Do performance indicators predict Ofsted ratings? An exploratory study of children’s services in England

IF 1.4 Q2 SOCIAL WORK Journal of Childrens Services Pub Date : 2020-06-30 DOI:10.1108/jcs-07-2019-0035
D. Wilkins, Vivi Antonopoulou
{"title":"Do performance indicators predict Ofsted ratings? An exploratory study of children’s services in England","authors":"D. Wilkins, Vivi Antonopoulou","doi":"10.1108/jcs-07-2019-0035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this study is to explore whether performance indicators in children’s services can be used to predict the outcome of Ofsted inspections. Every local authority in England is inspected by Ofsted (the Office for Standards in Education, children’s services and skills) and given a single, overall rating – outstanding, good, requirements improvement or inadequate. These ratings carry immense significance. Persistently inadequate authorities are liable to have legal responsibility for providing services outsourced to another organisation. Ofsted have been criticised in the past for focusing too much on procedure, and previous research has highlighted the importance of deprivation and spending levels. In this paper, we describe a new study using more recent Ofsted and local authority data to see what patterns there might be now between performance indicators and inspection results.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nWe report an analysis of 45 variables in relation to children in need, children in care and young adults with care experience. Using statistical analysis, we consider to what extent performance measured by these variables differs between authorities based on their Ofsted ratings and which of the variables can be used to predict Ofsted inspection outcomes.\n\n\nFindings\nWe identified no consistent patterns of difference between local authorities in relation to Ofsted ratings. Deprivation was the best single predictor of Ofsted inspection outcomes.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis study uses relatively recent Ofsted and local authority data and builds on previous research findings which are increasingly highlighting the significance of deprivation as a factor to help explain variable performance between different authorities.\n","PeriodicalId":45244,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Childrens Services","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/jcs-07-2019-0035","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Childrens Services","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jcs-07-2019-0035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore whether performance indicators in children’s services can be used to predict the outcome of Ofsted inspections. Every local authority in England is inspected by Ofsted (the Office for Standards in Education, children’s services and skills) and given a single, overall rating – outstanding, good, requirements improvement or inadequate. These ratings carry immense significance. Persistently inadequate authorities are liable to have legal responsibility for providing services outsourced to another organisation. Ofsted have been criticised in the past for focusing too much on procedure, and previous research has highlighted the importance of deprivation and spending levels. In this paper, we describe a new study using more recent Ofsted and local authority data to see what patterns there might be now between performance indicators and inspection results. Design/methodology/approach We report an analysis of 45 variables in relation to children in need, children in care and young adults with care experience. Using statistical analysis, we consider to what extent performance measured by these variables differs between authorities based on their Ofsted ratings and which of the variables can be used to predict Ofsted inspection outcomes. Findings We identified no consistent patterns of difference between local authorities in relation to Ofsted ratings. Deprivation was the best single predictor of Ofsted inspection outcomes. Originality/value This study uses relatively recent Ofsted and local authority data and builds on previous research findings which are increasingly highlighting the significance of deprivation as a factor to help explain variable performance between different authorities.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
绩效指标能预测教育标准局的评分吗?英国儿童服务的探索性研究
目的本研究的目的是探讨儿童服务的绩效指标是否可以用于预测Ofsted检查的结果。英国教育标准局(Ofsted)(教育、儿童服务和技能标准办公室)对英格兰的每个地方当局进行了检查,并给出了一个单一的总体评级——优秀、良好、要求改进或不足。这些评级意义重大。持续不称职的主管部门有责任为外包给另一个组织的服务承担法律责任。Ofsted过去曾因过于关注程序而受到批评,此前的研究强调了贫困和支出水平的重要性。在本文中,我们描述了一项新的研究,该研究使用了英国教育标准局和地方当局的最新数据,以了解绩效指标和检查结果之间可能存在什么模式。设计/方法/方法我们报告了对45个变量的分析,这些变量与有需要的儿童、被照顾的儿童和有照顾经验的年轻人有关。通过统计分析,我们考虑了这些变量衡量的绩效在多大程度上因Ofsted评级而不同,以及哪些变量可用于预测Ofsted检查结果。调查结果我们没有发现地方当局之间在Ofsted评级方面存在一致的差异模式。剥夺是Ofsted检查结果的最佳单一预测因素。原创性/价值这项研究使用了英国教育标准局和地方当局相对较新的数据,并建立在之前的研究结果的基础上,这些研究结果越来越强调剥夺作为一个因素的重要性,以帮助解释不同当局之间的可变表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
“Friendly, local and welcoming” – evaluation of a community mental health early intervention service From “intimate-insider” to “relative-outsider”: an autoethnographic account of undertaking social work research in one’s own “backyard” Effective child well-being practices, barriers and priority actions: survey findings from service providers and policymakers in 22 countries during COVID-19 Child First and the end of ‘bifurcation’ in youth justice? Why are there higher rates of children looked after in Wales?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1