Select Committee on Education and Employment Eighth Report


The Education and Employment Committee has agreed to the following Report:—



  1. In our major Report in 1999 on the work of OFSTED, we stated our intention to hold regular annual meetings with Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools (HMCI) on his Annual Report.[1] The Education Sub-committee took evidence on Wednesday 21 March 2001 from Mr Mike Tomlinson, the new HMCI appointed in November 2000, concerning his Annual Report for 1999-2000, which had been published on 6 February 2001.[2] Interested parties were invited by the Education Sub-committee to comment on the Annual Report.[3] Only a small number of issues dealt with in HMCI's Annual Report could be covered in the oral evidence given by Mr Tomlinson and his colleagues Mr David Taylor and Mrs Elizabeth Passmore (both Directors of Inspection). In addition, Mrs Maggie Smith, Head of the Early Years Directorate, and Ms Judith Phillips, Director of Planning and Resources, gave evidence alongside Mr Tomlinson on the OFSTED's preparations for taking up its additional responsibilities under the Care Standards Act 2000.

2. The Education Sub-committee's previous oral evidence sessions with Mr Tomlinson during the current Parliament have been as follows:

Published as
11 February 1998Annual Report of HMCI, 1996-97
HC 551-i
10 February 1999The Work of OFSTED
HC 62-i
3 November 1999Annual Report of HMCI, 1997-98/The Work of OFSTED
HC 884
15 March 2000Annual Report of HMCI, 1998-99
HC 345
21 June 2000Early Years
HC 386-vi
1 November 2000OFSTED Corporate Plan 2000
HC 34

On each of those occasions Mr Tomlinson gave evidence as one of the Directors of Inspection alongside his predecessor, Mr Chris Woodhead. Mr Tomlinson also took part in an informal seminar for the Committee on 13 June 2000 about the implications of resource accounting and budgeting.

Early Years

129.We recommend that the OFSTED's Director of Early Years should have substantial experience of the care and education of young children. In our view it is also essential that there should be a strong element of both Early Years experience of education and care within the team.

130.In our view OFSTED should recognise that the manner of inspection should change from the current climate of extreme stress in schools both before and during an OFSTED inspection to one of support.

131.We recommend that the inspection should include the self-evaluation undertaken in the setting, so that it will be more effective in improving the quality of provision.

132.We expect to subject the performance of the OFSTED Early Years Director to regular scrutiny as part of the accountability of OFSTED to Parliament, specifically to this Select Committee. — First Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 2000-01, Early Years, HC 33.

3. In our Report on the Early Years, we have recommended that the head of the new OFSTED arm should have substantial experience of the care and education of young children. In our view it is also essential that there should be a strong element of both early years experience of education and care within the team. In subsequent correspondence, Mr Woodhead said that OFSTED had concluded that the key requirements for the challenging post of Director of Early Years were related to management experience and expertise. Mr Woodhead gave an assurance that early years expertise would be included within the overall expertise of the Director's senior team. We expect to be following up our work on Early Years with regular scrutiny of the performance of the OFSTED Early Years Director as part of the accountability of OFSTED to Parliament. — Second Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 2000-01, OFSTED Corporate Plan 2000, HC 34.

3. The appointment of Mrs Maggie Smith as OFSTED's Early Years Director was announced on the very day that our Report on Early Years was published, on 11 January 2001.[4] OFSTED will start its childcare work from September 2001. Mrs Smith told the Education Sub-committee that the extension of OFSTED's responsibilities following the implementation of the Care Standards Act 2000 would "help join everything up for children" in an area that had been subject to some form of regulation since at least the Nurseries and Childminders Act 1948.[5]

4. There is a concern that under OFSTED inspectors who would previously have been part of a local authority structure will be working out of their own homes, and this could raise particular problems in the area of child protection.[6] OFSTED's Director of Planning and Resources, Ms Judith Phillips, told the Sub-committee that OFSTED hoped that their regional centres would provide administration of even higher quality than local authorities had been able to provide.[7] Making use of the network of Inland Revenue offices to provide occasional meeting space would be part of OFSTED's "emphasis on investment in the people rather than in buildings which would be left empty".[8] Mrs Smith assured the Sub-committee that in the new structure there would be clear and formal links with area child protection committees and that inspectors would receive intensive training in child protection and other issues, including the inspectors' own health and safety.[9] The National Standards which provide the framework for OFSTED to regulate the system will be published soon.[10]

5. We look forward to OFSTED beginning its work in the early years from September 2001 and to our next opportunity to scrutinise progress in this area.

Teaching quality

  6. In his Commentary on the Annual Report, Mr Tomlinson drew attention to the steady improvements in the quality of education and the standards achieved by pupils for yet another year.[11] The proportion of lessons judged unsatisfactory in inspections had fallen from one in five in 1994-95 to one in twenty in 1999-2000, which was a "tremendous achievement by our teachers and headteachers, supported by their governors, at a time of great change and challenge".[12] Mr Tomlinson said that it was "staggering" that 40 per cent of primary schools inspected had not had a single lesson judged unsatisfactory during the inspection.[13] A summary of OFSTED's judgements on teaching quality from 1993-94 to 1999-2000 is set out below.

Percentage of lessons judged
unsatisfactory/poor, satisfactory and good/very good
1993-94 — 1999-2000
Secondary Schools
Very good / good
# 82.0
Unsatisfactory / poor
Primary Schools
Very good/ good
 # 75.7
Unsatisfactory / poor
Special Schools*
Very good /good
not given
not given
Unsatisfactory / poor
not given

Source: HMCI annual reports
Data for primary schools are averages of judgements for nursery, reception and Years 1-6.
Data for secondary schools are averages of judgements for Years 7-11.
Figures may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

# Figures for very good/good and satisfactory are not dis-aggregated in this annual report.
* All special schools (severe learning difficulties, moderate learning difficulties and emotional and behavioural difficulties

Teacher retention and recruitment

  7. Mr Tomlinson's Commentary in his Annual Report for 1999-2000 stated that "urgent action is more than ever needed on the recruitment and retention of teachers, as the Government plainly acknowledges ... progress made in raising standards is at risk unless current trends are reversed and gaps filled with well-qualified specialists".[14] In his evidence to the Sub-committee, Mr Tomlinson confirmed that "the situation has worsened in recent months" since the year under review in his Annual Report:

    "What is clear from the data we have is that the issue of recruitment and retention was becoming one that was taxing schools and its effects were already beginning to be seen—as I drew attention to them in my report. For example, we were seeing many more supply teachers in schools and many of course being deployed in the early stages in secondary schools of Key Stage 3, between the ages of 11 and 14. We are also, for the first time, seeing an increase in the mismatch between the subject or subjects a teacher was teaching and their qualifications and experience. Again, a symptom of the likely fact that headteachers are having to redeploy some staff and therefore ask people perhaps to do things which they are not as strong in teaching as they might be".[15]

8. Mr Tomlinson recognised that concerns about teacher shortages tend to come to the fore at a similar point in the economic cycle, but in his view "this particular cycle is more difficult and more complex than the previous one, so I think it is an important and serious problem".[16] Mr Tomlinson told the Sub-committee that performance-related pay for teachers was "important but not the be-all and end-all" for teachers.[17] OFSTED would be collecting and analysing data from the threshold assessors on whether performance-related pay was being applied sensibly, but there was no evidence at this early stage that headteachers were not applying the systems in place conscientiously and effectively.[18]

9. Mr Tomlinson expressed worry that if these problems were not tackled vigorously "it might well put at risk all the important and substantial gains that have been made in recent times".[19] He called for serious consideration of the question of how to ensure the supply of teachers in the future:[20]

    "We have to get a real hold on the whole issue of the supply side of the profession".[21]

We share the HMCI's concerns that much of the progress made in recent years could be put at risk if the problems of teacher recruitment and retention are not tackled in a comprehensive and innovative way.

10. Mr Taylor told the Sub-committee that, because comparative salaries presented an intractable problem, "we have got to make sure that teaching is a profession that has other attractions to get in the best graduates".[22] He pointed out that "forty per cent of those who start teacher training never make it to the classroom".[23] Mr Tomlinson said that this figure was "very worrying" although it had always been quite high.[24] At the time he gave evidence to the Sub-

committee, Mr Tomlinson had no evidence on the effectiveness of the £6,000 training salary on

the supply of teachers,[25] nor on whether shortage subject bursaries had been successful.[26] We recommend that in its Annual Report for 2001-02 OFSTED should report specifically on the effects of teacher shortage and subject mismatch.

Reducing bureaucracy

  11. Mr Tomlinson's Commentary stated that "the Government has signalled its determination to reduce bureaucracy, and OFSTED will continue to look for ways of cutting back on the administrative demands of inspection. Teachers must be able to teach and leaders to lead. We owe this to our teachers and to our pupils".[27] His message to the Sub-committee was that "all of us concerned with education are putting too much bureaucratic and administrative burden upon schools and we need to reduce it wherever we have any responsibility for that".[28] OFSTED recognised that it also needed to make its contribution by reducing the bureaucratic demands of inspection.[29] While recognising that some paperwork, such as that concerned with target setting, was actually helpful to schools, who often wished to be included in consultation exercises, for example, Mr Tomlinson acknowledged that "we have not found [the] right balance at the moment".[30] He agreed that more could be done to spread best practice in use of IT to cut down the amount of paperwork. Work was being done with the DfEE and the Cabinet Office to produce a universal system of document classification to give schools a clear indicator of the importance of documents and the kind of response that was being required of them.[31] Mr Taylor pointed out that teachers generally lacked the administrative or logistical support normal in almost every other profession.[32] We welcome OFSTED's recognition of the part that it can play in reducing the bureaucratic demands made on schools. We recommend that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools should report on the progress he has made in this area in his Annual Report for 2000-01.

Supply teachers

The quality of supply teachers is a matter of serious concern. We recommend that OFSTED should bring forward proposals for monitoring the quality and classroom readiness of supply teachers, in order to identify areas where improvement is needed. The next step would be to put in place a strategy to help supply teachers with weaknesses to improve their performance. — Sixth Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1999-2000, Standards and Quality in Education: The Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools 1998-99, HC 345, paragraph 8.

12. In his oral evidence to the Sub-committee, Mr Tomlinson said that he had been discussing with headteachers what guidance should be given to OFSTED inspectors on referring to the numbers of lessons covered by supply teachers (or those on non-permanent contracts) in their reports on schools.[33]


  13. The Chief Inspector's Commentary highlighted the teaching of writing, especially boys' writing, as a key area of concern.[34] Mr Tomlinson told the Sub-committee that the some of the problems with capacity of pupils being able to write correct sentences grammatically "can be traced back to the fact that many of the teachers in our schools may well not have themselves been taught the fundamental structure of our language".[35] Mr Taylor said that:

    "Initial teacher training has done a great deal to remedy the long­standing deficiencies in understanding English structures that we are aware of in the teaching profession. Now that those standards are in place, I am hoping that we will see a big improvement; that is to say that when you actually sit in a primary lesson and it is focusing on grammatical structure, it does actually help if the teacher knows the difference between adjectives and adverbs if they are trying to teach them, and quite often they do not. New teachers should not have that kind of problem".[36]

14. Mr Taylor said that half of all boys were falling below level four in writing at the age of 11. He said that this "national scandal" had to be tackled:

    "by sitting down and systematically thinking how you actually teach those pupils both the craft of writing but actually, more importantly, the will to write, the stimulus to write, the ability to relate what they read and what they say to other people to how they write, using all available technologies. Because, actually, I think imaginative use of ICT will be one of the ways through this, especially for the many boys who seem perfectly capable of sitting down at keyboards and bashing away but when asked to use pen or pencil have a kind of paralysis".[37]

15. There was clear evidence running through from Key Stage 1 to Key Stage 2 that, as a generalisation, girls were on the whole performing better than boys at writing.[38] Mr Tomlinson admitted that OFSTED did not know what was the particular problem with boys' writing, but there appeared to be a number of factors, including the small number of male role models among primary school teachers,[39] absence from school,[40] an attitude that being clever is not 'cool', differential quality of fine motor skills in letter formation at the very start of their educational experience, how boys' writing is perceived and received compared with girls', and the intrinsic quality of the material that they are receiving and its capacity to engage with boys' interests or potential interests.[41] Whilst we recognise the progress made in raising levels of achievement in literacy, we are still seriously concerned at the apparent lack of achievement in writing, among boys in particular. We recommend that research into both the reasons for low levels of achievement and ways of tackling it should be a high priority for the Government.

16. Mr Tomlinson pointed out that "a high proportion of the young people who turn to crime are ones whose literacy skills are poor".[42] The Adult Learning Inspectorate will have the principal responsibility for reporting on the quality of education in prisons, while OFSTED concentrates on the juvenile estate.[43] From April 2001 the new Prisoners' Learning and Skills Unit will support DfEE and Home Office Ministers in the development of education and training for prisoners.[44] All too often the people who are in prison are those whom the education system has failed the most.[45] Mr Martin Narey, Director General of the Prison Service, recently told the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee that "two-thirds of the prison population have levels of literacy and numeracy so low they are ineligible for 96 per cent of jobs".[46] We would expect our successor Committee in the next Parliament to take a long hard look at what is added to prisoners' education and skills while they are in prison. It has been suggested that eligibility for benefit in the outside world should in certain circumstances be made conditional upon attending classes to improve individuals' basic skills.[47] One possible proposal for future study could be whether early release from prison should be made conditional on prisoners' meeting certain educational targets.

Work experience

  17. OFSTED has recently completed a report on work-related learning in Key Stage 4, which will show that for a significant number of pupils the opportunity—involving employers, further education, school and so on—to embark upon well-structured, well-organised work-related courses is motivating and leads to levels of achievement for some, if not for all of those who take part. Mr Tomlinson told the Sub-committee that the report would raise issues about how that provision should be accredited and taken account of in terms of the school's performance.[48]

Pupil behaviour

  18. The Annual Report noted that the standard of pupils' behaviour was good in three-quarters of secondary schools, but the proportion of unsatisfactory behaviour was slightly higher than previous years. Poor behaviour and negative attitudes to work were significant issues in half of schools making poor progress in raising pupils' attainment.[49] Mr Tomlinson said that, although the vast majority of schools were orderly establishments where people respected each other, the year 1999-2000 was the first time that inspectors had reported an increase in the proportion of secondary schools where behaviour was less than satisfactory, largely centred upon the end of Key Stage 3, round about pupils 13 or 14 years old.[50] Mrs Passmore said that:

    "There are different forms of inappropriate behaviour that disrupt the learning of pupils. Sometimes we see a rather low level disruption, where lots of pupils are chattering amongst themselves and as an inspector walking around you hear the conversations, which are nothing to do with what they ought to be. That does mean that during the course of the lesson not a great deal is being learned. That sort of misbehaviour ought to be able to be dealt with fairly effectively by the teacher ... The scale is very wide, from that very low level to the other extreme and, of course, on occasions, but very rarely when we are present, but we see it documented in subsequent exclusion data, where pupils do, in fact, become verbally and physically abusive to teachers".[51]

19. OFSTED had found that it was most effective to have a clear behaviour policy which was consistently applied by all staff, whether permanent or temporary, and understood and supported by pupils and their parents. Parents played a crucial part in improving behaviour, reducing exclusion and raising attainment. Mr Tomlinson suggested that greater attention should be given to the six million school days lost each year through authorised absence.[52] Mr Taylor said that the true extent of absence was "a bit of a secret garden" and that the vast proportion of authorised absence appeared to be authorised without good reason.[53]

Local education authorities and Excellence in Cities

  20. The Annual Report noted that 91 local education authorities (LEAs) had been inspected, almost two thirds of the total number. The report noted that the performance of LEAs continued to be too variable, but there were considerable signs of improvement during 1999-2000 across a range of functions.[54] The Government had intervened in 18 LEAs, some of which had outsourced one or more of their functions to external providers. The success of this approach could not be judged as the seven LEAs which were re-inspected during 1999-2000 were not among the authorities which had contracted-out services.[55] The OFSTED study of the first six Education Action Zones had found that after some initial difficulties there were signs of improvement, but no evidence so far of a marked impact on standards.[56] Mr Taylor commented that the 'gifted and talented' strand in Excellence in Cities had been relatively successful in laying on special programmes, summer schools and after school initiatives.[57]


  21. The Annual Report recorded that in primary schools pupils' general confidence with information and communications technology (ICT) had continued to grow, particularly where it was being used across the curriculum,[58] and that at secondary level pupils' skills in information technology had also improved, although there was substantial under-achievement in about one-third of schools having a full inspection, many of which failed to comply with the National Curriculum.[59] OFSTED had found that few LEAs had a convincing strategy either for raising standards in ICT or for the use of ICT to raise standards across the curriculum.[60] There is concern that some schools might feel they are under pressure to be locked into one particular ICT supplier.[61] In a written paper following his oral evidence, Mr Tomlinson told the Sub-committee that there was "some evidence that on occasion LEAs get the balance between advice and coercion wrong, sometimes giving unsuitable advice, for example, about choice, siting and location of resources".[62] In his view, there was no provider monopoly, in commercial terms, as there appeared to be a healthy range of suppliers under the National Grid for Learning scheme. OFSTED had received no specific evidence that schools were buying unwisely on a wide scale or with detrimental consequences.[63] ICT skills should be accorded the highest priority, both for the development of individual skills and for the competitive position of the nation. There is evidence that there needs to be a comprehensive national strategy to tackle ICT skills deficiencies at every stage of the educational system. This would be a fruitful area for a future inquiry by the Select Committee.

Specialist schools

  22. OFSTED had not done a detailed analysis of specialist schools, although they had produced a report on the strengths and weaknesses of sports colleges.[64] Mr Taylor indicated that a report in preparation on specialist schools would confirm the general picture about examination results and a number of other positive features.[65] He told the Sub-committee that many of the specialist colleges, particularly specialist language colleges, were doing rather better with a concerted policy for ICT across the curriculum, using their specialist subject as the entry point. We would expect the contribution made to raising overall standards in secondary education by specialist schools to be among the highest priorities for an inquiry by our successor Committee in the new Parliament. We also see great merit in our successors holding a focussed inquiry on how sport in schools has fared since the introduction of the National Curriculum.

Schools with serious weaknesses

  23. The Chief Inspector's Commentary noted that schools judged to have serious weaknesses do not always make the same progress as schools placed into special measures. The Chief Inspector stated that it was "particularly worrying" that a high proportion of schools with serious weaknesses were placed in special measures some 12 to 18 months later because their performance had declined or made insufficient progress.[66] Mrs Passmore said that the arrangements for special measures were effective, schools with serious weaknesses did not

always act upon what should be a "warning shot".[67] OFSTED would be discussing with the DfEE what action should be taken to assist schools and LEAs face up to the challenge of dealing with serious weaknesses identified in an OFSTED inspection.[68]

OFSTED Complaints Adjudicator

  24. Estelle Morris, the Minister of State for School Standards, took the opportunity of responding to our Second Report of this Session to announce the Government's acceptance of a recommendation we made in 1999 in our major Report on the Work of OFSTED:

    "I mentioned in my response to the Committee's Fourth Report of 1998-99[69] that we would consider the recommendation that OFSTED's complaints adjudicator should be appointed by the Secretary of State, rather than by OFSTED. In the light of the adjudicator's first two annual reports, and the report of the Cabinet Office's review of English public sector ombudsmen, we have decided to make that change. This will take effect later this year, when an appointment is due at the end of Elaine Rassaby's current contract".[70]

We welcome the decision to strengthen the independence of the OFSTED Complaints Adjudicator. We also welcome this further evidence that well-founded select committee recommendations may in time come to be accepted even if the initial response by the Government is not encouraging.

Parliamentary Debate

We recommend that a regular debate be held in the House on HMCI's annual report. Such debates could be preceded by oral evidence from HM Chief Inspector to this Committee, and his evidence (and perhaps a report from the Committee) could usefully inform the debate. — Fourth Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1998-99, The Work of OFSTED, paragraph 204.
We welcome the recent expansion of the opportunities for debate on select committee Reports in Westminster Hall. We intend to press for a debate on the work of OFSTED to enable the whole House to consider the future conduct of this non-Ministerial Government Department, which has such a key role to play in encouraging the raising of standards in the education provided to the children of this country. — Second Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 2000-01, OFSTED Corporate Plan 2000, paragraph 47.

25. Our recommendation in our previous Report this Session that there should be a debate on OFSTED was fulfilled with a full three-hour debate in Westminster Hall on Thursday 15 February 2001. We were grateful to the Government for scheduling this debate, in accordance with the recommendations of the Liaison Committee and the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons.[71]

26. We recommend that a debate on standards and quality in education, based on of the HMCI's Annual Report, should be held early in the next Session of Parliament.

Appointment of a successor

We recognise the formal position that Crown appointments cannot be made subject to Parliamentary veto. However, we believe that Parliament should be given an advisory role in the appointment or re-appointment of HM Chief Inspector. We recommend that the Chief Inspector would continue to be appointed by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister, as at present, but before the appointment (or re-appointment) was confirmed, this Select Committee should be given the opportunity to take evidence in public from the nominee and report to Parliament on the proposed appointment. A debate could then be held in the House on the Committee's report. Although the Government would not formally be obliged to make time for such a debate, we recommend that the Government should give an undertaking to do so.—Fourth Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1998-99, The Work of OFSTED, paragraph 205.
It was announced by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on Thursday 16 November 2000 that Mr Mike Tomlinson had been appointed to a one-year term as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools. We intend to hold a Confirmation Hearing on the appointment proposed by Government at any time of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools. — Second Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 2000-01, OFSTED Corporate Plan 2000, paragraph 46.

27. In our Second Report of this Session, we indicated our intention that the Select Committee should take oral evidence in public from the nominee for the post of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools before the appointment was confirmed by the Crown. In the case of Mr Tomlinson, not only has he frequently been exposed to scrutiny by the Education Sub-committee (see paragraph 2 above), but it was made clear at the time of his appointment that he would not be staying on for a full five-year term. In her response on behalf of the Government to our Report, Estelle Morris said that:

28. We would expect the incoming Secretary of State in the new Parliament to give priority to selection of a successor to Mr Tomlinson for the longer term. We would welcome further discussions with the new Secretary of State on what contribution could be made by the Select Committee to the process of confirming the appointment of a new head for OFSTED, which is a unique non-Ministerial government Department.

Future work of OFSTED

  29. The HMCI's Commentary identified several key issues on which OFSTED will focus on in the current year:

  • the effectiveness of specific government­funded initiatives on inclusion strategies;

  • the effects of temporary teachers and the impact of non­teaching staff in the classroom;

  • the quality of leadership in secondary subject departments and its impact on standards;

  • progress between the different stages of education;

  • schools in challenging circumstances;

  • the dissemination, through publication and use of the OFSTED website, of effective practice identified through inspection;

1. We welcome this programme of work, and we expect that our successors will continue as a Select Committee to play their part in ensuring that OFSTED remains independent, rigorous and fair in its reporting to Parliament and the wider public on standards and quality in education.

1  Fourth Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1998-99, The Work of OFSTED, HC 62-I, para 204. Back

2  Standards and Quality in Education: the Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools 1999-2000, HC 102, February 2001. Hereafter cited as HC 102. Back

3  See List of Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence, page xix. Back

4  First Report from the Education & Employment Committee, Session 2000-01, Early Years, HC 33. Back

5  Q.3. Back

6  Q.10. Back

7  Q.9. Back

8  QQ.9-10. Back

9  Q.10. Back

10  Q.15. Back

11  HC 102, Commentary, page 18. Back

12  Q.101. Back

13  Q.101. Back

14  HC 102, Commentary, page 20. Back

15  Q.17. Back

16  Q.19. Back

17  Q.19. Back

18  Q.19. Back

19  Q.17. Back

20  Q.38. Back

21  Q.43. Back

22  Q.38. Back

23  Q.39. Back

24  Q.41. Back

25  QQ.44-45. Back

26  QQ.94-95. Back

27  HC 102, Commentary, page 21. Back

28  Q.24. Back

29  Q.23. Back

30  QQ.29-32. Back

31  QQ.33-37. Back

32  Q.37. Back

33  Q.27. Back

34  HC 102, Commentary, page 18 and pages 26-27, paragraphs 17-18. Back

35  Q.46. Back

36  Q.47. Back

37  Q.47. Back

38  Q.50. Back

39  Q.55. Back

40  Q.54. Back

41  Q.55. Back

42  Q.57. Back

43  Q.103. Back

44  HC Deb 27 March 2001 vol.365 col. 684W. Back

45  Previous select committee reports on prison education include First Report from the Education, Science and Arts Committee, Session 1982-83 (HC 45), Second Report from the Education, Science and Arts Committee, Session 1983-84 (HC 453), Second Report from the Education, Science and Arts Committee, Session 1986-87 (HC 138), Third Report from the Education, Science and Arts Committee, Session 1989-90 (HC 482) and Second Report from the Education, Science and Arts Committee, Session 1990-91 (HC 311). Back

46  Minutes of Evidence taken before the Home Affairs Committee, 13 February 2001, HC 249-i, Q.40. Back

47  Fifth Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 2000-01, New Deal: An Evaluation, HC 58, paragraphs 54-56. Back

48  Q.59. Back

49  HC 102, page 43, paragraph 91. Back

50  Q.61. Back

51  Q.65. Back

52  QQ.64, 66-67. Back

53  Q.67. Back

54  HC 102, page 83, paragraphs 337-339. Back

55  HC 102, page 83, paragraph 340. Back

56  QQ.70, 85-87. Back

57  Q.89. Back

58  HC 102, page 25, paragraph 12. Back

59  HC 102 page 39, paragraph 69. Back

60  HC 102, page 84, paragraph 345. Back

61  QQ.76-78. Back

62  Ev.p.17. Back

63  Ev.p.18. Back

64  Sports Colleges-the first two years , OFSTED, (ISBN 0-11-350112-9) publ. TSO, July 2000. Back

65  Q.81. Back

66  HC 102, Commentary, page 19. Back

67  Q.99. Back

68  Q.100. Back

69  Fifth Special Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1998-99, Government's Response to the Fourth Report from the Committee, Session 1998-99: The Work of OFSTED, HC 791, page xv. Back

70  Second Special Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 2000-01, Government's Response to the Second Report from the Committee, Session 2000-01: OFSTED Corporate Plan, HC 258, page v. Back

71  The House of Commons approved on 20 November 1999 the proposals in the Fourth Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, Sittings in Westminster Hall, HC 906, para 39, that select committee reports should be debated at two-thirds of the sittings in Westminster Hall on Thursday afternoons, including six debates formally designated by the Liaison Committee.  Back

72  Fifth Special Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1998-99, Government's Response to the Fourth Report from the Committee, Session 1998-99: The Work of OFSTED, HC 791, page xvi. Back

73  Second Special Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 2000-01, Government's Response to the Second Report from the Committee, Session 2000-01: OFSTED Corporate Plan 2000, HC 258, page v. Back

74  HC 102, Commentary, page 21. Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2001
Prepared 11 May 2001