Ofsted's response to the Sixth Report from the
Education and Skills Committee, Session 2006-07
We are pleased to respond to the Education and Skills
Committee's final report on the work of Ofsted. We welcome the
Committee's recognition of the new Ofsted's potential to make
a positive impact on the quality of services for children, young
people and adult learners; and its endorsement, even at this early
stage of the organisation's development, of the broad approach
we have taken to drawing up our strategic plan and establishing
strategic goals and targets.
The Committee's report followed two sessions of evidence
from Ofsted. The first of these took place some months before
the new Ofsted was established; the second just one month after
it came into being. Not surprisingly, therefore, the Committee
asked some questions about the development of the new inspectorate
and its remit. We believe that Ofsted is in a very strong position
to provide assurance on these questions, and the following response
seeks to do so.
We look forward to further dialogue on these matters
over the coming months with the Committee's successors.
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's
Services and Skills
Chairman, Ofsted Board
Continuing scrutiny of Ofsted
We recommend that the scrutiny work that this
Committee has carried out on Ofsted is continued by successor
The Committee's recommendation that its scrutiny
work should be continued by successor committees is of course
a matter for the House of Commons. For both the former Ofsted
and the Adult Learning Inspectorate, the Committee's challenging
but constructive public scrutiny was the centrepiece of our accountability
to Parliament. We look forward to building a similar relationship
with successor committees across the entire education, children's
services and skills remit of the new Ofsted.
The New Ofsted
This is a time of great change for Ofsted and
whilst we are sensitive to the challenges that this brings we
are still concerned at the complex set of objectives and sectors
that Ofsted now spans and its capacity to fulfil its core mission.
We welcome the potential for the new Ofsted to
take a more comprehensive and strategic view of the issues affecting
children, young people and adult learners but we are concerned
at the increasing complexity of this large bureaucracy and the
ability of its new non-executive board to rapidly grasp this complexity.
The new Ofsted has been operating only since April
2007. We will be interested to see what will be achieved in the
first twelve months of the new Ofsted and what value has been
added by its creation. We cannot disguise our concern as to the
fitness for purpose of the organisation at the present moment.
We will return to this issue in future meetings with HMCI.
The core mission of the new Ofsted was well stated
in the Government's consultation paper on its proposals for a
single inspectorate for children and learners (DfES, 2005): a
single inspectorate would reflect the Government's commitment
to integrate services around the experiences of children, young
people and learners of all ages. It would mirror developments
locally, where partners were increasingly working together more
effectively to achieve better outcomes for users of public services.
The Government wanted to build on the valuable joint working by
inspectorates across traditional boundaries and realise the benefits
that a body with the sole interest of children and learners at
its heart could bring.
We agree with the Committee that realising these
benefits in full will require attention to the real and significant
differences in the nature of the sectors within our remit. We
are therefore building on the approaches to inspection and regulation
in our predecessor inspectorates as we manage a careful transition
to a greater coherence of approach in the new inspectorate. Some
early examples of things we can and are doing differently include:
in the round at services from the perspective of users:
For example, as a single inspectorate we are able to focus on
the provision of both care and education services for looked-after
children, and the relationship between standards of care and educational
of provision and progression across phase boundaries:
The merged organisation gives us the opportunity to evaluate the
effectiveness of work for different age ranges. For example, during
this year we shall be surveying the quality of information, advice
and guidance work at different stages, covering not just the services
available to young people in schools and colleges but also the
services on offer to adults through the learndirect helpline
and nextstep. We shall look to see whether there is good
practice at particular stages that can be transferred, and whether
provision for different age groups builds effectively on what
has gone before.
for providers: For settings with more
than one type of provision (eg schools where there is childcare
provision, or boarding schools) we have already begun to move
to single inspection eventsa unified inspection even where
current legislation requires us to inspect under different regulatory
use of inspectors' skills: For example,
schools and colleges work in partnership to offer 14-19 year olds
a coherent curriculum for NVQ level 2 qualifications and above.
In inspecting such provision we shall use the skills of inspectors
of schools, colleges and work based learning.
connections: One area of our work can
shed light on another. For example, when we inspect work based
learning where students are training to work in nurseries, we
draw on our experience of what works in the early years settings
and reduction in cost: For example, the
administration and co-ordination of further education inspection
now rests in one place, bringing both efficiency savings and increased
coherence for the sector.
Like those we inspect, we will also regularly evaluate
our effectiveness and the value for money we provide and we will
continuously strive to improve the way that we operate. Over time
we expect to make further changes to the way we do things in order
to respond more fully to what service users tell us, and to make
a bigger impact on the improvement of services.
The complexity of our remit is significant, but should
not be overstated. Ofsted is medium sized in terms of government
bodies; it is smaller than the local authorities we inspect, for
example, and has a much more focused remit. In inspecting early
years provision, children's social care, education in schools
and colleges and work-based learning, Ofsted has four main areas
of activity (many of them linked in our inspection of local authority
children's services). Though there is a range of provision within
each sector, and important differences between them, our basic
responsibilities are clearly delineated.
In addition to staff from the former Ofsted and the
relevant inspectors from HMI Court Administration (HMICA), 269
inspectors and inspector managers, together with 12 other professional
staff, transferred from the Commission for Social Care Inspection
(CSCI); and 116 inspectors and inspector managers, together with
19 other professional staff, transferred from the Adult Learning
Inspectorate (ALI). The new Ofsted has in effect the same resource
in terms of inspectors with relevant expertise as that deployed
by our predecessor inspectorates for the work within our remit.
The appointments made by the Secretary of State have
provided the Board with a high calibre membership. Members have
had senior responsibility in major public, private and voluntary
sector organisations, with directly relevant professional experience.
Most have had close familiarity with one or more of our predecessor
inspectorates. The Board has already made important contributions
to the inspectorate, through the development of our strategic
plan and by further strengthening our corporate governance arrangements.
The organisation has as a consequence a good deal of confidence
in the Board's strategic guidance.
Like any new organisation, the new Ofsted faces challenges.
We do not underestimate these. But we are in no doubt that the
organisation is well prepared both for its present role and for
the future: it has a clear remit, the professional staff and other
resources it needs, and robust leadership and governance.
This has been confirmed by a capability review of
Ofsted, commissioned by HMCI and conducted in July 2007. The report
of this review, carried out by an independent team with wide experience
at senior level in public and private sector organisations, will
be available in October. Not surprisingly, it identifies
some areas in which further development work is required in the
new organisation. But overall its conclusion is that Ofsted is
'in a good place' to deliver on the new Ofsted promise: Raising
Standards, Improving Lives. We believe that to commission
an independent scrutiny of this kind is both a demonstration of
confidence in the new Ofsted, and a tangible commitment to our
continuous improvement as an organisation.
We agree with the Committee that it will be important
for the new Ofsted to have demonstrated in its first 12 months
the value that has been added by its creation. We look forward
to reporting to the Committee's successors on this in 2008.
There are two matters of detail in the Committee's
report which merit comment.
Paragraph 8 states that the 'Local Authority inspection
function' has been transferred from the Commission for Social
Care Inspection to Ofsted. The former Ofsted previously, and now
the new Ofsted, have been responsible for coordinating inspection
of local authority services through the programme of Annual Performance
Assessments (APA) and Joint Area Reviews (JAR). CSCI, ALI and
HMICA have contributed to APAs and JARs previously. The functions
of these inspectorates are now of course unified within the new
Ofsted, although it remains the case that Ofsted continues to
coordinate input from other inspectorates as part of the current
programme of APAs and JARs.
Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Report comment on the
transfer of inspectors from the ALI to the new Ofsted. As the
Committee notes, all of the former ALI's permanent inspectors
(other than five who retired) have transferred to the new Ofsted.
It is our understanding that when the then Chief Inspector of
the ALI referred to 'ALI inspectors' who had not gone to Ofsted,
he had in mind a group of inspectors who were not full-time employees
of the ALI, but were employed to supplement the ALI's permanent
workforce. In fact, the great majoritysome 430 of the pool
of 500 of these 'associate inspectors'have confirmed that
they are available to work for the new Ofsted, and many of them
have already been deployed by the new inspectorate.
However, a number of sectors which are now under
the remit of Ofsted had expressed concern about the effect that
the creation of the new Ofsted would have on them. It is clear
that some of these reservations are still present. Ofsted have
already expressed a desire to engage service users and providers
from all of the sectors they are responsible for. This is essential
if Ofsted is to fulfil its potential and we encourage Ofsted to
intensify their work in this area.
Engaging with service users is central to the statutory
remit and the approach of the new Ofsted. We have therefore put
users at the heart of work in the first four months of the new
Ofsted to seek views on our strategic plan and to develop our
engagement with stakeholders more broadly.
We know that some organisations had expressed concerns
in advance of the establishment of the new Ofsted, as reported
by the Committee. We recognise that there may be more to do to
reassure the full range of our stakeholders. Nonetheless, we are
very encouraged by the response we have received to the consultation
on our strategic plan. For example, a major business organisation,
while making clear that there remained some issues on which there
was further to go, said in its response to the consultation that
it was encouraged at the way the new Ofsted was responding to
its initial concerns.
More generally, the independent capability review
of the new Ofsted referred to above spoke to some 50 external
stakeholder organisations and individuals, representing all the
sectors within the new Ofsted's remit. Their conclusion was that
the level of engagement between Ofsted and its stakeholders, and
the positive response of the latter to this engagement, was exceptionally
The Strategic Plan 2007-2010 and the work ahead
We welcome the work that Ofsted is doing to ensure
that the targets it will be judged against are appropriate and
await those targets with interest. Consultation on the Strategic
Plan is an excellent opportunity for Ofsted to hear and act on
the concerns of service users and service providers. We urge Ofsted
to use the information gathered from the consultation to identify
areas of good practice within the organisation and also identify
areas that need improvement.
We will return to this issue in future meetings
with HMCI to see both the progress that Ofsted is making towards
the targets and priorities and also how successful the non-executive
Board has been.
We agree with the Committee that consultation on
Ofsted's Strategic Plan has been an excellent opportunity to hear
and act on the views of service users and service providers. Consultation
has taken place through formal written submission, web-based questionnaires
(including two specifically addressed to children and young people),
and through focus groups of users. In the course of this process
we have had input from over 400 individuals and organisations,
ranging from children in social care through youth parliaments
to adult learners, parents and employers, as well as from institutional
providers, local authorities and national bodies. Most responses
welcomed our initial strategic plan; and a great many thoughtful
contributions have been received, making important and helpful
suggestions for ways in which the strategic planand Ofsted's
performance of its dutiescould be improved. Many of those
commenting sought even greater emphasis on the voice of users.
The comments received will be taken into account in a revised
version of the strategic plan to be published at the beginning
An important focus of the consultation process, and
of continuing work within Ofsted, has been to refine the targets
initially proposed. More sharply focussed targets will therefore
be included in the revised strategic plan. HMCI and Ofsted's Board
stand ready to be held accountable for the performance of the
organisation against these targets, and we look forward to discussing
our progress with the Committee's successors.
Inspection and Reporting
We welcome moves that reduce the burden of inspection
on service providers but changes to the inspection system must
ensure that a rigorous inspection framework that can identify
under-performing schools is maintained. We recognise that self-evaluative
work can be beneficial for schools, highlighting areas for improvement
but we urge Ofsted to ensure that self-evaluations are of sufficient
quality and accuracy to be relied on as part of an inspection.
In Ofsted's experience, the ability of service providers
to evaluate dispassionately their strengths and weaknesses, and
put in place action that will develop the strengths and improve
the weaknesses, is one of the most powerful drivers of improvement
in all areas of our remit. For that reason, rigorous testing of
the quality and accuracy of self-evaluation is a core part of
our inspection strategy.
For both standard and reduced tariff section 5 school
inspections, inspectors use the school's self-evaluation form
(SEF), along with other evidence such as the RAISEonline data
report and parental questionnaires, to focus the inspection on
areas of importance. These initial hypotheses are followed up
and tested through discussion with learners, scrutiny of their
work, first hand observations of the quality of the school's provision,
and discussion with school leaders, teachers and support staff.
The evaluation of the school's capacity to judge
itself and to put in place action which leads to improved outcomes
for learners is a crucial factor in the inspection judgement on
leadership and management and also in judging the school's capacity
to improve. Where the judgements in the SEF appear to be too generous,
the inspection team will question the school leadership's own
knowledge of their school and consequently their ability to bring
about further improvement. A recent report by the National Foundation
for Educational ResearchEvaluation of the impact of
Section 5 inspections (NFER, 2007)highlighted the work
Ofsted has undertaken to develop self evaluation as an important
driver of school improvement. Our evidence from inspection indicates
that this is an aspect of the work of schools which is improving.
We are concerned that some schools could be eligible
for reduced tariff inspections without undergoing a full Section
5 inspection. Ofsted should clarify whether schools are identified
as 'high performing' on the basis of previous inspection, data
such as exam results or a combination of the two. We urge Ofsted
to monitor how successful reduced-tariff inspections are at identifying
falling standards in schools. It is important that previously
good schools which are either coasting or no longer performing
at such a high level are identified early.
A reduced tariff inspection (RTI) of a high performing
school is a section 5 inspection, using the same methodology but
focusing more closely on specific elements of the school's self
evaluation. Schools undergoing an RTI will normally have been
inspected at least three times previously. As we are only just
reaching the end of the second year of section 5 inspections,
all schools that have been inspected recently have previously
been inspected under the more extensive section 10 arrangements
that came to an end in July 2005.
Schools are selected for an RTI following a detailed
risk analysis which draws on a range of data summarising past
performance in national tests and examinations as well as previous
inspection reports and local intelligence. The precise range of
data used is currently being reviewed, particularly in relation
to schools which do not have national test or examination data.
Where the risk analysis indicates that standards are falling or
there are concerns about aspects of the work of the school, the
inspection tariff is adjusted to take account of this. This approach
is in line with the way risk assessment is used to determine the
weight of inspection, not only in other Ofsted inspections but
by inspectors and regulators more widely.
To respond to the important points made by the Committee,
and to ensure that the selection process is transparent, Ofsted's
revised protocol for selecting schools for an RTI will be published
on our website.
In addition to the data, Ofsted's procedures include
a further review of the risk of each inspection. In a small number
of cases a school may appear to be performing well, only to become
a concern when the inspector starts to review the school's self-evaluation
form as part of the pre-inspection work before making a site visit.
In a case such as this the inspection time is increased to take
account of the circumstances.
A new judgement on using challenging targets to raise
standards, being introduced this term, will also require schools
to demonstrate that they are successfully continuing to raise
attainment for all groups of learners.
Continuing external scrutiny of school inspection
is being planned to follow up the NFER report referred to above.
This will include all section 5 inspections, including those tailored
to meet the needs of the best schools.
We fully support HMCI's view that satisfactory
schools should be encouraged to improve and that a good school
is preferable to a satisfactory one. However, statements suggesting
that a satisfactory grading is in some way a failure are unhelpful.
We urge Ofsted to ensure that they are clear that satisfactory
schools are not failing. Care needs to be taken that the discussion
on the quality of provision is constructive rather than accusatory.
We agree with the Committee that discussion on quality
of provision should be constructive: our aim is to promote improvement
in the interests of pupils. Ofsted would never suggest that schools
found to be satisfactory overall were failing, but we would suggest
that they could do better. Our aim is for all satisfactory schools
to improve and be judged as either 'good' or 'outstanding in their
It is however the case that the satisfactory category
of schools covers a wide range. Some are schools that were previously
inadequate but are now improving rapidly, and show every prospect
of progress to a good or outstanding standard: reports will celebrate
this. Others offer a satisfactory standard of education but have
not been able to raise overall achievement to a good level. Regrettably,
some may be schools which have not maintained a previously good
In the period September 2006 to March 2007, 416 schools
(7% of those inspected) were found to be satisfactory overall
but with one or more significant areas of weakness. In contrast,
790 schools (14% of those inspected) were graded satisfactory
but had their capacity to improve graded as good or outstanding.
In order to give practical expression to constructive
dialogue with schools, we have introduced a programme of monitoring
designed to help some which are identified as satisfactory overall,
but which have an area of weakness. By definition, these are schools
whose provision for their pupils is patchy, with some aspects
not coming up to the standard the school has shown it can achieve
The starting point is for any weakness and area for
improvement to be clearly identified in the inspection report.
A light touch monitoring visit will take place, usually by one
inspector, to review whether the school is making progress in
this area. We consider it important that schools do not deteriorate
and ultimately fall into a category of concern at their next inspection.
The evidence we have from these monitoring visits, and from the
schools themselves, is that this process is supportive and helps
the school to move forward by setting a clear agenda for continued
We are concerned that, while thematic subject
reports may identify general issues in subjects they will not
provide a reliable picture of the standard of teaching in that
subject. We are also concerned that the lack of subject focus
in school inspections will lead some schools to neglect non-core
subjects in order to improve their grading. We urge Ofsted to
review the size of the sample used to produce subject reviews.
We also urge Ofsted to ensure that some observation of non-core
subjects is included in all inspections.
Ofsted reports on teaching in each curriculum subject
every three years. These reports provide high profile evidence,
convey important messages about each subject and contribute to
improvement nationally. Teachers tell us that they value and make
practical use of these reports. In many casesthe recent
report History in the Balance (Ofsted, 2007) is a good
examplethey stimulate significant national debate.
These reports are compiled on the basis of detailed
visits by the relevant specialist inspectors to 60 schools (30
primary schools and 30 secondary schools) each year for most subjects.
We believe that this provides a secure evidence base, and do not
see a case for extending the sample size for subject surveys as
a general rule. Moreover the reports are written by subject specialist
HMI who are national experts in their field, and are able to draw
in depth on professional familiarity with the subject in the curriculum
and in the classroom.
Many aspects of the ongoing section 5 inspections
of schools are specifically designed to ensure an appropriate
focus on the curriculum and the subjects within it. This starts
with the self evaluation form, which requires the school to evaluate
its curriculum. In the inspection itself, inspectors evaluate
how far the curriculum, including subject provision, meets external
requirements and the needs of learners; and how well teaching
and resources across the range of the curriculum promote learning,
enjoyment and achievement.
Lesson observation is central to this evaluation:
inspectors aim for a good coverage during the inspection of core
subjects and a proportionate sample of non-core lessons. But it
is not the only technique deployed. For example, inspectors will
also speak to pupils about their experience of subjects, including
non-core subjects, and may scrutinise pupils' work in a range
We urge Ofsted, when looking at the operation
of the new, larger organisation, to explore ways to strengthen
their monitoring of the five Every Child Matters outcomes.
Ofsted regards the Every Child Matters (ECM) outcomes
as fundamental. All inspections of settings, institutions or providers,
except those making provision solely for adults, are inspected
using frameworks that have ECM outcomes at their core. These inspections
currently contribute to the joint area reviews of local services
and will in future contribute to the risk assessment within the
proposed new comprehensive area assessment.
All provision for children's social care and early
education and care is regulated against national minimum standards.
The standards underpin the framework for inspection across these
two sectors of our work. The standards are brigaded under the
ECM outcomes so that inspectors make and report explicit judgements
about the outcomes whenever they inspect. In the early years the
evidence for economic well being relates to the amount of day
care provision available to allow parents to return to work, but
there is some reference to the early stages of children's development
in this area. Evidence for staying safe is particular strong in
these two sectors as safeguarding young and vulnerable children
is a key priority. In the inspection of Cafcass the ECM agenda
is now much stronger and inspectors' judgements take account of
the five outcomes.
We have conducted detailed surveys on individual
ECM outcomes, resulting in reports on: staying safe (Safe and
sound, Ofsted 2006), being healthy (Food for thought,
Ofsted 2006), enjoying and achieving and making a positive contribution
(Getting on well, Ofsted 2007). In 2008 Ofsted will publish
the third Chief Inspectors' cross-inspectorate report on safeguarding.
Schools and colleges are inspected using a common
inspection framework. Inspectors have to report explicitly on
the achievement and standards of learners in the five ECM outcomes
and on the quality of provision within the institution within
which they are being educated.
In schools, the evidence available both to inspectors
and schools is strong for some outcomes, such as those related
to economic well-being; for others, such as "being healthy",
it is relatively more limited. Inspectors nonetheless can, and
do, provide an evaluation of what schools contribute to these
outcomes through the Care, guidance and support section
of the inspection report. Inspection briefings, provided for inspectors
to help them judge the achievement of learners and the quality
of provision in the five outcomes, are published through the Inspection
Matters series, and may help schools and other providers to
develop their understanding.
In further education inspections, the five ECM outcomes
are formally monitored as part of the overall evaluation of the
institution. All inspectors collect evidence for the delivery
of the themes. This is assimilated on a record of inspection findings
(RoIF); each outcome is separately graded followed by explanatory
text to support the judgement. The completed RoIF is shared with
the college to inform its quality improvement agenda. Ofsted will
consider publishing an annual summary of ECM outcomes for FE colleges
in order to improve the identification and dissemination of best
In all phases inspectors have received training to
ensure that they are clear about the ECM outcomes areas and how
they relate to the criteria and standards against which provision
is judged. Further work is currently taking place to ensure that
the new Ofsted has as far as possible a consistent approach to
inspecting and reporting the five outcomes across all our inspection
Inspection and improvement
While schools, in general, seem satisfied with
Ofsted's roleassessing quality but not working with schools
on the improvement processother sectors are used to an
inspection service that also does active improvement work. It
is important that Ofsted clearly communicates to all service users
what it does and does not do. It is also vital that Ofsted continues
to pass examples of good practice to improvement agencies to ensure
that they provide the best help possible for service providers.
We agree that it is important for us to communicate
clearly to service providers and users on what they can expect
from Ofsted, and to share good practice.
The Education and Inspections Act 2006 requires Ofsted
to promote improvement in the services within our remit, reflecting
the Government's principles of inspection, set out in Inspecting
for Improvement (OPSR, 2003):
There should be an explicit concern on the part
of inspectors to contribute to the improvement of the service
being inspected. This should guide the focus, method, reporting
and follow-up of inspection. In framing recommendations, an inspector
should recognise good performance and address any failure appropriately.
Inspections should aim to generate data and intelligence that
enable departments to calibrate the progress of reform in their
sectors and make appropriate adjustments.
Ofsted therefore has an important role in the improvement
of services it inspects; there is no doubt that the process of
inspection can help those inspected to improve. Our evidence on
improvement in schools, for example, indicates that the professional
dialogue which takes place during the inspection between inspectors
and those being inspected, detailed feedback and high quality
recommendations all make a substantial impact on school improvement.
This has been brought into sharp relief through the methodology
being used in section 5 inspections, based as it is on a challenging
professional dialogue throughout the inspection. The NFER report
mentioned above highlights all these areas, along with the development
of self evaluation, as important ways in which Ofsted had helped
schools to improve
As an inspectorate and regulator, Ofsted's contribution
to improvement is naturally different from that of the agencies
given specific responsibility by the Government for ongoing improvement
and consultancy activity with service providers: School Improvement
Partners, the Quality Improvement Agency (QIA), Government Offices
and others. But there is an equally clear need for a good working
relationship between Ofsted and these partners: we share the goal
of improvement in the interest of service users. The Committee
rightly identifies the provision of good practice case material
based on inspection findings as one element of this relationship.
For this reason, building on the work of the ALI, we have agreed
to identify and prepare case studies of good practice in post-16
and skills provision, and make these available to the QIA for
dissemination. At the same time, in other areas, we will also
be disseminating good and interesting practice.
We agree with the Committee that, for some sectors,
it would be helpful to clarify the different contributions to
improvement made by the various Government bodies and agents of
government. We shall work with our partners to do so. Ofsted's
revised strategic plan (referred to above) will reflect the priority
we give to partnership with agencies engaged in direct improvement
It still appears that Ofsted has no capacity to
give advice when a cluster of local schools suffer from systemic
underperformance. This continues to be a weakness in the inspection
We agree with the Committee about the importance
of local systemic issues. To some extent these are addressed through
existing arrangements; but we will keep these under review in
order to see how they might be further strengthened.
Within Ofsted's regional structure, each local authority
area is allocated a 'local managing inspector' with responsibility
for maintaining an overview of educational provision across the
area by monitoring inspection reports and area-wide data. This
information forms the basis of regular meetings with the local
authority, in the course of which systemic issues will be discussed.
It is also used to inform annual performance assessments and joint
area reviews of local authorities.
This local approach is complemented at national level,
where there are also regular meetings for example between school
improvement HMI and staff of the DCSF; these meetings consider
issues of systemic failure in particular areasor, indeed,
Nonetheless, we accept the implication of the Committee's
recommendation: the impact of the former Ofsted on local systemic
issues was not always as strong as it could have been. Returning
to a point made earlier in this response, we believe that the
remit of the new Ofsted, alongside developments such as the comprehensive
area assessment, provide significant opportunities to explore
and encourage improvement in the provision within a geographical
location. We propose to seize these opportunities, not just in
relation to schools, but across the full range of services providing
care, education and skills for children, young people and adult