Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-139)
8 MARCH 2004
MR DAVID
BELL, MR
DAVID TAYLOR,
MR ROBERT
GREEN AND
MR MAURICE
SMITH
Q120 Mr Pollard: Should we have it as
part of a career structure?
Mr Bell: Not in the sense that
everyone is required to do it, but certainly I think opportunities
for pupils to visit from special to mainstream, mainstream to
special and for teachers to visit special to mainstream and mainstream
to special at least offers some insight into working in such schools
and units and therefore hopefully teachers might consider taking
it up as a career.
Q121 Valerie Davey: In Bristol we have
had a very special commendation for our Mereton education support
for young parents group. I think that that insight would be valuable
for other teachers and I am wondering whether that is a particular
area which, around the country, is doing well.
Mr Bell: One of the members of
staff from Mereton joined our seminar this morning on girls' achievement
because we thought it was very important to pick up this issue.
One of the points I was making this morning was that whilst we
are right to look at high achievement on the part of girls, we
must not lose sight of the lost girls in this system. In fact,
the Mereton Unit in Bristol seems to me to be an excellent example
of the kind of provision that has been made, particularly for
teenage parents. Yes, absolutely, it was really good to have a
contribution because the person from Mereton actually contributed
to the discussion this morning.
Q122 Jonathan Shaw: Moving on to strategies
for school improvement, there were 160 schools put into special
measures in 2002-03 as against 129 the previous year. That is
an increase of 24%. Commenting you said, "Undoubtedly the
robustness of the revised inspection framework introduced has
been a contributing factor to that". You say you make no
apologies for that; you are talking tough now, are you?
Mr Bell: Can I just draw a distinction
between what happened up to July 2003 and what has happened since.
You are absolutely right. The data that is outlined on page 63
does represent an increase in the academic year 2002-03 but obviously
the comments that you have cited refer to the increase in the
number of schools going into special measures from September.
The reason I draw that distinction is because the increase last
year, although it is as you have described, is probably due to
a variety of factors but not as significant—arguably—as
the rise we have seen from last September. It is not a case of
talking tough, it is a case of explaining what we have done. The
reason why I explained it that way was because we have different
expectations now of schools than we had previously. That has undoubtedly
contributed to an increase in the number of special measures schools
since September.
Q123 Jonathan Shaw: How many schools
are in special measures this year that would not be in special
measures under the previous regime?
Mr Bell: I cannot answer that
question because every inspection is done there and then at the
time when inspectors make the judgment. We do not have a formula
anyway when it comes to special measures. We do not tell inspectors
to tick boxes and the school is in special measures. What we do
say to inspectors is: here are certain factors that you need to
consider. Some of those factors have changed. In the previous
inspection system we said to inspectors that where there is 20%
or more unsatisfactory or poor teaching you should at least consider
special measures. Let us just think what that means. That is four
times the national average of unsatisfactory or poor teaching.
I think it is entirely reasonable to say to inspectors in the
old system to consider special measures. We have changed that;
we have now said that if there is 10% of unsatisfactory or poor
teaching in a school we should consider special measures because
that is twice the national average of unsatisfactory or poor teaching.
It seems to me entirely reasonable to say to inspectors: you should,
at the very least, consider whether special measures might be
appropriate.
Q124 Jonathan Shaw: This is a dynamic
process; do you envisage a time when it will be 5%?
Mr Bell: We do not set out with
quotas in mind. We certainly did not revise that guidance with
a view to creating more schools in special measures.
Q125 Jonathan Shaw: That is rather an
odd thing to say.
Mr Bell: No, because the criteria
that we have put into place reflect the improvements in the education
system. As the percentage of unsatisfactory or poor teaching declines
across the system as a whole, by saying the threshold is, as it
were, 10% you would not necessarily automatically expect more
schools to be told to make improvements.
Q126 Jonathan Shaw: A summary of what
you are telling the Committee is that good news, there are more
bad schools.
Mr Bell: No, I do not think it
is good news that there are more bad schools. It is a serious
point because every time I have to look at the papers in relation
to schools which go into special measures I always think to myself
that that is going to have a substantial impact in that school,
but I do it because I believe very strongly that special measures
for the vast majority of schools has been day one to recovery.
The vast majority of schools improve and offer a better education.
It is never good news when a school goes into special measures,
but if special measures is the way to bring about improvement
then it should be imposed on the school.
Q127 Jonathan Shaw: I do not have the
statistics to hand, but perhaps you could tell the Committee,
Mr Bell, there has been some concern about the number of schools
in serious weaknesses but then continued to go down into special
measures. Can you tell the Committee what the picture is today?
Mr Bell: That was the case and,
if you recall at the last but one meeting, we talked about the
new arrangements that Ofsted has put into place for monitoring
schools in serious weaknesses. Now Ofsted will go back and visit
all schools in serious weaknesses within about six to eight months.
Previously we had only visited a sample. Some of those schools
that have gone into special measures have been where Her Majesty's
Inspectors have re-visited and found the school does require special
measures. I hope we will see something of a short-term effect
there because it is a bit of a sad fact but I think too many schools
were allowed to drift in serious weaknesses because it was assumed
that nobody would come back and have a look. I think the certainty
of re-visiting over time will lead to faster improvement.
Q128 Jonathan Shaw: Within this relationship
of more visiting or returning with your inspection team, are they
then providing advice in the way that you are perhaps seeking
in the consultation document which the Chairman referred to earlier
on? Is this a snapshot of what we might see in the future in terms
of how Ofsted will relate to schools?
Mr Bell: I always draw an important
distinction between inspection and advice, but what I would say
is that the regular monitoring of schools under special measures
where HMI go back regularly is seen as one of the most valuable
aspects of the process. Almost without exception, after a school
has come out of special measures it will say that the regular
challenge, the visits, the reporting from HMI is part of that
improvement.
Q129 Jonathan Shaw: I want to talk to
you about serious weaknesses. You are saying that there was a
concern that schools in serious weaknesses then spiralled down
into special measures. You are saying that picture is changing
for the better.
Mr Bell: It is not changing yet
because it is a bit early. We have only been carrying out these
new arrangements since last September, a year past September.
I am afraid to say that we are still seeing schools that were
in serious weaknesses that are being put into special measures.
I think what I am suggesting to you, Mr Shaw, is that as the message
gets round the system that if schools in serious weaknesses are
guaranteed a first and possibly subsequent visits, then I think
there will be greater urgency to do something about those schools.
Q130 Jonathan Shaw: Who is to blame in
those circumstances? Why have you felt the need to make more interventions
in schools in that way? It is a very serious issue. A school has
real problems and then it just gets worse before it gets better.
Mr Bell: I think the responsibility
has been shared historically. I think there were cases where perhaps
school leadership did not really take as seriously as it should
have the fact that it had been designated as being in serious
weaknesses. I think it is the case that LEA activity in schools
in serious weaknesses was much less significant than those in
special measures and I think there were just too many cases of
schools where no support or intervention came from outside and
the school just drifted from serious weaknesses over time into
special measures.
Q131 Jonathan Shaw: Going back to one
of my earlier questions about a change in the regime, do you think
that every school understands now what is expected of them in
terms of the percentage level of what is satisfactory? Do you
think everyone is aware of that?
Mr Bell: I cannot give you a guarantee
for all 24,000 schools.
Q132 Jonathan Shaw: Of course not, but
what about the feedback from your inspectors going into schools?
What are they telling you? What are the reports telling you?
Mr Bell: People tend not to report
in that way, if I might say. What I would say is that schools
almost invariably buy the inspection handbooks that lay out all
the criteria and the guidance so I would be surprised, I have
to say, if a school were to say that it has no understanding of
what Ofsted expects. I would be very, very surprised if they said
that.
Q133 Jonathan Shaw: They might have some
confusion about the threshold of satisfactory lessons.
Mr Bell: I do not think so because
we are very clear in describing what satisfactory teaching looks
like, what good teaching looks like. There has been a change.
In the most recent inspection guidance we have been clearer in
the descriptors of satisfactory teaching, good teaching and so
on. We were very clear about that throughout the consultation,
going to head teachers meeting up and down the country. We were
saying to heads that we would be sharper in our definitions to
enable inspectors to make those judgments. The reaction I got—often
from heads—was "good, because that kind of guidance,
sharper and clearer, will enable us to do a better job in monitoring
what is going on in our own schools".
Q134 Jonathan Shaw: Turning to the issue
of resources, do you see schools where they have resource issues
which can be directly attributed to issues in standards?
Mr Bell: It is very difficult
to comment on that at the level of an individual school. I often
get people challenging me and asking me why I cannot say. Inspectors
judge schools as they find them with the money they have. They
have to judge the effectiveness. Inspectors cannot judge what
the school might have been like if it had more or less money.
I think at times people are frustrated because we do not say more
about that. What I would say, at the level of the individual institution
and at the level of this Report, we do highlight where there are
equipment deficiencies, buildings deficiencies which we would
argue are having a detrimental impact on pupils' learning. In
this Report I quote about schools having a shortage of specialist
accommodation. That is based on a lot of inspection reports that
have said that. We cannot then say that the standards would have
been better in this school "if", but we can say the
job of teaching and learning might be more difficult because the
science equipment or facilities are not up to scratch.
Q135 Jonathan Shaw: Are you able to comment
in terms of where you see resources going where there is another
inspection? Where there is another inspection and there have been
new resources put in, are you then able to make a judgment: here
was the school three years ago, here is the school today and it
has now got new computer screens, it has interactive white boards
et cetera.
Mr Bell: We can certainly do that
if some of those concerns about resources were identified as recommendations
in the previous report. In the inspection report now we have to
comment on what action has been taken from recommendations. You
will get it there and sometimes I know you get it in the body
of the text. The body of the text about subjects might say, since
the last inspection this happened or that happened. I think we
are able to comment and certainly as to recommendations we will
comment on whether they have been acted on.
Mr Taylor: In the field of ICT
obviously we have said that standards have improved and there
is a very direct and clear correlation between the quality of
provision and the standard of work. It is pretty obvious in that
area, but it is one in which we have started now to see the real
improvements which have been looked for for some years.
Q136 Chairman: When we take evidence
the best sessions of evidence we get is when we go out and take
evidence in a local education authority or in a school. If a school
has serious weaknesses how do you assess who is to blame? Where
is the responsibility? Does that knock onto your assessment of
LEAs because some of the schools we have talked to who are either
in that sort of general area of serious weaknesses or likely to
be in special measures, feel there is a cycle of decline and it
is almost: here is a head who perhaps is not quite up to the job
in the situation or he has been there too long and cannot think
through the challenge or show the leadership, his inability to
attract new staff (as I said in my opening question to you). There
is a sort of sense that it is all very well you chaps coming in
and saying you have to improve, you are going from serious weaknesses
to special measures. There is a question in the community: who
is responsible for this and who is responsible for putting this
school back on track?
Mr Bell: As you know there are
very direct legal responsibilities on local education authorities
to promote school improvement and that is why, when we inspect
local education authorities, we do look at the contribution that
was made to school improvement, which includes an analysis of
the numbers of school in special measures and serious weaknesses
and trends over time. There is a clear question there about local
authorities. On the other hand, in a system of local management
where power is largely decentralised, one would have to say that
the basic responsibility lies at school level. However, I think
you cite a good example of where perhaps the responsibility might
lie at school level, but has that just been allowed to drift on
without a local authority intervening more effectively? The other
thing I would say about Ofsted is that we are not there to apportion
blame or to get into all of that; we are there to say that in
this situation the school is not providing an adequate standard
of education and something needs to be done about it.
Q137 Chairman: Who do you say that to?
Do you say that to the Secretary of State or do you say it to
the local education authority?
Mr Bell: As you know, it is said
in the published report and both the school and the local education
authority are required to act on that and action plans have to
be put together, so it is set down in a very formal sense.
Q138 Chairman: If there is a school in
serious weaknesses, there is a real problem because children are
only going to get one chance at that education, I would have hoped
that someone at Ofsted would pick up the phone to someone in the
Department and say, "Look, we are very worried about this
school; I don't think the answer is going to come from the local
education authority and I think the Department should know about
this". You are not prescribing action, but creating awareness.
Mr Bell: There are two things
I would say about that. The first thing is that it cannot be clearer
to a local education authority if an inspection report on a school
says that this school has serious weaknesses. I would have to
say, what else do they need to know to do something about it?
The second point I would make is that we do not, as you know,
have the intelligence between inspections, we do not pursue what
has happened between inspections to be able to do what you have
described and, as it were, phone up the local authority and say
this that and the other. However, I do think that where we have
identified schools in serious weaknesses and, in fact even where
we have not, there should be enough in an inspection report for
local authorities to judge the level of intervention and support
required.
Mr Taylor: My last inspection
as a member of Ofsted was to a school which had been in special
measures for just under two years. It had had four monitoring
visits by HMI and I joined the HMI who had done those visits and
the school was taken out of special measures so it was quite a
nice way to end my inspection career. However, in the course of
it, I learned quite a lot about what is needed for the school
to be turned round. In that case it did not need a change of head
teacher; it needed a wake-up call to the head teacher plus concerted
action by the local authority and the kind of on-the-spot monitoring
and diagnosis of weaknesses that HMI had put into that school.
When we delivered the verdict after two years that this school
was no longer in need of special measures there was a unanimous
sigh of relief. Indeed, the head teacher was brushing tears from
his eye. We were able to say that this is an example of how, if
you get this triangulation between local support, effective leadership
at a school level and HMI intervention then a school should improve
and that is exactly what happened.
Q139 Chairman: Thank you; that is heart
warming story. What worries me is when we see an LEA that is one
of the poorest performing LEAs and a school with serious weaknesses
and what I feel for is the community and the young people going
through that school at that time.
Mr Taylor: You are right; that
was one of the weaker LEAs and when we inspected it we pointed
out the weaknesses in it support for schools in special measures,
so some things can change.
| 
