Examination of witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
WEDNESDAY 1 NOVEMBER 2000
MR CHRIS
WOODHEAD, MR
MIKE TOMLINSON,
MR DAVID
TAYLOR and MS
JUDITH PHILLIPS
Chairman
20. But if you take Lord Dormand's point that
was made in another place last week, I am sure you will have seen
it, where he says that it was the transparency of what OFSTED
were doing, you had conducted a full investigation into this but
you had not acknowledged that, or had not communicated that to
Durham, so they were unaware that you had conducted a full investigation?
(Mr Tomlinson) If I might just intervene on that point.
I asked for that to be looked at as a result of other matters
relating to that registered inspector, to have a full review.
That review, by sheer chance, coincided with the first letter
from Mr Mitchell; it was not done at Mr Mitchell's request, it
was done as a result of other matters that arose. And, it is quite
right, as the OCA properly pointed out, we should have indicated
in our earlier letters that we had conducted that review. But
it was much wider, the review, than the matter of that single
complaint that Durham made, and there is the matter of confidentiality,
therefore, about how much of other business that is not pertinent
to Durham should be revealed to Durham at that point in time.
And, again, the OCA drew our attention to that, and again we accepted
and we wrote immediately to Mr Mitchell, saying that we had carried
out such a review and that we were sorry that we had not referred
to it and would do so in any similar case of its nature; and that
letter is on record as well.
(Mr Woodhead) But the important point, Chairman, I
think, to stress, with regard to this case, is that, firstly,
you have got the independent Adjudicator, and Mr Mitchell had
access, like any other complainant, to that independent Adjudicator.
Then, in fact, this is later on in the sequence of events, because
he was not happy, we sought legal advice as to whether I had behaved
ultra vires; the legal advice was that I had not, and we
wrote to that effect to Mr Mitchell. So, independent adjudicator,
external lawyers, still not happy, so, as you say, to the House
of Lords, still not happy, to the Select Committee. Your point
to me is that we are not accountable; it seems to me that there
are a huge number, a wide range of people to whom we are accountable,
not least the Select Committee and the House of Lords. It does
not seem, to me, a good case to justify your unhappiness, or your
concern that OFSTED can do whatever it wants and not be held to
account.
21. No-one said that, Mr Woodhead. What I am
trying to illustrate this morning is that this is a case of public
concern, certainly great concern in Durham, and it has not been
just the Chief Education Officer, we have had communication with
a large number of people in Durham, there has been a debate in
the House of Lords, and quite a vigorous debate in the House of
Lords.
(Mr Woodhead) Four people turned up.
22. Led by a respected Peer who comes from that
area, and we, as a Select Committee, have a duty to ask you questions
about it.
(Mr Woodhead) Of course.
23. And it does seem quite interesting to us
that, three years after the event, there is an amount of bad feeling
in Durham that OFSTED never actually really came to be called
to account properly; so this is what we are trying to do this
morning.
(Mr Woodhead) Yes, indeed; and all I am saying, well
I am trying to do two things. One, I am trying to set out the
chapter and the verse of what happened, so that you can come to
your impartial judgement as to whether the continuing grievance
in Durham is justified or not. And, secondly, to suggest that
this particular case is a good example of the range of ways in
which OFSTED is, in fact, accountable, since the underlying concern
is one of the accountability of OFSTED in general, and apparently
the Chief Inspector in particular.
Mr O'Brien
24. Chairman, there is a corollary to that,
and linking it back to my earlier questions, if you like, that
example is one which then points up, in fact, the general discussion;
were we, in our impartial judgement, to find that we felt OFSTED
to have been at fault, in, for instance, the Durham case, or any
other case, I think we are wrestling, as a Committee, given all
the evidence, yourself, Ministers, Opposition, Shadow Ministers,
all agreeing that this is where your accountability ultimately
lies, in terms of OFSTED's performance, what are our sanctions
against you, if we think that you have done wrong? And that is
why, at the moment, we are struggling, as a Committee, to understand
what Parliament has, apparently, set as a task.
(Mr Woodhead) Yes, the monster that Parliament has
created; yes, a Frankenstein monster.
25. Possibly; and I think it is actually very
helpful, in this discussion, recognising we are in a public and
a very accountable forum, actually to have this out.
(Mr Woodhead) Yes, sure, and I am grateful for the
opportunity to put our side of things. Your one specific suggestion
as to how things could be moved forward would be to create a board;
okay, so a board is created, and the board decided that what we
have done is right, or the board was involved all along, where
are you left then? I do not see, in fact, that you have advanced
things at all. The reality, with regard to any of these issues,
and you know it as well as I do, is that if there is a general
public stink of such magnitude, then enough MPs create enough
stink, enough papers write powerfully enough about the issue for
the individual concerned to be sacked, that is what happens in
real life, and that is what would happen to me if Keith Mitchell
and the widespread disquiet in Durham was picked up by newspapers
round the country, who have been aware of the issue for the last
three years and who have written precious little about it.
Chairman
26. Mr Woodhead, this is why we are concentrating
really, we are using these specific cases,—
(Mr Woodhead) One case, thus far.
27. Absolutely; and we are trying to look at
them not in terms of the merits of the case themselves but in
terms of the process, because it is an interesting process. It
is quite early in the development of our relationship, in parliamentary
terms, and we are trying to get this right, so that the relationship
between this responsibility and accountability does work to everyone's
benefit, yours and ours, and the general public. So it is the
process I am interested in, not just the particular cases. Mr
Tomlinson?
(Mr Tomlinson) I think it only fair to put it into
some context. Over the last 12 months we have had 145 formal complaints,
and 136 of those have been resolved to the satisfaction of all
parties; there are 18 that have gone to the independent Adjudicator,
whose decision, as far as we are concerned, is final. If she,
as it is at the moment, says we ought to do X, or ought to do
Y, the agreement is that we will do X, or Y. We did, in the case
of Durham, and all of those others that were referred to there
have been happy; and the OCA's report last year referred specifically
to the Durham case and said that we had done everything that was
possible that she had requested of us. So her report is in the
public domain. Now, Durham remained unhappy. I find it difficult
to know what else we can do, I would love to know what else it
would be possible to do in this particular case. I cannot see
anything further that we can do, but then I may not be bright
enough to see what the alternatives are. But, to put it in the
context, this is the only one, only one, out of the complaints
that are made to OFSTED, which has got as far as this, and I think
it is important to get that context.
28. We also want to make sure that the process
works well and the accountability is seen to work well, so that
people like those in Durham have satisfaction. One of the things
that we must always guard against in this society that takes to
the law increasingly quickly, I believe there is a school, I do
not want to discuss the details at all this morning because it
is sub judice, that has gone for a judicial review, in
terms of the inspection. And, of course, one of our concerns is,
if we do not get this process right, if we do not get this accountability
right, we might see your work hampered by recourse to the law
because of the frustration of not seeing that this system works
well enough.
(Mr Woodhead) Let us put this in context. Mike has
started to do that. How many judicial reviews have we been involved
in, thus far?
(Mr Tomlinson) One. One other person sought judicial
review and it was turned down by the judge and did not go further.
(Mr Woodhead) Now, as you say, there is a judicial
review pending, or possibly pending; two such "cases",
33,800, I think, school inspections. Now, surely, you have to
ask yourself the magnitude of the problem that we are discussing
today, and ask yourself that question within the obvious commonsense
realisation that anybody charged with the inspection of schools,
local authorities, teacher training institutions, and all the
rest of it, is, on occasion, going to make people unhappy.
29. Sure; and that is why we are using this
small number of cases to look at the process.
(Mr Woodhead) As long as we can be clear, they are
small, these minimally, tiny number of instances.
Chairman: Sure; but what I want you to be clear
about is that we are not looking at these cases just for themselves,
we are looking at this process, there is an important process.
Gordon, you want to come in on this.
Mr Marsden
30. Good morning, Mr Woodhead. My apologies
for lateness as a result of the rail network. I want to, if I
may, explore this issue of your remit a little bit further, because
in an interview that you gave with the Times Higher Educational
Supplement on 15 September you commented on the suitability
of degrees, and you said, and I am quoting now: "Degree courses
ought to be more demanding, and what a degree represents ought
to be more impressive." Now given that, initially, at least,
one would not have thought that higher education came within your
remit, what research did OFSTED conduct that led you to your statements?
(Mr Woodhead) I am a bit bemused by this line of questioning,
because I think that the important thing is that—
31. Will you answer my question?
(Mr Woodhead) I will try, if you could give me a chance.
The important thing is that issues that are of educational significance
are debated, and I have no embarrassment, as Chief Inspector,
in speaking out about any issue. Are you saying that the Chief
Inspector, whoever that might be, should be censored?
32. No, I am not saying that at all. I am trying
to recall, for your benefit, and for the benefit of everyone here,
the extensive discussion that we had with you on this issue when
we did the inquiry into OFSTED, and you will recall that our report
concluded, and you did not dissent from that conclusion, that
the Chief Inspector's comments should be evidence-based, on issues
of public interest. And that is why I am asking you, very straightforwardly,
you commented, I am not saying whether you were right or wrong
in your comments, but you commented, on 15 September, on degree
courses, and I am asking you what OFSTED evidence led you to those
comments?
(Mr Woodhead) Two responses to that. Firstly, with
regard to what was said at the previous meeting with regard to
my remit, my understanding of what was said is that any comment
that I make about what happens in schools must be evidence-based,
I cannot fly personal kites that cannot be substantiated by the
inspection evidence, with regard to those things, obviously enough,
for which we have got inspection evidence. Now, I have no inspection
evidence, of course I do not, and you know that as well as I do,
with regard to degrees, because we do not inspect higher education;
what I did do was look at a number of degrees, particularly degrees
in media studies, a very large number, looked at the syllabuses,
and my comments are based upon "research" of that kind.
But I would not, for one moment, pretend to you that that is inspection
evidence, of course it is not, but, as I say, I am not embarrassed
about that.
33. Are you then saying that you have two standards,
one which is evidence-based, when you are commenting on things
within your direct remit, and another when you are commenting
on things outside it?
(Mr Woodhead) No, I am not saying that at all. I am
saying, quite clearly, I think, that the nature of the evidence
that I would draw upon when I comment on schools is inspection
evidence, because we have got inspection evidence; the nature
of the evidence is different when I make other comments.
34. Not surprisingly, in response to your comments,
the Chief Executive of the Quality Assurance Agency, which is
the body that is charged with safeguarding and enhancing awards
in higher education, wrote to you on 15 September, taking up your
comments and asking you to discuss the matter further with them,
and, indeed, if you felt so strongly about the issue, to participate
in it. You have not replied to him, as yet; are you going to do
anything about that?
(Mr Woodhead) What we are doing is meeting, I think
it is next week, I am meeting with a number of vice-chancellors
from universities that specialise, or concentrate upon degrees
of this kind, to discuss with them the nature of the concerns
that I have got, and what they think about it all. So, yes, this
is an issue that I think must be pursued.
35. Are you taking up the specific invitation
from the Chief Executive of the Quality Assurance Agency to discuss
and comment on the work that they have already done, which, as
I understand, you are now fully aware of, in order to try to enhance
and improve the quality of degrees?
(Mr Woodhead) I think it would be a good thing to
do, yes, and I will fit that into the diary.
Chairman
36. But is not that one of the criticisms, and
Gordon did ask you, you have not replied to this letter, according
to QAA and John Randall; why does he not merit a reply?
(Mr Woodhead) Yes, of course he does, and I apologise
to John Randall, if, as you say, I have not replied, I ought to
reply, and I will meet John Randall and talk to him about his
response, yes. Because, you see, I think that these issues, these
questions, are very, very important, and I want to engineer the
widest possible discussion of them; and, to come back to what
I think is the underlying concern that you are putting on the
table, do you think that that is wrong?
Mr Marsden
37. No, I do not think it is wrong, but I do
think that vacuous comment is as bad as vacuous degrees, and I
think if you are going to make comments of this nature, fully
aware of the impact and implications it has, not just for all
university degrees, because when you slur one by implication you
slur all. And, also, in terms of the Quality Assurance Agency,
first of all, that you might take some opportunity to give chapter
and verse in an area which you are clearly not responsible for,
and secondly that, having been gently taken to task on it by the
Chief Executive of the Quality Assurance Agency, you should not
then have to wait six weeks to respond, and say you will respond
only when prompted by the Select Committee.
(Mr Woodhead) I have taken the second point, and I
have noted your first point, that you think what I said is vacuous.
I disagree with you.
38. I did not say it was vacuous.
(Mr Woodhead) You did, you said vacuous comment.
39. I said that comment that was vacuous was
as bad as vacuous degrees; and what I am saying to you is, if
you have comment to make in these areas it is incumbent on you
to produce chapter and verse. I am making no judgement as to whether
your comment on degrees was vacuous or not. I am making the judgement
the way in which you presented it to us.
(Mr Woodhead) Okay, I accept, although I think it
is a fine distinction, your response. Just one particular piece
of evidence; the University of East London Internet statement
on the media, the importance of media studies, according to East
London, "Analysing media representations and cultures can
illuminate contradictions of modern identities and environments."
Now I think statements like that need a little intellectual probing,
because I, for one, do not understand the kind of words that are
used there; that is the blurb that goes out to attract students
to participate in this course. I am wanting to look at evidence
of that kind and see quite what it means, and I would love to
have time and resource to do more work of this kind, I think,
as people should.
|
