Abstract The use of a four point grading scale(1) to measure the overall quality of lessons during classroom observations has become custom and practice across Further Education (FE) colleges in England in recent years. Following its introduction by Ofsted(2) for college inspections in 2005, it is now also widely used by many colleges in internal observation schemes, often referred to as ‘quality reviews’ or ‘benchmarking exercises’. The decision to replicate Ofsted’s model seems in part a response to its recommendations that it is only when observations are graded that they are considered ‘robust’ enough to provide a reliable indication of standards of teaching and learning (Ofsted 2004a; 2004b). It also seems to reflect a wider methodological alignment amongst college Senior Management Teams (SMTs) with Ofsted regarding the significance attached to this quantitative data and how it is perceived as being central to the improvement in teaching and learning (Hatton, 2008). But what exactly do these grades tell us? How representative are graded observations of everyday practice in college classrooms? How reliable are they as a source of evidence? And who benefits from them? These are some of the key questions that this study explores. Given that the research topic cuts across more than one substantive discipline, the conceptual framework used to interpret and analyse the findings of this study inevitably means that no single theoretical perspective can be relied upon. In the field of critical theory the works of Foucault (1977) and Gramsci (1971) provide an interesting sociological lens through which to view the application of graded observation as a ‘disciplinary mechanism’ and contextualise the wider political concepts that underpin its use, notably the notions of power, control and hegemony. Similarly the field of critical pedagogy and the works of authors such as Freire (1977; 2005) and Brookfield (1995; 2005) help to illuminate and develop our understanding of aspects of practice and how educators make sense of their working contexts. 1. A four point grading scale is used by Ofsted (see below) for all grades given during inspections in colleges: 1 = outstanding, 2 = good, 3 = satisfactory, 4 = inadequate. In this study the scale is being used to refer solely to observations of ‘teaching and learning’. 2. Ofsted is the Office for Standards in Education - a non-Ministerial government department responsible for carrying out inspections of college provision.

This study employed a mixed-methods approach in which both quantitative and qualitative methods of enquiry were used to collect and analyse data. In the case of the former, a questionnaire was used in the first phase of the fieldwork; it was non-experimental and cross-sectional in its design. In the case of the latter, semi-structured interviews were used. The study takes place in 10 FE colleges situated across the West Midlands region of England and involves 500 participants in total. Participants represent three different stakeholder groups involved in the observation process: observers, observees and SMT representatives (i.e. the person(s) whose remit it is to oversee the implementation and monitoring of classroom observation schemes within the institution).

Preliminary analysis of the data reveals inconsistency and subjectivity of grading and feedback is a concern. What one observer regards as ‘effective practice’ may differ significantly in some cases to others. A common complaint regarding graded observations concerns the resulting anxiety and insecurity; an effect discussed in associated literature (Montgomery 2002; Tilstone 1998; Wragg, 1999). The ‘High Stakes’ nature of such observations (Boardman & Woodruff, 2004) appears to add to this given the potential consequences of a low grade. In the case of those awarded a grade 3 or 4, the data suggests evidence of naming and shaming in some institutions. Whilst those awarded a grade 1 are often proclaimed as ‘champions of teaching and learning’, but feedback from such teachers suggests contrasting emotions i.e. satisfaction at having their ‘hard work recognised’, but also an indifference and even cynicism to their grade as a result of ‘playing the game’(Jeffrey & Woods, 1998).