Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
MR DAVID
BELL, MRS
MIRIAM ROSEN,
MR ROBERT
GREEN, MR
MAURICE SMITH
AND MR
JONATHAN THOMPSON
3 NOVEMBER 2004
Q20 Mr Pollard: That is what I interpreted
them as, but that is by the by. One of the things that is causing
us great concern is the extent of our tail that is not doing as
well and you seem to be dismissing that a little bit when you
said that it is the middle ability children that we really have
to concentrate on. You will know from the PISA study that it was
one of the great criticisms that we were not doing as well as
we might. I was wondering if you could tease that out a little
bit.
Mr Bell: I am sorry if I gave
any impression of being dismissive about that because I certainly
am not and I think over the last two and a half years in post
I made quite a lot about those youngsters who, in the broader
sense, are excluded from the education system. I do not mean excluded
from school in the formal sense, but excluded because they do
not achieve as well. Certainly the OECD study suggested that that
was one of the characteristics of our English education. That
was a very interesting study because that was really the evidence
we had—internationally respected evidence—that our
education system was getting better despite what people were saying.
There was very strong, powerful evidence about improvement but
the impact of social class was much stronger in educational outcomes
in this country. That was what was suggested and the tail of under-achievement
was longer. I do not think there are any simple single solutions,
but let me just give you a couple of observations. There is no
doubt—all the evidence suggests this—that if you do
not have a decent level in reading, writing and counting by the
time you leave primary school, secondary school education is going
to be so much harder for you. That seems to me to be the major
justification for continuing to have a strong focus in ensuring
that as many people reach the appropriate standard at age 11.
I think that is an issue of equity actually, making sure that
those youngsters get to that standard so that they can benefit
from secondary education. There are issues then in secondary education
and maybe Mike Tomlinson offers us an opportunity here that we
have not had before. There are youngsters who clearly, for one
reason or another, do not find the education system quite to their
liking; it does not motivate, enthuse or interest them. There
is some quite encouraging evidence arising from the Pathfinder
studies about what is happening to post-14 youngsters for getting
a more varied curriculum to suggest that there is a way in to
tackling the tail, if I can put it that way. I think there is
evidence that if we can motivate those youngsters probably in
the middle years of secondary education, we can keep them in the
system. I think that is a very important way to deal with the
tail. I would make one other observation. Our evidence—and
I think I spoke about this a year or so ago in a speech to the
Fabian Society—suggests that many of those youngsters that
you are talking about do not just suffer educational disadvantage
in a narrow sense. They suffer wider social disadvantage and issues
to do with poor health or poor housing, unemployment in the family,
poverty; all those things impact and it seems to me that that
leads us quite neatly to something that we may come back to this
morning to do with children's services and how, in the best sense,
education can make a huge difference to children's and young people's
lives but for some it is not sufficient and we have to get greater
support for youngsters to help them to succeed in our education
system.
Q21 Mr Pollard: We are told repeatedly
that there will be a fall in school rolls over the next few years
in primary schools. Have you formed a view as to whether this
might be an opportunity for doing some interesting things with
the teaching staff who may not be required immediately in the
classroom?
Mr Bell: I confess, Mr Pollard,
I am not absolutely up to speed with where we are in terms of
the forward projection for five to 10 years but I accept the general
point that you are making. I do not know because local authorities
and schools will always be under pressure -perhaps from Ofsted
and probably from the Audit Commission—to demonstrate value
for money. There is always this tension about freeing up capacity,
whether that is space in a school or teachers in a school, to
do other things against not having that money there when it could
be used for other things. I think that is a difficult, difficult
choice and many schools—and I am sure you will know this
from your constituency experience—will say that a fall in
rolls offers us an opportunity for example to set up a parents'
room or a library or whatever but at the same time the local authorities
continue to be under pressure not to be carrying excess capacity
in school space and I think the same applies with teachers and
other workers in the school. There comes a point where you cannot
fund a school, it seems to me, excessively beyond the number of
pupils it has because that money, one might argue, should go to
the schools that have more pupils. I think there is a difficult
balance to strike there, to get value for money but also to use
opportunities that falling rolls might present.
Q22 Chairman: Before we move off Kerry
Pollard's point about the under-performing 20% of our population,
we found that on many of our visits (not in Finland but certainly
in Norway) again 20% is described. 20% illiterate. In Norway,
which is one of the richest countries in the world with a small
population, one would have thought that the levels of depravation
of the bottom 20% were not that deprived in international terms.
In the early years, up to 11, we have seen some improvement but
where is the scope for even further improvement? Why are we hitting
this plateau that we seem to have hit?
Mr Bell: There is scope for further
improvement and one can find evidence to demonstrate that if you
look at the performance of otherwise similar schools. In other
words, we know that some schools achieve better than others in
very similar circumstances. We should not be capping our expectations
and say, "Well, we've achieved what we've achieved; that's
as far as we can go" and I think what we need to think about
is how can we raise the bar for those schools who are not achieving
as well as they might so that they can achieve the same as schools
who are doing a similar job. I think that is an issue. We have
said consistently in our reports on primary literacy and numeracy
that the quality of teacher subject knowledge is crucially important
and if you are looking at those schools which are not doing as
well as they might there are often two key factors. One is leadership
and management; to be blunt, head teachers and senior staff in
primary schools not having a tight enough grip on what they need
to do at the classroom level to bring about improvements in literacy
and numeracy. In other words, standing apart from the day to day
practice in the classrooms. Secondly, the teachers' subject knowledge.
We have this tremendous investment in teachers' subject knowledge
through the national literacy strategy but it is not embedded
everywhere, it is not secure everywhere. I think we really have
to focus on those schools that are not doing as well as they might
because we know from other schools that are very similar they
could do better. So I do not think we should be capping our expectations
or shrugging our shoulders and saying that we have reached a plateau
and there is nothing more we can do about it.
Q23 Chairman: In terms of the literacy
and numeracy strategy for the Government, where are we in terms
of when it began to bite and how old those children are now as
they move through the system?
Mr Bell: We have seen evidence
that those youngsters that achieved Level 4 when they were in
primary school—in other words, the expected level for the
11 year olds—were much, much more likely to achieve the
5+ A-C indicators and we now have the first cohort to be able
to demonstrate that. I think that reinforces the point that this
is not a kind of, well, shrug your shoulders if a youngster does
not reach Level 4; this is absolutely vital for future success
in the education system. I think that is good, hard evidence of
how important those strategies have been. I do not think, however,
that we should take our foot of the gas. We do need to keep focussing
on literacy and numeracy. I do welcome—and I have said this
publicly—the emphasis on using the rest of the primary curriculum
to assist us in that process. We have reported on schools that
combine a really rigorous focus on teaching literacy and numeracy
well with a broad, balanced and rich curriculum. The best schools
do that. It is not a case of just hammering away at the literacy
strategy and saying that that is all we can do. We have great
examples of schools that do that, really focus on literacy and
numeracy, but they offer their children all sorts of other opportunities.
We have reported properly on improvement. We have also reported
on the plateau, as you have described. Maybe just this year we
are beginning to see an upwards movement again, but we must not,
under any circumstances, say that what we have done is enough
because there are more young people who need to do better so that
they can succeed in secondary school.
Q24 Mr Chaytor: In your earlier answer
to the Chairman about the contribution of inspection to school
improvement you were very clear that it was teachers and head
teachers who were responsible for improving schools, although
inspection has a role to play through the reporting and the shining
of light and the presentation of information. You did not mention
the local education authorities so I would like to ask you what
you think their role is, if any, and will that role change in
the future? Will it either get greater or lesser in the future?
Mr Bell: Perhaps I could start
and then bring my colleague, Miriam Rosen, in as well. The inspection
evidence that we have suggests that the school improvement function
is increasingly well focussed in local education authorities.
It has improved very substantially. I would just say in passing
that I think that our inspection programme of local education
authorities has helped to bring about that raising of the game
at that level. I think that there is good evidence that the local
authorities have a major important role to play. So far as the
future is concerned, that is a more open question because there
is this statutory responsibility that local authorities have—and
it is a statutory responsibility—to help to contribute to
improvement and where that sits alongside greater autonomy for
schools. I think that still needs to be played out. How do local
authorities carry out that statutory responsibility at the same
time as giving greater autonomy to schools? I would ask Miriam
if she wants to add anything to that.
Mrs Rosen: Local education authorities
are also important in ensuring that there is proper provision
for, for example, pupils with special educational needs across
the whole authority and not just an individual school, and also
for children who do not have a school place. We know that that
has improved although it still needs to improve further. So there
is a role for local education authorities as well as for the individual
schools.
Q25 Mr Chaytor: What you are saying between
the two of you is that the future role is not going to be about
supporting school improvement if an increasing number of schools
become foundation schools following the publication of the five-year
plan.
Mr Bell: I think what I would
say to that is that local education authorities should not get
in the way—nor should inspectors get in the way—of
those schools that are doing well. I think the task for local
authorities is to ensure that they are providing that proper bite
and challenge to those schools that could do better. What I think
we have seen—and again this is over successive governments—is
a narrowing down of direct responsibilities for local authorities.
If you recall a couple of years ago, in the autumn of 2002, we
published a kind of overview report of our inspection programme
of local authorities and we made the point that if you are looking
for a causal effect generally you cannot find it; if you are looking
for a causal effect on those areas of responsibility that are
very directly related to the local authorities work you can find
it. For example, local authorities have a very clear set of responsibilities
for giving the schools in difficulty—you can see different
local authorities having different effects—for the training
and support for governors; you can see those direct effects. I
think it is right that those functions are very clearly specified
for local authorities. I think they will find that clear. So we
will see a continuing role for local authorities but where schools
are successful actually I think local authorities really have
to proceed by consent. Schools have to see the value of what the
local authority is doing because if a school is bringing about
its own improvement you have to ask, what is the local authority
capable of doing further? It is for the school to determine what
role and relationship it wants to have with the local authority.
Q26 Mr Chaytor: How does that relate
to the finding in the Improvement through Inspection
report[2]
that Robert Green referred to earlier, that the schools that gain
most out of inspection are those that are doing very well and
have the management capacity to respond to the inspection recommendations
and those that are in serious difficulties and have to respond
for survival. It is the schools that are somehow in the middle
that seem to have the least impact. Those would not be included
in your new responsibilities for local education authorities,
would they? The big band of middle schools are going to be left
out either way, not responding to Ofsted inspections and they
would not be within the remit of the new LEAs.
Mr Bell: I actually think they
will be because certainly so far as the LEAs are concerned they
have—as we have—the data to really ask those difficult
questions about a school and saying, "Are you really doing
as well as you should be doing?" and I think it is a big
task for local authorities to have advisors or inspectors (call
them what you will) who hold schools to account and can have that
eyeball to eyeball discussion saying that this school is not as
well as it should. As Robert suggested, one of the reasons why
we are proposing to move in the direction we are moving in school
inspection is because we think we can use that data to shine that
light and to ask those really difficult questions about improvement.
Local authorities are going to have to be able to use that data
to hold schools to account and inspectors are going to have to
use that data to hold schools to account. I think that is entirely
consistent with what local authorities are being expected to do
now and in the future. I do not think in any sense they are going
to lose that role. I think it is for them to show that they are
up to the game and that requires them to have staff of sufficient
calibre. I would just make one other passing comment, if I might,
about that. I think there is a primary issue and there is a secondary
issue. I think secondary heads would say to you that the local
authorities find it quite difficult now to get staff of sufficient
experience of secondary education to be able to have that very
serious conversation, adviser to head teacher.
Q27 Chairman: Ofsted has been poaching
them for years.
Mr Bell: We like to get the best
for our work as well, Mr Chairman.
Q28 Mr Chaytor: If your budget is going
to be reduced by 20% over five years, is that not going to cause
a problem?
Mr Bell: To be fair, I have said
publicly that I think it is important for Ofsted to try to make
even better use of serving heads occasionally to join inspection,
not so that we take them all out of schools but on an occasional
basis it helps to refresh our inspection work and I think it makes
a contribution to head teachers' professional development. I think
the more we can build that in, the better. As Robert also said,
the use of inspection frameworks has helped schools ask those
questions of themselves. I suppose we should not get ourselves
into a mindset that says that all this work about improvement
is done outside the school. In the end, if we said it is not LEAs
or inspectors that improve schools, it is the teachers and head
teachers that improve schools, we have to say the fundamental
responsibility for bringing about improvement is at the school
level.
Q29 Mr Chaytor: Can I just come to the
conclusions of the Improvement through Inspection
report and build on what you have said because one of the most
interesting conclusions from my point of view was paragraph 471,
on the purpose of inspection which says, "The report shows
that such assumptions of direct causality are unrealistic without
greater powers of follow-up or intervention that would almost
certainly change the nature of inspections and inspectorates."
I would like to pursue this point and ask you, do you agree that
in the future there is going to be a greater need for follow-up
and intervention and who is going to have the responsibility for
follow-up and intervention?
Mr Bell: The Report also points
out that unlike our Dutch counterparts we have no statutory responsibility
for improvement. That has been an argument that many people have
put over the 10 or 12 years or so of Ofsted's life that we should
not just turn up at schools, inspect, walk off and get somebody
else to do it. I have always made the point that it is a seductive
argument that if you think it through it actually leads you in
a dangerous direction. If you believe, as I have articulated,
that it is teachers and head teachers who improve schools and
not inspectors, I think you have to have a very clear distinction
between what inspectors do and what school and college leaders
do to bring about improvement. That does not, however, lead us
into the complacent position of thinking that there is nothing
more we can do. One of the reasons why we brought forward the
suggestion of sharper focus on inspection and greater frequency
is because our evidence suggests from a number of sources that
greater frequency of inspection does drive improvement. Let me
just give you an example of that. You will know that under our
inspection programme for colleges we re-inspect colleges where
there is an overall grade of inadequate or a curriculum area so
judged. We know from our evidence that that has brought about
improvement in colleges, in all but one of the colleges that have
been declared overall inadequate. We have seen that evidence.
I do not think anything drives improvement more than the certainty
of re-inspection. It is a fact of life that where people know
that somebody is going to come back and look to see what has been
done about their recommendations, you get improvements. I would
also argue that that is one of the reasons why our policy on special
measures works. I know it is not universally popular, but it works
because we monitor regularly, we come back and we drive the improvement.
The vast majority of schools and colleges that have been declared
in the failing category, because of that certainty of re-inspection,
have improved. As for the future, who is going to bring about
improvement? There will clearly be a role for the school itself,
a major role. There will be opportunities—as there are now—for
schools to choose where to buy support. They can have it from
the local authority; they can choose to buy it from a variety
of sources. I think what we have got under the inspection proposals
we are putting in the future is not a six year potentially between
inspections, but a three year gap. When people talk about us being
very self-congratulatory in the report, the report in some ways
was quite hard on ourselves when we said that we know from third
cycle inspection that some things that we have raised, because
the gap was so long between inspections, had not really been dealt
with because the time interval between inspections was so long.
I actually think that one of the side effects of a more frequent
inspection programme is that schools and colleges will recognise
that somebody is coming back to have a look to see whether improvement
has taken place.
Q30 Mr Chaytor: In the light of that,
how is your view of the follow-up and intervention in the future
different from what is now being proposed in Scotland because
the Scottish inspectorate have taken a slightly more interventionist
role than Ofsted has?
Mr Bell: I always steer clear
of commenting on Scotland. I think that after 20 years working
in the English education system I can properly say that I am not
an expert on Scotland.
Q31 Chairman: It is a clear alternative,
is it not?
Mr Bell: Except to say, Mr Chairman,
that the Scottish education system has never had, under HMI, its
schools in special measures as we have had. That has not been
an issue. As I understand it, speaking to my counterpart in Scotland,
the new legislation in Scotland is in a sense very much last resort
when the local authority has failed to intervene in schools. That
has not been the process here. Ofsted makes a judgment about a
school. It does not go and say, "This school is not very
good; we had better go and see what the local authority is going
to do about it." Ofsted makes a judgment about special measures
and of course the local authority has a part to play.
Q32 Chairman: A lot of people we represent
would look at your remit. You are in charge not only of inspecting
schools but also local education authorities, and if local education
authorities are not giving the support that you would anticipate
after your inspection a lot of people would say, "What do
you do, because you inspect both sides? Why aren't you joined
up?"
Mr Bell: We do that at two levels.
We do report at the level of the inspection of the local education
authority and I can think of LEA inspection reports where we have
been very critical about LEAs' work first of all in identifying
schools that could be in difficulty. We have done it at that level
but also part of the work that Her Majesty's Inspectors do in
monitoring schools in special measures is to keep under review
the work of local education authorities and the support they are
giving them. Again I can think of examples where we have been
very critical of the kind of support that schools have received
from their local education authority. I would say that we usually
find that where we are critical the support improves.
Q33 Mr Chaytor: In the new Scottish model
and the new Ofsted model—your new relationship with schools—self-evaluation
will play an increasingly important role. Are you confident that
the schools have the capacity to do a reliable self-evaluation?
Mr Bell: I think that is an open
question.
Q34 Mr Chaytor: I know it is; that is
why I am asking it. I want to know, are you confident that they
have or not? If you are not confident what does Ofsted propose
to do about it?
Mr Bell: Let me talk about our
evidence. We have certainly commented on improvements in school
self-evaluation under the current system and we reported on that
last year in our annual report. We also did say in that annual
report that it is still one of the weaker aspects of school management
so we are not naïve about the capacity of schools to self-evaluate.
I cited in the pilot inspections what we are doing to test out
this new model, I think it is fair to say that we are seeing a
mixed picture in relation to school self-evaluation. Therefore
I think there is a big job—central government, local
education authorities perhaps advised by Ofsted—to help
schools to help themselves to do self-evaluation better. I am
not sitting here, Mr Chaytor, suggesting that schools are in an
absolutely perfect state to carry out self-evaluation. I do think,
however, one of the lessons we have learned from inspection over
the past 12 years is that once you start to say something is terribly
important and needs to be done because of inspection, it gets
done better. Therefore I think we will see a ratchetting up of
school self-evaluation. I would just make one other comment about
school self-evaluation. We are not in the business—as some
people would like us to be—of validating school self-evaluation
as if somehow we should turn up at a school and just tick a box
and say, "Haven't they got a wonderful process of school
self-evaluation". Under this new system we are there to carry
out independent inspection. We will inform that inspection perhaps
more than we have done historically through school self-evaluation,
but there will be occasions—as there are now—where
we will say that the school has got it wrong because the inspection
evidence does not stack up against what the school has said about
itself through self-evaluation.
Q35 Mr Chaytor: Can we just try to tie
that all up together because what I am hearing you say, I think,
is that the key conclusion here about the need for more follow-up
and intervention you are interpreting as more frequent inspection.
You are still really saying that Ofsted is going to keep a sort
of hands-off approach and your function will remain simply parachuting
in, doing the report, publishing it, coming back a little bit
earlier than you would have done under the previous regime. I
do not hear you saying that you are agreeing with this conclusion
that is looking at a more comprehensive, holistic approach to
inspection, intervention, improvement and further inspection.
Mr Bell: I do not think it is
Ofsted's job. I do believe that one of the virtues of having absolute
clarity about the inspectorate's role is that it then leaves,
in a sense, the ground clear for those who have the direct responsibility
for leadership and management to act on what Ofsted says.
Q36 Mr Chaytor: You are saying that the
people who have the direct responsibility are the teachers and
management of the school. If there is simply not the capacity
within the school and Ofsted is washing its hands of it, who fills
that gap?
Mr Bell: I do not think we, in
a sense, wash our hands of it. By citing recommendations for action
we are laying out a very clear agenda. Going back in a sense to
your earlier question, local authorities continue to have an important
role in following-up with those schools in difficulty the results
of inspection. I do think that our more frequent work, will help
that process because I think it will galvanise action in the future
perhaps in some cases where it has not happened as quickly as
it should. I think there is a bit of a danger in using terms like
parachutes and walking away as if to say that we are not interested;
we are interested but we are very clear that our job as an
inspectorate is to report independently, frankly and then leave
it to those who have the responsibility for doing it. The reality,
I think, is that the majority of schools have the capacity to
do it. The question is, what do you do where the capacity does
not exist?
Q37 Paul Holmes: Just picking up on one
of the things you have already talked about, you produced a report
Improvement through Inspection which says that generally
Ofsted is doing a pretty good job of improving schools. You have
just sat there and gone through various examples to illustrate
that you think that the way you operate is the best: going in,
inspecting, saying this is good, this is bad and then going away
and letting someone else sort it out. You are rejecting all the
alternatives. I can remember when HMIs came into school in pre-Ofsted
days and said this is good, this is bad and this is what we will
do to help you improve it. You are saying that that is not a good
model. You are rejecting the Scottish line and Scotland generally
does better educationally than England over the years and the
Scots are saying that we should have mandatory follow-through
activity from the inspectors rather than just coming in, passing
judgment and going away. The Committee have been to Finland recently
which is right at the top of OECD success league tables where
they have no external inspection of schools at all. We went to
New Zealand some time ago. They do quite well in the league tables
and again they have no external inspection. You are saying that
all those alternatives are definitely wrong or not as good as
the model that you use.
Mr Bell: I do not have the virtue
of long experience in Ofsted but I think Miriam does have that
kind of experience. I do not think I would agree—Miriam
will correct me if I am wrong—that HMI did come in pre-Ofsted
and say here is good, here is bad and here is what we will do
to help you to improve. That has never been the function of Her
Majesty's Inspectorate over its many years.
Q38 Paul Holmes: With respect, as a teacher
and head of department I can remember HMI coming in and doing
that.
Mr Bell: I think we would have
come in and said, here is what is working well, here is what is
maybe not working as well and here is what you might do about
it, which is in some ways what inspectors do currently. They list
a key set of recommendations. What HMI have never done is to say
that we will come back next week to provide you with a consultancy
or the advisory support to do it. That has never been the function
of HMI. So far as the Scottish system is concerned, my understanding
is that HMI in Scotland are not going to come back in in that
model either. They are not going to say that they have done an
inspection and they are then going back to do a consultancy advice
with the school. What I understand them to be doing is in some
ways close to what we are proposing which is to ensure that they
follow up where they need to. New Zealand is an interesting example
because I met my counterpart in New Zealand so they do have a
system there. I have to say that New Zealand influence has been
quite significant in Ofsted's work because the concept of the
notice to improve that we are suggesting was one which, in mind,
was given greater strength on the basis of what the New Zealand
Chief Inspector said to me. The New Zealand Chief Inspector said
to me that they do go back on the basis of first time inspection
and in their system about 15% or 20% of schools are given a year
to improve after inspection. We were already thinking of that
kind of model and I think it is a very nice example actually
of where international influence has in a sense made us think
that this is an idea that is working somewhere else. I think the
New Zealand example was good from our point of view to demonstrate
that you have to change an enterprise. The other thing I would
suggest is that we have not in any sense been complacent about
adapting practice. It would be quite tempting for Ofsted, would
it not, to have done two full cycles of inspection, to be into
the third cycle and to have said, "Let's just keep doing
what we're doing". I think we have taken quite a bold view
by proposing what we are proposing which is a fundamental change
to our inspection work and our approach to inspection. I do not
think in any sense we are complacent about changing it, but I
do repeat the point I made to Mr Chaytor, I think it is vital
to keep a separation between inspection and advice. If you do
not, you confuse those who have the direct responsibility for
bringing about improvement: head teachers, principals and staff.
Q39 Paul Holmes: With FE colleges I understood—perhaps
you will tell me it is wrong now—you are looking at the
future of college inspection post-2005. There has been a suggestion
made that you will have a named HMI attached to a college to act
in an advice and support role in between inspections which seems
to be contrary to what you are saying.
Mr Bell: Not in an advice and
support role. What they will do, in a sense, is act as a contact
to be able to carry out an annual assessment of the college if
it is required. If I just comment on college inspection in the
future—and again Miriam might want to say more about this—there
is another very good example of us taking a quite radically different
approach in the future. As you know, we are in the final year
of our first four year programme of carrying out college inspection
with the Adult Learning Inspectorate. I was absolutely determined
that we were going to go radically more proportionate the second
time round and I think you will see in our proposals for colleges
that we really are getting out of the way of the best colleges
and letting them get on with the business. We will continue to
put our effort and more attention and time in those colleges that
do require that kind of intervention. We did think as part of
that process of having a more differentiated system it was useful
to have an HMI contact for the college where you can carry out
that sort of annual check if it is required but that HMI presence—if
I can put it that way—is not about advice and support. Miriam,
would you like to add anything to that?
Mrs Rosen: Simply that we are
moving to a differentiated system and for the colleges that are
not doing so well they will continue to get a full inspection
whereas the colleges which are doing much better will get a much
lighter touch. As David says, the link is an assessment link;
it is not an advice and support link.
2 Note: http:/www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/index.cfm?
fuseaction=pubs.displayfile&id=3696&type=pdf Back
| 
