Previous SectionIndexHome Page


Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second reading committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).


Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),

Question agreed to.


Queen's recommendation having been signified

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),

Question agreed to.


Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Security of Energy Supply

Question agreed to.

3 Dec 2001 : Column 136


Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Local Government

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),


Question agreed to.


Motion made,

Hon. Members: Object.


Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),

Question agreed to.




3 Dec 2001 : Column 135

3 Dec 2001 : Column 137

Belmont Primary School

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]

10.31 pm

Dr. Ashok Kumar (Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East): I am grateful—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do not stand in front of an hon. Member who is addressing the House.

Dr. Kumar: This debate is about an Ofsted inspection of a primary school in my constituency. It is not about challenging the bulk of the findings of Ofsted's inspection of Belmont school, nor about education policy. I fully support the Government's aim of raising standards through monitoring and inspection of schools and helping those that need improvement. The debate is about what I, the head, the teaching staff and the governors of the school believe is an inherent flaw in Ofsted's inspection structure—a flaw that was inserted by the legislation that gave birth to Ofsted.

Belmont primary school is overseen by Redcar and Cleveland local education authority. It has 362 pupils on its roll and a well-respected head teacher, Colin Linthwaite. At the time of the inspection, a high percentage of the school's pupils came from outside its designated catchment zone; the figure has now reached 47 per cent. It is an improving school with continuing good results at key stages 1 and 2. I cannot stress too much that the school is one that I know personally as a Member of Parliament: I have visited it many times and I know that it possesses the indefinable but unmistakeable air of a happy school.

Belmont primary school was visited by Ofsted in March 2000. It was not a happy inspection. Before it started, there were concerns that the registered inspector had not made contact with the school until prompted to do so by the head. There was also concern about the fact that the contractor and quality manager of West Yorkshire Inspection and Consultancy Services took part in all the pre-inspection meetings. At those meetings, I am told, he was seen to be taking on a greater role than his duties as quality assurance manager warranted. It then became known that the contractor and quality assurance manager was married to the registered inspector; Mr. and Mrs. Charlton were husband and wife.

At first, it was thought that they would overcome the possible conflict of interest by acting professionally but, in the view of many in the school community, that did not happen. Comments by the contractor and quality assurance manager contributed to heightened anxiety among staff and the head. For example, there were comments on the accuracy of financial information submitted about the school—clearly a serious issue. Only later, after the head asked for the figures to be checked by the local education authority auditor, did the contractor accept that there were no problems.

Such incidents led the school community to feel that the team came with a pre-determined agenda. Things did not get much better during the inspection itself. On one occasion, a class was interrupted so that feedback could be given—an incident felt by many staff to be unprofessional and inconsiderate. Only later was the head

3 Dec 2001 : Column 138

told that, in fact, it was not an observed lesson. If it was not, why was the detailed feedback based, one must assume, on a short viewing by an inspector? Some classroom visits were very brief indeed, many less than half an hour. A number of members of staff felt intimidated; one was observed in the morning in class, then interviewed during dinner time, to the extent of an inspector waiting for her outside a toilet, then twice after school.

During the inspection, Mr. Linthwaite raised the issue of the quality of school statistical information that was requested. He pointed out that it was skewed by reorganisation and that the Goldstein report, commissioned by Ofsted, stated that inspectors should not look simply at figures in the abstract, but seek to quantify their social and demographic background. Knowledge of the report was denied both by the inspector and the contractor and quality assurance manager. When pressed on that, I am told that the contractor said that his wife's judgment should not be questioned; he spoke about his wife, not the inspector.

After the inspection, the head teacher was told that the school had serious weaknesses. It was also made clear that the school community could not challenge the judgments. The attitude of the contractor and quality assurance manager were perceived as hostile. On one occasion, a feedback meeting involving the governing body was subjected to what can only be described as a unilateral attempt to suspend the meeting by the contractor and the quality assurance manager. Those present felt that he was attempting to avoid detailed questions being put to his wife; the incident was a telling symptom of the problem.

The final report and the oral feedback did not mention strengths in many areas of the school's curriculum, nor did they focus on its capacity to improve. Negative comments were made in the inspection report about staff turnover, which did not acknowledge that some staff had left because they had been promoted elsewhere; others had retired on the ground of ill health; and that the school had a legacy of problems with falling rolls. Finally, sweeping statements were made about unsatisfactory teaching despite the fact that 83 per cent. of the teaching was seen as

The school community was unhappy about those issues. It accepted that there was room for improvement and that no one is perfect, but was concerned that the report was biased and concentrated on negatives. That view was rooted in the perceived conflict of interest between the contractor and the quality assurance manager and the registered inspector, which centred on the fact that they were husband and wife. At that point, the school community began to consider resolving those issues through the Ofsted complaints procedure. The head teacher, obviously worried and concerned, came to see me at this point, and I urged him to press his complaints through the Ofsted procedure. Accordingly, the head wrote to Ofsted to raise the concerns on which I have elaborated.

The letter of complaint was initially sent on by Ofsted to the contractor, asking him to organise a response from his wife. Given that the nub of the complaint was the relationship between the two, that was seen as perverse

3 Dec 2001 : Column 139

by many in the school community. The official reply from Ofsted dismissed those concerns and stated in a letter to Mr. Linthwaite on 9 June 2000 that

and that in its view, the independence of the inspection was not compromised. As that response came from the people involved, it was hardly surprising. The famous phrase, "They would say that, wouldn't they?" springs to mind.

On the other issues of substance in the complaint about inspection procedure, Ofsted argued that it recognised Mr. Linthwaite's concerns but could not act on them. It stated:

It continued:

If that principle were applied throughout the judiciary, it would make every judge redundant overnight.

The reply led the head to take the matter to the second stage of the complaints procedure. He wrote to the Ofsted complaints adjudicator, making the same points and posing the issue of the long delay in the response to other detailed matters of concern. The adjudicator, Mrs. Elaine Rassaby, was, by contrast, far more thorough and critical of Ofsted.

In an adjudication dated 4 March this year, Mrs. Rassaby agreed with Mr. Linthwaite on a number of issues. She felt that the comments made by Ofsted about the relationship between the registered inspector and the contractor and quality assurance manager was, to say the least, unhelpful. She stated that Mr. Linthwaite had not been given a full substantive response by Ofsted. In her view, by basing its reply to Mr. Linthwaite solely on the registered inspector's response to the complaint, it had prevented objective assessment of the substance of the complaint; and the comment that the inspector and contractor were

was merely an observation. It was, in the adjudicator's opinion, inappropriate and irrelevant to the substance of the complaint.

The adjudicator recognised Mr. Linthwaite's concerns about the relationship, and his view that the relationship denied him fair consideration of his complaints by the contractor. However, she also thought that the existence of the complaints procedure in itself would serve to prevent collusion between any two parties, by an act of commission or omission. In her final recommendation she stated first, that Ofsted should apologise to Mr. Linthwaite, and secondly, that account should be taken of her concerns that Ofsted's response was based on the views of the inspector. Finally, the adjudicator declared that the comments that Mr. and Mrs. Charlton's professional experience and history should be enough were dismissive and inappropriate.

Ofsted's response came in May 2001. Barry King, from the office of the chief inspector of schools, replied in a detailed and thoughtful nine-page letter to Mr. Linthwaite. Many issues were dealt with and some resolved. On some

3 Dec 2001 : Column 140

issues—the conduct of the inspector and the contractor in pre-inspection meetings; the conduct and attitude of the inspection staff; and the contractor's attempt to close a feedback meeting with the governors—Mr. Linthwaite's complaints were upheld.

However, the crucial issue of the relationship and potential conflict of interest between the contractor and the inspector was ignored. Mr. King stated that Ofsted's view was simply that there

He went on to say again that any suspicion of collusion could be dealt with through the complaints procedure. I must say that that reply contained no thought about the fact that the simplest way of removing the suspicion of collusion would be to issue a direction to split the responsibilities so that no such conflict of interest could occur.

Mr. Linthwaite came to see me, seeking to take a complaint to the parliamentary ombudsman. I was happy for that to happen, as I was convinced of the rightness of his case, but I had an uneasy feeling about the outcome on the basis of the comments of the inspector of schools. The ombudsman replied on 3 October. He felt that he was constrained by the rules governing his own responsibilities from taking the matter any further. However, in his letter to me, he stated:

I believe that that is a telling comment from a person at the head of the final stage of any grievance procedure affecting the citizens of this country. He went on to argue that while he recognised the concerns, the following stages of the Ofsted complaints procedure should ensure that justice was done—but why not consider a direction that simply removes the problem in the first place: the separation by Ofsted of the role of the contractor from that of the registered inspector?

I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the case for that change. One school has been affected by the issue, but there may be others. I do not intend to pass judgment on the outcome of the inspection. Some issues of injustice have been noted by Ofsted and they have been taken up with the West Yorkshire inspection and consultancy services. In that sense, the issue of the outcome of the inspection is finished. The action plan proposed by the school and the local education authority has worked and the school is once again going forward confidently and successfully, but the central area of concern remains: the perceived issue of a compromised process. Quite simply, making a statutory split between the contractor and inspector would allow the inspection process to go forward confidently and without the perceived taint of conflict of interest that was so evident at Belmont school.

I believe that the relevant legislation—the School Inspections Act 1996 and the Education (School Inspection) Regulations 1997—need amending, and that a simple statutory instrument could achieve that and would not be objected to by any Member of Parliament. Such a measure could prevent the issue from arising again, perhaps in a form that threatens the cohesion of a school

3 Dec 2001 : Column 141

so badly that it becomes a failing school through a self-fulfilling prophesy. No one wants that to happen and the remedy is in the Minister's hands. I thank the House for listening.

Next Section

IndexHome Page