| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.46 pm
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere): This has been a good debate on an important subject and important report. The Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), began the debate with a thoughtful and measured speech, and all the subsequent speeches have followed in the same vein. The hon. Gentleman and the members of the Committee deserve our congratulations on having produced a balanced and sensible report which is plainly the result of a very great deal of hard work. The Opposition feel that the report and its recommendations should help to take forward Ofsted's work.
The Committee deserves to be congratulated also on having chosen Ofsted as the subject of such a major inquiry. Occasionally, Ofsted has had a relatively high profile and been the subject of much comment. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) caught the flavour of some of that comment when he described it as "noises off". Against that background, it is good for the Select Committee to examine an organisation that has become such an important part of the fabric of our education system.
Ofsted was established in 1992, and it is fair to say that its advent was not greeted with universal acclaim. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) made some well-justified remarks about that fact. Since 1992, however, Ofsted has undoubtedly been a success, which has been reflected in the speeches in this debate. As the hon. Member for Croydon, North rightly said, Ofsted's work takes its place--with the national curriculum, national testing and publication of results--as one of the pillars supporting and driving forward higher standards in our schools.
I agreed with the evaluation of Ofsted made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), and with the description by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green)
of Ofsted as a force for good. The Opposition think that it would be difficult to overestimate the part that Ofsted has played in raising standards in our schools, not least because of the greater rigour and frequency that it has brought to the inspection process.
School inspections were much less frequent before the inception of Ofsted inspections. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, I have heard estimates suggesting that, before Ofsted began its inspection regime, on average, secondary schools were inspected once every 50 years, and primary schools once every 200 years. I am not sure whether those estimates are entirely accurate, but inspections were certainly much less frequent before Ofsted started its work, and Ofsted's inspection cycle is certainly a big step forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne was right also to draw a connection between Ofsted's inspections and improvements--sometimes dramatic improvements--in schools. He mentioned the Bishop Bell school in his constituency, and undoubtedly many other hon. Members could give examples of similarly high standards being achieved by schools in their constituencies. Not all high-achieving heads and teachers can go on television to receive awards, but we should be unstinting in recognising the good work in our constituencies.
The task before us now is to find how best to build on the success of Ofsted--and there has been common ground across the House on that objective. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made a thoughtful and valuable contribution, based on his relevant experience. However, I had a slight reservation when he started to talk about a full review. There is no question about the necessity of Ofsted, or about the way in which it is doing its work in general. As with the report, the purpose of any review should be to see how to build on what is being achieved. The report is an important aid in carrying out that task and, as the hon. Gentleman said, each of the recommendations calls for a careful response from the Government.
I do not propose to go through each of the recommendations, but several need to be highlighted. One key issue is quality. Are the financial incentives now in place compatible with the high quality of inspections for which we are all looking? From the report and the evidence, it appears that the Minister was broadly satisfied with the present arrangements to ensure quality. The Committee was less sanguine about the matter at paragraphs 35 and 36, in which it stated:
Ofsted needs to look at the Committee's findings on unacceptably poor inspection practice, and to respond to the Committee's call to examine any potential flaws in its own quality assurance systems. The Committee also made sensible suggestions which are worthy of exploration on a range of other subjects, including feedback from inspections; improving the clarity of reports and cutting out jargon; and governing bodies nominating an observer to the inspection team. It is also common sense that self-evaluation should be complementary to external inspection, and not a substitute for it, as the hon. Member for Croydon, North said. Rigorous external inspection is indispensable.
In paragraph 110, significantly, the Committee welcomes the introduction of short inspections, which accord with the wider principle--now being given some currency--of intervention in inverse proportion to success. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] The Minister for School Standards, and the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), signify their assent for that principle. We agree, but--without introducing a discordant note--we wonder whether there are certain areas where it could be applied more consistently than it is at the moment. That principle holds good throughout education, and not just in those parts where the Government wish it to apply.
The report referred also to the length of notice of inspections, and also to snap inspections. That was valuable, as this matter was clearly in the mind of Ofsted. Ofsted announced recently that the period of notice of inspections given to schools is to be reduced from two terms to between six and 10 weeks. The case has been made for a shorter period of notice for inspections, and the Committee concluded that it was in favour of reducing the period of notice of inspection to the shortest term that was practical. The Committee believed that four weeks' notice was appropriate, and there is merit in that approach. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield agreed with that proposition.
We wonder whether it is possible to take the debate further on unannounced, so-called snap inspections. There is a good deal to be said for those as well. We note the evidence of the chief inspector, who said that he could see merit in the proposal. Paragraph 112 of the report states that snap visits might have several purposes--
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that there was an agreement that the time would be split more or less 50:50 between the two debates. The second debate has already conceded a little time to allow for an 8 o'clock finish. We are not leaving much time for the Minister to wind up if the hon. Gentleman is still speaking at four minutes to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
The hon. Gentleman will understand that the Chair is not party to any arrangements but is guided by the rules of the House. I understand that this debate could go on until six minutes to nine. As the
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich):
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I do not see that there can be anything further to the point of order, as everything is in good order.
Mrs. Dunwoody:
May I nevertheless ask whether you have had any message from Opposition Front Benchers? Since they think transport is so important, I am sure that they would not want to hold up the debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
There are always conversations between hon. Members and the occupant of the Chair but, as the hon. Lady knows, they are private.
Mr. Clappison:
In light of that remark, I will do my best to put my contribution in the bus lane. I will fast-track it as well as I can and watch out for ministerial cars coming up behind me.
We believe that snap inspections have a part to play and could give additional reassurance to parents. Generally, the report suggests a number of refinements which would add to the effectiveness of Ofsted. Parents in particular value high-quality, rigorous inspection of schools, and parents appreciate some of the leadership that has been given in this regard by Ofsted.
The leadership of Ofsted--to which the Committee refers at the end of the report--has been mentioned today, although I take the point made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South that the report was structurally driven, rather than personality driven. For our part, we think that there is value in having high-profile leadership which draws public attention to issues emerging from Ofsted's work which must be addressed.
Transport is very important, but so are some of the issues that we are discussing at the moment. They include the report on primary schools issued by Ofsted at the end of last week, which it is worth remarking--given the comments about the critical character of some reports--drew attention to the progress that had been made over the period of Ofsted's inspections; to the good practice that was going on; and to rising standards in primary schools. The report traced some of the reasons for that--in particular, the reduction in the amount of topic-led discussions, and more whole-class teaching, which can be identified as two vital factors responsible for rising standards in our primary schools.
Paragraph 215 of the report says:
"we are anxious to ensure that the quality of every inspection team is high, and we have some sympathy with the concerns of inspection contractors who argued that the current process did not provide incentives for contractors to put in place high-quality training, development and quality assurance systems . . . We therefore take these concerns seriously as the contracting process has a significant impact on the quality of inspection team which is assembled by the successful contractor. The overall aim is to reach the highest level of quality which can be provided for by the system."
That is one part of the Committee's report which calls for a particularly careful response, as does the part in which the Committee draws attention to the relationship between inspection quality and inspectors' pay. I listened to the interesting comments of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) on this subject, and
there appears to be good sense in the Committee's recommendation in paragraph 44 that Ofsted should undertake a study into rates of pay.
"Mr Jim Hudson, Headteacher of Two Mile Ash School, expressed the view that OFSTED itself was well regarded by parents, due in part to the fact that 'HM Chief Inspector has not failed to confront the issues and parents' perception of OFSTED's work has been enhanced in the process'."
We agree. There is a place for leadership that opens up the issues. Education should not be, as it has so often been described in the past, a secret garden; it should be a place where parents can come in and take an interest, and someone should evaluate schools and reflect their concerns.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |