| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.30 pm
Helen Jones (Warrington, North): I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate. Like the Select Committee, I believe that a rigorous and independent inspection system is vital if we are to improve our children's education. However, I believe that any system of education inspection must be judged by how well it helps us to do that. For an inspection system to achieve that goal, it must do several things. It must be fair and consistent, provide solid evidence of what is happening in our schools and give feedback to teachers and parents. It must celebrate and spread good practice as well as pointing out failings. In other words, it must tell us clearly what works. We and the Select Committee have done an excellent job in these regards, but we must decide also what works in Ofsted, and what does not.
There have been some successes. The inspection system now focuses clearly on the process of teaching and learning in the classroom and on highlighting weaknesses in schools instead of focusing on structures. That is exactly how it should be. The Ofsted framework generally has been widely praised. It is true, as the Chairman of the Select Committee has said--my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks)--that most schools have found their inspectors to be professional and courteous, despite there being some problems with certain teams. Nevertheless, we must face the fact--I find this in schools in my constituency every week--that the mention of Ofsted still instils fear and loathing in classrooms.
The Select Committee has drawn attention to the negative effect that the inspection process can have. Worryingly, the evidence given to it shows a wide disparity between head teachers' appreciation of the inspection process and the views of classroom teachers. The inspection process will never be easy for anyone. No profession and no individual likes being inspected.
If we are to enhance the Ofsted process and ensure that it has credibility, we must tackle three issues. First, we must ensure that the inspection system is not so bureaucratic that it interferes with good teaching in the classroom. Secondly, we must ensure that parents and teachers have confidence in the quality and consistency of the inspection process. Thirdly, we must, regrettably, consider the role and profile adopted by the chief inspector.
I was pleased that, in his letter reappointing the chief inspector, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State called for a more flexible inspection style. I welcome also the move to a six-yearly cycle of inspections. It seems self-evident that schools that are failing or are not delivering improvements need more attention from inspectors than those that are succeeding, as, too, do those schools that on paper might be achieving good results, but in practice are coasting and not allowing their pupils to reach their full potential. The Government call that intervention in inverse proportion to success. Being a simple soul, I prefer to say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
As well as taking that approach, we must reduce the notice of inspections still further. I welcome the fact that it has now been reduced to between 10 and six weeks. I welcome also the chief inspector's assurance to the Select Committee that he did not need van-loads of paperwork. I agree with the Select Committee on reducing the notice still further, but I would like to see many more unannounced inspections. That would reduce the
bureaucratic burden on teachers and provide us with a much more effective picture of what is happening in schools. I do not wish to overstate the case, but it is not unknown for schools to rehearse for inspection, and to do so does not give anyone a true picture of what is going on.
However, that will not be enough. Schools must have confidence in the consistency and quality of inspections. I agree that we need far more inspectors with recent experience of the classroom. I think that the average age of inspection teams is about 52. I do not wish to denigrate the members of those teams, but it is clear that most of them, like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), the Government Whip, cannot have recent classroom experience. It is essential that serving teachers and head teachers are members of the inspection teams because of their experience and to increase the confidence of the profession in the inspection process.
When inspectors are inspecting schools, they should spend far more time in the classroom than they do now. Thirty or 40 minutes is not enough to grade a teacher. If that happened in any other profession there would be an outcry.
We need to examine carefully the quality assurance procedures that are adopted by Ofsted to ensure consistency between different inspection teams. Ofsted's research into the reliability and validity of its process was heavily criticised by one witness on the ground that it covered only volunteers who knew that they were being observed. I agree that that is not a particularly good method of research.
I was disturbed by the evidence of some chief education officers that there was as much as a 15 per cent. difference between how their inspectors saw schools and how Ofsted inspectors saw them. That in itself must give us cause for thought and make us question the figures. Knowing the chief inspector's views on education research, I am reluctant to recommend more. However, it is clear that some serious research is needed on how the inspection process functions. Ofsted's research should inform the comments that the chief inspector makes about schools. He has adopted a high public profile, unlike his colleague in Wales. Whether that improves children's education is debatable. It is right that any chief inspector should be able to comment on education issues and advise Ministers, but those comments and that advice must be based on sound evidence that has been gathered by inspection teams. They must not be personal prejudices and polemics, and they must highlight good practice.
I was pleased that my right hon. Friend's letter of appointment called for good practice to be highlighted. We do not improve teacher morale by constant denigration. Similarly, we do not attract good graduates into the profession by adopting that approach. It may be a truism, but we cannot have good schools without good teachers. The chief inspector and everyone else should bear that in mind.
I hope that we shall have no more incidents like the chief inspector's comment that 15,000 teachers should be removed, which was based solely on lesson observations in small primary schools. I have said previously that that sort of research would not pass muster with the supervisor of a first-year post-graduate. It is not good enough. The
hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) might remember that in May 1996 the chief inspector, having made comments about achievements in standard assessment tests, gave evidence to the then Education and Employment Select Committee which seemed to indicate that he did not understand either a normal distribution curve or the concept of an average. I hope that we shall not have another incident such as that. More progress in English and maths is clearly to be expected.
Mr. Willis:
Mr. Woodhead was an English teacher.
Helen Jones:
The Chief Inspector was an English teacher and so was I, but at least I understand what an average is.
I want to see the chief inspector and Ofsted move forward and develop much more consensus about the work of the inspection service. I want to see him presiding over an inspection system which takes account of the context in which schools work, including factors such as pupil mobility and social deprivation. Those factors are not an excuse for failure, but we need to find the schools that have overcome such problems, in order that other schools can learn to overcome them as well. I hope that the chief inspector will develop much more of a professional dialogue with teachers, so that we can move forward together and see them as partners in raising standards in our schools, not as the enemy.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham):
My attitude to the estimates is somewhat ambivalent. I am a great admirer of the inspectorate, by which I mean a great admirer of the chief inspector himself and of the system that has been put in place--which, incidentally, I regard as one of the great achievements of the education policies of the former Administration.
However, I am deeply concerned about the funding of former grant-maintained schools in Lincolnshire. Looking at the sum involved--£59.5 million--I am conscious that a small fraction of that would enable the Government to address the problems currently experienced by the former grant-maintained schools in the county that I represent.
On balance, my conclusion is that it is important that we approve the estimates so that the inspectorate can thoroughly examine the funding and the difficulties of former grant-maintained schools generally, and in particular in Lincolnshire.
To enable the inspectorate to perform the task that I hope it will perform as a result of the money that I anticipate the House will vote on the estimates, it may be helpful if I say a few brief words about the difficulties of the former grant-maintained schools in Lincolnshire, which are suffering underfunding as a direct consequence of the Government's policy.
Before I do that, there is a constitutional point worth making. The matter is relevant exclusively to England. Were there to be a vote on the matter--I do not suggest
that there will be a vote--I feel fairly certain that Government Whips would call on their colleagues from Scottish constituencies to vote. That would be a bizarre proposition.
I see no reason why Scottish representatives in the House should vote on funds that are relevant exclusively to English education. It is worth identifying this issue as one of many that will arise, on which we hope that representatives of Scottish constituencies will disqualify themselves from participating in votes. That, I understand, is the intention of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), whose courage is much to be commended in this regard.
I am anxious to stay fully in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I emphasise that I support the vote in favour of the Ofsted grant of £59.5 million, in the hope that part of the money will be used to look into the problems of the former grant-maintained schools in Lincolnshire. To enable the inspectorate to discharge the functions that I hope it will perform as a result of the decision of the House, I shall outline the difficulties in Lincolnshire.
The problem is that former grant-maintained schools were funded in three ways.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |