House of Commons
Wednesday 28 February 1996
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Chief Inspector of Schools (Annual Report)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Burns.]
9.34 am
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury): I am grateful for this opportunity to introduce a debate on the annual report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools.
There is no more an important task for policy makers and education professionals than to drive up the standards of education enjoyed by our children. It is both a moral and a practical challenge: moral, because it is plain wrong that a child who gets only one chance of education should not be stretched and tested to the limits of his orher God-given talents, and practical, because in the21st century our children will need a better grasp of language, number and scientific principle than ever before if they as individuals or our country as a nation are to prosper.
I welcome Mr. Woodhead's report and the 4,250 individual inspections on which its conclusions are based. The creation of the Office for Standards in Education and the introduction of a programme of regular school inspections increasingly appears to be one of the most important of the Government's many education reforms. Before the reforms, the average primary school could expect to be inspected roughly once every 200 years. Now each school can expect to be inspected roughly ever four years. I applaud the vigour and independence of spirit with which Mr. Woodhead and his team approached their responsibilities.
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the chief inspector finds much to praise about British schools. There is a long list of outstanding schools in all parts of the country.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster):
Does my hon. Friend accept that we in Lancaster have been exceedingly fortunate--as opposed to Lancashire, which is unfortunate--in that we struggled and kept our grammar schools? The result is that our primary schools never went what I would call mushy. They all had to aim at the 11-plus, and they were all good. One school--a village school--had 12 applicants for the 11-plus,of whom 11 passed and one was educationally sub-normal. That is probably one of the reasons why we have had such excellent results from school inspections in my constituency.
Mr. Lidington:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, as always, is a doughty exponent of the virtues of
The long list of schools to which I referred includes four in my constituency. I was delighted to write toSir Henry Floyd school, Aylesbury grammar school,St. John's combined school in Lacey Green and Great Missenden Church of England combined school to congratulate the head teachers and all their staff on their achievement. I hope that the teaching profession will see in the list of schools published by the chief inspector a tribute to the dedication and hard work of head teachers and their staff over the previous years--
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman:
And parents and children.
Mr. Lidington:
And parents and children, too, as my hon. Friend rightly reminds me.
The chief inspector also pays tribute to two schools--one in Durham and the other in Derbyshire--which had previously been described as failing, but which are now noted by inspectors to be well on the mend. That is another illustration of the way in which the system of inspection, to discover faults so that remedies can be set in hand, is working to the benefit of all children.
Mr. Woodhead says that
and that
He also points out that there are nearly three times as many exceptionally good teachers as poor teachers in our schools.
I dwell on those positive remarks at some length, because I feel that the headlines in some newspapers that accompanied the publication of the report did not do justice to the praise that Mr. Woodhead rightly gave to particular schools and to the education system in general.
The quality of education depends crucially on teachers. No profession has a higher responsibility, and there is no nobler vocation. So I hope that the teaching profession will reject the rather glib view that the inspector's report is in some way an attack on teachers' professionalism.It is not; it is a challenge to them as professionals to reflect critically on what they do, and to learn not from Whitehall edicts, but from the best practice and the outstanding achievements of their fellow professionals in our schools, for the shortcomings that Mr. Woodhead describes are serious and need to be remedied.
Perhaps the inspector's critique can be summarised by saying that we are too tolerant of mediocrity and that our expectations of what pupils are capable of achieving in school are still far too low. The report concludes that standards need to be raised in about half our primary schools and in about 40 per cent. of our secondary schools. About 10 per cent. of the schools inspected had serious weaknesses.
The predictable excuses and protestations have been made--such as, that all we need do is chuck some extra money at the problem, that parents do not support schools or the authority of teachers any more, or that the problems of a difficult catchment area overwhelm the best endeavours of teachers.
I am prepared to acknowledge that those are all relevant points, and have some merit. But they avoid the central question: why can we identify schools of similar size, with similar budgets, similar catchment areas and the same sort of parents, some of which achieve the highest standards, while others fail dismally in the duty that they owe to pupils and parents?
In that regard, the inspector's report backs up the findings of the Select Committee on Education--and, frankly, the anecdotal evidence from our constituencies that we can all bring to the debate. Time and again, the report returns to the central issues of the leadership of the head teacher and the quality of classroom teaching.
On page 9 of the report, Mr. Woodhead says:
He tells us that such a school
when they happen. Unsurprisingly, he concludes that
That is Mr. Woodhead's critique. What is now to be done? It is not a simple matter of passing new laws; we need a constructive partnership between the teaching profession and the Government to set right that which is wrong. I shall deal first with what I consider to be the responsibilities of the teaching profession.
The inspection evidence shows that in seven out of10 lessons described by the inspectors as good, whole-class teaching figured strongly. Ofsted's work bears out the conclusions of other studies, notably that of the so-called three wise men, which was published in 1992, that excessive reliance on group work fritters away precious teaching and learning time. We need a better balance between whole-class, group and individual work.
We also need better planning of lessons, especially in primary schools. In one telling criticism, the inspector says that only half of primary schools have really planned how to use their teaching time to maximum effect. We must continue to question the fashion for mixed-ability teaching that took hold in the 1960s. Judging by my visits to schools in my constituency, I suspect that some commentators exaggerate the extent to which mixed-ability teaching ever became universal. Setting and streaming have always continued in some schools, and I believe that they are now growing in popularity among teachers again.
I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 166 of the report, which points out that in primary schools
this is the key phrase--
There is much there upon which the teaching profession can usefully reflect.
The Government, too, have a tremendous responsibility. Their motto could be, "So much done, so much more to be done." They have introduced the national curriculum, national testing, regular inspections, teacher appraisal and freedom of information, through prospectuses, annual reports, test results and inspectors' reports. They have also held firmly to the principle that greater diversity in our education system will help to drive up standards, whether that is achieved through grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges, specialist magnet schools or, where it is wanted, formal processes of selection.
It is worth remembering that almost all those Government initiatives during the 1980s were bitterly opposed not only by the Labour party, but by its allies--in this debate, its absentee allies--from the Liberal Democrat party. It is a great shame that the Liberal Democrats, who frequently preach to us about their concern for quality in education, cannot be bothered to send a representative into the Chamber for a debate on the annual report of the chief inspector of schools.
What further issues should the Government now tackle? First, a real problem is caused by the minority of teachers who provide poor teaching in the classroom. The inspector concludes that the performance of a small minority of teachers is consistently weak, yet it is rare for action to be taken to deal with the problem.
I do not have an instant answer. I do not know whether we need a change in the law or simply better guidance and training for heads and governors on how to deal with the problem. Governors in my constituency tell me that it is almost impossible to sack a teacher on grounds of incompetence, even when that individual has been given chance after chance, yet has consistently failed to deliver adequate standards of teaching.
"Standards of pupil achievement and teaching are satisfactory or better in the majority of schools",
"teachers are meeting National Curriculum requirements more confidently".
"Some schools serving extremely deprived areas achieve very good standards. This is because they are invariably led by men and women of exceptional ability."
"believes in the possibility of success and takes responsibility for its failures"
"The most successful primary schools place great emphasis on initial literacy, expect all their children to learn to read and to learn quickly, and approach teaching generally in a structured and diagnostic way."
"grouping by ability for maths and English is common and"--
"often results in a better match of work and in higher standards."
28 Feb 1996 : Column 800
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |