Previous SectionIndexHome Page


7.26 pm

Mr. Damian Green (Ashford): We have heard speeches both from members of the Committee and from at least one former professional, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson). I approach the subject rather tentatively, as an interested outsider.

I read the Committee's report with great interest. It struck me as a very thorough report, on a subject that, although I have always felt it should not be, is contentious. Although, in many respects, the interest aroused by Ofsted's work is commendable, I think it a shame that every aspect of its work has to be contentious--particularly its chief inspector. Many Conservative Members--and, no doubt, some Labour Members--feel that any report such as this should make the basic point that Ofsted and its chief inspector, Chris Woodhead, have been overwhelmingly a force for good in England's education since 1992. Any remarks that I make that cast doubt on some aspects of Ofsted's work should be seen in that context.

It is, of course, impossible to take a view on Ofsted without taking a view on Chris Woodhead; but before we deal with personalities, we should look at the facts of what he has achieved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) pointed out, the fact that

12 Jul 1999 : Column 83

Ofsted has inspected all 24,000 schools over a period of four years contrasts starkly with the long gaps between inspections that used to occur. More important than the process, however, is the product, and the fact that visible improvements in schools are now taking place.

In 1996, 40 per cent. of teaching at key stages 1 and 2 was defined as good; the figure has now risen to 50 per cent. The number of 11-year-olds reaching the expected level in national curriculum tests in English and maths rose by 15 per cent. between 1994 and 1998. The incidence of teaching judged to be unsatisfactory or poor fell, over that four-year cycle, from one lesson in five to one in 14. Happily, the four-year cycle spans activity under both the present and the last Government. I can, therefore, resist the temptation to try to score partisan points, as, no doubt, can Labour Members.

The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield suggested that whether we should see the figures in terms of one lesson in five being unsatisfactory or in terms of four in five being satisfactory was merely an issue of presentation. I am not sure that I agree. Surely it would be wrong to try to gloss over the fact that 20 per cent. of lessons in English schools were unsatisfactory. One of Ofsted's strengths has been that it has not been afraid to point out where things are unsatisfactory.

I thank Ofsted for one of its first reports on local education authorities: the one on Kent, which was largely positive. I know that many people in Kent welcomed Ofsted's endorsement of the Kent system, which includes many grammar schools, which are under threat. In Kent, both parents of children at grammar schools and those of children at other schools would repeat the words of the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones)--"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"--and hope that the system that Ofsted has commended will be allowed to continue.

Chris Woodhead and his teams have not only brought about individual improvements, but contributed to a culture change. In some ways, there is a new conventional wisdom about education that was not there about 10 years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne has referred to the former Education Minister and Member for Brent, North, Rhodes Boyson, who would be particularly pleased about the culture change. In the 1970s, when he and others produced the education black papers, and said things that are now regarded as conventional wisdom about the way lessons should be taught in school and the importance of discipline and of structured lessons, it was regarded as way-out radicalism.

One of the unarguable improvements over the past 30 years is that those things have become the conventional wisdom in almost all areas--on both sides of the House and in most parts of education, although, I am sad to say, some of the more recalcitrant educationists in universities and a few in the teaching unions disagree. Indeed, that conventional wisdom is now shared even by Ministers. I am sure that the Minister will know that it is not what the Government seek to do, but the centralising way in which they seek to do it that Conservative Members object to.

Not only does Ofsted deserve credit for much of that change in culture, but Chris Woodhead deserves personal credit. Perhaps he did have to be as single-minded as he has always been to drive through those changes. Various

12 Jul 1999 : Column 84

hon. Members have criticised his style. Indeed, there has been some legitimate murmuring, if you like, about the way that he has sometimes addressed the teaching profession.

I have heard about that matter from head teachers in both my constituency and beyond, whose views on education I respect hugely. They have seen times when Chris Woodhead has seemed not very attuned to sensitivities that he should have taken into account. Nevertheless, the overwhelming balance is on his side.

If Chris Woodhead has occasionally erred in being too forceful, that fault was possibly made inevitable by the forces of inertia that he had to confront in the educational establishment. Certainly, nothing that he has done, or none of his views, is any excuse for the organised attack on him early this year, in part from, I regret to say, the Government Back Benches. A disputed episode in his personal life more than 20 years ago was no excuse for the personal vilification that he went through. Those attacks were transparently politically and ideologically motivated.

I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of the debate to express her and the Government's continuing support for the chief inspector. I am sure that he was grateful--and I suspect that the House was--that, at the time, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment expressed that support.

Despite Ofsted's many achievements, there are always improvements to be made and the report identifies some of them. We have heard from many Members about the importance of reducing, or at times perhaps abolishing, the period of notice. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware of the tremendous tension that builds in schools that are waiting to be, as the jargon has it, ofsteded--that particularly unlovely new term that has been added to the English language; to ofsted, I suppose, is the verb.

Not only does that lead to an unrealistic assessment when the inspection finally takes place, but the amount of energy that is diverted into preparing for an Ofsted inspection seems, in some cases that I have seen, to damage palpably the quality of the teaching in that intervening period. Apart from that, some schools will go as far as rehearsing for an inspection, so they present an unrealistic picture of their real attainments when the inspectors come.

Therefore, from all points of view, it would be better if it became the norm that there was no long period between the announcement of an Ofsted inspection and its implementation. Indeed, Ofsted inspectors could sometimes just drop in to schools to see what is happening on a normal day. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that, in relation to the various measures, some schools do not need to be inspected as often as schools that may not have been doing so well.

The Minister and her colleagues are about to impose new burdens on Ofsted. Under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, it has already taken on the inspection of LEAs. Soon, it will inspect post-16 education. I hope that the Government will provide adequate resources.

Ofsted is one of education's success stories over the past few years. It would be a great shame if that were put in jeopardy by under-resourcing its new and extra

12 Jul 1999 : Column 85

responsibilities. Ofsted is now too important to be stretched too thinly. It needs to do an important job; up to now, it has done that job very well. It would be bad not just for Ofsted, but for all those at school and in post-16 education if the new burdens that Ofsted has willingly taken on--perhaps not burdens; the new jobs that it has taken on--were not adequately resourced.

Perhaps that is an issue that the Minister will want to address more than any other not only in the debate, but in the months ahead. However, in general, like the Select Committee report, we would give Ofsted a clean bill of health, and give it and Chris Woodhead personally our thanks for the good work that they have done for English education since 1992.

7.38 pm

Mr. Gordon Marsden (Blackpool, South): I feel privileged to be able to speak in the debate. I am a member of the Select Committee that produced the report, the first report that I worked on as a member of the Committee. I feel that we have made a substantial contribution.

It is important to touch on what we tried to do with the report. We were conscious of all the noises off. Therefore, the report was not intended to be a witch hunt either for or against the chief inspector. It was not intended to be a product of political correctness. It was intended to be thorough, considered, forensic and not personally judgmental. The aim was to recognise that both Ofsted and HMCI have to work for all the players in the schools sector--for teachers, parents and pupils. In that respect, everyone has a view. Everyone is a stakeholder.

I am glad that all hon. Members have recognised that inspection is not a touchy-feely exercise. However, nor is it the Spanish inquisition or, as Professor Mortimore characterised it in his comments to us, a Kafkaesque process. What we have to ask about inspection is--this is highly relevant in response to the Government's emphasis on raising standards and putting standards at the heart of everything--how it gets schools from A to B. Since 1992, what has Ofsted achieved in raising standards? Is Ofsted learning, and is it getting better in the inspection process?

The Select Committee report was, therefore, a structurally driven, not personality-driven inquiry. The report was meant to produce--I think that it has produced--recommendations that will produce results for the next 10 to 15 years. I should like to pay particular tribute not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), who chaired the Committee with excellent judgment, but to the Committee Clerks and my fellow Committee members, who put so much time and effort into the report.

Some of the key issues thrown up by the report are far from the fire and brimstone media controversy about the chief inspector himself. For me, one of the report's most significant and important recommendations is that Ofsted should take account of significant variables, such as pupil mobility and absence. As a constituency Member of Parliament, those matters are particularly important, as annual student turnover at some of my schools is 30 to 40 per cent.

Evidence is now beginning to emerge from the Department for Education and Employment on local education authorities that, in their educational development plans, have highlighted problems in pupil

12 Jul 1999 : Column 86

enrolment turnover. LEAs with such problems are often in inner-city areas--particularly London boroughs with large short-term housing and transient groups--old manufacturing areas and seaside towns, in which the seasonal demands of the tourist industry and poor-quality housing exacerbate the problem. In 1997-98, my own local education authority, for example, took 1,200 pupils into its primary schools as non-routine admissions, constituting 15 per cent. of our entire primary school population.

I am, therefore, pleased that, in our report, the Committee has highlighted turnover as a crucial factor. I am pleased also that the chief inspector has recognised that it is an important factor, and that there have been indications that it will be included formally in the future inspection process.

I should also like to comment on the shorter, demystified inspections--which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North described as the secular equivalent of a royal visit, with all the trappings and traumas that go with that. Schools may not have new loos, but they have crates of paperwork and, if anyone ever wanted to stage that famous Gogol play "The Government Inspector", Ofsted would provide a very good context in which to do so.

The Select Committee also tried to highlight in our report the fact that Ofsted and its inspectors perform a job that, necessarily, steers a third way between the audit approach and the management consultancy approach. Inspectors of course have to maintain an element of detachment, but they and Ofsted also have a duty to use their material to achieve the intended effect. Moreover, when the glass is not only half full, but 80 to 90 per cent. full, the chief inspector has a duty to recognise that fact in his comments.

Accountability is a key issue: the question of who governs the governors is particularly relevant to Ofsted. The current structure of accountability--there is such a structure--is curiously attenuated.

When we discuss options for the future, I hope that Ministers will reflect again on some of the issues mentioned in the report that they have not yet dealt with--particularly the board of commissioners and quinquennial reviews.

The main issue is broader than Ofsted alone, however, and touches on the role that Parliament might play in an increasingly audit-obsessed society. It is also about the role that Parliament will have to play because of the increased importance of secondary legislation and the increased number of agencies that, inevitably, do not have to come before the Bar of the House. To that extent, in considering Ofsted, concerns about centralisation and checking the Executive are particularly relevant.

I believe that Ofsted has an important role to play and a very good future ahead of it. However, if it is to play that role and have that future, Ofsted and the chief inspector of schools--whoever he or she may be in future--must learn the lessons of Ofsted's first few years and make necessary adjustments.

Ofsted faces new challenges and new tests, not least the inspection of local education authorities and involvement in the post-16 sector. Although it is right and proper that Ofsted should be so involved, it is also important that Ofsted and the chief inspector do not go for easy applause and simplistic solutions that ignore current good practice.

12 Jul 1999 : Column 87

That includes--in relation to the Further Education Funding Council, for example--taking on board feedback and college inspectors, who are very supportive.

It is not surprising that concerns have already been expressed that Mr. Woodhead's hitherto gung-ho approach will go down like a lead balloon if he attempts to apply it in the further education sector. We must not lose the gains that have been made there.

Ofsted has been a successful caravan, but it is a caravan that must move on. Although there must be no slacking on standards in Ofsted, neither must it constitute a hanging jury. If I were Mr. Woodhead, I should have gone away, read the Committee's report and digested what was said in it. He might also consider the reported remarks of Zsa Zsa Gabor--it may have been Mae West--that


I welcome the report's recommendations and the role that we propose for Ofsted. However, as I said at the beginning of the Select Committee's press conference on the report, it is vitally important that the singer is not allowed to get in the way of the song.


Next Section

IndexHome Page