Other comments that I’ve gleaned from Academy Principals on the experience of the new framework, post-January include:
1) Inspectors are judging “over time” they are not using the judgements of individual lessons alone but digging deep to find out what teaching is “typically” like – lots of meetings with students (who they identified in lessons) and who had to bring all of their books;
2) Safeguarding covered in detail (although the framework has the same sentence in all categories) – SCR Interview, looking at safeguarding/CP policies, meeting Safeguarding Governor, pastoral team, CPO etc.
3) Current progress data is essential.  It needs to be properly analysed (not lots of charts or raw data) and split up by groups.  This relates to the new emphases in this year’s edition of RAISE, with closing gaps and the pupil premium to the fore;
4) Triangulation of evidence seems to be given more emphasis (see comments in earlier post on progress over time).  Another way would be that discussion with heads of curriculum would then be followed by interrogation of their monitoring information/action planning/results, minutes of meetings and discussion with SLT – which could include notes of 1:1 meetings.  Depending on who inspected you previously, this sort of thing may have been normal prior to January 2012;
5) There are more lesson observations than under the previous framework, lasting about 30 minutes each.  Written work seems to be scrutinised more thoroughly than previously (again, see comments in earlier post on marking);
6) An emphasis on looking at learning taking place, as opposed to judgements on teaching.  It is important that lesson planning forms emphasise (differentiated) learning intentions.