APPENDIX 16
Memorandum from Mr Stuart Greenwood (OAR
23)
1. I should like to comment on what I believe
to be a somewhat cynical ploy on the part of OFSTED to meet the
current shortfall of inspectors. Initially, many inspectors were
induced to come on board by being offering fees and expenses which
matched the status and demands of the post. Once sufficient inspectors
had committed themselves, rates then collapsed. The current advertisement
for additional inspectors in the TES offers a daily rate of £225
for primary inspectors with all expenses paid. This in
itself is not over generous, bearing in mind that the daily rate
applies only to days in school and takes no account of preparation
and report writing. However, you may be aware that most contractors
pay between £200-£225 per day and leave inspectors to
pay their own expenses. Allowing for four nights' accommodation
in the luxury of a chain hotel on the edge of some industrial
estate and overpriced meals in the nearby pub [usually the only
option], this leaves current inspectors on a long inspection between
£200-£250 worse off. This is before accounting for travel
expenses! Inspections in London and the Home Counties pay the
same and accommodation is rarely less than £60 per night,
leaving a shortfall of over £300.
2. Some time ago when I wrote to OFSTED
about fee levels, they washed their hands of the whole issue.
Fees, they wrote, were a matter for the contractors and were based
solely on supply and demand. Now, when people do as I have done
and withdraw because of poor conditions, OFSTED artificially distorts
the market in order to tempt some more gullible souls to fill
the gaps.
3. At a time when the demands on inspections
are increasing, it is unworthy and above all, unfair. Would members
of the Select Committee work for these rates?
Mr Stuart Greenwood,
Registered Inspector
March 2000
|
