Education Bill [Lords] |
|
Angela Watkinson: This group of amendments relates to the maintenance of a register of inspectors in England. I am puzzled at the omission from the clause of a reference to the maintenance of a register, which has been included in the past. With the changes to the style of inspection that are now proposed for schools, inspections will be shorter, albeit more frequent, and will be less burdensome on schools, but there is a requirement to report and observe on a comprehensive list of activities in schools. The inspections will last only one or two days, and are quite an onerous task for inspectors. It is very challenging to examine all those aspects of school life, and the inspectors will need to be highly competent and experienced in order to carry out such a demanding task. The chief inspector retains the final responsibility, but he is dependent on the information that he receives in the report from the inspector to inform his decision. So the quality and consistency of reporting between different inspections in different schools will be extremely important. The amendments seek to ensure that the previous high standards of former registered inspectors are maintained by introducing a register of additional inspectors. It is difficult to see how that would hinder the speeding up or the streamlining of inspections in
When an inspector’s service has proved to be unsatisfactory or has given rise to complaints, the ability to remove them from a register would provide quality assurance and would be another indication that quality and accountability were being maintained. We believe that such a facility would be an improvement to the whole system and a failsafe. Dr. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): May I apologise for being a little late, and say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Forth? I have particularly fond memories from my early days in Parliament when you were the shadow Leader of the House and your exchanges with the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) were much enjoyed by us all. Nothing since Morecambe and Wise has quite rivalled them. They were possibly even a little more subtle. May I also warn you that the Bill was considered so dull on Second Reading that we ended up talking about almost everything but the legislation? I do, however, have a point to make about amendments Nos. 9 and 10, both of which contain an excellent paragraph (c), which refers to
The phrase “keeping under review” leaps off the page. Everyone accepts that there has been quite a variation in how schools are inspected since the days of Matthew Arnold. There have been times when certain procedures were believed to be less than ideal. Even the Government are having second thoughts about how these inspections can be conducted. Given that background and the complexity of the numbers of subjects that will be inspected and the numbers of new teaching staff who may emerge, there is a need to keep constantly under review the way in which inspections are conducted; whether they are conducted well and whether they achieve the results that people intend them to have. There is therefore no merit in the inner core of the Conservative amendments. Will the Minister assure us that, when we have finally done with this template for inspectors in a few days’ time and it is finished, that will still not be the end of it and that the Government and the chief inspector will monitor and evaluate the process constantly, because it is sure going to need it? Mr. Stephen Twigg: I, too, remember your time as shadow Leader of the House, Mr. Forth; I was serving as deputy to my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston at the time, and we all enjoyed the exchanges—particularly the Thursday morning exchanges on the business statement. Column Number: 13 The hon. Lady reasonably asked how the measures to which the amendments are addressed came about. They came about in the same way as the rest of the Bill’s measures—through a sustained programme of engagement between the Department and the Government and those involved in education, including those involved in inspection, and representatives of schools, Ofsted and local education authorities. I believe that the measures will strengthen inspection and remove some of the inconsistencies in inspection reports that rightly concern people. It should ensure a much stronger guarantee of the quality of inspection. Indeed, that question was debated not only outside the House when preparing the Bill but in the other place. A number of powerful contributions were made during the debate in the other place, including by former chief inspectors of schools. The proposals are not about bringing the inspectors back into the Department or undermining their independence; indeed, I would say the opposite. If the proposals gain Royal Assent, we will continue to have—the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) challenged us on the subject—a completely independent inspectorate that makes the best-value use of contractual arrangements, with a high-quality core of Her Majesty’s inspectorate at its heart. We want to strengthen accountability in the vast majority of inspections conducted by registered inspectors. The chief inspector is not able at the moment to ensure that final reports are robust and rigorous, or that their judgments match the evidence. Mr. Gibb: I am slightly baffled by the Minister’s statement that the Bill will mean a more independent inspectorate. Given that the intention is to bring inspections in-house—I was interested to hear that the Government want to maintain contracted-out inspections—I wonder what proportion of inspectors are contracted out now, and what proportion he envisages being contracted out once the Bill is enacted. Mr. Twigg: I am not in a position to answer now, but I might magically be able to do so before I finish speaking were a note to appear by my side. I was seeking to make the point that there is a lack of consistency in the current practice. We want the chief inspector to be able to ensure that judgments are rigorous, and it is important that schools and early-years settings should have the opportunity to comment on those judgments before they are published. Schools and early-year settings should also have confidence that the system of inspection will help them to improve outcomes for their children and their communities. We all know from our experience—whether as Members of Parliament, as governors or as parents—how hard it can be for a school that is, for example, put on special measures. It is hard for all involved—the staff, the head, but particularly the pupils. We must not shy away from that most critical judgment, but we must ensure that it is defensible, that it is based on evidence and that it has been assured by the chief
Mr. Gibb: This is an important point. It seems that the inspector will be less directly accountable to Parliament and more accountable to the Secretary of State. Given that, does not giving the Her Majesty’s chief inspector more power over the drafting of the reports effectively mean that he is less independent, particularly because of his closer relationship with the Secretary of State? Does not that take us back to the days before the establishment of Ofsted and to an HMI that many people said was the dog that did not bark in the night? Mr. Twigg: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, which he made also on Second Reading. I do not accept that strengthening the relationship between the Department, the Secretary of State and Ofsted need undermine the independence of Ofsted—nor its accountability to Parliament, which is crucial. That accountability was reflected in the fact that the chief inspector, David Bell, appeared before the Select Committee last week. It is in no way compromised, undermined or changed by the proposals set out in the Bill. I am now able to answer the hon. Gentleman’s earlier question. The present position is that there are 250 HMI. That will not change under the proposals. The move from registration to the new arrangements will involve a reduction in the number of contracted inspectors from about 5,000 to about 3,000. That will enable us to manage the quality of inspections far more effectively. I will return to that point in a moment. 9.45 amAngela Watkinson: If there are going to be fewer inspectors but more inspections, will it not be difficult for that smaller body of inspectors? For example, if somebody is ill or otherwise unable to conduct an inspection that he is contracted to do, then, given the number and frequency of inspections, will it not be difficult to keep up with the schedule? Does it not forecast a slippage? Mr. Twigg: I understand the hon. Lady’s point. Of course, while we have the number of registered inspectors that I referred to, many of those are simply on the register, but not taking part in inspections. One of the concerns about consistency and quality is that there are people on the register who are not part of inspection arrangements in any schools, whereas, under the new arrangements, which I will say more about in a moment, we can ensure much closer monitoring and management of the contracts to ensure that the best people are among the 3,000. Therefore, I do not believe that the danger that she drew to the Committee’s attention is likely to arise. I will return to that point. I want to distinguish between the position for early years education and the position for schools. We want to ensure that Ofsted’s early years inspection work force is of the highest quality. We attach great
Paragraph 2 of schedule 7 removes the requirement on the chief inspector for England to maintain a register of early years child care inspectors in England. At present, almost all Ofsted’s early years inspectors are Ofsted employees and, as such, they are not separately registered. Removal of the registration requirement for early years inspection will, therefore, have almost no impact. Should Ofsted decide in future to engage more external inspectors, as it does for its school inspections, it will monitor and control the performance and quality of the inspectors through normal contract management arrangements. We believe that those will be as effective as any registration system in securing the services of appropriately qualified and experienced inspectors, which is the purpose of the hon. Lady’s amendments. Angela Watkinson: I take the Minister back to the quality of inspectors and the specific requirements for inspecting early years provision. As there will be no register, how will it be determined that individual inspectors have the specific and appropriate qualifications for sectors of education provision, particularly for the early years sector, in which child development and associated issues in addition to teaching come into play? Mr. Twigg: The hon. Lady is right to remind us of the importance of having the highest quality, not least in early years settings. Under the new regime, the onus will be on Ofsted to ensure that it employs people of the highest quality, as it is now. One of our concerns about the register, which in practice applies more to schools, but theoretically applies in early years settings, is that it provides a bare minimum accountability for those being employed by Ofsted, but is not sufficient and rigorous enough. She is absolutely right that we need to get things right. We do that by effective contract management, and performance management of both the contract and the individuals who are employed. Angela Watkinson: Let me press the Minister a little further on the clarity and accountability of the qualifications required. Will it be possible for schools and others to know what qualifications are required of inspectors? Were they on a register, it would be an indication that they had the required level of appropriate qualification. If there is no register, we are totally reliant on the chief inspector. Is there no further information that can be accessed by people who need to know that the people who conduct inspections are properly qualified and offering the right quality of service? Column Number: 16 Mr. Twigg: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to remind the Committee of the importance of not just parents but those who work in early years settings in schools having that assurance. Schedule 1 sets out the standards as appropriate, and I invite her to review it. If we can correspond further or take an opportunity later in the proceedings of the Bill to clarify the matter, I will be happy to do so. She and I share a commitment to achieving the highest possible quality. The Government believe that the mechanisms in the Bill will achieve what her amendments seek to achieve, which is that quality. Under our proposals, the chief inspector will be the single accountable figure under whose name all school inspection reports will be published. On that basis, Parliament will be able to hold him to account. Subject to the fate of the Bill, the chief inspector will use a combination of HMI inspectors and, through a number of regional contractors, additional inspectors to deliver a shorter, sharper inspection system. That means less notice, less stress for teaching staff and schools, less time for schools to undertake unnecessary preparation for inspection and fewer but better qualified members of an inspection team who will produce reports that should be more in line with school improvement and written in a language more accessible to parents. The critical point, which we have touched on already in our exchanges, is that, through the contracts that the chief inspector will make, he will ensure that all additional inspectors meet the standards that he sets. The standards will be published under schedule 1. The chief inspector will be responsible for ensuring that all inspectors have the necessary qualifications, experience and skills to assist in the discharge of what is an important duty. He will be allowed to operate a much more rigorous contract management arrangement and to ensure that no one inspector can undertake an inspection without first having demonstrated to one of the HMI that they have undertaken an inspection to the satisfaction of that member of HMI. In addition, they must continue to meet the standards. That is the critical difference from how things have been. Performance management will be a strong part of the new system, with each contractor having rigorous key performance indicators in their contract. At least once a year—although it is more likely to be every term—the chief inspector will publish a list of those people who are engaged by inspection service providers to carry out inspections on behalf of the chief inspector, and every school will have access to details of those who are engaged as additional inspectors. The measures will serve as a powerful incentive for the chief inspector, the service providers and the inspectors themselves to ensure that they deliver a high-quality inspection service. Angela Watkinson: May I press the Minister a little further on procedures if an inspector has proved to be unsatisfactory, is providing a service that does not meet the standards required, or has given rise to complaints from several schools? The remedy is simple if a register is in place, as the unsatisfactory inspector
Mr. Twigg: In fact, the hon. Lady’s point is part of our case for making these changes. As I said, a register provides only a kind of fitness-to-practise badge. It does not ensure ongoing satisfaction with performance, which we all want. It places an onus on Ofsted to prove that an inspector is unable to remain on the register. That means that, until the process begins, an inspector who is known to be poor at inspection can continue to inspect. That is the situation under the present system, and I do not believe that any hon. Member wants it to continue. Under our proposals, the chief inspector can ensure, through strong contract management and increased HMI involvement, that there is ongoing meeting of the standards and that an individual who is no longer able to fulfil what is expected of them is removed from the register. We believe that we have the mechanisms in place to ensure that that will work. The comprehensive measures that we are putting in place have been improved by discussion not only outside the House but in the other place. They will ensure that only those inspectors who are appropriately trained and who demonstrate not just at the outset but on an ongoing basis that they meet the required standards will inspect our schools. I believe that the hon. Lady’s amendments were in fact designed to probe the Government and to seek reassurance. I hope that I have been able to give her that reassurance. Angela Watkinson: This is a very wide-ranging set of amendments, which, as the Minister right says, seek to ensure that the standard of inspections is maintained. As we all know, school inspections make not only head teachers and teachers but parents and governors—indeed, the entire school—enormously anxious. It is only right that they are reassured that systems are in place that ensure that they can be confident that the people who are coming into their school to conduct the inspections are properly qualified, are of the right standard and will have the time to consider the wide-ranging duties that the Bill requires them to perform. Those people will need to be highly experienced and competent to be able to evaluate that wide range of aspects of school life in one or two days. As we all know, an inspection hangs over a school like a great black cloud. Shorter notice is probably an advantage, so that that black cloud hangs over the school for a shorter time. An enormous amount of time and energy used to be devoted to preparation for the inspection rather than to the everyday life of the school. The Minister has given reassurance on those points, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Column Number: 18 Clause 3 Annual and other reports to Secretary of State Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Dr. Pugh: I understand that clause 3 re-enacts a previous measure. It asks the Secretary of State to lay a copy of a very important document—the annual report of the chief inspector—before Parliament. All sorts of documents are laid before Parliament every day. We may, as we speak, hear a quiet thud in the background as many more are laid before the House, but will the Minister say whether he has given any thought to the idea of actually doing something with it when it is laid before Parliament? For example, Select Committees consider estimates and so on. This is clearly a pretty important document each year on the nation’s educational history and is worthy of serious debate. It may not be the best use of the document if the clause simply means that the document is laid before Parliament, and that all that we are mandated to do is to receive it. Has the Minister given any thought to the dynamic way in which the document might be used? Derek Twigg: As the hon. Gentleman said, the clause re-enacts provisions of the School Inspections Act 1996, which require the chief inspector to make an annual report that is laid before Parliament. The publication of the chief inspector’s annual report is one of the key events in the education year, so it is already a key event and is given a lot of publicity. Few people in Parliament or in education are unaware of what the report is about. It always attracts enormous attention. The report distils all the inspections evidence that Ofsted collects into the now familiar state of the nation education report. That evidence makes an important contribution to the national debate and to Government thinking. Indeed, one of the Select Committee on Education and Skills biannual meetings, in which the chief inspector focuses on the report, provides a broad view of the system for those working in it and celebrates their success. A copy of the report is sent to all head teachers, and particularly successful schools and colleges are named in it. The clause also re-enacts provisions that allow the chief inspector to make and publish other reports. Ofsted publishes more than 100 schematic and subject surveys a year, all of which have important things to say. They highlight good practice, identify areas that need improvement, and inform the development of policy. Dr. Pugh: The Minister appears to be saying that everyone takes heed of this document. I agree that everyone will do so, because it is significant in its own right. I simply suggest that a more formal process might make it clear what lessons could be learnt year by year, but there is no mechanism for that. Points can be made in the Department for Education and Skills, on the Floor of the House and in Select Committee.
Derek Twigg: I mentioned the biannual meeting of the Education and Skills Committee. I re-emphasise that the report has a very high profile and receives a great deal of media attention, as the hon. Gentleman will have seen in the past few weeks and months. We are satisfied with the current system and the way in which the report is dealt with. Question put and agreed to. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 Powers of entry etc. for purposes of section 2 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 10 amDr. Pugh: It appears that Ofsted—or the chief inspector—has appreciable powers, rivalled in most countries only by the powers of the secret police. He has
and a right to take documents away. It is also
A person guilty of an offence is liable to a summary conviction. I have no argument against that, but it moves away from the consensual model of school inspections. I am not saying that we have had a consensual model, but that is no doubt what we aim at. I shall not argue against the clause, but it would be useful to me and to the Committee to understand how often the powers given in clause 4 are currently operated. How many times are people summarily convicted and fined? Is it one in 1,000 or one in 100, or does it not occur? Equally, one wants to know that the powers are not used too brazenly. Coming into a school is something that one would hope would be done in the normal hours of daylight. Schools would obviously object if they found an Ofsted inspector rifling through their filing cabinets at night. I am sure that inspectors do not do that, that they do not want to do it and that there is no occasion for such things, but there must be cases in which there is tension. For example, documents may be demanded in too peremptory a way or in a time scale that cannot be met by the school. In addition to asking how many people are convicted under the provisions, may I ask how many complaints there are from schools about the powers of entry used by Ofsted inspectors and how they are employed in practice? Mr. Stephen Twigg: The hon. Gentleman referred to a consensual model. The Bill seeks to learn lessons from the experience of Ofsted and other modes of
All the clause seeks to do is re-enact the provisions for rights of entry to provide the chief inspector and any inspector authorised to act on his behalf with the right of entry. Clearly it is better that such matters are dealt with on a consensual basis. The evidence so far is that that is exactly what happens in schools. Long may that continue. We need the clause for the unlikely possibility of a breakdown in that consensus in the future. Angela Watkinson: On that specific point, would not the register be another safeguard? Naming the people with the right of entry into a school on a register would give schools the confidence that the matter has been checked. As I said during discussion of previous clauses, the register is a failsafe mechanism that gives the status and reliability of the people who are named on it. Mr. Twigg: I do not think so. Notwithstanding the fact that the measure has not been operational, there are often legitimate concerns among schools about quality and consistency, even with the register in place. As I said in the previous discussion, the register is therefore not a sufficient basis on which to provide that reassurance. I am confident that the new arrangements that we put in place in the earlier part of the Bill will provide that assurance of quality. Question put and agreed to. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 23 March 2005 |