| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.7 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne): I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute briefly to this important debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who obviously speaks with a great deal of practical experience of Ofsted inspections. I also compliment the Select Committee and its Chairman, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks); they have done a workmanlike job in producing this report.
It is worth just noting that Ofsted was set up in 1992 and was very much a Conservative policy. I am delighted that, these days, there is a spirit of cross-party co-operation, both on the Committee and in the Chamber, about the importance of Ofsted. That view has not always characterised the attitude of the leaders of some teaching unions. All too often, the reservations, which have not abated in the intervening years, have been funnelled into personalised criticism of the chief inspector. With some of them, it is still a coded attack on the concept of inspections altogether.
As has already been mentioned by at least one other hon. Member this evening, Ofsted has now completed its first full cycle of inspections, having inspected all of the country's 24,000 schools over a four-year period. Under the old system, secondary schools were inspected on average once every 50 years and primary schools once every 200 years, which says something about the previous system.
What this is all about is helping the process of accountability in education. Ofsted has always had, and will continue to have, its critics, who do not want this
level of inspection and accountability in our education system, but the great weight of serious opinion, both in this House and in the teaching profession, is now firmly behind the concept of Ofsted. I very much welcome that.
The concept of inspection has reached a high pitch of interest. In my constituency--I am sure that Eastbourne is not atypical in this respect--the local papers cover Ofsted reports, with detailed coverage of the results and much picking over of the recommendations and findings. There is a vigorous rebuttal process by teachers and governors if the school feels that it has been treated unfairly. That is extremely valuable, because it brings the inspection process into sharp focus as it affects individual schools and communities.
Bishop Bell secondary school in my constituency has been turned round in the past couple of years by a new head teacher, Mr. Terry Boatwright. There is now a completely new attitude. I cannot help feeling that much of that is due to the inspection process and the prospect of an Ofsted inspection. At this time of year, or a little earlier, my mail bag used to fill up with letters from parents whose children had been allocated to that school. They said that they would rather die than have their child sent to that school. It was a massive problem, because it put enormous pressure on the other secondary schools in the area. As a result, Bishop Bell school had falling rolls, poor buildings--which it had to start off with--a poor reputation and was unable to attract the support that a successful school should have attracted. The writing was on the wall when permission was given to build a brand new school, Causeway school, which is now open. It is an attractive school, and is not far from Bishop Bell school.
One envisaged the new school attracting children away from Bishop Bell school and sucking its support. The moment had come when it was either to succeed or to fail. The governors took that on board, and a new head teacher was recruited. The school has been turned round, and parents now write to me because they cannot get their children into Bishop Bell school and ask me what I can do about it. That is a tribute to the school and the commitment and dedication of the head teacher, teachers, governors and parents. It fits neatly into the whole picture of inspection and of encouraging and driving up standards in schools, which was a centrepiece of education policy under the previous Conservative Government, and which, at least in their rhetoric, the present Government have also taken on board.
The inspection system gives real backing to dedicated and determined teachers and head teachers, and can make all the difference. A former Conservative colleague, Rhodes Boyson, who was very much loved in the House, was a well-known head teacher. He had strong views about the teaching profession, and he once memorably said that some teachers could teach a class of 50 in a bus shelter without any difficulties, whereas some teachers could have a riot on their hands with one dead chicken. We have all met both categories of teacher.
The Ofsted process enhances and underpins the concept of parental choice. Parents must be able to make an informed choice. There is a report in today's Evening Standard about the remarks of Mr. Justice Kay in a case
brought about the assisted places scheme in private schools. He severely criticised some of the undertakings that were given by the Prime Minister and Ministers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman is not talking about Ofsted, so he is straying from the subject of the debate.
Mr. Waterson:
I am happy to take your guidance on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was talking about parental choice, which is vital to our education system. The Conservative Government did much to breathe life into that concept. They did more than just pay lip service to the principle of parental choice.
With regard to the before and after effects on schools of an Ofsted inspection, the word "dread" may be slightly strong, but when I visit a school in my constituency that is preparing for an Ofsted report there is an air of constructive tension about the place. In some schools, people go to unnecessary lengths. That was dealt with in the report, which was right to talk about the dangers of over-preparation for an inspection. That is one reason why there is considerable support in the report and across the Chamber for unannounced, snap inspections. There is considerable scope for that, because if schools have a long notice period before an inspection, there is a genuine danger of over-preparation.
The report rightly refers to optimal tension between the inspectors and the inspected. That is important, because although the normal business of a school should not be brought to a grinding halt by the prospect of a looming inspection, it would be wrong and pointless if there were not an air of apprehension and worry about the effect of the inspection on the school. It is a tribute to those doing the inspecting--especially given what the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield said--that in the great majority of instances they manage to tread the narrow line between being over-officious and over-zealous and missing things that are important in any such inspection.
I should like to say a brief word about special schools, because the report dwells on them. It says:
I endorse paragraph 23 of the report, which recommends that, whenever possible, the team inspecting a special school should
Valerie Davey (Bristol, West):
As a member of the Select Committee, I endorse its recommendations.
I want briefly to consider three underlying features of Ofsted's work: its contribution to the raising of standards in schools, the nature of the inspection process, and Ofsted's role in encouraging the wider learning perspective--a learning society.
Inspection--external, objective inspection--is overwhelmingly supported, but it does not in itself raise standards. Measuring does not increase length, and weighing does not increase weight. Traditionally, we have been guided by exam results, but there is much more to it than that. In every respect, we depend on teachers to raise standards.
I entirely accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) said about the assessment of schools' performance. Ofsted is assessing overall performance. That requires profiles and carefully established criteria, but assessing a whole school's performance is Ofsted's task. Having inspected schools, collected data, and assessed effectiveness and good practice, Ofsted has produced a virtual library of material to assist those who can affect standards more directly: Ministers, schools and colleges, teachers and governors.
Ofsted's process of monitoring and assessing schools is different from that of any other inspecting body. We are not looking at a single product; we are looking at a community--a complex community, including pupils, teachers, governors and parents. The very presence of inspectors is likely to change the dynamic--the effect of relationships--for good or for bad. There is a direct impact on the school community involved, and it is against that part of Ofsted's work that most criticism has been levelled.
A purely distant, judgmental role for Ofsted is not acceptable; the process must be developmental, while remaining objective. There must be a recognition of the impact of self-evaluation, which so many schools have now developed and which, in the long term, is essential. Teaching must involve high expectation, mutual respect and encouragement, which must be reflected in inspections. All education involves learning on the part of both teacher and student, and that too must include Ofsted.
Clearly, a wealth of information is gained, digested and used by Ofsted inspectors. However, inspectors must also genuinely recognise that they can still learn, and that they
make mistakes. I am still dismayed by one example. A registered inspector, having been forcefully and consistently criticised by schools for his own forceful style, was finally deregistered--only to be sent a personal letter by HMCI offering to "oil the wheels" for his future.
The latest response--the primary report, also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield--reflects well on those three aspects of inspection. The Times Educational Supplement features the beautiful headline, "Woodhead applauds improved primaries". At last, it is good news all round: good, because standards are rising, and because HMCI is genuinely congratulating teachers and heads. There is a "but", however. As this is an estimates debate, let me refer to a commentary on the report. I believe that it was mentioned earlier.
"A rigorous and appropriate approach is needed to the inspection of special schools."
That is absolutely right, but in paragraph 19 reference is made to the fact that
"the proportion of special schools judged to require special measures (that is, 'failed' their inspection) was far higher than the proportion of mainstream schools requiring special measures."
I can testify to that problem by using an example in my constituency. Eastbourne has an excellent special school called Hazel Court, which has tremendously dedicated staff and has many children who suffer from a variety of severe disabilities. Not long ago, it was inspected by Ofsted, which made serious criticisms of the school. At the time, there was strong feeling in the school and in the wider community that it was being tested against a wrong set of criteria, and was being treated unfairly. I am sure that that was not the intention of those involved in the inspection, and that no one in that school or in any other special school would argue that they should be given an easier ride than any other educational institutions.
"include members with relevant experience of special schools".
12 Jul 1999 : Column 81
It looks to Ofsted
I could not have put it better. There is real concern about how special schools are inspected. I am sure that this recommendation will be taken up by the inspectorate, if it has not already been pursued, and that it will remove the problem that I described in the special school in my constituency.
"to monitor closely the composition of the teams that inspect special schools to determine the extent to which their experience reflects the particular challenges which special schools face."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |