Dr. Harold Hislop:

I may pass some of the questions to my colleagues to address. Both Senators mentioned the notice period for inspections. In the course of the preparation of the report we substantially cut the notice period. Traditionally, virtually all inspections were notified, but we have now introduced unannounced inspections. The majority of the inspections are unannounced. The announced ones are very short ones generally. We have also used them not only for single-day visits to primary and post-primary schools but where there are high categories of risk for students. Inspections of high-support units and special care units for children, for instance, are unannounced visits even though they are more detailed inspections. However, there are times when notice needs to given of an inspection. We have cut the notice given, but if we were to meet a board of management, which is made up of volunteers, it would be necessary to give some notice. If we were to meet a focus group of parents we would need to give them reasonable notice in order to meet them and talk to them at length. We would want to meet most members of the board of management, if possible, during an inspection and a reasonable number of the members of a focus group of parents. There is a balance to be struck here having regard to the advantages of the authenticity of an unannounced inspection, where we see what life is really like on the day we arrive, and that has been a really important part of our inspection processes in the last three years. Although teachers initially reacted against it, to some extent, they prefer it because it is less stressful for them too. It is less stressful waiting for the inspection if one knows there is going to be one. Having very large numbers of unannounced inspections allowed us to go into schools and see the reality of what is happening there and then make a choice as to whether we think there is something that requires a deeper investigation with a longer inspection model. Quite a proportion of the announced inspections are arising and being planned because we have seen something that has worried us at an earlier unannounced visit. Combining the two processes is useful for us.

A question was asked about student questionnaires and teacher questionnaires. The student questionnaires and the parent questionnaires have been successful for us. They are confidential. They are read mechanically and the data are provided back in statistical form to both the inspection team and the parents. We have started to experiment with teacher questionnaires as well. I will ask Dr. Suzanne Dillon to explain what is involved there. We have put them in on a pilot basis only because we are doing work to get the questions right and to get at the issues that are most useful in those questionnaires.

Follow-up inspections were also mentioned. They take place with only a day's or two days' notice. A telephone call would be made to say that we want to see the principal, perhaps the senior management of the school or the chairperson or the board of management plus the principal. We need to give at least a day or a day and a half's notice of that. We have been pleased with the results. The years 2012 and 2013 were the first years we have been doing these systematically. In general, we found that of the recommendations we had made in earlier reports - based on a sample of a number of hundreds - between 80% and 90% of them had been fully or partially addressed by the school. That is quite a high proportion. This was done at time when follow-up inspections were not expected. We found that once we started these inspections the school authorities said they knew we would be back or the chances were that we would be back. That has made people sharpen up. Perhaps Dr. Suzanne Dillon would like to add a further comment on the teacher questionnaires.