| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.17 pm
Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough): I echo the comments of many hon. Members who have praised the quality of the Select Committee's report on Ofsted. Although the area is contentious, such a unanimous report speaks volumes for the gifted leadership of its co-Chairman, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks).
The report makes more than 65 recommendations, the vast majority of which have been welcomed by teacher unions, governor and parent associations, the Local Government Association and most hon. Members. It is a positive and balanced report, seeking to find common
ground between often differing views. It is important that it be acted on. Hopefully, in replying to the debate, the Minister will describe how the Department for Education and Employment intends to deal with each of the recommendations.
The Minister will be aware that the Liberal Democrats supported the Labour party in opposition in calling for a full governmental review of Ofsted. We had hoped that, as the Government, they would fulfil that pledge. The Select Committee inquiry may be seen by some as second best, but that would be extremely unfair. None the less, we would of course have liked more details and more debate on some areas.
The jury is still out on the appropriateness of the framework for inspecting special schools, especially those that deal with children who have severe learning and behavioural difficulties. Detailed research on the impact of mobility on school performance is necessary in order to come up with conclusions. More particularly, the pre-inspection context and school indicator--PICSI--data on which the background to school inspections in based clearly requires far greater attention. In work that is going on in Leeds at the moment, Benefits Agency data are being used as the basis for looking at a school's profile--instead of the pre-inspection context and school indicators, which are currently used.
Despite these criticisms, I believe that we should see the report as a starting point in the continuous public review and scrutiny of the Ofsted process. In particular, the Government should take heed of the uncertainty that surrounds the accountability of Ofsted to Parliament. The conclusion of the Select Committee at paragraph 196--
The recommendations of a regular debate in Parliament on the annual report and the scrutiny of the work of Ofsted by the Select Committee are both welcome. I remain to be convinced--although my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is entirely convinced--that a board of commissioners would significantly improve accountability, although I agree with the Committee that the Government should keep an open mind on that issue. No doubt if my hon. Friend catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will lucidly explain why he believes that a board of commissioners is needed.
The introduction of a quinquennial review is perhaps the most important recommendation. The review would not only enhance public accountability but ensure that Ofsted remained a dynamic organisation, responsive to an ever changing educational world. On 17 February, in evidence to the Select Committee, the Minister said no to a quinquennial review. We trust that she may have reconsidered that position and may change her mind when she responds.
Such a review would, too, help to address the issue of the accountability of the chief inspector of schools, which I suspect for many is the key issue at the heart of the accountability debate. The appointment of the chief inspector and, more specifically, any re-appointment,
should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and review, and the Minister will be failing to catch the mood of the report--and of the profession--if she does not respond positively.
In our view, it would have been wrong for any chief inspector, let alone the present controversial incumbent, to be reappointed to his post without being subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Ofsted's work has changed considerably since 1992. The chief inspector now reports on the inspection of initial training and local education authorities. Yet his suitability for the enhanced role and his massive increase in salary were never publicly evaluated. If public inspection and review is good enough for our teachers, it should be good enough for the chief inspector.
Try as we may, it is difficult to talk about Ofsted without discussing the role of Chris Woodhead. They go together like strawberries and cream--or some might say sour cream.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bath and I have been among the strongest critics of Mr. Woodhead's style of leadership. We do not accept that his confrontational style was either necessary or desirable. Much of the demonisation of Ofsted has arisen from his public utterances, and the style of the early inspections took their lead from what he said in public.
The Select Committee report is masterly in its criticism. It condemns Mr. Woodhead's penchant for self-publicity and his use of intemperate language to make unsubstantiated criticisms of the teaching profession. The message to him from the Select Committee is clear: he has a duty to promote debate on education issues, but the debate should arise from evidence-based conclusions, not personal prejudice. In short, his style must change.
I am one of the very few Members present who, as a serving head teacher, experienced an Ofsted inspection before entering the House.
Mr. Damian Green (Ashford):
Did the hon. Gentleman fail it?
Mr. Willis:
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I did not. I thank him, however, for his concern.
In view of my previous comments, the House may be surprised to hear that, for me, the experience of the inspection was very positive. It was very positive for many of my colleagues who, sometimes for the first time, had the quality of their work independently recognised. It was very positive for the governors, who all too often spent their time dealing with the problems caused by social, economic and educational exclusion. It was very positive for our youngsters, who genuinely enjoyed meeting these strange, oft-talked-about beings called inspectors--especially the two youngsters who persuaded one of the inspectors that they had lost their dinner money on Monday and then again on Tuesday.
The inspection was a rewarding experience for the inspectors, one of whom I met last night at the teaching awards ceremony. I should add that one of them nearly benefited from the free can of Coke that he was offered to give his form teacher a good mark but, to his eternal credit, turned it down.
The Ofsted inspection of John Smeaton community high school was stressful, but it was a success because of the quality of the registered inspector--an outstanding
man called Champak Chauhan. The way in which he prepared for the inspection with the school, and the way he dealt with the school community during the visit, were both thoroughly professional. His team was experienced and thus had the confidence of the staff. The inspection balanced audit with advice; it left the school community feeling proud of its achievements and aware of its failings but, above all, with a clear direction in which to move. That should be the experience of every single school community--but we know that it is not.
Liberal Democrats have always supported a strong, vigorous and independent inspection system for our schools. However, we believe that Ofsted inspections should be part of a wider process, and that audit by itself will not raise standards. The two elements of external inspection and continuous internal review, although distinct, must be linked. Ofsted should be charged with inspecting a school's internal review process, which should be rigorous and focused. By placing an emphasis on continuous review, as complementary to formal inspection, we could ensure that quality assurance comes not once every six years, but in every single year of a school's life.
No one seriously suggests that Ofsted should be responsible for supplying support to schools, but it is in a unique position in having observed a wealth of outstanding practice in our schools, and it should make that experience available. We would like the Government to consider how the good practice assembled by Ofsted could be disseminated to schools.
Of course, although we seek an enhanced role for Ofsted, schools must be confident that they are being inspected by competent inspectors with relevant current experience. The Select Committee was not able to form a conclusion on that matter, but we strongly believe that the cause of quality is not served by the present contracting system and the status of registered inspectors. We believe that, as costs are driven down, quality will fall further. A profession for which the Government are currently trying to produce a new career structure, in order to attract the brightest and the best, is entitled to an inspection system that is not based on a part-time force of casual workers--a "Dad's Army" of retired teachers and inspectors.
As the Committee Chairman said, we must have more serving teachers and head teachers on inspection teams, but to do so we must provide an appropriate pay scale that reflects the serious job of work that needs to be done. That should not be subject to the whims of the market.
The registered inspector is crucial to the inspection process. We believe that the inspectors should be HMIs--Her Majesty's inspectors--and should have permanent salaried status. We cannot accept that such a crucial role should be subject to the vagaries of who wins the contract.
Last night, the Minister and I attended, with others, a celebration of excellence in our schools at the national teaching awards celebration. It was probably the first time in my lifetime--especially my professional lifetime--that such a celebration has taken place on such a scale. It was certainly the first time that prime-time television had presented such an overwhelmingly positive picture of teachers to the nation.
"we conclude that the accountability mechanisms for Ofsted are not sufficiently robust. Nor do they demonstrate that Ofsted is fully accountable for its work"--
is extremely important. It goes right to the heart of much of the public and professional criticism of Ofsted and of the chief inspector of schools.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |