Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
MR DAVID
BELL, MRS
MIRIAM ROSEN,
MR ROBERT
GREEN, MR
MAURICE SMITH
AND MS
9 NOVEMBER 2005
Q80 Jeff Ennis: One final question,
Chair, on pupil referral which is referred to on page 24 in the
annual report, paragraph 98. It says, "The quality of accommodation
in units continues to improve. However in 12 of the 38 inspections
the accommodation was unsatisfactory, and in two it was poor overall.
This limited the curriculum opportunities for the pupils, particularly
in PE, food technology, design technology and practical aspects
of science." Is not the fact that we seem to have these PRU
users as sort of a second-class level of education. Is that not
having a bad perception, shall we say, in terms of the efficiency
of PRUs within the whole school setting?
Mr Bell: I think it is very important
to say that Pupil Referral Units have to exist to provide for
those youngsters who cannot be educated in mainstream school.
There is no argument about that. Often that provision does seem
to sit at the margins of the rest of the system, and in some cases
quite literally at the margins where you are in a hut somewhere
on a school campus or elsewhere.
Q81 Jeff Ennis: Absolutely. They
are in many examples in isolation?
Mr Bell: Absolutely, and I think
that is where the very specific point relates to quality of accommodation,
because if you are in a hut somewhere you do not necessarily have
access to specialist accommodation. What quite a lot of local
authorities are trying to do now is to ensure that PRUs are more
hooked into local schools so that the youngsters concerned can
get access to the facilities that they require, but it is always
going to be a difficult one. Those youngsters are in PRUs often
because they have not behaved well enough to stay in the mainstream
school, and there are issues often about enabling those youngsters
to get back in and use the facilities that other youngsters are
using, but clearly if you are out in a hut somewhere you are not
going to be able to access the specialist accommodation.
Chairman: Chief Inspector, I am sorry
that has been brief, but we are coming back to that. I quickly
want to go through the Schools White Paper and the Education Bill.
I know that Roberta has a high question in questions coming up
now, but do you want a quick one on this?
Q82 Dr Blackman-Woods: One of the
key features of the White Paper is the importance that is given
to parent's involvement, particularly, I think, the assertion
that parental involvement increases standards or helps to do that.
Is there in your opinion evidence to support that?
Mr Bell: We often comment in the
most successful schools about parents who are well engaged in
their children's education, and that would not come as any great
surprise to you. It is interesting, it is very currently in my
mind looking at one or two school reports of schools in difficulty,
that it is not necessarily the case that parents are not interested,
although that can be the case. It may be that the relationship
between the home and the school has broken down. Parents have
got an absolutely central role in taking an interest in what their
children are doing at school and supporting the school, but actually
it is a two-way relationship. Sometimes schools do not always
make themselves as open and as easy and as accessible to parents
as they might, so I do not think this is either all about the
right of parents or all about parent bashing: the truth is that
children do best when there is a really good, strong, positive
relationship between home and school. It was ever thus.
Q83 Dr Blackman-Woods: But it is
uneven, is it not, parental involvement? Is it your experience
that parental involvement is less in more disadvantaged areas?
Mr Bell: I have never subscribed
to the view that parents in more disadvantaged areas are any less
interested in education than parents elsewhere. I think the vast
majority of parents are interested in how their children are doing
at school. They do not always necessarily engage with the school
in the same way. Some parents are more articulate and make their
views known much more strongly to the school, get more involved,
and therefore I think one of the added challenges for schools
in serving disadvantaged communities is making sure that parents
feel welcome and it is easy to access. It is always easy, is it
not, at primary level: because the relationship is different between
parent and school when the child is younger. Parents generally,
in one way or another, have a greater connection: the tradition
of the school gate. It is much more common for parents to be gathering
round the school gate than it would be in a secondary school.
I think it is fair to say it is tougher in some schools where
parents may not want to engage as much with the school, but I
never believe it is because parents just do not care. Some parents
do not care, of course, I just believe that the vast majority
of parents do care and want their children to do well, particularly
when their children are young.
Q84 Dr Blackman-Woods: I think my
question is really if parental involvement and engagement is necessary
to drive up school standards and you do have less of it in the
more disadvantaged areas and in the weaker schools, then in giving
a greater role to parents are we not just extending that disparity
or can more be done to increase parental involvement and engage
schools in schools that are currently failing?
Mr Bell: We must not say that
schools that are certainly in disadvantaged areas do not have
parental engagement and therefore are weaker. We know that some
schools do the most fantastic things to engage parents, even in
what we might describe as the most auspicious of circumstances.
I do not think it drives it apart. I think to say you are going
to give a greater role to parents in the education system is not
about driving a greater gap, it is about saying to all schools,
"You have a responsibility to engage with your parents"
and encouraging parents to get involved. In the end you cannot
force parents, you cannot force parents and march them up to the
school gates and say, "Get in there and listen to what the
head teacher has to say". In some of those circumstances
the school has to go out more perhaps than just expect the parents
to come to it.
Q85 Chairman: Chief Inspector, Roberta's
point surely is that if people like the Sutton Trust can still
say, "The real tragedy of our school system is that 30% of
kids have never seemed to have had the education opportunities
and still do not get them", is just parent-power going to
deliver it?
Mr Bell: As far as I understand
it, Chairman, nobody is arguing that just parent-power is going
to deliver it. It is improvements to the education system that
gives more children the opportunity. It takes a range of things
to happen for children to get the opportunities that they want,
but surely we should all continue to worry away at how we get
more parents engaged: because, as I said a few moments ago, children
are more likely to succeed at school where there is a good partnership
between home and teacher.
Q86 Tim Farron: I will try and compress
my questions into one or two. The White Paper is fairly clear
about providing Ofsted with additional powers and responsibilities.
In particular, with regard to special measures through the LA
you appear to have the power to replace heads, managers, governing
bodies and to suspend budgets. I guess my questions are these:
did you ask for those powers, were you not consulted over those
powers and either way do you welcome them?
Mr Bell: Just to be clear, Mr
Farron, the powers that you describe still really reside with
the local authority.
Q87 Tim Farron: Indeed?
Mr Bell: What the White Paper
is saying is that if schools do not make sufficient progress quickly
enough, then a range of alternatives should be considered; and
that was something that I was consulted on and something that
I advocated. Our experience is that that first year, first few
months, frankly, after a school goes into special measures you
need to see some pretty rapid change and improvement. Despite
the press stories, it was not the case that failing schools would
close after a year. That is not what has been proposed. What has
been said, and it is absolutely right, is if a school that is
in special measures is not starting to make significant improvement
quickly, then more remedial drastic action can be required. The
Chairman and others, I think, on previous occasions have lamented
the fact that some schools had been in special measures for years
on end, and rightly too they should lament that fact because that
is children year on year not getting a decent education, so I
think faster intervention on the backs of schools that are failing
is really important, but all of those intervention powers—replacing
the governing bodies, suspension, suspending delegations and so
on—will continue to reside with the local authority.
Q88 Tim Farron: Moving on quickly
to admissions processes, what sort of role do you expect to have
in scrutinising the admissions procedures of the increased number
of schools who seem likely to gain control of their admissions
processes?
Mr Bell: We have never had a role
in that area, although a couple of years ago the Chairman invited
us to give some evidence on what we had found on admissions policies.
I think in a sense that landscape is crowded enough, because obviously
the ultimate responsibility in terms of dealing with appeals rests
with the schools adjudicator; it is not appropriate for Ofsted
to get involved in that either at a local or a national level.
I think in our previous programme of local education authority
inspections the issue of admissions would come up, and, of course,
that was why the Chairman invited us to look at it, but that is
not something that I think would be appropriate for us.
Q89 Tim Farron: You do not think
they should?
Mr Bell: I do not think we should
do that, no.
Chairman: We move now to teacher training,
childcare and local authorities as our final topic.
Q90 Jeff Ennis: Focusing firstly
on Early Years education, David—I forget how long it is
now that the responsibility for inspection of that was taken away
from Children's Social Services, and I have asked you this question
the last couple of times you have been here—there were transitional
problems. The computers that were originally allocated to the
inspectors were not of the best standard and we changed the working
practices from working in teams within children's social services
departments to working to some extent in isolation. Have all these
teething problems now been totally resolved and is Early Years
inspection totally integrated?
Mr Bell: It would be a fool that
would sit here and say, "I have no problems, Chairman."
Those major problems that you described, for example inadequate
IT systems and so on, have been addressed, and we know from the
feedback that the staff give us that that has been dealt with.
I think there continues to be an issue. Some people adapt more
easily to being home-based than others. Of course our old inspectors,
both on the Early Years side and on the education side, are home-based.
I think there is a particular chance for managers in keeping in
touch with people, making sure that people do not feel isolated,
but I will not pretend that some people still feel uncomfortable.
On balance though most of the colleagues that I speak to up and
down the country when you go out with them say that actually there
are quite a lot of benefits in being home-based, but that bit
of isolation you always have to keep your eye on.
Q91 Jeff Ennis: So you feel that
that inspection regime now is more focused on the job in hand
than it was previously?
Mr Bell: If I might, I would like
to ask Maurice to comment on this.
Mr Smith: I think it has always
been focused on the job in hand, and I think the results of our
inspection programmes show that we deliver our inspection programmes,
we deliver to timescales in terms of registration time and we
deliver to timescales in terms of responding to complaints. On
the home-based issue, if I might add, I have a direct take on
this because I speak to my staff on a regular basis. It was 50:50
on day one, 3 September 2001. I would have said by Christmas it
was 75:25 against. I would say by now it is 95:05 in favour. The
vast majority of colleagues really enjoy that privilege now. They
have adapted to it. Some who really were never going to have gone.
It is a big success story, and to our colleague here, I would
add that, of course, we now face that further challenge if we
are given the rolling responsibility from other inspectorates.
Q92 Jeff Ennis: One final question.
In paragraph ten of the report it states, "The quality of
education remains at least good in most private, voluntary and
independent nursery settings." How does this judgment compare
with Ofsted's findings on maintained nursery provision?
Mr Smith: One of the difficulties
of this is about measuring apples and oranges: because we are
measuring two distinct groups of children. Those children who
are in the maintained sector, largely speaking, are in the reception
class and at the end of the foundation stage. Those who are in
the private long-term independent sector, though not absolutely
the case, are usually at the beginning of the foundation stage
and therefore the measures available to us are less so. I do not
think that we would make a distinction between either the mainstream
. . . .
Q93 Jeff Ennis: So you would be using
different quality measures?
Mr Smith: No, we would be using
the same measures but the children are at a different age, at
a different stage, usually. I think our submitted position is
that we would not make distinction between the maintained versus
the PVI sector—and it is between nurseries and childminders
effectively—except to say that which is good quality is
good quality in whichever sector it is; so you can have good quality
child-minding, good quality PVI foundation stage, good quality
maintained, but you can also have poor quality in each of those
sectors as well.
Q94 Mrs Dorries: You mentioned the
stories on the front of two newspapers today. Could I ask you,
were you consulted on that? Also, one of the things that alarms
me is that it actually talked about babies and toddlers and having
the same legal force as is in place for the national school curriculum.
Do you think that baby rooms and toddler rooms and nurseries are
places for Ofsted inspectors to be and were you consulted on childcare?
Mr Bell: We are already in those
places.
Q95 Mrs Dorries: Is it appropriate?
Mr Bell: I think it is. If a parent
in a sense entrusts their child to another setting, whether that
is a childminder's home, or a day nursery, or whatever, I think
parents want some reassurance that what is going on is safe, the
children are being well looked after and what opportunities are
appropriate for them, and that has been the case really all the
way through, long before Ofsted got involved, and this is why
there was always registration and inspection of day-care providers.
What is different, of course, when Ofsted took over is that you
got a national system against 14 national standards, and I think
it is important that those standards are judged. I think interestingly,
if one looks at very young children, it is even more appropriate
to look at their safety, their security, their well-being, the
range of activities in the day for them, and some children do
spend a lot of time in day-care provision, so I do not think that
is inappropriate. I think we may need to pause for breath. This
morning's newspaper headlines had a really good edge to them about
children being lined up in highchairs and taught how to read at
the age of two and a half. I do not think that is quite what is
being proposed. We are talking with the Department about how we
take that forward. The departments properly, ministers properly,
are responsible for the new curriculum, if I use that generic
word, for children under five, and clearly we will have a role
in regulating and inspecting against this, but I would just caution
against assuming that this is going to be the heavy hand of the
state imposing its will everywhere. I think parents do want a
degree of assurance when it comes to the care of their children,
in a sense, being done by others, and it is right to keep that
in mind. I would certainly not want over-regulation and over-heavy
regulation of young children, but I certainly would not want no
regulation either.
Q96 Mr Chaytor: Were you consulted
on the proposals in the White Paper to establish trust schools?
Mr Bell: Chairman, I am delighted
that the Committee feels that I should be consulted on all of
these major issues of state. These issues are discussed with me
as Chief Inspector, of course they are, and I think you would
be appalled if they were not; so I was consulted in the sense
that officials and ministers shared their emerging ideas, quite
properly, and quite appropriately. In the end it is for ministers,
properly, quite appropriately, to decide what was in the White
Paper, but I can assure you, this Chief Inspector is not left
out on the sidelines and nobody ever talks to him.
Q97 Mr Chaytor: Is there any evidence
in your annual report on the relationship between local authorities
and schools that would substantiate the argument to stop local
authorities being direct providers of schools?
Mr Bell: I am not sure our annual
report would be the right place to look for that. We would judge
individual schools according to the quality of the education that
they provide. We would look, as we did historically, at local
education authorities and what we provided. The actual relationship,
the constitutional relationship, if I can put it that way rather
pompously, is not really a matter that we would comment on. What
I would say, and I strongly take this view, I think we should
give as much autonomy as possible to individual institutions who
know the pupils that they serve, the students that they serve,
to in a sense drive their own destiny, but it is clearly a policy
matter about the actual relationship between the local authority,
quite properly. It is for the Government to determine what that
really should look like.
Q98 Mr Chaytor: But the assumption
of the White Paper is that local authorities do not have the capacity
to deliver the next phase of continuous improvements in schools.
Does your annual report or your evidence-base substantiate that
assumption?
Mr Bell: Local authorities, since
the inspection programme, have improved, but if you look at judgments
on local authorities in the annual report, we are talking about
them in the main being satisfactory or better. I think we are
moving into a phase of education reform that is going to make
significant demands on everyone in the system, and I would not
necessarily conclude, therefore, that local authorities are absolutely
up for everything that is going to be done. My understanding reading
the White Paper is that local authorities will have a different
role under the proposals.
Q99 Chairman: Is it really a different
role? We had the senior officer from Hampshire the other day who
said the White Paper will not make any difference. They have had
a commissioning role in Hampshire for a long some time. They do
not see themselves as a provider, and so is not some practice
really there already?
Mr Bell: Yes, and I think the
Government, as far as I would see, would acknowledge that the
best local authorities have started to move into that kind of
commissioning role. I think it is a bit of a stretch if somebody
has argued, "This will make no difference. We will continue
to do what we are going to do." There are clearly quite radical
ideas, for example, about groups of parents who have a right to
approach the local authorities and say, "We believe there
should be educational provision in there at the moment."
The local authority is judge and jury on that one. The notion
in the White Paper is that there would be an access to the schools
commissioner who would have the responsibility for saying ultimately,
"Actually there is a demand for places in this area. I am
sorry, local authority, actually you are not providing."
So I think it is a different role to what has happened historically.
|
