Examination of witnesses (Questions 40
- 59)
WEDNESDAY 1 NOVEMBER 2000
MR CHRIS
WOODHEAD, MR
MIKE TOMLINSON,
MR DAVID
TAYLOR and MS
JUDITH PHILLIPS
40. Hopefully, in the same way as you were able
to cite that two examples of judicial review out of tens of thousands
of inspections were the proportion that you should devote, you
will be able to produce a few more examples of chapter and verse
in producing this dialogue with the QAA?
(Mr Woodhead) I certainly could.
Chairman
41. Mr Woodhead, I think what the Committee
would like to hear, in a sense, and we have not received a contribution
from you in terms of your concerns about higher education; we
have a major inquiry into higher education, the student experience
at every level, into higher education, in process, it started
in January, it is ongoing. I understand that you wrote an article
about this, you have not made a contribution to that evidence,
which we would very much have welcomed, and still would welcome,
even at this late stage. But what I think Gordon Marsden is quite
rightly pressing you on is, what value is there, and does it not
actually detract from the overall kind of image of OFSTED, if
you launch into these areas? People do say that your article and
your comments bear a very strong relationship to an article the
week before, in The Spectator.[6]
Indeed, when the CVCP corresponded with us on this they made a
very strong point that your own discipline, English, if you looked
at the range of English degrees in this country, you made great
play on the employability of graduates, and they pointed out that
if you took the very degrees that you took on they actually had
a better employment rate than English, the very degree that you
took at university.
(Mr Woodhead) No, there is a fundamental misunderstanding
of my position on higher education here, which I would like to
take the opportunity to set straight. I have never said that employability
is the main criterion that we ought to bring to bear upon higher
education courses. Indeed, one of the concerns that I have got
is that Government debate and Government policy about higher education
is couched too often in a utilitarian way. I am a passionate defender
of the importance of a traditional, humanistic, academic education
in universities, and I do not want to see such degrees lost. I
want, on the other hand, to have vocational qualifications developed
which have got a real impact upon the future employment prospects
of the students that follow them. I think that we need post-school
education and training of each kind, as it were, that there needs
to be a spectrum of different courses available; but, please,
do not think, for one moment, and I do not know why the vice-chancellors
believe this, that I take a utilitarian view of higher education,
I most certainly do not.
42. I think the view was that the comments did
not add, in a constructive and positive way, to the general debate
on the future of higher education at this moment. Can I just call
in Mr Taylor.
(Mr Taylor) Could I just add, in response to Mr Marsden's
point, that there is one area where we do have direct evidence
and it relates specifically to OFSTED's remit, and that is the
preparation of teachers. Our teacher training inspection reports
have consistently drawn attention to certain subject areas, particularly
physical education, technology and, to some extent, English, where
the nature of first degrees is such as to prepare potential teachers
very inadequately for the work which they will have to do as teachers.
Especially at a time when the Government is pushing direct employment-based
routes into teaching, where graduates will be able to go straight
into schools, it is obviously of concern if we find that in PE
people can do courses which are narrowly focused on one specific
area of sport, which does not prepare them at all carefully, or
fully, for a proper capacity to teach physical education across
the main range. Now that is one example where we have direct evidence,
and I have had it myself from inspecting, where first degree courses,
which we are not necessarily saying are inadequate in themselves
but may be in terms of their preparation for employment in a specific
field, give rise to concern. So it is not that this is a topic
that has no connection with our remit.
Mr St. Aubyn
43. That leads nicely into my point, I think,
Chairman, because, equally, Chief Inspector, your comments about
A levels have attracted a lot of attention, and one presumes that
A level standards, which are not imposed by schools, they are
imposed by the examining boards, are a great concern to you as
well, because one takes it that the A level results over time
of a school are a key component in terms of the assessment that
your inspectors make of that school's performance. Could you therefore
tell us what research you undertook into the consistency of A
level standards before giving your views on that subject?
(Mr Woodhead) Can I just ask, first, what do you believe
I said, which is an important question?
44. That there is a lack of consistency in A
level standards.
(Mr Woodhead) You see, The Guardian headline,
if I remember it, said that I believe that A level standards are
going down; if you read the actual interview I gave, I did not
say that. I said, and this bears, Nick, very acutely on your particular
question about evidence, that we do not have the evidence to know.
We do not have the evidence to know whether A level standards
are remaining constant, whether they are going up, or they are
going down, and that is true of GCSEs as well. We tried, a few
years ago, the so-called "standards over time" exercise,
to come to judgements about what had happened to standards, and
it was a partially successful exercise but it was not totally
so, mainly because the exam boards did not keep the scripts that
candidates had done in previous years, which I think is a great
problem, and I believe now that they are required to do so. But
we do not have the evidence, and I said that in the interview
that I gave to The Guardian newspaper. What I did say was
that A levels need to become more difficult, which is not the
same proposition as A levels are too easy. Why do I think that
they have got to become more difficult; well, for two reasons.
One because examinations exert a powerful influence upon our expectations
as to what happens in schools; and, two, because A level results
are obviously used by university admissions tutors, and indeed
by employers, to decide which candidates are the right candidates
for particular courses and particular jobs. And if you have got
an ever-increasing number of people securing the top grades then
the examination is not fulfilling the purpose of discriminating
amongst candidates that is one of its prime functions. So, for
those two reasons, I think, looking to the future, A levels have
got to be made more difficult. But I am not saying, in terms of
your sort of veiled accusation, that A levels have become too
easy, because we do not have the evidence to come to that proposition.
45. I hope I have not made any veiled accusations.
I was merely trying to find out what research had been conducted
before you made your comments. But what was seen to be implicit
in Mr Taylor's answer to the question about higher education was
that perhaps the courses are becoming too modular. Is what you
are saying, unless I misread you, that, in terms of A levels,
clearly a trend in recent years is that A level courses have become
more modular? Do you think that has contributed, in your view,
to your doubts which you have expressed about the quality of A
levels?
(Mr Woodhead) I worry about modularity, yes. I worry
on practical grounds, because a number of headteachers tell me
that having to do tests at the end of modules means that every
term of the A level course there is a particular test or examination,
and it makes it more difficult than it was in the past to have
the wide, general reading that characterised, in my view, and
the view of many other people, an effective A level course. I
worry about that. And I also think that, if you have got a system
of examinations whereby you are being examined module by module
and that there is an opportunity to retake the modules if you
have not got a sufficiently good grade, that is a very different
kind of examination than the terminal examination that traditionally
was the case. So I think there are very interesting questions
about modularity.
46. In view of these concerns, and since A level
results are a key component of your assessment of schools, is
OFSTED going to undertake research into the impact of the modular
approach of A levels? Is OFSTED going to undertake research into
the general level and consistency of A levels over time to the
extent that evidence is now available?
(Mr Woodhead) Yes. We have done some work, as I say,
the "standards over time", in partnership with the QCA,
or was it SCAA, at that time, I cannot remember. This is an area
where the QCA is in the lead, but I have, in fact, written to
David Hargreaves, the Chief Executive of the QCA, saying that
this is an area that we ought to explore more, and I think also
the issue of course-work ought to be explored, too. The availability
of all these model essays on the Net that students can simply
use, I think, is very disturbing. So there are some profoundly
important issues about A levels that I do not think are being
looked at sufficiently rigorously at present.
Dr Harris
47. You said that you did not think A levels
were too easy but they need to become more difficult?
(Mr Woodhead) Yes.
48. Now I find that a difficult distinction
to make, because my understanding, and I may not have your education,
is that if you think something needs to become more difficult
your view is that they are too easy at the moment?
(Mr Woodhead) No, it does not follow at all, logically.
49. So they are difficult enough, because they
are not too easy, but they need to become more difficult?
(Mr Woodhead) No; not difficult enough. Something
can be difficult, but one can argue, perfectly logically, that
it needs to become more difficult.
50. Right; because it is, relatively speaking,
too easy?
(Mr Woodhead) No.
51. You said you did not think A levels were
too easy but they needed to become more difficult, that is on
the record, you can inspect that, and you said that you maintain
the view that they need to become more difficult, but that is
not the same as saying that they are too easy?
(Mr Woodhead) There are two completely different propositions
here. The first proposition is, A levels are too easy, which was
The Guardian headline; now everybody reads into that proposition,
understandably enough, standards are in decline, the Chief Inspector
is saying things are not what they used to be, and I am saying
to you I did not say that at all. What I did say is, and this
is something that is different, that, looking to the future, for
the two reasons that I gave you, rehearsed in tedious detail,
the influence, expectations, that examinations exert and the necessity
of having an examination that does sort out the best candidates
from the average, from the weaker candidates, we need, in the
future, to make A levels even more demanding than they are at
present. And I am sorry if you find it difficult to hold those
two propositions in your head, but I do not think it is that hard
really.
52. I have to say, I am with The Guardian
on this one.
(Mr Woodhead) You are with The Guardian on
most things.
Chairman: Mr Woodhead, can I just say, as Chairman
of this Committee, I do find it offensive when, as an aside, you
make that remark to a member of my Committee about his ability.
Dr Harris: I do not mind.
Chairman
53. My colleague is a respected graduate of
Oxford, he has a medical degree, and—
(Mr Woodhead) If I had any doubts about the honourable
Member's intellectual abilities, I—
54. Mr Woodhead, what I am trying to point out,
when we talked earlier about substance and style, it gets in the
way, the style, your flip remarks, sometimes, for a man who prides
himself, as in your opening remarks, on talking bluntly and straightforwardly,
it seems to me that you do seem to be a casualty of misinterpretation
by the media, because every time we talk about higher education
or we talk about A levels you say, basically, that the professional
journalists, who are usually education journalists who know something
about this field, have misinterpreted what you said.
(Mr Woodhead) I am sorry; let us just consider the
case of The Guardian. But if you read The Guardian
interview, conducted by William Woodward, it was fine; the problem
is the sub-editor, the problem is the headline, and the headline
does not do justice to the text that the paper printed. Now I
do not have any influence, neither does The Guardian education
editor have any influence, over the headlines, we all know that,
and I do not think that you can blame me for that; neither, given
that Dr Harris has not taken personal offence himself, do I think
we should make too much of an issue of the way that I have just
had an interchange with him.
Chairman: I am the protector of my Committee.
Evan, do you want to come back on that?
Dr Harris
55. Yes. I am not offended, but I would like
to really delve into this issue, because I think what you really
need to defend is either your remarks or your defence of the remarks,
because you do say that you would like them, that is A levels,
to be more academically rigorous, and you have been consistent
about that. I have to say that that suggests to me that, currently,
for whatever reason, you do not believe them to be rigorous enough.
Now that was a view put by the Institute of Directors, that is
their view; do you think that there is something in their view?
(Mr Woodhead) No. I am not advancing the argument
that everything has declined with A levels, that A levels now
are not the thing that they once were, that they are not academically
rigorous compared to what they were ten years, 20 years ago, 30
years ago, I am not saying that. I am not saying that because
we do not have the evidence to say it; if I had the evidence I
would say it, but I have not got the evidence. What I am saying,
looking to the future, is that we have got to make our A level
examinations, and indeed our GCSE examinations, ever more demanding;
and I am saying that for two reasons. One, because exams exert
a profound influence, for better or for worse, on what happens
in classrooms; and, two, one of the prime functions of examinations
is to discriminate amongst the candidates who sit those examinations,
and we have got, and we know this, we have got more and more students,
both at 16-plus and at 18-plus, achieving the top grades.
56. Do you have any evidence to back up that
view?
(Mr Woodhead) What, the latter point?
57. The view you have just given?
(Mr Woodhead) Yes. We have, as I say, evidence, in
terms of the number of As and B grades to show that more and more
students are getting As and Bs.
(Mr Taylor) Might I just say, simply, that some inspection
evidence does draw attention, in, for example, our area-wide inspections
post-16, to a lack of challenge to the ablest pupils and students
in A level courses; so there is inspection evidence on that subject.
Secondly, the question about difficulty is recognised as a central
plank of Government policy by the emphasis on the need for greater
discrimination at the top level allowed by the emphasis on worldwide
tests, and so on. So it is not only we but Government itself and
the QCA who are concerned that the way in which the system has
moved has created too little discrimination, too little challenge,
for the brightest and ablest of A level students. And I was at
a QCA Board meeting yesterday where that point was being made
on behalf of professors of engineering at Cambridge University,
in relation to the predominantly modular A level maths course,
which is seen by widespread numbers of professors as providing,
at the top level, inadequate challenge to the brightest students.
That is not to say that the entry level, the threshold level,
the Grade E, if you like, needs to be adjusted, that is a different
question, but we can say that, within the A level, there is increasing
evidence, and that increasing support and Government commitment
are being given to ensure that the process of examining really
stretches the ablest and brightest students as much as it can,
to give them the basis for access to the degree courses in our
highest performing universities.
(Mr Tomlinson) Really linked to that, after this year's
A levels, I cannot remember who, but some commentator within the
education world said that if the present trend continued then
he would estimate that in 30 years everyone would get a grade
A at A level. That was purely on the basis of the trend. Now at
that point you have to ask yourself, if that is the end line then,
clearly, the differentiation being achieved, or the differentiation
hoped for, through the examination, simply falls apart, and you
have then to look at whether the challenge, as my colleague has
said, at the top end, is sufficient for the students. And, of
course, it is not a new phenomenon, when you look back over examinations
and their history, to see that the demands made of education,
the pupils in it, have risen, quite rightly; they need to continue
to rise if we are to have the level of educated population that
we need, not just for employment purposes but for living in the
modern technological age.
Chairman: Thank you for the answers on that.
Can we move to a different topic, and one that has particularly
concerned us is the recent reports regarding the Commission for
Racial Equality, and Helen Jones would like to ask you a question
about that.
Helen Jones
58. If I may, Chief Inspector, I would like
to go a step backwards, first of all, before we get to the CRE
report. Following the Macpherson Report, OFSTED was given lead
responsibility for examining strategies in schools to prevent
and address racism. I would like you to tell the Committee, if
you would, what steps your organisation took, once you were given
that lead responsibility, particularly in training inspectors
to inspect these issues, and in finding out whether that training
was effective?
(Mr Woodhead) Firstly, we ensured that the Macpherson
recommendations were an integral part of the revised Framework
inspection. We then developed a training package for inspectors,
the training package that I think is beginning this week, so that
every inspector who works for us is aware of the race equality
inclusion issues that exercised Macpherson. We have developed
guidance for inspectors in schools, evaluating education and inclusion,
and, just to quote a little from this. Inspecting Inclusion,
in a nutshell, you MUST, and even from that distance you can probably
see the capital letters, ask "do all pupils get a fair deal
at the school?" "how well does the school recognise
and overcome barriers to learning?" "do the school's
values embrace inclusion?" and "does its practice promote
it?" And towards the end of this document there is an Annex
which draws the attention of every inspector that works for us
to what Macpherson actually said. So I think that we have taken
the recommendations of the Macpherson report very, very seriously
indeed.
59. There are two issues which I think arise
from that, if I may. One is that when you talk about inclusion
it can cover many aspects of life, it is not specific to racism;
and the other is what OFSTED has done to ensure that its inspectors
are taking the need to inspect for racial equality on board, you
can tell them about it but, the question is, is it actually happening
on the ground?
(Mr Woodhead) In answer of what we have done, I can
only repeat what I have already said to you. It is not just a
matter of our telling people, it is a matter of, any kind of education,
I suppose, trying to ensure that the underlying principles, values,
assumptions, that we think are important, with regard to this
area, this very profoundly important area, are understood by everybody
who is working for us; and that is what the training will try
to do. And I think our track record in this area is pretty impressive.
Going back to 1996, you said you wanted to take a step backwards,
well let us do that. We published the report "Raising Achievement
of Bilingual Pupils" 1995-96, which had quite a considerable
influence. In 1997 we published a report, "The Assessment
of the Language Development of Bilingual Pupils". Also, in
1996, a different with regard to inclusion but, nevertheless,
I think, an important one, "The Education of Travelling Children".
In 1996 as well we published the Gillborn and Gipps report "Recent
Research on the Achievements of Ethnic Minority Pupils".
In 1999, "Raising the Attainment of Minority Ethnic Pupils;
School and LEA Responses". And then, this last month, October
2000, "Educational Inequality; Mapping Race, Class and Gender",
David Gillborn again and Heidi Mirza. So we have published, over
the last few years, a significant number and, though I say it
myself, I think it is a fair adjective, seminal reports on this
area that have influenced both Government policy and professional
attitudes and work in schools.
(Mr Tomlinson) The document is a part of the training.
They also have to attend with approved trainers to go through
for another day, and it is mandatory; any inspector who does not
undergo this training by next summer will not be allowed to inspect.
They are given time to fit it into their diaries. The other point
is that we do know the new inspection system does require inspectors
to make a judgement about whether the procedures in the school
for monitoring and eliminating oppressive behaviour and racism,
as is required by the Macpherson Report, are in place, and we
do have data on that because it is a judgement that has to be
made on all schools, so we do know the position in schools. I
can give you what the analysis was for the first 185 secondary
schools. The other thing to add is, we have already trained all
our registered nursery inspectors, those were the first ones,
because we changed the Framework earlier, i.e. last year, for
them, so all 900 or so of those have already been trained on these
issues, as they came into effect on the foundation curriculum
that was introduced as well. The other problem that our inspectors
have is that it is not required of schools, nor is it required
of local education authorities, for example, to analyse the test
and examination data according to the ethnicity of pupils; and,
therefore, when our inspectors go into schools, if the school
has done that analysis, and some do, then the inspectors are able
to use it and to comment. But in too many schools, as in our earlier
reports, to which Mr Woodhead just referred, that analysis is
not undertaken, and it leaves the inspectors in a difficult position,
because the data that we receive and give to them does not identify
the pupil, and hence the ethnic origin of that pupil, so we cannot
do the analysis for them.
6 The Spectator, 5 August 2000, "The Education
Swindle" by Duke Maskell. Back
|
