Select Committee on Education and Skills First Report


The Education and Skills Committee has agreed to the following Report:



1.  We decided to continue the practice of the Education Sub-committee in the last Parliament of inviting Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools to give oral evidence in public on the work of the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED).[1] Mr Mike Tomlinson and his colleagues appeared before us on Wednesday 5 December 2001.[2] Prior to the evidence session, we sought written evidence from a number of interested bodies and we published a press notice inviting comments on the work of OFSTED.[3] It is our intention to continue holding our autumn sessions with HMCI to examine the work of OFSTED, and we welcome the written evidence we received, which is listed at pages 18 and 19.

A Royal Commission?

2.  OFSTED will complete its second cycles of inspection of secondary schools in 2003 and of primary and special schools in 2004.[4] OFSTED claims that "regular inspection of schools has been a powerful force for improving the quality of education and increasing standards achieved".[5] The basis for this claim has been disputed by eminent educational experts, for example, Professor Carol Fitz-Gibbon of the University of Durham[6] who argued that stringent research is required into sampling, reliability, validity and the impact of the entire system of inspection in education. Together with seventeen other professors, including Professor Dylan William and Professor Mantz Yorke who gave evidence during the Education Sub-committee's higher education inquiry in 2000 and 2001 respectively, Professor Fitz-Gibbon urged the Select Committee "to call for a Royal Commission that will consider:

  • the extent to which the judgements are fair and accurate
  • the value for money represented by OFSTED inspections".[7]

3.  Mr Tomlinson told us that the actual cost of OFSTED over the cycle of inspections was less than half of 1 per cent of the total expenditure on education.[8] He argued that "a system of quality assurance in any other area would cost a considerably larger proportion of the total budget",[9] and that OFSTED provided good value for money.[10] We would welcome stringent external evaluation of the soundness of OFSTED's methods, but we are not persuaded that a Royal Commission on OFSTED is needed.

OFSTED consultation paper

4.  Mr Mike Tomlinson's term as HMCI has brought a welcome difference in tone to OFSTED.[11] He told us that his fundamental approach was that inspection had to be a process which commanded the respect of the school and which was done in partnership with it, rather than the school being simply a passive victim of the inspection process.[12] The September 2001 consultation paper on future arrangements for school inspection, Improving Inspection, Improving Schools, invited responses on sixteen issues, grouped under four headings, in order to make future inspections:

  • more responsive to the different circumstances and priorities of schools, and the policies of government;
  • more supportive of school improvement
  • better informed about the views of pupils, parents and the wider community
  • better co-ordinated with other inspections and monitoring activity.[13]

Mr Tomlinson told us that the consultation paper's proposals represented "quite considerable change to the present model" of OFSTED inspections.[14] On 24 January 2002 Mr Tomlinson announced the details of the decisions made in the light of the consultation process.[15]

Reducing anxiety

5.  One way suggested by OFSTED to make inspections more responsive is for schools to be able to select one issue for inspection based on their own self-evaluation.[16] The General Teaching Council feared that the identification by schools of a single issue could be contentious, divisive and invidious.[17] OFSTED proposes that the vast majority of primary schools should be subject in future to a form of the current short inspection.[18] Mr Tomlinson told us that it was his job to keep the anxiety occasioned by inspection to an absolute minimum.[19] Although the requirements upon schools for paperwork were the same for short or full inspections, in Mr Tomlinson's view effective schools did not impose additional demands on staff in preparation for an OFSTED inspection because what was needed should already be in place.[20] In his letter to headteachers of 10 September 2001 Mr Tomlinson spelled out three things that should not be required of staff prior to inspection:

    "Please do not:
  • have schemes of work re-written
  • have school policies re-written
  • ask staff to prepare lesson plans specifically for inspection".[21]

6.  We are concerned that teachers find OFSTED inspections to be overly stressful.[22] We urge headteachers and governing bodies to keep a sense of proportion when preparing for inspection, in order to avoid creating unnecessary and additional stress for teachers. We endorse the Chief Inspector's advice that schemes of work, school policies and lesson plans should not need re-writing in advance of an inspection.

Including practising teachers as inspectors

7.  One of OFSTED's proposals for making inspection more supportive is to include more serving teachers and headteachers in inspection teams.[23] Mr Tomlinson told us that a quarter of OFSTED inspectors were practising headteachers, deputy headteachers, heads of department and classroom teachers, and that those concerned agreed that inspection was "one of the most professionally and personally stimulating activities they have ever been involved with".[24] The General Teaching Council welcomed teacher involvement in inspection teams but warned that the implications for schools, in terms of the need for supply teachers or other arrangements to cover absences, ought to be fully taken into account.[25] We welcome the involvement of practising teachers serving as members of OFSTED's inspection teams. This strengthens the inspection process, provides valuable professional development opportunities and helps spread good practice between schools.

Constructive feedback

8.  OFSTED inspectors observe and grade teaching on a seven-point scale. Since 1997, inspectors have provided profiles of these grades to the individual teacher, and also (in confidence) to the headteacher. In short inspections, the profiles of lesson grades are not given to either the individual teacher or the headteacher. Inspectors are still expected to discuss with individual teachers and headteachers the strengths and weaknesses of the observed teaching. An overall summary of these grades is still included in the inspector's report. OFSTED proposes to develop additional guidance to inspectors on giving constructive feedback and plans to drop the requirement for inspectors to tell teachers how they have been scored, in order to avoid "a potentially unproductive debate about grading".[26] The National Union of Teachers welcomed this intention as "a step in the right direction".[27] Part of the rationale for this change is the introduction of performance management arrangements linked to teachers' pay.

Asking the children

9.  One of the most eye-catching suggestions in OFSTED's consultation paper to make inspections better informed was the proposal that questionnaires would be used to survey pupils' views.[28] OFSTED intends to build on the experience of student questionnaires for post-16 inspections of colleges and sixth forms to pilot the use of questionnaires for pupils aged 11 to 16 in secondary schools and ultimately to strengthen the attention paid to pupils' views in primary and nursery schools.[29] The NASUWT recommended that OFSTED should abandon this proposal as flawed on methodological and ethical grounds.[30] The General Teaching Council welcomed the principle of including pupils' views but argued that an anonymised questionnaire may not be the best means of achieving this objective.[31] Mr Tomlinson told us he suspected that —

    "despite the initial sort of apprehension, in fact, we will get a lot of very valuable and indeed supportive comment and information from pupils, if and when we move down that path".[32]

Following the consultation process, Mr Tomlinson announced that OFSTED would explore the most effective ways of securing pupils' views before and during any inspections, and would trial new approaches with both primary and secondary age pupils in all types of school.[33]

10.  Mr Tomlinson assured us that OFSTED would take advice as how to guard against false or malicious allegations.[34] The objective would be to confine questions to matters affecting the whole school:

    "We are envisaging it dealing with whole-school issues. For example, questions such as, if you are a pupil new to the school, a Year 7 pupil, how you are helped to settle down in the new school, questions about do you know where to go in the event that you are in difficulties or need support, what about homework issues, use of extracurricular clubs and societies, and the like; so there are a number of questions about the whole school. What we want to avoid is getting down to the opportunity to be commenting on Mr Smith, or Mrs Jones, or whatever; that we do not regard as legitimate territory. No doubt they do have views, but we do not intend them using the questionnaire to express them".[35]

We welcome the proposal to increase the attention given to pupils' views in the inspection process, which we expect to encourage the development of school councils to ensure that pupils' views are always taken fully into account. Summerhill School, a well-known independent progressive school, particularly welcomed the inclusion of children's voices in inspections,[36] and Professor Priscilla Alderson argued that taking account of children's views should involve even young children directly.[37]

Asking the community

11.  OFSTED's consultation paper raised the question whether inspectors should ask schools before inspection to seek the views of other bodies, such as a local education authority [LEA] or diocesan body.[38] The General Teaching Council suggested that schools should be able to identify a number of partners whom they would wish to engage in the quality assurance of their review processes and the outcomes.[39] We strongly support the inclusion of the local education authority among those invited to contribute before an inspection is undertaken.

Reducing the inspection burden on schools

12.  The Association of Teachers and Lecturers [ATL] commended OFSTED for its continuing awareness of the unduly demanding nature of inspections and for its concern to minimise burdens, but the ATL argued that more needed to be done to ensure that schools stopped wasting time and effort in excessive pre­inspection paperwork.[40] The proposals in the OFSTED consultation paper to make inspection better co-ordinated included more joint work with the DfES on reducing the bureaucracy connected with inspections.[41] Mr Tomlinson also indicated that he wanted inspectors to identify in their reports the effect of bureaucratic requirements on a school's capacity to improve.[42] The National Association of Educational Inspectors, Advisers and Consultants (NAEIAC) suggested that the OFSTED inspection process should be better co-ordinated with the developmental work of external advisers and school improvement services.[43] We look forward to seeing OFSTED's analysis of bureaucracy in future Annual Reports from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools.

13.  Mr Tomlinson emphasised that due credit should be given to teachers and others involved in improving teaching performance in primary schools.[44] In nine out of ten schools being inspected for the second time, inspectors were identifying clear improvements across a range of matters in the school.[45] Inspection had played its part in focussing attention on literacy and numeracy, but it "has not itself delivered that improvement, our teachers have done that".[46] He also described classroom assistants as a "valuable resource"[47] who were "very skilled, very dedicated, very talented adults, who really do take their job very, very seriously and do make a significant contribution to the school". [48]

14.  Mr Tomlinson told us that he hoped to move beyond OFSTED's statutory duty to inspect and report on the performance of the school, identifying both strengths and weaknesses, in order to increase dialogue, and feedback and the sharing of good practice.[49] Miss Elizabeth Passmore, one of OFSTED's Directors of Inspection, told us that OFSTED was considering whether to make arrangements for schools with serious weaknesses to match those for schools subject to special measures.[50] We would welcome a clear plan of action to be agreed between OFSTED and local education authorities on how to prevent schools with serious weaknesses from falling into the category of schools requiring special measures.

OFSTED's childcare responsibilities

15.  The implementation of the Care Standards Act 2000 brought OFSTED new responsibilities for the regulation of childminding and day care [see Box]. This major organisational change included the transfer of around 1,500 former local authority staff, most of whom now work from home as inspectors under the headquarters and eight regional centres of a new Early Years Directorate in OFSTED.]

16.  Ms Maggie Smith's appointment as OFSTED's Director of Early Years was announced on 11 January 2001,[51] and she first gave evidence to the Education Sub-committee on 21 March 2001.[52] Our predecessors' last Report on OFSTED was completed before the National Standards for Under Eights Day Care and Child Minding were published.[53] The Regulations approving the new Standards were laid before Parliament just before the 2001 General Election.[54] Like most statutory instruments laid before Parliament, these Regulations were subject to annulment and so did not need the final approval of either House of Parliament. The 'praying time', within which a debate could have been called for by tabling a Motion praying that the Regulations be annulled, expired on Tuesday 17 July 2001.

OFSTED's Childcare Aim, Objective, Targets and Indicators

to help ensure and improve the quality and standards of childcare through regulation (in support of the government's aim of raising the quality of childcare) by establishing and operating a national system for the regulation of childcare.
to establish and ensure high­quality regulation of childminders and day­care providers, including the delivery of high­quality inspections of childcare and funded nursery education; and provide high­quality advice to the Secretary of State to assist in the formulation and evaluation of government policies on early years childcare and education.
Service Delivery Agreement performance targets and indicators for childcare over the period 2001-04:
i) to establish an Early Years Directorate to implement progressively a national system of regulation of childcare by April 2002;
ii) to establish a publicly accessible national register of childminders and day­care providers by April 2002;
iii) to establish integrated inspections of childcare and nursery education by April 2003 to be conducted at a frequency and within a timescale to be established;
iv) to transfer staff from local authorities to OFSTED and provide initial training by September 2001;
v) to conduct annual inspections of all registered childminders and day­care providers by April 2003;
vi) to set targets for the registration and inspection of childcare providers by December 2001;
vii) all inspectors of childcare to be trained to an accredited standard by April 2003;
viii) at least two major published reports on relevant topics to be published each financial year;
ix) to develop targets for dealing with complaints from childcare providers by December 2001;
x) to develop a target for satisfaction of childcare providers by December 2001.

Source: Corporate Plan for Financial Year 2001-02, OFSTED, HMI 296, 4 October 2001, paragraphs 2 and 5. See also DfEE/OFSTED Departmental Report 2001, Cm 5102.


17.  Ms Smith told us that one of the first pieces of survey work that OFSTED would be undertaking to support the National Childcare Strategy would be a study of the factors affecting the retention of childminders.[55] Dr Denise Hevey, the Head of Policy in OFSTED's Early Years Directorate, was a member of the steering group overseeing the evaluation of Sure Start.[56] Mr Tomlinson told us that OFSTED was looking at the possibility of work that followed children from birth into schools to assess the outcomes of different kinds of provision.[57] OFSTED was working with DfES-funded researchers to compare outcomes from all types of setting across the foundation stage [from age 3 to the end of reception].[58] On 14 December 2001 OFSTED published its Report on the quality of nursery education provision for 3 and 4 year olds in 2000-01.[59] OFSTED found that while overall provision had continued to improve year on year, there had been dramatic improvement in some settings. Some 86 per cent of providers were judged to be making good overall provision, with only 0.5 per cent judged to be unacceptable.[60] The Prime Minister announced on 26 March 2001 "Investors in Children", a national star scheme that will rate nurseries and childcare providers on the facilities and quality of service they offer to parents. Mr Tomlinson told us that OFSTED wanted to bring some rationale to the more than 50 quality assurance schemes operating across the early years sector.[61]

Smoking by childminders

18.  The most controversial aspects of the National Standards concerned smoking and smacking by childminders. Mrs Margaret Hodge, who was then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Employment and Equal Opportunities at the Department for Education and Employment, told the Education Sub-committee on 2 May 2001 —

19.  It remains our concern that smoking causes cancer and heart disease. There is powerful evidence that exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke is also harmful.[63] Ms Smith agreed that the rise in childhood asthma was "worrying" although she added that there could be other factors than smoke affecting children's health in this way.[64] While we accept that adults should decide for themselves whether or not to smoke, we would support a co-ordinated approach to reducing the harm done to children by tobacco smoke. We regret that the National Standards for childminders do not match the Standards applicable to other childcare settings in banning smoking in front of children. Mr Tomlinson told us that OFSTED's task was to make reports based on the Government's policy on standards, and personal views should not have any bearing on the way OFSTED did its job.[65]

20.  Part of OFSTED's childcare objective is to "provide high quality advice to the Secretary of State to assist in the formulation and evaluation of government policies on early years childcare and education". We do not accept that OFSTED's role is purely to implement the Standards. OFSTED also has a responsibility to challenge the Standards and a duty to advise the Secretary of State, on the basis of evidence from OFSTED's inspections, where the Standards need to be changed. We recommend that OFSTED should include in each inspection of a childminder setting (i) discussion of the attitude of the child's parents or guardians to exposing the child to tobacco smoke and (ii) observation and assessment of the child's exposure to tobacco smoke in the childminder's presence. OFSTED has a target of conducting annual inspections of all registered childminders by April 2003. We recommend that OFSTED should publish by December 2003 a study of the exposure of children and childminders to tobacco smoke, and any consequential advice to the Secretary of State on revising the National Standards.

Smacking by childminders

21.  The National Standards allow the physical punishment of children being cared for by childminders to be a matter for agreement with the child's parents or guardians. Ms Smith told us that OFSTED's guidance to childminders "makes it very clear to the childminder that if they have entered into an agreement with a parent on either of those issues [smacking and smoking] they are still not safe, because a parent can suddenly change their mind, if they feel their child is at risk, etc., or has had a smack that was rather harder than the parent envisaged when they made the agreement".[66]

22.  Ms Smith told us that it would be "very difficult" to impose a ban on childminders hitting children, in the absence of a general reform of the legal framework to make physical chastisement of children a criminal offence.[67] Ms Smith told us that she understood the Government's dilemma about introducing public law into what was largely a private situation.[68] She was keen to help the Government achieve solutions to that dilemma through inspection evidence.[69] We would expect good quality childcare to exclude the physical chastisement of small children. We recommend that OFSTED should report by December 2003 on the extent of the use of physical punishment by childminders.

Integrating childcare inspection

23.  Ms Smith told us that OFSTED's working arrangements on child protection issues were "beginning to bear fruit very well"[70] and that written agreements were in place with each area child protection committee.[71] Mr Tomlinson told us many of OFSTED's home-based childcare inspectors now had more specialist administrative support from OFSTED's regional centres than they had received when working as part of a local authority structure.[72] Mr Tomlinson assured us that OFSTED would look at every means of ensuring that former local authority childcare inspectors, who were now home-based OFSTED childcare inspectors, should not be professionally isolated and at ways of spreading best practice which many of the inspectors brought with them from their previous local authority experience.[73]

24.  The transfer to OFSTED of over 1,400 staff from around 150 different authorities, under Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) [TUPE] arrangements, had raised a number of issues, including developing effective communication with home-based inspectors, dealing with the backlog of childminder and other providers waiting to be registered, and bringing together terms and conditions, and salary scales.[74] A small minority, largely in London, had chosen to remain on their local authority terms and conditions.[75] All OFSTED staff are guaranteed to reach a certain progression point, about four-fifths of the way through the range for the grade, within five years.[76] We were assured that OFSTED had not experienced motivational problems arising from disparity in pay levels.[77] Ms Smith told us that each member of staff had an explicit performance agreement, with measurable outcomes.[78] Those who had not met the required standards by the time of the first appraisals in March 2002 would be expected to do further training.[79] Ms Smith told us that the process would be fair, but also firm and Mr Tomlinson assured us that he would not continue to employ people whom he knew to be not effective in the job.[80]

Inspection of colleges

25.  The Learning and Skills Act 2000 extended OFSTED's inspection remit to cover the inspection of educational provision for students up to the age of 19 in further education colleges. A four­year cycle of college inspections began in summer 2001 under a new Common Inspection Framework developed with the Adult Learning Inspectorate [ALI].[81] The Association of Colleges [AoC] expressed concern that many colleges, especially large, general FE colleges, had found that the new post­16 inspection regime did not reflect the nature of FE provision as a whole, but concentrated on 16­18 provision at Level 3 (A level or equivalent).[82] Mr David Taylor, one of OFSTED's Directors of Inspection, told us that OFSTED was discussing with the Association of Colleges and other bodies ways to reduce the burden of inspection; for example, OFSTED had agreed to extend the period of notice of inspection to 16 weeks in the case of certain colleges.[83] Mr Tomlinson recognised that there were concerns over how the new inspection regime would work with the new Learning and Skills Councils, but he told us that "we are developing the kind of arrangements which we hope will make that work in as un-bureaucratic a way as possible".[84] Mr Taylor assured us that the experience and expertise of the team of inspectors should match the college that was being inspected.[85] One significant difference from the previous form of college inspection was that OFSTED/ALI teams do not include a member of staff from the college being inspected, although the college nominated a person to assist the inspectors in their work up to, but not including, the meetings where the team reached its judgements on the college's performance.[86] Mr Taylor said that the use of student questionnaires in college inspections was "extremely useful".[87]

Inspection of local education authorities

26.  Mr Tomlinson told us that the "careful joint working" with the Audit Commission on the inspection of local education authorities was an area of considerable success and that discussions were continuing on how better to reduce the burden of inspection on local authorities.[88] The Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] pointed out that the disturbances in certain northern towns in 2001 had focussed attention on the dangers of racial segregation in schooling as well as residentially. The CRE suggested that the OFSTED framework for inspecting LEAs should include examination of the LEA's information systems, strategies and policies on encouraging good relations between different racial groups.[89]

Appointment of Chief Inspector

27.  In its last Report on OFSTED, the Education and Employment Committee stated that it "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" and that it "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 non­Ministerial Government Department".[90] In its response to the Committee's Report, the Department for Education and Skills stated that "the Government has no plans to propose parliamentary involvement in the appointment of HM Chief Inspector of Schools. Recruitment for the post will be run in accordance with the guidelines of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments following advertisements in the national press".[91] The DfES had planned to announce the selection of a new Chief Inspector of Schools on Monday 7 January 2002, but the Sunday Times broke the news the previous day. We intend to hold a meeting with Mr David Bell in the near future.

Parliamentary debate

28.  We agree with our predecessors that there should be a debate in the House of Commons on OFSTED at least once a year. It may be convenient to hold the next debate in Westminster Hall, following the publication of the Annual Report for 2000-01 from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools [HMCI] on Standards and Quality in Education, which will be the subject of our next oral evidence session with the current HMCI on Wednesday 13 March 2002.

1   Fourth Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1998-99, The Work of OFSTED, HC 61-I, paragraph 204. Back

2   HC 437-i of Session 2001-02. Back

3   The Committee's press notices are available on the Internet, via the Committee's home page at  Back

4   Improving Inspections, Improving Schools, OFSTED, September 2001, paragraph 75. Back

5   Improving Inspections, Improving Schools, OFSTED, September 2001, paragraph 76.  Back

6   Ev 25. Back

7   Ev 26. This proposal was also supported by the Chair of the Standing Committee for the Education and Training of Teachers (SCETT), Ev 40-41. Back

8   Q. 2. Back

9   Q. 2. Back

10   Q. 2. Back

11   QQ. 44,50,60. Back

12   Q. 59. Back

13   Improving Inspection, Improving Schools, OFSTED, September 2001, paragraph 9. Back

14   Q. 58. Back

15   Ev 49-51. Back

16   Improving Inspection, Improving Schools, OFSTED, September 2001, paragraph 12. See also Q. 58. Back

17   Ev 44, paragraph 16. Back

18   Q. 36. See also Improving Inspection, Improving Schools, OFSTED, September 2001, paragraphs 27 and 28. Back

19   Q. 37. Back

20   Q. 98. Back

21   Q. 42, Ev 22. Back

22   Q. 38-39, Ev 31. Back

23   Improving Inspection, Improving Schools, OFSTED, September 2001, paragraphs 45 and 46, Q. 107. Back

24   Q. 103. Back

25   Ev 45, paragraph 21. Back

26   Improving Inspection, Improving Schools, OFSTED, September 2001, paragraphs 48 and 49. Back

27   Ev 36, paragraph 8. Back

28   Improving Inspection, Improving Schools, OFSTED, September 2001, paragraphs 53 to 55. Back

29   Improving Inspection, Improving Schools, OFSTED, September 2001, paragraphs 53 to 55. Back

30   Ev 39-40, paragraph 10. Back

31   Ev 45, paragraph 17. Back

32   Q. 33. Back

33   Ev 51. Back

34   Q. 34. Back

35   Q. 35. Back

36   Ev 33, 34. Back

37   Ev 31. Back

38   Improving Inspection, Improving Schools, OFSTED, September 2001, paragraphs 56 and 57; Q. 49. Back

39   Ev 45, paragraph 15. Back

40   Ev 33, paragraph 7. Back

41   Improving Inspection, Improving Schools, OFSTED, September 2001, paragraphs 66 and 67. See also Reducing the burden of Inspection, OFSTED/DfES May 2001. Back

42   QQ. 99 and 100. Back

43   Ev 27, paragraph 6. Back

44   Q. 39. Back

45   Q. 2. Back

46   Q. 40. Back

47   Q. 64. Back

48   Q. 65. Back

49   Q. 45. Back

50   QQ. 51to 56. Back

51   Eighth Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 2000-01, Standards and Quality in Education: The Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools for 1999-2000, HC 362, paragraph 3. Back

52   Eighth Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 2000-01, Standards and Quality in Education: The Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools for 1999-2000, HC 362. Back

53   The National Standards for Under Eights Day Care and Child Minding were published by DfEE on 8 May 2001 in five separate versions, for child minding, full day care, out of school, creches and sessional care. Back

54   The Day Care and Child Minding (National Standards) (England) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 1828) were laid before Parliament on Thursday 10 May 2001. Parliament was dissolved on Monday 14 May 2001. Back

55   Q. 14. Back

56   Q. 14. Back

57   Q. 15. Back

58   Q. 16. Back

59   Q. 16; Nursery Education: quality of provision for 3 and 4 year olds 2000­01, OFSTED, HMI 331, December 2001. Back

60   Nursery Education: quality of provision for 3 and 4 year olds 2000­01, OFSTED, HMI 331, December 2001, paragraphs 11, 5 and 8. In her covering letter to the Report, Dr Hevey noted that the snapshot might under-estimate the performance of the sector as a whole since OFSTED inspected weaker settings more frequently than those previously judged to be good. Back

61   QQ. 17 to 19. Back

62   HC 438-ii of Session 2000-01, Q. 155. Back

63   See, for example, Second Report from the Health Committee, Session 1999­2000, The Tobacco Industry and the Health Risks of Smoking, HC 27, paragraphs 25 to 27, and the Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health, 1998, page 33.  Back

64   QQ. 30 and 32. Back

65   Q. 31. Back

66   Q. 26. Back

67   Q. 27. Back

68   QQ. 28 to 29. Back

69   Q. 29. Back

70   Q. 3. Back

71   Q. 4. Back

72   Q. 11. Back

73   Q. 10. Back

74   Q. 6. Back

75   QQ. 7 to 9. See Ev 20. Back

76   Ev 20. Back

77   Q. 13. Back

78   Q. 25. Back

79   QQ. 22 and 25. Back

80   Q. 25. Back

81   Corporate Plan for Financial Year 2001-02, OFSTED, HMI 296, 4 October 2001, paragraph 24. Back

82   Ev 47, paragraphs 1 and 7 to 9. Back

83   Q. 67. Back

84   Q. 72. Back

85   Q. 87. Back

86   QQ. 88 and 89. Back

87   Q. 90. Back

88   Q. 102. Back

89   Ev 43, paragraph 7. Back

90   Eighth Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 2000-01, Standards and Quality in Education: The Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools for 1999-2000, HC 362, paragraph 28. Back

91   First Special Report from the Education and Skills Committee, Session 2001-02, Government's and OFSTED's Response to the Eighth Report from the Education and Employment Committee Session 2000­01: Standards and Quality in Education: the Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools 1999­2000, HC 215, Annex I. 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 2002
Prepared 14 February 2002