20.8 per cent thought that criteria should be customised by
the school from a range of sources while 13.0 per cent opted for Ofsted.
8.9 per cent wanted the criteria to be developed solely by the school itself,
while only a few (2.1 per cent) thought they should be provided by the LEA.
Probing the reasons for their choices it was generally argued that a critical
friend would be more objective, more understanding and non-threatening in
his/her approach to helping the school form its judgements. Many teachers
said that they had benefited and continued to benefit from the support of
a critical friend: ‘a critical friend can help both pupils and teachers to
understand themselves better . . . and help the school to make good use of
self-evaluation’ (Primary teacher).
A few teachers argued in favour of Ofsted. They were of the view that if
self-evaluation was going to be used to inform external inspection then
Ofsted should be the provider of its criteria. This, they argued, would ensure
that all schools used a standardised set of criteria for evaluating themselves:
‘I think if we’re going to have a standard means of determining a successful
school, then we need an external like body to provide the criteria’ argued
one primary teacher. Another stressed that the benefit of Ofsted would be
objectivity and standardised criteria. ‘From the scientific perspective, I will
opt for OFSTED . . . we need a standard criteria from an external body to
compare with . . . Critical friends will be okay but can they give schools a
point of reference for comparison?’ (Primary teacher)
What these comments reveal is a view of self-evaluation as a servant of
inspection and set firmly in a comparative standardised perspective, in
contrast with those who see it more as genuinely centre stage and within the
school’s ownership.

Factors that promote or inhibit the implementation

of self-evaluation
Teachers attributed the success or failure in implementing self-evaluation to
both external and internal factors. The most frequently mentioned factors
that promote self-evaluation in schools included first and foremost a non-
judgemental approach driven by trust, friendliness and support. This is
reflected in statements such as ‘approaching it in a positive way . . . knowledge
 A view from the schools 23
that there will be a non-judgemental and supportive response’; ‘friendly,
non-confrontational or threatening approach’; and ‘openness and honesty’.
One teacher elaborated on this by stressing that individuals within the school
would happily engage themselves in self-evaluation if they could be confident
that it was being carried out in ‘a non-judgemental manner and within a
supportive atmosphere . . . where there is the knowledge that all individual
contributions are valued’.
Second, a focus on professional development rather than accountability
was emphasised. In the words of one teacher, ‘self-evaluation can be
promoted where league tables, SATS etc. are not the marks of how good a
school is and when it is valued by external agencies as part of a process of
development’, while another remarked, ‘when there’s little obsession with
paper evidence gathering and results used as professional guidance’.
Agreeing with, this another teacher saw it as conditional on ‘staff in the
school seeing visible evidence of the outcomes of the process . . . and see them
as beneficial to their development’.
Yet another teacher said ‘when all staff (teaching and non-teaching)
are agreed that it is a powerful tool for moving the school forward then self-
evaluation will be fine’. For another, it was seen as possible ‘when outcomes
are used to advise staff on how best to improve and training courses are
available as a result of highlighting areas for development’. ‘An environment
for self-reflection and dialogue’ which allows staff to ‘share ideas and practise
across the school as a whole’, also emerged as crucial for the success of school
self-evaluation.
‘Understanding of self-evaluation and its importance’ and the ‘willingness
to take ownership and responsibility for the curriculum’ were other factors
identified as most likely to promote self-evaluation in schools. One secondary
teacher suggested:

If teachers have been trained to realise the time value of self-

evaluation . . . have been helped to develop skills and attitude of being a
reflective practitioner and have been part of self-evaluation, they may be
more willing to accept and implement any changes that need to be made.

The absence of the aforementioned factors exemplifies some factors which

inhibit the implementation of self-evaluation. Underpinning these is the
issue of time constraints emerging from workload: ‘lack of time to meet and
discuss school issues’ remarked one teacher. In the words of another:

The demand, especially the paperwork is taking too much

time . . . unnecessary amount of recording and processing . . . everything
relating to assessments distract my focus from other things. Moreover
there are after-school activities: putting extra time resources into
planning extra dynamics for even more stimulating lessons.
(Primary teacher)
24 A view from the schools
Table 2.1 sums up the main favourable and frustrating factors seen by school
staff as affecting implementation of self-evaluation in schools.

A change for the better?

In response to the statement ‘Ofsted are currently moving in the right direc-
tion’ 58.6 per cent of teachers agreed while 31.7 per cent disagreed. These
figures include the strongly agree and strongly disagree categories which were
hardly used, reflecting a more equivocal position in the face of an unknown
quantity and a dubious prior history. The doubters worried that however
new the regime, it would not get away from the top-down formulaic
approach. ‘The paperwork is still there . . . Ofsted’s self-evaluation processes
merely involve working to someone else’s formula . . . it has some of form of
accountability . . . but it’s the thinking process behind self-evaluation that’s
important – not just filling in pieces of paper.’ (Secondary teacher)
Another statement reveals continuing doubt about its essential purpose as
one of accountability: ‘The paperwork process is very time consuming. It’s
purely an accountability process. Does what the school gets out of it warrant
the time spent on it? I don’t think so.’ (Secondary teacher)
The optimists, however guarded, envisaged a kinder more supportive
approach. It was likened by one teacher to the old more teacher-friendly
HMI inspection: ‘(The new proposal) is like the old HMI approach to
inspection . . . HMI was very helpful to the teacher . . . it offered criticisms but
gave support . . . it helped you find pathways forward. It was a very construc-
tive process.’ (Primary teacher)
Another teacher hoped that with a new relationship there would be
greater room for dialogue, allowing the school to ask questions freely during
inspections:

The inspection process now isn’t useful. . . . Everyone is dreading the

envelope arriving. Teachers don’t do their best under this pressure – they
play safe and are too frightened to do anything else. No one wants to let
the side down by having an unsatisfactory lesson. . . . This time we’ll tell
them what to focus on. The new system will give schools opportunity to
build up their own portfolios and evidence of what they value.
(Secondary teacher)

While telling inspections teams what to focus on may be more hopeful

than realistic, there was a sense of optimism that a school’s own values and
priorities would be given more credence under the new dispensation.

A shorter sharper visit

Three quarters of teachers welcomed the new requirement for inspectors to
spend a maximum of two days in a school. 63.2 per cent of teachers agreed
Table 2.1 Favouring and constraining factors for SSE

Favourable conditions for SSE Inhibiting conditions for SSE

External ● When self-evaluation results are ● Inspector’s excessive focus on

factors exclusively used for accountability
development purposes ● Pressure from national
● Opportunities for staff to exams
engage in professional dialogue ● Imposition of self-evaluation
with inspectors criteria on schools
● Open-minded inspection ● Disrespect from inspectors
● Encouraging schools to take ● Negative media publicity
risks ● Using results for
● Positive feedback performance-related pay
● Respecting the professionalism ● Inaccurate inspection reports
of teachers ● Paperwork
● Friendly non-confrontational or ● OFSTED over-scrutiny
non-threatening approach to ● Lack of genuine consultation
inspection with teachers on inspection
policies
● Perceived threat from
outside audiences
● Restriction to strict external
criteria
● When conducted against a
background of school league
tables/standards
● Pressure from SATS

In-school ● Awareness of SSE purpose ● Time constraints and workload

factors ● The school’s commitment to ● Fear and ambiguity about
self-evaluation the purpose of self-evaluation
● Mutual trust and willingness to ● Lack of non-contact hours
share knowledge and skills with for primary teachers to
colleagues share ideas with colleagues
● Teachers’ access to SSE data ● The fear of colleagues seeing
● Availability of self-critical weakness as failure
● Teachers confidence ● A blame culture
● When fitted directly into school ● When SSE findings are not
improvement plan acted upon
● Sharing good practice ● Lack of support by school
● Whole school ownership leadership
● Training/INSET on ● Staff reluctance to change
self-evaluation
26 A view from the schools
with the statement a two-day sharper more focused Ofsted visit is welcomed
while 13.2 per cent strongly agreed with the statement. Nearly a quarter of
them (23.7 per cent) however did not welcome the proposal. None,
however, were prepared to strongly disagree.
Those who welcomed the two-day shorter visits were of the view that it
would reduce the pressure that in past years has characterised their prepara-
tions for Ofsted: ‘a shorter visit will give us the peace of mind to do the
best that we can with what we have to do . . . we’ll have time to concentrate
on what we feel is important for our school’ (primary teacher). Another
argued that:

The present system is flawed. . . the whole process of inspection does not
favour the teacher . . . self-evaluation form filling, prolonged gearing up
for Ofsted, the long inspection visit, recovering from the visit etc. tend
to deflect the school from its real purpose . . . a two-day’s visit will be
better.
(Primary teacher)

In contrast, those who did not welcome the short visit doubted whether
it would make any tangible difference. This stemmed from a view that Ofsted
could not be trusted because, over the years, as one primary teacher put it,
‘the Ofsted inspection process has been used by government as a big stick.
They’ve never been after improvements’, she claimed, adding, ‘and primary
schools are a soft target’.

Notice of intent
The teachers’ reaction to Ofsted inspection with shorter notice (Ofsted
should visit with short, or no, notice) did not show the same positive response
as to the proposal for a two-day’s shorter visit. Opinion divided almost
evenly between those in favour and those against, plus 8.2 per cent in the
strongly agree category and 4.9 per cent in the strongly disagree category.
Shorter notice was welcomed by those who saw it as lessening the long
period of preparation, alleviating anxiety and helping an inspection team to
get a more realistic view of the school. Some argued that arrival in schools
with or without notice would be only useful if, as one primary teacher put it,
‘it is going to help teachers become more reflective about their practice and
help us improve children’s attitudes to learning’. A common theme among
those who agreed, as well as disagreed with shorter notice, was that Ofsted
needed to overhaul its own attitude towards inspection by making inspection
friendlier and more appreciative of a school’s specific context and limitations.
As an example, one secondary teacher suggested: ‘They should be more
constructive and committed to helping schools to improve . . . If the process
continues to be judgemental then people put shutters down, shorter notice
just won’t help.’
 A view from the schools 27
Coming clearly through these views of school staff is a school-centred
purpose for self-evaluation and a desire for it to be driven by teachers
rather than by Ofsted. Yet in practice another chapter of the story is
told when schools are asked what approaches they are currently using. As
part of a study for NCSL3 200 questionnaires were sent out to schools
asking them five questions, the first of which was to ‘describe the framework
of model used in your school’. Of the 68 returned 38 replied simply
‘Ofsted’ or ‘the SEF’ or its previous incarnation the S4. Twenty-two also
mentioned the local authority framework in conjunction with the Ofsted
model. This was either a customisation of the Ofsted model to the local
authority context or an adaptation of the authority model to meet the
requirements of the SEF. Other models receiving a few mentions each were
EFQM (the European Excellence model), Investors in People, Capita, CEA,
CSI, Target Tracker, How Good is Our School?4 and one mention of
Assessment for Learning. All of these were described as a complement to
Ofsted.

The NFER study

In late 2004 the NFER reported on their evaluation of the NRwS pilot phase
involving 93 schools in eight local authorities.5 These schools already had
experience of some key components of the New Relationship and were able
to offer evidence of their experiences with the SEF, the SIP and the single
conversation. The SEF was seen as ‘more detailed’, ‘more rigorous’, and
‘more effective’ than its predecessor the S4 but ‘more onerous to complete’
and posing an additional burden on school staff.
There was ‘an overwhelmingly positive view’ of their SIPs although with
differing responses from primary and secondary heads. Secondary heads
considered SIPs to be more challenging and more of a critical friend than
previous LA link advisers, while primary heads were markedly less satisfied.
As a pilot none of these schools were, however, in a position where the SIP
could present a threat or where confidentiality and accountability assumed a
sharper critical edge. All were essentially responding to a new set of given
procedures, in the main seen as preferable to what had gone before.
While NFER reported a greater focus on self-evaluation, it could be put
down to external pressure, while the importance given to SIPs as helping
headteachers to prepare for an inspection underscores the extrinsic focus of
‘self’ evaluation.
What becomes abundantly clear from these various research sources is the
gap between what teachers and headteachers say self-evaluation ought to be
for and how it works in practice. Ofsted protocols are now so well embedded
that counsel of the ideal appears to fall largely on deaf ears. Reading between
the lines of the NFER pilot evaluation it is clear that the whole process
is driven externally with schools responding to procedures, profiles, criteria,
28 A view from the schools
critical friends and reporting protocols rather than these arising organically
from grounded and embedded work within the schools.
Having set the scene, established the parameters and made self-evaluation
truly its own, it is now time for Ofsted to be as good as its word. It must
now actively encourage schools to be creative in self-evaluation, to stand on
their own two feet and to truly speak for themselves.
3 A view from the Bell tower

This chapter takes the form of a dialogue between the author and David Bell, at
that time Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector. It raises questions about the origins,
strengths and weaknesses of the New Relationship and focuses in particular on the
interface of self-evaluation and inspection. It starts with a comment on the head-
line of a leaflet proclaiming ‘school inspection is changing’.
School inspection is changing. So says the headline of the Ofsted publicity leaflets
in the foyer. So what is at the heart of that?

I think it is about maintaining the independence and rigour of school

inspection but trying to learn the lessons of the last 12–13 years. In other
words, I do not think we need to inspect in the all-encompassing way we
have in the past. Some of the features of the New Relationship are a natural
evolution of a system that has evolved over a period of time.

The leaflet says it was time for a rethink. How do you rethink? Do you sit down
in a darkened room and think great thoughts? Where do your ideas come from?

It is very interesting when people ask you where your ideas come from. I
suppose they are a culmination of my thinking over three years as to where
I wanted to take school inspection, as well as a lot of thinking already going on
within the organisation. So I found the ideas to be warmly received. But you
also pick up other ideas around in the system don’t you? You pick up from what
schools and teachers are telling you. Some of it comes from parents, trying to
get a picture of what inspection should look like. When it came to publication
of the consultation document in 2004, while we did not know exactly what the
words would be, we were fairly confident that we were going to get the mood
right. Subsequent events suggest we were pushing at an open door.

What role does SICI1 play in this? Are you a part of that group?

Yes, I and my colleagues attend SICI (Standing International Conferences

of Inspectorates) meetings and we do pick up ideas from what other
30 A view from the Bell tower
countries are doing. Our conversations with our Dutch colleagues have been
particularly fruitful. In Holland there is a statutory responsibility for inspec-
tion to contribute to improvement, which has never been the case in
England, despite the Ofsted strapline, ‘Improvement through Inspection’.
But it is likely that it will appear in legislation here.

Actually the evidence from a number of studies says that Ofsted does not lead to
improvement. And this is something accepted by Ofsted itself. But isn’t it a
strange kind of a conclusion, to say that inspection does not do any harm but it
does not actually benefit either?

I have always been cautious in saying that inspection causes improvement

because, frankly, we do not. But it has to be an important part of our
thinking about inspection. You do try to understand what contribution
inspection can make to improvement and that is a statutory base of the
organisation. It forces us to be more articulate and explicit about that. To say
inspection causes improvement is fundamentally unprovable. I think there
are examples of where you have greater evidence of improvement being
brought about by inspection, but again it is still not quite the same as saying
it causes it. For example, our monitoring of schools with special measures is
not causing improvement but most headteachers say to us that the process
of professional debate and discussion with HMI brings some real bite to the
improvement process. I think it is a bit too simplistic to say that either Ofsted
does cause improvement or Ofsted does not cause improvement.
If you get more sharply focused recommendations, again you are not
bringing about the improvement but you are contributing more directly to
the process by providing good clues to those in the school who are going to
bring about improvement. I think this is a wee bit of a sterile debate now,
and you might say that Ofsted got itself into it by having that strapline
‘Improvement though Inspection’. We are conscious that it is the question
most often asked of us, not least by our friends in the Select Committee.
They have always pushed hard on that and I am trying to enter into that
conversation in a mature and reflective manner rather than simply saying ‘oh
well, you know, of course Ofsted causes improvement’.

How confident are you then that you now have got it right?

It has been the most piloted inspection system that Ofsted has ever under-
taken. Two hundred and eight pilot inspections were carried out and those
were all carried out under normal examination conditions, if you can put it
that way, because for the schools concerned this was their real inspection. So,
I felt as we embarked on the New Relationship in September 2005 we had
pretty much tested the system to destruction across a whole number of types
of schools in different parts of the country.
 A view from the Bell tower 31
Yet, just as you move in one direction other countries are moving in an opposite
direction. For example as you move down from a seven to a four-point scale,
Scotland is extending theirs to six.

That was a great irony actually because when we were proposing the move
to the four point scale we wrote to our counterparts across the UK and I got
the message back from Scotland saying actually we are going to stretch the
grading scale. When asked about this I say you probably cannot quite get it
absolutely right because there is always going to be a set of arguments one
way or the other.

If you start to evaluate yourself and you end up calling yourself a 1 or 2 or 3 or

a 4 do you not lose a lot of the nuance and complexity that a more qualitative
profiling would give? The label becomes everything.

I think you want to try to get self-evaluation to capture the richness of a

school’s work. I do not think that means where you position yourself on a
scale somehow loses all that. I mean clearly it is always going to be a best fit,
isn’t it. Part of our piloting was to use the self-evaluation scale to see whether
it actually worked, given that we were going to place considerable store by it
under the new system. Interestingly, that bit about capturing where you were
using a grading was not an issue raised by very many schools. It does not
seem to have caused concern, nor have schools argued that they have been
forced into a corner by having to nail their colours to a mast by saying this a
1or a 2 or a 3 or whatever.

But don’t people not tend to opt for a middle grade rather seeming too presumptuous
by giving themselves a 1 or too self-deprecating by giving themselves a failing 4?

It worked both ways actually during the pilot inspections where some
schools probably graded themselves too harshly and we have put them up a
grade. Equally there have been cases where schools have graded themselves in
a wildly optimistic way without any evidence to back that up. In some ways
all that you are doing is illustrating a fundamentally flawed process at school
level where for one reason or another the school is failing to face reality. I
think it is important that inspectors can feel the confidence to put a school up
in the same way that they might say ‘No I’m sorry that’s far too generous’.

There is an irony there, if a school has graded themselves less well than you think,
and you put it up you are giving a double message. You are actually saying that
you are not very good at evaluating yourself. So why raise the grade?

It is an interesting point that. Maybe schools are going to be a bit cautious

the first time round but I suspect as they get more confident with evaluation
32 A view from the Bell tower
and as they gain greater confidence in the inspectors, they will be better
prepared to have the debate and dialogue. The other thing to say is, some of
these are finely graded judgements, which in some ways you might think
reinforces your argument – how could actually possibly put a number against
it? But to go from that so you cannot possibly judge whether a school is
inadequate by putting a number against it, to a school which is outstanding,
seems to me to be a long stretch. It is about the dialogue and the debate.
One characteristic of this self-evaluation, and this moves away from just the
form-capturing data, is the increasing engagement that we want to see
between the inspectors and the headteacher and other colleagues in the school.
So that the self-evaluation form becomes the beginning of the conversation
between the headteacher and the school about the strengths, the weaknesses
and what the school does. So whilst we have to grade the school according
to national criteria, we want discussion and dialogue. Why do you think this?
And does that evidence stack up against this? You have to have that kind of
dialogue and debate.

With shorter, sharper, smaller, downsized inspection aren’t you actually

reducing the room for dialogue? Are you not losing something that was there
when you saw teachers and teachers wanted to be seen and acknowledged by
HMI?

There is a certain irony that I comment on a little jokingly – I did not

realise that the old style inspection was so popular. But when you think about
it, it is what people have got used to, but there is also a serious point of
substance. In the past we would guarantee that every teacher would be seen
and you would cover the whole curriculum and other aspects of the school.
I have known from day one that there are always trade offs when you move
to a new system and some things are lost but I believe that what we have
now is more intelligent.

You have said earlier that the SEF was the beginning of the dialogue with the
school, with the headteacher. Why is it not working in the opposite direction
where what the school does is work together as a staff, and students, building
towards the SEF?

Which it does, absolutely, I mean that is the whole point. We have said
time and time again, that the self-evaluation form is not SSE. Now, there are
questions about whether or not by having a form to fill you can constrain the
process or lay certain tramlines. We would say that in the best schools what
the form does is capture a process, usually a process that is continuing within
the school, assessing how well it is doing and understanding its strengths and
weaknesses, what is to be done and what is realistic. In a real sense, without
being too clichéd about this, it is much more about a journey than a fixed
destination. The SEF will always be, in a sense, capturing a moment in time,
 A view from the Bell tower 33
but if a school says about self-evaluation ‘oh we’ve completed the SEF’, that
raises alarm bells about their understanding of what self-evaluation is all
about.

But isn’t it then counterproductive to introduce the standardised SEF which

conveys the wrong message about what self-evaluation is?

If you look back over the last few annual reports, SSE has improved over
time but it is actually been one of the weaker characteristics of school lead-
ership and management. So, I do not think I would argue with the point that
we are perhaps starting from a very mixed base in terms of SSE. Some people
said ‘well why did you start the school this way in September, why didn’t you
give schools time to develop self-evaluation?’ Well actually SSE has been
around for a number of years. Ofsted has increasingly given greater emphasis
to SSE over, certainly over the last five years I would think it is true to say. I
think, I hope, that this will act as a further fillip to SSE and not just, ‘this is
how you fill in your self-evaluation form’.

What worries me is that when I look at local authority sites they are all tailored
to the SEF. When we sent out the survey, and we said ‘what are you doing by
way of self-evaluation?’ what we got back was the SEF the SEF the SEF or the
Ofsted model. One of the effects is, I think, to drive people towards a more
uniform way of looking at it because it is so high stakes. So filling out the SEF
becomes an all-consuming kind of thing. It seems to me your message hasn’t got
there yet.

We were consulting on the nature of school self-evaluation and we were

relatively open-minded as to whether there should be a standardised SSE
form. We got a lot of feedback, particularly from headteacher associations,
that they preferred to have a standard form because they said that if you do
not do that, you do not have a single data capture form, you are just going
to add immeasurably to schools’ work, because what they will all do is do
their own thing, they will all be slightly different and there will be additional
bureaucracy associated with that. I have got some sympathy with that line.
Now the danger is precisely the one that you have identified, that it then
constrains the thinking, but I felt most schools who do self-evaluation, want
some means or other of capturing the outcomes of what they have done,
because they have to report that so that they can hold themselves to account,
discuss it with the governors, engage the staff. There are inevitably going
to be different ways to capture the process but it is not an absolutely
free-flowing, loose exercise.

When you put self-evaluation into Google you get an endless list of private
companies selling their wares. We will help fill out the SEF for you. So there is
commercialisation which encourages form filling, a tactical approach which
34 A view from the Bell tower
offers short cuts and further jeopardises the vitality of self-evaluation. I think
that in a mature system schools must do it themselves.

Once you have completed your SEF for the first time one of our jobs I
think will be to say to schools ‘Right how do you use the evidence to feed it
into the next part of the process of school self-evaluation?’ So, one can argue
that the SEF constrains peoples thinking, but one could also argue that it
acts as a fillip to school self-evaluation to be done in a more systematic way.
I think we have to be careful that we do not see self-evaluation becoming an
industry. It is interesting that the teacher and headteacher associations are a
bit concerned that we are going to get all sorts of rather bureaucratic and
heavy processes introduced at school level in the name of SSE and I think
equally, local authorities have to be very careful that they do not fuel that by
implying a school has to do a, b, c and d. Perhaps headteachers that have not
thought particularly about it, just do as they are told and do not actually
engage their staff in the process of self-evaluation.
I am not sure that every school would get to that point of maturity, to use
your term, by itself. I think what you have described is what I have recog-
nised in some of the best schools where actually the SEF is completely irrel-
evant and they have their own mechanisms because the SEF is not a legal
requirement of course. They have their own data and process to feed back
with. I suppose it is an interesting issue of inspection as a policy lever isn’t it.
The extent to which you use inspection to achieve desired outcomes by
saying this is something that has to be done. Then maybe people start to
think about things in a way that they previously would not have. It is a very
interesting debate. Would self-evaluation, both in Scotland and England,
have progressed so far if you had not had it incentivised through inspection
because I think in quite different ways it was incentivised in Scotland and
England and I think it is probably important to say that we are a long way
ahead of where we used to be 10 or 15 years ago. I am absolutely sold on
the mature model but maybe you have to go through this process to get
there for yourself.

And yet the apprehension and dependency on Ofsted is still there.

One of the other interesting things about the change to the Ofsted system
is that we are now saying quite overtly that external inspection of every
subject of the curriculum and every aspect of your work is just not going to
happen, I think, yes, to some extent we have encouraged a sense of compla-
cency in school of ‘oh well inspectors from outside will come and tell us what
they think of history, geography and a hundred and one other things’. You
could argue that we are upping the stakes in relation to SSE because we are
saying that actually you have got much more data at school level, some of
which is generated in a sense from outside, public examination, value-added
data and so on. But actually the real story of how well your school is
 A view from the Bell tower 35
doing will be told from within. The overt decision to reduce the volume of
inspection activity gives quite a clear message. If you believe that schools
should be more self-evaluative then I think you have to reconfigure the
inspection system accordingly.

Does that mean that you used to inspect subjects but with school self-evaluation
in the New Relationship that will be lost?

Absolutely. Last year you had 4000 separate school inspection reports
which gave you a picture of history in secondary schools or science in
primary schools. I think though we were a little bit seduced by the tyranny
of the big number. Just because we had 4000 separate reports we thought
we had something that was qualitatively better than if we carried out far
fewer subject-focused inspections. What we are doing is having a much
reduced programme of subject inspections. We are saying ‘No that’s actually
your business. It’s not inspectors’ business to do that and therefore part of
our engagement with you when we do come to inspect is to assess the extent
to which you know yourself and progress actually matches up with what
you’re telling us is going on in the classrooms.’

You said there is no legal requirements to use the SEF. So what happens when
schools take you at your word?

It happened last week in the last week of inspection and I think it will
continue to happen with some schools that actually have not completed it,
and that is fine.

Said positively rather than negatively?

Absolutely. We were very clear in briefing inspectors, first of all this is not
a statutory requirement, therefore it will be for you to find out what
processes the school have undergone, what information/evidence that they
have. Schools have said that actually there is something quite liberating
about not completing the SEF but having other information available to
inspectors that is fine, we are quite open to that. I am really more interested
in some ways about capturing the data in an intelligent way. I do not want
to see a 100 page SEF. You are far better to get a few snappy bullet points
that are properly evaluative, that draw neatly upon the evidence you have
about how well the school is doing, than an extended essay about every
aspect of every detail about the school.

You use the word ‘object’ quite a lot and interestingly, given the Every Child
Matters five ‘outcomes’, a terminology which I have a problem with. But how do
you use those kind of criteria to start to begin to collect evidence that is ‘objec-
tive’ and appears summative?
36 A view from the Bell tower
What contribution does a school make to help children to stay healthy or
stay safe? Well, I think the vast majority of schools I can think of have a very
powerful story to tell, and we have said that, you know for God’s sake do
not go around now looking for new evidence. No, I think that the vast
majority of schools, the work that they do is, in terms of achieving those
outcomes for children, it is part of the day job for the majority of schools.

I totally agree on that. These are things that have been at the heart of what
schools do anyway but I have a problem with these as outcome criteria, for
example providing healthy meals in the cafeteria or putting in place procedures
for making sure children feel safe. These are input criteria not outcomes
although no less valuable for that.

Some of these you could say are output data. I am not sure whether
‘measures’ would be the right word but we know that some schools for
example, some sports colleges are now actually getting data that demon-
strates the fitness, health, activity levels of students when they come into
school and tracking their progress as they go out, identifying what contribu-
tion the school makes. You can control for that actually. I think it is partly
just about getting schools to think a bit more about being ‘productive’,
helping youngsters make a productive contribution. Again one might say
‘Well, there are different ways in which one could evidence what students are
doing such as taking part in enterprise type activities, making a contribution
to the local community and so forth. I think we are quite clear on this John.
We are not saying there are a few things you tick in the box, and I think you
are right about inputs/outputs. This is going to be a hard one but, you
know, those are good aspirations and I think schools will want to tell us how
they are meeting such aspirations.’

Let me ask about the school improvement partner who looks to me a bit like your
critical inspector rather than friend. This person is described as the conduit to
local authority, to government. That’s not my understanding of a critical
friend relationship.

I suppose the government has tried to separate that out by saying that the
final decision about special measures rests with the inspectorate. So you can
keep the SIP clean in the relationship. I do not think however, it is wrong to
suggest that the school improvement partner, outside of the inspection
process, will act as an important source of information to local authorities
and, arguably, all the way up the line. It is conceivable that in some cases the
SIP will be so concerned about the performance of the school that she may
say this requires more immediate intervention. Well that may not be neces-
sarily a bad thing if you can see that the education of youngsters is going
down the Swannie and the school is either not recognising it or has got no
capacity to do anything about it.
 A view from the Bell tower 37
The problem is when the consequences are high, as in recent government
pronouncement – ‘you’ve got one year to turn around’. For a SIP to work within
that agenda with that accountability role while being a supportive critical
friend. That is a real tension.

I recognise the tension that you are describing but I think, to be fair, the
way which the programme is designed has surfaced that tension. It has been
quite open that there is a supportive element but there is quite a tough
element in the SIP as well. I think perhaps what you are articulating is ‘Can
you quite pull that off? Can you square that?’ And that is not just about
personal characteristics. Some individuals will be better at it than others, but
the question is inherently ‘can you do it in the same role?’

Isn’t it ultimately about unequal power, the lack of reciprocity in the relation-
ship, the politicised, somewhat inspectorial role of the school improvement
partner?

You talk about prodigal friendship, unequal power, SIPs as a conduit to

government. One of the really interesting issues about inspection, I think is
the extent to which the government, certainly since 1997 has used public
sector inspection, not just in education, as something of a lever, one might
even say a battering ram to bring about improvement. Inspection has been a
very powerful tool that the government’s used, particularly in England. But
I am not naive about the power of inspection, because obviously inspection
acts as a powerful incentive to do some things rather than other things. I do
think though that we need to move away from that concept of inspection as
the policy lever. There’s something about schools, and about education,
schools being persuaded that there are things that are right to do, consistent
with their mission and not just because Ofsted are going to inspect them.

Thank you very much David for being so frank.

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
may be the mystery of the seal,[811] in which God is really believed.
It is consequently afar off that he sees the place. For the region of
God is hard to attain; which Plato called the region of ideas, having
learned from Moses that it was a place which contained all things
universally. But it is seen by Abraham afar off, rightly, because of his
being in the realms of generation, and he is forthwith initiated by the
angel. Thence says the apostle: “Now we see as through a glass, but
then face to face,” by those sole pure and incorporeal applications of
the intellect. In reasoning, it is possible to divine respecting God, if
one attempt without any of the senses, by reason, to reach what is
individual; and do not quit the sphere of existences, till, rising up to
the things which transcend it, he apprehends by the intellect itself
that which is good, moving in the very confines of the world of
thought, according to Plato.
Again, Moses, not allowing altars and temples to be constructed
in many places, but raising one temple of God, announced that the
world was only-begotten, as Basilides says, and that God is one, as
does not as yet appear to Basilides. And since the gnostic Moses
does not circumscribe within space Him that cannot be
circumscribed, he set up no image in the temple to be worshipped;
showing that God was invisible, and incapable of being
circumscribed; and somehow leading the Hebrews to the conception
of God by the honour for His name in the temple. Further, the Word,
prohibiting the constructing of temples and all sacrifices, intimates
that the Almighty is not contained in anything, by what He says:
“What house will ye build to me? saith the Lord. Heaven is my
throne,”[812] and so on. Similarly respecting sacrifices: “I do not
desire the blood of bulls and the fat of lambs,”[813] and what the
Holy Spirit by the prophet in the sequel forbids.
Most excellently, therefore, Euripides accords with these, when he
writes:
“What house constructed by the workmen’s hands,
With folds of walls, can clothe the shape divine?”
And of sacrifices he thus speaks:
“For God needs nought, if He is truly God.
These of the minstrels are the wretched myths.”

“For it was not from need that God made the world; that He might
reap honours from men and the other gods and demons, winning a
kind of revenue from creation, and from us, fumes, and from the
gods and demons, their proper ministries,” says Plato. Most
instructively, therefore, says Paul in the Acts of the Apostles: “The
God that made the world, and all things in it, being the Lord of
heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither
is worshipped by men’s hands, as if He needed anything; seeing that
it is He Himself that giveth to all breath, and life, and all things.”[814]
And Zeno, the founder of the Stoic sect, says in this book of the
Republic, “that we ought to make neither temples nor images; for
that no work is worthy of the gods.” And he was not afraid to write
in these very words: “There will be no need to build temples. For a
temple is not worth much, and ought not to be regarded as holy. For
nothing is worth much, and holy, which is the work of builders and
mechanics.” Rightly, therefore, Plato too, recognising the world as
God’s temple, pointed out to the citizens a spot in the city where
their idols were to be laid up. “Let not, then, any one again,” he
says, “consecrate temples to the gods. For gold and silver in other
states, in the case of private individuals and in the temples, is an
invidious possession; and ivory, a body which has abandoned the
life, is not a sacred votive offering; and steel and brass are the
instruments of wars; but whatever one wishes to dedicate, let it be
wood of one tree, as also stone for common temples.” Rightly, then,
in the great epistle he says: “For it is not capable of expression, like
other branches of study. But as the result of great intimacy with this
subject, and living with it, a sudden light, like that kindled by a
coruscating fire, arising in the soul, feeds itself.” Are not these
statements like those of Zephaniah the prophet? “And the Spirit of
the Lord took me, and brought me up to the fifth heaven, and I
beheld angels called Lords; and their diadem was set on in the Holy
Spirit; and each of them had a throne sevenfold brighter than the
light of the rising sun; and they dwelt in temples of salvation, and
hymned the ineffable, Most High God.”[815]
 CHAPTER XII.
GOD CANNOT BE EMBRACED IN WORDS OR BY THE MIND.

“For both is it a difficult task to discover the Father and Maker of

this universe; and having found Him, it is impossible to declare Him
to all. For this is by no means capable of expression, like the other
subjects of instruction,” says the truth-loving Plato. For he had heard
right well that the all-wise Moses, ascending the mount for holy
contemplation, to the summit of intellectual objects, necessarily
commands that the whole people do not accompany him. And when
the Scripture says, “Moses entered into the thick darkness where
God was,” this shows to those capable of understanding, that God is
invisible and beyond expression by words. And “the darkness”—
which, is in truth, the unbelief and ignorance of the multitude—
obstructs the gleam of the truth. And again Orpheus, the theologian,
aided from this quarter, says:
“One is perfect in himself, and all things are made the progeny of one,”

or, “are born;” for so also is it written. He adds:

“Him
No one of mortals has seen, but He sees all.”

And he adds more clearly:

“Him see I not, for round about, a cloud
Has settled; for in mortal eyes are small,
And mortal pupils—only flesh and bones grow there.”

To these statements the apostle will testify: “I know a man in Christ,

caught up into the third heaven, and thence into Paradise, who
heard unutterable words which it is not lawful for a man to speak,”—
intimating thus the impossibility of expressing God, and indicating
that what is divine is unutterable by human[816] power; if, indeed,
he begins to speak above the third heaven, as it is lawful to initiate
the elect souls in the mysteries there. For I know what is in Plato
(for the examples from the barbarian philosophy, which are many,
are suggested now by the composition which, in accordance with
promises previously given, waits the suitable time). For doubting, in
Timæus, whether we ought to regard several worlds as to be
understood by many heavens, or this one, he makes no distinction in
the names, calling the world and heaven by the same name. But the
words of the statement are as follows: “Whether, then, have we
rightly spoken of one heaven, or of many and infinite? It were more
correct to say one, if indeed it was created according to the model.”
Further, in the Epistle of the Romans to the Corinthians it is written,
“An ocean illimitable by men and the worlds after it.” Consequently,
therefore, the noble apostle exclaims, “Oh the depth of the riches
both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God!”[817]
And was it not this which the prophet meant, when he ordered
unleavened cakes[818] to be made, intimating that the truly sacred
mystic word, respecting the unbegotten and His powers, ought to be
concealed? In confirmation of these things, in the Epistle to the
Corinthians the apostle plainly says: “Howbeit we speak wisdom
among those who are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world, or
of the princes of this world, that come to nought. But we speak the
wisdom of God hidden in a mystery.”[819] And again in another place
he says: “To the acknowledgment of the mystery of God in Christ, in
whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”[820]
These things the Saviour Himself seals when He says: “To you it is
given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.”[821] And
again the Gospel says that the Saviour spake to the apostles the
word in a mystery. For prophecy says of Him: “He will open His
mouth in parables, and will utter things kept secret from the
foundation of the world.”[822] And now, by the parable of the leaven,
the Lord shows concealment; for He says, “The kingdom of heaven
is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of
meal, till the whole was leavened.”[823] For the tripartite soul is
saved by obedience, through the spiritual power hidden in it by
faith; or because the power of the word which is given to us, being
strong[824] and powerful, draws to itself secretly and invisibly every
one who receives it, and keeps it within himself, and brings his
whole system into unity.
Accordingly Solon has written most wisely respecting God, thus:
“It is most difficult to apprehend the mind’s invisible measure
Which alone holds the boundaries of all things.”

For “the divine,” says the poet of Agrigentum,[825]

“Is not capable of being approached with our eyes,
Or grasped with our hands; but the highway
Of persuasion, highest of all, leads to men’s minds.”

And John the apostle says: “No man hath seen God at any time. The
only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath
declared Him,”[826]—calling invisibility and ineffableness the bosom
of God. Hence some have called it the Depth, as containing and
embosoming all things, inaccessible and boundless.
This discourse respecting God is most difficult to handle. For since
the first principle of everything is difficult to find out, the absolutely
first and oldest principle, which is the cause of all other things being
and having been, is difficult to exhibit. For how can that be
expressed which is neither genus, nor difference, nor species, nor
individual, nor number; nay more, is neither an event, nor that to
which an event happens? No one can rightly express Him wholly. For
on account of His greatness He is ranked as the All, and is the Father
of the universe. Nor are any parts to be predicated of Him. For the
One is indivisible; wherefore also it is infinite, not considered with
reference to inscrutability, but with reference to its being without
dimensions, and not having a limit. And therefore it is without form
and name. And if we name it, we do not do so properly, terming it
either the One, or the Good, or Mind, or Absolute Being, or Father,
or God, or Creator, or Lord. We speak not as supplying His name;
but for want, we use good names, in order that the mind may have
these as points of support, so as not to err in other respects. For
each one by itself does not express God; but all together are
indicative of the power of the Omnipotent. For predicates are
expressed either from what belongs to things themselves, or from
their mutual relation. But none of these are admissible in reference
to God. Nor any more is He apprehended by the science of
demonstration. For it depends on primary and better known
principles. But there is nothing antecedent to the Unbegotten.
It remains that we understand, then, the Unknown, by divine
grace, and by the word alone that proceeds from Him; as Luke in
the Acts of the Apostles relates that Paul said, “Men of Athens, I
perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For in walking
about, and beholding the objects of your worship, I found an altar
on which was inscribed, To the Unknown God. Whom therefore ye
ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you.”[827]
 CHAPTER XIII.
THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD A DIVINE GIFT, ACCORDING TO THE PHILOSOPHERS.

Everything, then, which falls under a name, is originated, whether

they will or not. Whether, then, the Father Himself draws to Himself
every one who has led a pure life, and has reached the conception
of the blessed and incorruptible nature; or whether the free-will
which is in us, by reaching the knowledge of the good, leaps and
bounds over the barriers, as the gymnasts say; yet it is not without
eminent grace that the soul is winged, and soars, and is raised
above the higher spheres, laying aside all that is heavy, and
surrendering itself to its kindred element.
Plato, too, in Meno, says that virtue is God-given, as the following
expressions show: “From this argument then, O Meno, virtue is
shown to come to those, in whom it is found, by divine providence.”
Does it not then appear that “the gnostic disposition” which has
come to all is enigmatically called “divine providence?” And he adds
more explicitly: “If, then, in this whole treatise we have investigated
well, it results that virtue is neither by nature, nor is it taught, but is
produced by divine providence, not without intelligence, in those in
whom it is found.” Wisdom which is God-given, as being the power
of the Father, rouses indeed our free-will, and admits faith, and
repays the application of the elect with its crowning fellowship.
And now I will adduce Plato himself, who clearly deems it fit to
believe the children of God. For, discoursing on gods that are visible
and born, in Timæus, he says: “But to speak of the other demons,
and to know their birth, is too much for us. But we must credit those
who have formerly spoken, they being the offspring of the gods, as
they said, and knowing well their progenitors, although they speak
without probable and necessary proofs.” I do not think it possible
that clearer testimony could be borne by the Greeks, that our
Saviour, and those anointed to prophesy (the latter being called the
sons of God, and the Lord being His own Son), are the true
witnesses respecting divine things. Wherefore also they ought to be
believed, being inspired, he added. And were one to say in a more
tragic vein, that we ought not to believe,
“For it was not Zeus that told me these things,”
yet let him know that it was God Himself that promulgated the
Scriptures by His Son. And he, who announces what is his own, is to
be believed. “No one,” says the Lord, “hath known the Father but the
Son, and he to whom the Son shall reveal Him.”[828] This, then, is to
be believed, according to Plato, though it is announced and spoken
“without probable and necessary proofs,” but in the Old and New
Testament. “For except ye believe,” says the Lord, “ye shall die in
your sins.”[829] And again: “He that believeth hath everlasting
life.”[830] “Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him.”[831] For
trusting is more than faith. For when one has believed[832] that the
Son of God is our teacher, he trusts[833] that his teaching is true.
And as “instruction,” according to Empedocles, “makes the mind
grow,” so trust in the Lord makes faith grow.
We say, then, that it is characteristic of the same persons to vilify
philosophy and run down faith, and to praise iniquity and felicitate a
libidinous life. But now faith, if it is the voluntary assent of the soul,
is still the doer of good things, the foundation of right conduct; and
if Aristotle defines strictly when he teaches that ποιεῖν is applied to
the irrational creatures and to inanimate things, while πράττειν is
applicable to men only, let him correct those who say that God is the
maker (ποιητής) of the universe. And what is done (πρακτον), he
says, is as good or as necessary. To do wrong, then, is not good, for
no one does wrong except for some other thing; and nothing that is
necessary is voluntary. To do wrong, then, is voluntary, so that it is
not necessary. But the good differ especially from the bad in
inclinations and good desires. For all depravity of soul is
accompanied with want of restraint; and he who acts from passion,
acts from want of restraint and from depravity.
 I cannot help admiring in every particular that divine utterance:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not in by the door
into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a
thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the
shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth.” Then the Lord
says in explanation, “I am the door of the sheep.”[834] Men must
then be saved by learning the truth through Christ, even if they
attain philosophy. For now that is clearly shown “which was not
made known to other ages, which is now revealed to the sons of
men.”[835] For there was always a natural manifestation of the one
Almighty God, among all right-thinking men; and the most, who had
not quite divested themselves of shame with respect to the truth,
apprehended the eternal beneficence in divine providence. In fine,
then, Xenocrates the Chalcedonian was not quite without hope that
the notion of the Divinity existed even in the irrational creatures. And
Democritus, though against his will, will make this avowal by the
consequences of his dogmas; for he represents the same images as
issuing, from the divine essence, on men and on the irrational
animals. Far from destitute of a divine idea is man, who, it is written
in Genesis, partook of inspiration, being endowed with a purer
essence than the other animate creatures. Hence the Pythagoreans
say that mind comes to man by divine providence, as Plato and
Aristotle avow; but we assert that the Holy Spirit inspires him who
has believed. The Platonists hold that mind is an effluence of divine
dispensation in the soul, and they place the soul in the body. For it is
expressly said by Joel, one of the twelve prophets, “And it shall
come to pass after these things, I will pour out of my Spirit on all
flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.”[836] But it
is not as a portion of God that the Spirit is in each of us. But how
this dispensation takes place, and what the Holy Spirit is, shall be
shown by us in the books on prophecy, and in those on the soul. But
“incredulity is good at concealing the depths of knowledge,”
according to Heraclitus; “for incredulity escapes from ignorance.”
 CHAPTER XIV.
GREEK PLAGIARISMS FROM THE HEBREWS.

Let us add in completion what follows, and exhibit now with

greater clearness the plagiarism of the Greeks from the Barbarian
philosophy.
Now the Stoics say that God, like the soul, is essentially body and
spirit. You will find all this explicitly in their writings. Do not consider
at present their allegories as the gnostic truth presents them;
whether they show one thing and mean another, like the dexterous
athletes. Well, they say that God pervades all being; while we call
Him solely Maker, and Maker by the Word. They were misled by
what is said in the book of Wisdom: “He pervades and passes
through all by reason of His purity;”[837] since they did not
understand that this was said of Wisdom, which was the first of the
creation of God.
So be it, they say. But the philosophers, the Stoics, and Plato, and
Pythagoras, nay more, Aristotle the Peripatetic, suppose the
existence of matter among the first principles; and not one first
principle. Let them then know that what is called matter by them, is
said by them to be without quality, and without form, and more
daringly said by Plato to be non-existence. And does he not say very
mystically, knowing that the true and real first cause is one, in these
very words: “Now, then, let our opinion be so. As to the first
principle or principles of the universe, or what opinion we ought to
entertain about all these points, we are not now to speak, for no
other cause than on account of its being difficult to explain our
sentiments in accordance with the present form of discourse.” But
undoubtedly that prophetic expression, “Now the earth was invisible
and formless,” supplied them with the ground of material essence.
And the introduction of “chance” was hence suggested to
Epicurus, who misapprehended the statement, “Vanity of vanities,
and all is vanity.” And it occurred to Aristotle to extend Providence as
far as the moon from this psalm: “Lord, Thy mercy is in the heavens;
and Thy truth reacheth to the clouds.”[838] For the explanation of
the prophetic mysteries had not yet been revealed previous to the
advent of the Lord.
Punishments after death, on the other hand, and penal retribution
by fire, were pilfered from the Barbarian philosophy both by all the
poetic Muses and by the Hellenic philosophy. Plato, accordingly, in
the last book of the Republic, says in these express terms: “Then
these men fierce and fiery to look on, standing by, and hearing the
sound, seized and took some aside; and binding Aridæus and the
rest hand, foot, and head, and throwing them down, and flaying
them, dragged them along the way, tearing their flesh with thorns.”
For the fiery men are meant to signify the angels, who seize and
punish the wicked. “Who maketh,” it is said, “His angels spirits; His
ministers flaming fire.”[839] It follows from this that the soul is
immortal. For what is tortured or corrected being in a state of
sensation lives, though said to suffer. Well! Did not Plato know of the
rivers of fire and the depth of the earth, and Tartarus, called by the
Barbarians Gehenna, naming, as he does prophetically,[840] Cocytus,
and Acheron, and Pyriphlegethon, and introducing such corrective
tortures for discipline?
But indicating “the angels,” as the Scripture says, “of the little
ones, and of the least, which see God,” and also the oversight
reaching to us exercised by the tutelary angels, he shrinks not from
writing, “That when all the souls have selected their several lives,
according as it has fallen to their lot, they advance in order to
Lachesis; and she sends along with each one, as his guide in life,
and the joint accomplisher of his purposes, the demon which he has
chosen.” Perhaps also the demon of Socrates suggested to him
something similar.
Nay, the philosophers, having so heard from Moses, taught that
the world was created.[841] And so Plato expressly said, “Whether
was it that the world had no beginning of its existence, or derived its
beginning from some beginning? For being visible, it is tangible; and
being tangible, it has a body.” Again, when he says, “It is a difficult
task to find the Maker and Father of this universe,” he not only
showed that the universe was created, but points out that it was
generated by him as a son, and that he is called its father, as
deriving its being from him alone, and springing from non-existence.
The Stoics, too, hold the tenet that the world was created.
And that the devil so spoken of by the Barbarian philosophy, the
prince of the demons, is a wicked spirit, Plato asserts in the tenth
book of the Laws, in these words: “Must we not say that spirit which
pervades the things that are moved on all sides, pervades also
heaven? Well, what? One or more? Several, say I, in reply for you.
Let us not suppose fewer than two—that which is beneficent, and
that which is able to accomplish the opposite.” Similarly in the
Phædrus he writes as follows: “Now there are other evils. But some
demon has mingled pleasure with the most things at present.”
Further, in the tenth book of the Laws, he expressly emits that
apostolic sentiment, “Our contest is not with flesh and blood, but
principalities, with powers, with the spiritual things of those which
are in heaven;” writing thus: “For since we are agreed that heaven is
full of many good beings; but it is also full of the opposite of these,
and more of these; and as we assert such a contest is deathless,
and requiring marvellous watchfulness.”
Again, the Barbarian philosophy knows the world of thought and
the world of sense—the former archetypal, and the latter the image
of that which is called the model; and assigns the former to the
Monad, as being perceived by the mind, and the world of sense to
the number six. For six is called by the Pythagoreans marriage, as
being the genital number; and he places in the Monad the invisible
heaven and the holy earth, and intellectual light. For “in the
beginning,” it is said, “God made the heaven and the earth; and the
earth was invisible.” And it is added, “And God said, Let there be
light; and there was light.”[842] And in the material cosmogony He
creates a solid heaven (and what is solid is capable of being
perceived by sense), and a visible earth, and a light that is seen.
Does not Plato hence appear to have left the ideas of living
creatures in the intellectual world, and to make intellectual objects
into sensible species according to their genera? Rightly then Moses
says, that the body which Plato calls “the earthly tabernacle” was
formed of the ground, but that the rational soul was breathed by
God into man’s face. For there, they say, the ruling faculty is
situated; interpreting the access by the senses into the first man as
the addition of the soul.
Wherefore also man is said “to have been made in [God’s] image
and likeness.” For the image of God is the divine and royal Word, the
impassible man; and the image of the image is the human mind.
And if you wish to apprehend the likeness by another name, you will
find it named in Moses, a divine correspondence. For he says, “Walk
after the Lord your God, and keep His commandments.”[843] And I
reckon all the virtuous, servants and followers of God. Hence the
Stoics say that the end of philosophy is to live agreeably to nature;
and Plato, likeness to God, as we have shown in the second
Miscellany. And Zeno the Stoic, borrowing from Plato, and he from
the Barbarian philosophy, says that all the good are friends of one
another. For Socrates says in the Phædrus, “that it has not been
ordained that the bad should be a friend to the bad, nor the good be
not a friend to the good;” as also he showed sufficiently in the Lysis,
that friendship is never preserved in wickedness and vice. And the
Athenian stranger similarly says, “that there is conduct pleasing and
conformable to God, based on one ancient ground-principle, That
like loves like, provided it be within measure. But things beyond
measure are congenial neither to what is within nor what is beyond
measure. Now it is the case that God is the measure to us of all
things.” Then proceeding, Plato[844] adds: “For every good man is
like every other good man; and so being like to God, he is liked by
every good man and by God.” At this point I have just recollected
the following. In the end of the Timæus he says: “You must
necessarily assimilate that which perceives to that which is
perceived, according to its original nature; and it is by so
assimilating it that you attain to the end of the highest life proposed
by the gods to men,[845] for the present or the future time.” For
those have equal power with these. He, who seeks, will not stop till
he find; and having found, he will wonder; and wondering, he will
reign; and reigning, he will rest. And what? Were not also those
expressions of Thales derived from these? The fact that God is
glorified for ever, and that He is expressly called by us the Searcher
of hearts, he interprets. For Thales being asked, What is the divinity?
said, What has neither beginning nor end. And on another asking,
“If a man could elude the knowledge of the Divine Being while doing
aught?” said, “How could he who cannot do so while thinking?”
Further, the Barbarian philosophy recognises good as alone
excellent, and virtue as sufficient for happiness, when it says,
“Behold, I have set before your eyes good and evil, life and death,
that ye may choose life.”[846] For it calls good, “life,” and the choice
of it excellent, and the choice of the opposite “evil.” And the end of
good and of life is to become a lover of God: “For this is thy life and
length of days,” to love that which tends to the truth. And these
points are yet clearer. For the Saviour, in enjoining to love God and
our neighbour, says, “that on these two commandments hang the
whole law and the prophets.” Such are the tenets promulgated by
the Stoics; and before these, by Socrates, in the Phædrus, who
prays, “O Pan, and ye other gods, give me to be beautiful within.”
And in the Theætetus he says expressly, “For he that speaks well
(καλῶς) is both beautiful and good.” And in the Protagoras he avers
to the companions of Protagoras that he has met in with one more
beautiful than Alcibiades, if indeed that which is wisest is most
beautiful. For he said that virtue was the soul’s beauty, and, on the
contrary, that vice was the soul’s deformity. Accordingly, Antipatrus
the Stoic, who composed three books on the point, “That, according
to Plato, only the beautiful is good,” shows that, according to him,
virtue is sufficient for happiness; and adduces several other dogmas
agreeing with the Stoics. And by Aristobulus, who lived in the time of
Ptolemy Philadelphus, who is mentioned by the composer of the
epitome of the books of the Maccabees, there were abundant books
to show that the Peripatetic philosophy was derived from the law of
Moses and from the other prophets. Let such be the case.
Plato plainly calls us brethren, as being of one God and one
teacher, in the following words: “For ye who are in the state are
entirely brethren (as we shall say to them, continuing our story). But
the God who formed you, mixed gold in the composition of these of
you who are fit to rule, at your birth, wherefore you are most highly
honoured; and silver in the case of those who are helpers; and steel
and brass in the case of farmers and other workers.” Whence, of
necessity, some embrace and love those things to which knowledge
pertains; and others matters of opinion. Perchance he prophesies of
that elect nature which is bent on knowledge; if by the supposition
he makes of three natures he does not describe three polities, as
some supposed: that of the Jews, the silver; that of the Greeks, the
third; and that of the Christians, with whom has been mingled the
regal gold, the Holy Spirit, the golden.[847]
And exhibiting the Christian life, he writes in the Theætetus in
these words: “Let us now speak of the highest principles. For why
should we speak of those who make an abuse of philosophy? These
know neither the way to the forum, nor know they the court or the
senate-house, or any other public assembly of the state. As for laws
and decrees spoken or[848] written, they neither see nor hear them.
But party feelings of political associations and public meetings, and
revels with musicians [occupy them][849]; but they never even
dream of taking part in affairs. Has any one conducted himself either
well or ill in the state, or has aught evil descended to a man from his
forefathers?—it escapes their attention as much as do the sands of
the sea. And the man does not even know that he does not know all
these things; but in reality his body alone is situated and dwells in
the state, while the man himself flies, according to Pindar, beneath
the earth and above the sky, astronomizing, and exploring all nature
on all sides.”
Again, with the Lord’s saying, “Let your yea be yea, and your nay
nay,” may be compared the following: “But to admit a falsehood, and
destroy a truth, is in nowise lawful.” With the prohibition, also,
against swearing agrees the saying in the tenth book of the Laws:
“Let praise and an oath in everything be absent.”
And in general, Pythagoras, and Socrates, and Plato say that they
hear God’s voice while closely contemplating the fabric of the
universe, made and preserved unceasingly by God. For they heard
Moses say, “He said, and it was done,” describing the word of God as
an act.
And founding on the formation of man from the dust, the
philosophers constantly term the body earthy. Homer, too, does not
hesitate to put the following as an imprecation:

“But may you all become earth and water.”

As Esaias says, “And trample them down as clay.” And Callimachus

clearly writes:
“That was the year in which
Birds, fishes, quadrupeds,
Spoke like Prometheus’ clay.”

And the same again:

“If thee Prometheus formed,
And thou art not of other clay.”

Hesiod says of Pandora:

“And bade Hephæstus, famed, with all his speed,
Knead earth with water, and man’s voice and mind
Infuse.”

The Stoics, accordingly, define nature to be artificial fire,

advancing systematically to generation. And God and His Word are
by Scripture figuratively termed fire and light. But how? Does not
Homer himself, is not Homer himself, paraphrasing the retreat of the
water from the land, and the clear uncovering of the dry land, when
he says of Tethys and Oceanus:
 “For now for a long time they abstain from
Each other’s bed and love?”[850]

Again, power in all things is by the most intellectual among the

Greeks ascribed to God; Epicharmus—he was a Pythagorean—
saying:

“Nothing escapes the divine. This it behoves thee to know.

He is our observer. To God nought is impossible.”

And the lyric poet:

“And God from gloomy night
Can raise unstained light,
And can in darksome gloom obscure
The day’s refulgence pure.”

He alone who is able to make night during the period of day is God.
In the Phænomena Aratus writes thus:
“With Zeus let us begin; whom let us ne’er,
Being men, leave unexpressed. All full of Zeus,
The streets, and throngs of men, and full the sea,
And shores, and everywhere we Zeus enjoy.”

He adds:
“For we also are
His offspring;....”

that is, by creation.

“Who, bland to men,
Propitious signs displays, and to their tasks
Arouses. For these signs in heaven He fixed,
The constellations spread, and crowned the year
With stars; to show to men the seasons’ tasks,
That all things may proceed in order sure.
Him ever first, Him last too, they adore:
Hail Father, marvel great—great boon to men.”
And before him, Homer, framing the world in accordance with Moses
on the Vulcan-wrought shield, says:
“On it he fashioned earth, and sky, and sea,
And all the signs with which the heaven is crowned.”[851]

For the Zeus celebrated in poems and prose compositions leads the
mind up to God. And already, so to speak, Democritus writes, “that a
few men are in the light, who stretch out their hands to that place
which we Greeks now call the air. Zeus speaks all, and he hears all,
and distributes and takes away, and he is king of all.” And more
mystically the Bœotian Pindar, being a Pythagorean, says:
“One is the race of gods and men,
And of one mother both have breath;”

that is, of matter: and names the one creator of these things, whom
he calls Father, chief artificer, who furnishes the means of
advancement on to divinity, according to merit.
For I pass over Plato; he plainly, in the epistle to Erastus and
Coriscus, is seen to exhibit the Father and Son somehow or other
from the Hebrew Scriptures, exhorting in these words: “In invoking
by oath, with not illiterate gravity, and with culture, the sister of
gravity, God the author of all, and invoking Him by oath as the Lord,
the Father of the Leader, and author; whom if ye study with a truly
philosophical spirit, ye shall know.” And the address in the Timæus
calls the creator, Father, speaking thus: “Ye gods of gods, of whom I
am Father; and the Creator of your works.” So that when he says,
“Around the king of all, all things are, and because of Him are all
things; and he [or that] is the cause of all good things; and around
the second are the things second in order; and around the third, the
third,” I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant;
for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom
all things were made according to the will of the Father.
And the same, in the tenth book of the Republic, mentions Eros
the son of Armenius, who is Zoroaster. Zoroaster, then, writes:
“These were composed by Zoroaster, the son of Armenius, a
Pamphyllian by birth: having died in battle, and been in Hades, I
learned them of the gods.” This Zoroaster, Plato says, having been
placed on the funeral pyre, rose again to life in twelve days. He
alludes perchance to the resurrection, or perchance to the fact that
the path for souls to ascension lies through the twelve signs of the
zodiac; and he himself says, that the descending pathway to birth is
the same. In the same way we are to understand the twelve labours
of Hercules, after which the soul obtains release from this entire
world.
I do not pass over Empedocles, who speaks thus physically of the
renewal of all things, as consisting in a transmutation into the
essence of fire, which is to take place. And most plainly of the same
opinion is Heraclitus of Ephesus, who considered that there was a
world everlasting, and recognised one perishable—that is, in its
arrangement, not being different from the former, viewed in a
certain aspect. But that he knew the imperishable world which
consists of the universal essence to be everlastingly of a certain
nature, he makes clear by speaking thus: “The same world of all
things, neither any of the gods, nor any one of men, made. But
there was, and is, and will be ever-living fire, kindled according to
measure,[852] and quenched according to measure.” And that he
taught it to be generated and perishable, is shown by what follows:
“There are transmutations of fire,—first, the sea; and of the sea the
half is land, the half fiery vapour.” For he says that these are the
effects of power. For fire is by the Word of God, which governs all
things, changed by the air into moisture, which is, as it were, the
germ of cosmical change; and this he calls sea. And out of it again is
produced earth, and sky, and all that they contain. How, again, they
are restored and ignited, he shows clearly in these words: “The sea
is diffused and measured according to the same rule which subsisted
before it became earth.” Similarly also respecting the other
elements, the same is to be understood. The most renowned of the
Stoics teach similar doctrines with him, in treating of the
conflagration and the government of the world, and both the world
and man properly so called, and of the continuance of our souls.
Plato, again, in the seventh book of the Republic, has called “the
day here nocturnal,” as I suppose, on account of “the world-rulers of
this darkness;”[853] and the descent of the soul into the body, sleep
and death, similarly with Heraclitus. And was not this announced,
oracularly, of the Saviour, by the Spirit, saying by David, “I slept, and
slumbered; I awoke: for the Lord will sustain me?”[854] For He not
only figuratively calls the resurrection of Christ rising from sleep; but
to the descent of the Lord into the flesh he also applies the
figurative term sleep. The Saviour Himself enjoins, “Watch;”[855] as
much as to say, “Study how to live, and endeavour to separate the
soul from the body.”
And the Lord’s day Plato prophetically speaks of in the tenth book
of the Republic, in these words: “And when seven days have passed
to each of them in the meadow, on the eighth they are to set out
and arrive in four days.” By the meadow is to be understood the
fixed sphere, as being a mild and genial spot, and the locality of the
pious; and by the seven days each motion of the seven planets, and
the whole practical art which speeds to the end of rest. But after the
wandering orbs the journey leads to heaven, that is, to the eighth
motion and day. And he says that souls are gone on the fourth day,
pointing out the passage through the four elements. But the seventh
day is recognised as sacred, not by the Hebrews only, but also by
the Greeks; according to which the whole world of all animals and
plants revolve. Hesiod says of it:
“The first, and fourth, and seventh day were held sacred.”

And again:
“And on the seventh the sun’s resplendent orb.”

And Homer:
 “And on the seventh then came the sacred day.”

And:
“The seventh was sacred.”

And again:

“It was the seventh day, and all things were accomplished.”

And again:
“And on the seventh morn we leave the stream of Acheron.”

Callimachus the poet also writes:

“It was the seventh morn, and they had all things done.”

And again:
“Among good days is the seventh day, and the seventh race.”

And:

“The seventh is among the prime, and the seventh is perfect.”

And:
“Now all the seven were made in starry heaven,
In circles shining as the years appear.”

The Elegies of Solon, too, intensely deify the seventh day.

And how? Is it not similar to Scripture when it says, “Let us
remove the righteous man from us, because he is troublesome to
us?”[856] when Plato, all but predicting the economy of salvation,
says in the second book of the Republic as follows: “Thus he who is
constituted just shall be scourged, shall be stretched on the rack,
shall be bound, have his eyes put out; and at last, having suffered
all evils, shall be crucified.”
 And the Socratic Antisthenes, paraphrasing that prophetic
utterance, “To whom have ye likened me? saith the Lord,”[857] says
that “God is like no one; wherefore no one can come to the
knowledge of Him from an image.”
Xenophon too, the Athenian, utters these similar sentiments in the
following words: “He who shakes all things, and is Himself
immoveable, is manifestly one great and powerful. But what He is in
form, appears not. No more does the sun, who wishes to shine in all
directions, deem it right to permit any one to look on himself. But if
one gaze on him audaciously, he loses his eyesight.”
“What flesh can see with eyes the Heavenly, True,
Immortal God, whose dwelling is the poles?
Not even before the bright beams of the sun
Are men, as being mortal, fit to stand,”—

the Sibyl had said before. Rightly, then, Xenophanes of Colophon,

teaching that God is one and incorporeal, adds:
“One God there is, ’midst gods and men supreme;
In form, in mind, unlike to mortal men.”

And again:
“But men have the idea that gods are born,
And wear their clothes, and have both voice and shape.”

And again:
“But had the oxen or the lions hands,
Or could with hands depict a work like men,
Were beasts to draw the semblance of the gods,
The horses would them like to horses sketch,
To oxen, oxen, and their bodies make
Of such a shape as to themselves belongs.”

Let us hear, then, the lyric poet Bacchylides speaking of the divine:
 “Who to diseases dire[858] never succumb,
And blameless are; in nought resembling men.”

And also Cleanthes, the Stoic, who writes thus in a poem on the
Deity:[859]
“If you ask what is the nature of the good, listen—
That which is regular, just, holy, pious,
Self-governing, useful, fair, fitting,
Grave, independent, always beneficial,
That feels no fear or grief, profitable, painless,
Helpful, pleasant, safe, friendly,
Held in esteem, agreeing with itself, honourable,
Humble, careful, meek, zealous,
Perennial, blameless, ever-during.”

And the same, tacitly vilifying the idolatry of the multitude, adds:
“Base is every one who looks to opinion,
With the view of deriving any good from it.”

We are not, then, to think of God according to the opinion of the

multitude.
“For I do not think that secretly,
Imitating the guise of a scoundrel,
He would go to thy bed as a man,”

says Amphion to Antiope. And Sophocles plainly writes:

“His mother Zeus espoused,
Not in the likeness of gold, nor covered
With swan’s plumage, as the Pluronian girl
He impregnated; but an out and out man.”

He further proceeds, and adds:

“And quick the adulterer stood on the bridal steps.”

Then he details still more plainly the licentiousness of the fabled

Zeus:
 “But he nor food nor cleansing water touched,
But heart-stung went to bed, and that whole night
Wantoned.”

But let these be resigned to the follies of the theatre.

Heraclitus plainly says: “But of the word which is eternal men are
not able to understand, both before they have heard it, and on first
hearing it.” And the lyrist Melanippides says in song:
“Hear me, O Father, Wonder of men,
Ruler of the ever-living soul.”

And Parmenides the great, as Plato says in the Sophist, writes of

God thus:
“Very much, since unborn and indestructible He is,
Whole, only-begotten, and immoveable, and unoriginated.”

Hesiod also says:

“For He of the immortals all is King and Lord.
With God[860] none else in might may strive.”

Nay more, Tragedy, drawing away from idols, teaches to look up to

heaven. Sophocles, as Hecatæus, who composed the histories in the
work about Abraham and the Egyptians, says, exclaims plainly on
the stage:
“One in very truth, God is One,
Who made the heaven and the far-stretching earth,
The Deep’s blue billow, and the might of winds.
But of us mortals, many erring far
In heart, as solace for our woes, have raised
Images of gods—of stone, or else of brass,
Or figures wrought of gold or ivory;
And sacrifices and vain festivals
To these appointing, deem ourselves devout.”

And Euripides on the stage, in tragedy, says:

 “Dost thou this lofty, boundless Ether see,
Which holds the earth around in the embrace
Of humid arms? This reckon Zeus,
And this regard as God.”

And in the drama of Pirithous, the same writes those lines in tragic
vein:
“Thee, self-sprung, who on Ether’s wheel
Hast universal nature spun,
Around whom Light and dusky spangled Night,
The countless host of stars, too, ceaseless dance.”

For there he says that the creative mind is self-sprung. What follows
applies to the universe, in which are the opposites of light and
darkness.
Æschylus also, the son of Euphorion, says with very great
solemnity of God:
“Ether is Zeus, Zeus earth, and Zeus the heaven;
The universe is Zeus, and all above.”

I am aware that Plato assents to Heraclitus, who writes: “The one

thing that is wise alone will not be expressed, and means the name
of Zeus.” And again, “Law is to obey the will of one.” And if you wish
to adduce that saying, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear,” you
will find it expressed by the Ephesian[861] to the following effect:
“Those that hear without understanding are like the deaf. The
proverb witnesses against them, that when present they are absent.”
But do you want to hear from the Greeks expressly of one first
principle? Timæus the Locrian, in the work on Nature, shall testify in
the following words: “There is one first principle of all things
unoriginated. For were it originated, it would be no longer the first
principle; but the first principle would be that from which it
originated.” For this true opinion was derived from what follows:
“Hear,” it is said, “O Israel; the Lord thy God is one, and Him only
shalt thou serve.”[862]
 “Lo[863] He all sure and all unerring is,”

says the Sibyl.

Homer also manifestly mentions the Father and the Son by a
happy hit of divination in the following words:

“If Outis,[864] alone as thou art, offers thee violence,

And there is no escaping disease sent by Zeus,
For the Cyclops heed not Ægis-bearing Zeus.”[865]

And before him Orpheus said, speaking of the point in hand:

“Son of great Zeus, Father of Ægis-bearing Zeus.”

And Xenocrates the Chalcedonian, who mentions the supreme Zeus

and the inferior Zeus, leaves an indication of the Father and the Son.
Homer, while representing the gods as subject to human passions,
appears to know the Divine Being, whom Epicurus does not so
revere. He says accordingly:
“Why, son of Peleus, mortal as thou art,
With swift feet me pursuest, a god
Immortal? Hast thou not yet known
That I am a god?”[866]

For he shows that the Divinity cannot be captured by a mortal, or

apprehended either with feet, or hands, or eyes, or by the body at
all. “To whom have ye likened the Lord? or to what likeness have ye
likened Him?” says the Scripture.[867] Has not the artificer made the
image? or the goldsmith, melting the gold, has gilded it, and what
follows.
The comic poet Epicharmus speaks in the Republic clearly of the
Word in the following terms:
“The life of men needs calculation and number alone,
And we live by number and calculation, for these save mortals.”[868]
He then adds expressly:
“Reason governs mortals, and alone preserves manners.”

Then:

“There is in man reasoning; and there is a divine Reason.[869]

Reason is implanted in man to provide for life and sustenance,
But divine Reason attends the arts in the case of all,
Teaching them always what it is advantageous to do.
For it was not man that discovered art, but God brought it;
And the Reason of man derives its origin from the divine Reason.”

The Spirit also cries by Isaiah: “Wherefore the multitude of

sacrifices? saith the Lord. I am full of holocausts of rams, and the fat
of lambs and the blood of bulls I wish not;” and a little after adds:
“Wash you, and be clean. Put away wickedness from your
souls,”[870] and so forth.
Menander, the comic poet, writes in these very words:
“If one by offering sacrifice, a crowd
Of bulls or kids, O Pamphilus, by Zeus,
Or such like things; by making works of art,
Garments of gold or purple, images
Of ivory or emerald, deems by these
God can be made propitious, he does err,
And has an empty mind. For the man must prove
A man of worth, who neither maids deflowers,
Nor an adulterer is, nor steals, nor kills
For love of worldly wealth, O Pamphilus.
Nay, covet not a needle’s thread. For God
Thee sees, being near beside thee.”...[871]

“I am a God at hand,” it is said by Jeremiah,[872] “and not a God

afar off. Shall a man do aught in secret places, and I shall not see
him?”
And again Menander, paraphrasing that scripture, “Sacrifice a
sacrifice of righteousness, and trust in the Lord,”[873] thus writes:
 “And not a needle even that is
Another’s ever covet, dearest friend;
For God in righteous works delights, and so
Permits him to increase his worldly wealth,
Who toils, and ploughs the land both night and day.
But sacrifice to God, and righteous be,
Shining not in bright robes, but in thy heart;
And when thou hear’st the thunder, do not flee,
Being conscious to thyself of nought amiss,
Good sir, for thee God ever present sees.”[874]

“Whilst thou art yet speaking,” says the Scripture, “I will say, Lo,
here I am.”[875]
Again Diphilus, the comic poet, discourses as follows on the
judgment:
“Think’st thou, O Niceratus, that the dead,
Who in all kinds of luxury in life have shared,
Escape the Deity, as if forgot.
There is an eye of justice, which sees all.
For two ways, as we deem, to Hades lead—
One for the good, the other for the bad.
But if the earth hides both for ever, then
Go plunder, steal, rob, and be turbulent.
But err not. For in Hades judgment is,
Which God the Lord of all will execute,
Whose name too dreadful is for me to name,
Who gives to sinners length of earthly life.
If any mortal thinks, that day by day,
While doing ill, he eludes the gods’ keen sight,
His thoughts are evil; and when justice has
The leisure, he shall then detected be
So thinking. Look, whoe’er you be that say
That there is not a God. There is, there is.
If one, by nature evil, evil does,
Let him redeem the time; for such as he
Shall by and by due punishment receive.”[876]

And with this agrees the tragedy[877] in the following lines:

 “For there shall come, shall come[878] that point of time,
When Ether, golden-eyed, shall ope its store
Of treasured fire; and the devouring flame,
Raging, shall burn all things on earth below,
And all above.”...

And after a little he adds:

“And when the whole world fades,
And vanished all the abyss of ocean’s waves,
And earth of trees is bare; and wrapt in flames,
The air no more begets the winged tribes;
Then He who all destroyed, shall all restore.”

We shall find expressions similar to these also in the Orphic hymns,

written as follows:
“For having hidden all, brought them again
To gladsome light, forth from his sacred heart,
Solicitous.”

And if we live throughout holily and righteously, we are happy here,

and shall be happier after our departure hence; not possessing
happiness for a time, but enabled to rest in eternity.
“At the same hearth and table as the rest
Of the immortal gods, we sit all free
Of human ills, unharmed,”

says the philosophic poetry of Empedocles. And so, according to the

Greeks, none is so great as to be above judgment, none so
insignificant as to escape its notice.
And the same Orpheus speaks thus:
“But to the word divine, looking, attend,
Keeping aright the heart’s receptacle
Of intellect, and tread the straight path well,
And only to the world’s immortal King
Direct thy gaze.”[879]