| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.54 pm
Mr. Malcolm Wicks (Croydon, North): We move rapidly from Sierra Leone to Ofsted--one of these subjects is controversial.
As Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Employment I am pleased to report to the House on our inquiry into Ofsted. On 14 June, we published a unanimous report following a 10-month inquiry. We heard extensive evidence. We received written evidence and heard oral evidence and--[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but far too many conversations are going on. This is an important debate.
Mr. Wicks:
We heard oral evidence from many people, including union and professional associations, Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in England, and the Minister for School Standards. For comparative purposes, we also heard evidence from the chief inspector of further education and Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in Wales. Obviously, we are grateful to all our witnesses.
Many members of the Committee and our staff also had the opportunity to visit schools that were undergoing an inspection. I suppose that, on occasion, that created a slightly comic spectacle. I was in a class in a school in greater London where the Ofsted inspector was inspecting the teacher, Her Majesty's inspector was observing the Ofsted inspector and I, as Chairman of the Select Committee, was observing everyone, I suppose. In practice, it was a most valuable facility and we are grateful for it. I thank all those who helped us with our inquiry, in particular the chief inspector of the Office for Standards in Education and his staff.
Interestingly, Parliament first granted public funds to schools in 1833 and inspection followed quickly thereafter, in 1839. There has more or less always been a link between state education and the inspection of schools. By the 1960s, there were about 500 HMIs.
Ofsted was established under the previous Government by the Education (Schools) Act 1992. The office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools was then created. Although we focused chiefly in our report on schools inspection, and I will mainly focus on that today, HMCI also has responsibility for inspecting local education authorities, initial and in-service teacher training, nursery education, youth services and further education provided by local education authorities. I understand that the Government will shortly be extending the powers of the chief inspector.
Ofsted was created by the previous Government as part of a drive to raise education standards. Other developments of the time were the national curriculum, national testing and the publication of school results. We can see the work of Ofsted in the context of education standards, but also perhaps in terms of the "audit society", as some people have described it. The provision of information to parents is crucial, but we see the growth of regulation and inspectorates in other areas of public policy. For example, there are developments in social services and health--the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is an interesting example of that. It is all about consumer perspectives and the accountability of public services.
The main emphasis that I want to bring to the debate is that the Committee fully endorses the principle of external inspection of our schools and other education institutions. That is a most important conclusion in the report.
Schools are inspected by teams, which are led by a registered inspector. The contracts are awarded by Ofsted. Inspection takes place within a framework that is drawn up by Ofsted. We found when taking evidence that the framework was widely praised. For example, Professor Michael Barber, who now heads the Department's standards effectiveness unit, says that it was
We questioned two aspects of the framework and made recommendations, one of which related to special schools. We noted that more special schools than other schools are judged to be under-performing, and made comments and recommendations accordingly. In particular, we said:
In general, we recognise that any inspection can be stressful--we have just been discussing the inspection of MPs--but the majority of schools found inspection teams professional and courteous. Undoubtedly, however, there
is stress. Many of our witnesses highlighted the negative impact of inspections on teachers. For example, the report states:
We recognise the argument that if a longer period of notice is given, much good work can be done within the school as it prepares for the inspection, and that the period of notice, rather than the inspection, may be what has a good impact on the school. However, we believe that now that there is a history of inspections, and schools are used to them, four weeks' notice is about right. That may reassure parents that a school stands more chance of being inspected as it is on a normal day.
We believe also that there is a role for snap inspections, not as an alternative to ordinary inspections, but a complementary process. Snap inspections would be carried out not by the mainstream Ofsted teams, but by Her Majesty's inspectors or local education authorities.
Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne):
Do the hon. Gentleman and his Committee view snap inspections as one way to tackle the problem of over-preparation, which is referred to in a different part of the report, in that schools get keyed up about an inspection because they know that it is coming, but if the inspection is done on a spot basis, that problem does not arise?
Mr. Wicks:
That could be one use for snap inspections. If, for example, the Secretary of State wanted a snap look at a particular subject or issue, such inspections could be used. We also had in mind the concern of parents with children at a particular school or in a particular area about problems such as school bullying. They might be worried that the school's regime was allowing pupils to get away with bullying. There is no point in inspectors telling the bullies and the teachers, "We shall be coming in eight weeks." They should turn up on a Monday morning and have a look. There is, therefore, a role for the snap inspection.
Alongside our proposal for a period of notice of only four weeks, we made recommendations to end the paper chase. At the moment, many schools over-prepare documentation for the inspection. That is only human, and one can understand that. We were struck, however, by one example of a school that had prepared so much documentation that it filled six large boxes and the registered inspector had to hire a man with a small van to cart it away. We never found out where he carted it off to, but we hope that it was recycled. We therefore recommend that Ofsted or the Department draw up a good practice guide--that will hopefully be a short document--to enable schools to end this devastation of our forests.
We believe that there should be a greater sense of ownership by schools of the inspection process. We want schools to view inspection as a valuable mechanism, not an external threat. We therefore suggested that it would be helpful if a school governing body were able to have an observer--not a member--on the Ofsted team that is inspecting the school.
I stress again that the evidence demonstrates that, in the great majority of cases, inspections are conducted in a fit and proper manner; and the inspectors are, in the main, courteous and professional in their dealings with pupils, staff, parents and governors. However, there are exceptions. We hear, for example, of inspection teams sometimes claiming to have inspected classes where there is evidence that they did not enter those classes. Ofsted should therefore continue its efforts to deal with poor inspection practice.
There is an issue to do with whether the inspection should be a clinical audit or whether it should develop into advice for schools. In considering that issue, we certainly welcomed the move towards greater feedback. In the school that I observed being inspected, I was impressed by the way in which inspectors would, whenever possible, give feedback to the teachers immediately after the lesson. We also observed feedback sessions with heads of department. All that is helpful, and we would encourage it. We want a process of professional dialogue, not clinical audit, to develop in Ofsted. Things are moving in the right direction.
Some argue that self-evaluation could replace external inspection. The Committee does not agree. There is an important role for self-evaluation, but it should be complementary to external inspection. We therefore recommend that Ofsted should include an assessment of self-evaluation within schools. That would be helpful.
We make recommendations about the membership of Ofsted teams. We heard a criticism that, too often, Ofsted teams are drawn from older members of the profession. That criticism can be exaggerated, but we certainly want to ensure that members of the Ofsted team have direct, current experience of teaching. We therefore recommend that more serving teachers and head teachers should be members of Ofsted teams. We would argue that if younger members of a team, who were teaching the literacy hour the week before the inspection, helped out for a few weeks a year as part of their professional development, they might be in a better position to judge the literacy hour during the school inspection. There are other arguments to support that recommendation.
We are also interested in the role of the lay inspector. Every team has a non-teaching professional, and we thought that that was a useful development. We saw that policy in operation. However, we think that it would be a good idea if more of the lay inspectors were young parents with school-age children. There are many ways to judge a school, but if the team contained a mother or father who was asking the simple question, "Is this school good enough for my child?", that would bring some reality into the inspection system from the parental point of view.
We considered the role of the Ofsted complaints adjudicator, which is clearly important. Currently, the complaints adjudicator is appointed by Ofsted. We do not believe that this is right; the appointment should be made elsewhere, either by the Secretary of State within the Department or by a board of commissioners for Ofsted--a recommendation to which I shall turn in a moment.
We also considered the accountability of Ofsted, which is important to the House. Ofsted is a non-ministerial Department, headed by Her Majesty's chief inspector. It is appointed by the Crown, and therefore has unique status in the education world. There are other non-ministerial Departments, but no clear analogies among them on reporting and accountability. We therefore conclude that
We recommend to ourselves as a Select Committee that we should hold annual meetings with the chief inspector on both his annual report and, more generally, the work of Ofsted. We also suggest that, before the appointment or reappointment of the chief inspector is confirmed, the Select Committee should receive evidence from the nominee and report to Parliament. A debate on the Committee's report could then follow. We also discuss the need for a board of commissioners for Ofsted. We looked at the pros and cons of such a board, and conclude that a case for it should be considered very carefully.
There was a sense in which we were reluctant to investigate the role of Her Majesty's chief inspector and his style because we were interested in policy and practice rather than personality, but to undertake work into Ofsted without saying something about Mr. Chris Woodhead would be rather like discussing the Victorian era without mentioning good Queen Victoria.
As the report states,
It has not been possible for us to make a judgment about the successes or failures of Mr. Woodhead's style, although we note that when he came before us he defended it vigorously. He said:
We were concerned about the way Ofsted's work sometimes tended to focus on the negative. The day before we heard from the chief inspector, the annual report was published. The launch of the report was accompanied by a media focus on 15,000 failing teachers. We cross-examined Mr. Woodhead about that, and he told us that he knew no reason for such focus, given that the report was generally rather upbeat and optimistic. He
subsequently wrote to us--I think that it was the next day--to point out that, at the press conference to launch his annual report, Ofsted officials responded helpfully to "persistent requests" to provide the number of weak teachers.
We are concerned not so much with looking back at the role of the chief inspector and his style but with pointing the way forward. Ofsted has been in existence for some time; we have a good deal of experience. We therefore feel that several principles should guide the chief inspector's work in future. First, the report states:
"very strongly based on education research, school effectiveness and school improvement".
It is also interesting that the National Union of Teachers found that the framework provided
"a valuable check list for school improvement, not least for schools to use themselves".
There is thus much support for the framework.
"Given the importance of this issue, we recommend that Ofsted keep under review the way in which the Framework is used in the inspection of special schools. We also recommend that the DfEE keep under review the way the National Curriculum is applied in special schools."
We also made comments about pupil mobility and the need for Ofsted to take more account of that when making judgments about inspection. Clearly, if there is a great deal of pupil mobility, as there is in many of our schools, that will inevitably affect school performance, and Ofsted must keep that under review.
"A GP wrote to us highlighting the 'significant symptoms of stress' suffered by three teachers at a local primary school, which were directly related to an impending inspection in the second cycle of inspections. The GP noted that this had happened despite the fact that the school had performed 'extremely well' in its inspection."
When we considered reform, we examined particularly critically the period of notice that a school can be given. In the past, some schools have known that they are to be inspected two terms ahead of the inspection. We believe that such notice had a distorting impact on the school and its work. We note that, following consultation, Ofsted is considering giving notice of between six and 10 weeks, but the Committee feels that four weeks would be more appropriate.
"accountability mechanisms for Ofsted are not sufficiently robust."
We recognise that the independence of Ofsted is crucial, but we do not think that that precludes effective and transparent accountability. We therefore recommend that there should be, among other things, a regular House of Commons debate on Her Majesty's chief inspector's annual report. In assessing education standards, that could be an important occasion for the House.
"The purpose of our inquiry has been to consider the work of Ofsted itself: the principle and practice of inspection. Based on the evidence we received, however, we realised that any such study would be difficult to divorce from the style adopted by Mr. Chris Woodhead".
Several witnesses commented on it. We heard from critics of the chief inspector, although some witnesses took a much more supportive view of his style.
"It is very necessary . . . for messages that emerge from inspections to be communicated with absolute clarity to everybody who is interested in education. That, in a nutshell, is what I have tried to do. The issue of polemic; the issue of being excessively confrontational, I think is very much a matter of subjective judgment. I can only say to you that I think I have tried to speak plainly and, on occasion, bluntly and, on occasion, my attempts to do that have obviously provoked a pretty strong reaction".
We found it difficult, as a Committee, to make a judgment on whether such a style was necessary, although we note that many are critical of it.
"the role of the Chief Inspector should include encouraging the formation of a consensus about the importance of Ofsted's work across a wide field.
That obviously helps to stimulate a wider public debate. The major interests must be those of children and their parents, although, as the report says,
Second, we support the view that HM Chief Inspector should, where appropriate, speak out on education issues."
"we feel strongly that such public expression of views should be based firmly on clear and scientific evidence emerging from inspections undertaken by Ofsted's inspectors and other reputable sources. There is a considerable danger that if this principle is not adhered to, the Chief Inspector will be seen simply as a pundit or polemicist."
Thirdly, the report concludes:
"in carrying out his or her role the Chief Inspector should be concerned to improve morale and promote confidence in the teaching profession. Hence the importance of fulfilling the role of Chief Inspector in a way that promotes wide acceptance of Ofsted's role and positive impact. We feel strongly that low morale among teachers inhibits the drive to raise standards."
Having--I hope--faithfully reported the Committee's conclusions, I must add that all of us in the House recognise the vital importance of education and the need to improve standards. The Committee recommends, as I suspect most of us present would, that external inspection of schools is vital. That should not be controversial. However, there is a strong case for reform, and our report presents arguments for it. We look forward in due course to the Government's full response to our report.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |