Select Committee on Education and Skills Written Evidence


Memorandum submitted by the National Union of Teachers (NUT)

SUMMARY

  This submission from the National Union of Teachers (NUT) focuses on issues arising from the new framework for the inspection of schools, including one day inspection visits and inspection judgements on Every Child Matters. The submission also addresses early years inspection and relevant provision within the Education and Inspection Act, in particular, School Improvement Partners and the new arrangements for schools in Ofsted categories of concern.

  There are a number of questions which arise from the submission which members of the Select Committee may wish to consider in their interview with Her Majesty's Chief Inspector. These questions are as follows:

    —  Can HMCI be confident that the new inspection arrangements, which in many cases involve a one day visit to schools, present an accurate picture of schools' performance?

    —  Would HMCI agree that a review of the entire inspection system is now needed, since the future of individual schools rests on judgements which do not include an evaluation of teaching throughout the whole school?

    —  Would HMCI agree that it would be timely to enter into a public debate about the future format of school inspection arrangements?

    —  Given the finding that "the overall picture is positive", would HMCI agree that Ofsted should be moving towards a system of evaluating each school's self-evaluation arrangements rather than inspection of schools?

    —  Have the reforms to the Ofsted school inspection arrangements been driven by educational or financial considerations?

    —  Would HMCI agree that internal monitoring and evaluation have increased significantly since the introduction of the new inspection framework and that this has been driven in large part by the Ofsted Self-Evaluation Form (SEF)?

    —  What level of responsibility will Ofsted take for ensuring that monitoring and evaluation are developmental processes, linked closely to professional development identification?

    —  Would HMCI agree that Ofsted's focus on this area could lead schools to place more emphasis on the quality rather than quality of monitoring and evaluation?

    —  Is it possible for Ofsted to gather hard data within individual schools on the five Every Child Matters outcomes, when they are equally dependent on what happens outside the school, in pupils' homes and local communities?

    —  Why is the contribution of the local authority children's services not a factor in the evaluation of the school's performance in terms of the Every Child Matters indicators?

    —  What remedies does HMCI think should be put in place which would address this imbalance?

    —  Does not HMCI consider that this is a fundamental criticism of high stakes test and examinations themselves?

    —  Does she believe that there should be a review of the impact of summative testing on young people's learning?

    —  Does HMCI believe that it is important to retain qualified teachers as part of the early years team, rather than replace them with Early Years Professionals?

    —  Is she concerned that the employment of Early Years Professionals rather than qualified teachers will impact negatively on the quality of early education provision, particularly in Children's Centres?

    —  Why does the Annual Report not contain a break down of effectiveness of early education by types of setting or provider, comparable to Figure 4, as in previous years?

    —  Is HMCI aware of the type of setting which consistently provides the highest quality of early years provision in each of the categories used in Figure 3?

    —  Does HMCI have a view on why quality of early education has the second lowest ranking for effectiveness?

    —  How do these findings relate to those reported in paragraph 25, that "most of the nursery schools inspected are good or outstanding"?

    —  What factors can HMCI identify that make such a difference in these inspection judgements?

    —  What implications do they have for the future of early years education provision?

    —  Is HMCI comfortable with the role of School Improvement Partners (SIPs)?

    —  Does HMCI have plans to evaluate the impact of SIPs on schools' management, leadership and standards?

    —  Would HMCI agree that SIPs are, in effect, Ofsted's "territorial army", a sub-contracted version of additional inspectors?

    —  Does HMCI think that SIPs will provide local authorities and Ofsted with the same high quality information that trained HMIs offer currently?

    —  In HMCI's view, how appropriate are Academies as the solution to the types of problems identified by Ofsted which lead to schools being placed in special measures?

    —  What are HMCI's first impressions of Ofsted's relationship with Government?

    —  How independent is Ofsted? Is HMCI able to speak "without fear or favour"?

    —  Bearing in mind that Academies are Government's flagship initiative, does she believe Academy status, of itself, will raise standards?

    —  Does HMCI agree that one year is sufficient time to turn around a "failing school" and introduce sustainable improvement, as Government claims?

    —  Could HMCI specify the actual average recovery time for primary and secondary schools placed in special measures?

    —  Would HMCI agree that the "one size fits all" recovery time suggested by the DfES in its draft guidance on schools causing concern is unrealistic and unhelpful?

    —  How does this view relate to that expressed by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee recently, which suggested that over 1,500 schools were failing?

    —  What percentage of secondary schools are actually failing, as opposed to requiring special measures?

    —  Would HMCI agree with the Public Accounts Committee that Ofsted needs to do more to support schools at risk of failure?

    —  Would HMCI expand on her comment later in the Commentary that "it may well be that the answer in the most challenging of neighbourhoods will be not more of the same but something different"?

    —  To what extent does HMCI believe that current difficulties in recruiting and retaining head teachers is affecting the performance of schools in the most challenging circumstances?

    —  What does HMCI think could be done to make headship in such schools more attractive?

    —  Does HMCI agree with the view expressed in some quarters, that head teachers do not necessarily need to have an educational background?

    —  What impact, if any, does she think that such head teachers might have on educational standards?

FULL SUBMISSION

  1.  This submission from the National Union of Teachers (NUT) focuses on issues arising from the new framework for the inspection of schools, including one day inspection visits and inspection judgements on Every Child Matters. The submission also addresses early years inspection and relevant provision within the Education and Inspection Act, in particular, School Improvement Partners and the new arrangements for schools in Ofsted categories of concern.

  2.  As HMCI's Annual Report 2005-06 was published after the Select Committee's call for evidence, this submission also draws on and relates relevant findings in the Annual Report to the above areas of scrutiny.

SECTION 5 INSPECTION

  3.  The new school inspection arrangements are predicated on the belief that inspectors are able not only to evaluate schools as they are but are able to understand and convey the complexity and "dynamic" of a school's character during a visit lasting, in many case, no longer than one day. Snapshots of a school's performance, which still lie at the heart of the new inspection model, are by nature limited by both the inspection framework and focus.

  4.  "Reduced tariff" inspections were introduced in September 2006 for approximately 20% of higher achieving schools. Such schools have been described by Ofsted as those "where achievement is high, self-evaluation is good and there is a good track record from the schools' previous inspections". Yet many of these schools have not been inspected under the new Section 5 arrangements. Judgements on whether a school is eligible for a reduced tariff inspection are made, therefore, purely on the evidence available from pupil performance data, with all of the dangers of relying too heavily on such an approach.

  5.  Under the new arrangements for the inspection of higher achieving schools, the process of inspection remains very similar to that for full Section 5 inspections. This means that inspectors undertake the same kinds of activities during the inspection visit, but have even less time to complete them. Direct interaction between inspectors and the school, through activities such as observation of lessons or talking to staff, pupils and governors have therefore been reduced still further, becoming virtually meaningless.

  6.  The further streamlining of school inspection arrangements would suggest that a review of the entire inspection regime is now needed. One model would be to combine Ofsted's emphasis on achieving an accurate and rigorous view of the school's effectiveness with a proper engagement with the school community, on the procedures it uses to assess its strengths and weaknesses and its plans for improvement.

  7.  Inspections would examine the processes and procedures schools have in place for gathering information on levels of pupil achievement, on the personal and social development of pupils and on the views of the school community. The inspection framework would be flexible enough to respond to school evaluation models which have been developed or adapted by schools themselves to reflect their curriculum range and activities, rather than limited to the Ofsted Self-Evaluation Form (SEF).

  Can HMCI be confident that the new inspection arrangements, which in many cases involve a one day visit to schools, present an accurate picture of schools' performance? Would HMCI agree that a review of the entire inspection system is now needed, since the future of individual schools rests on judgements which do not include an evaluation of teaching throughout the whole school?

  8.  HMCI concludes the Commentary by setting out her vision for the future. In particular, she intends to adopt the principles that "there should be no inspections without a reason" and that "comprehensive risk assessment should be at the heart of all programmes of inspection".

  Would HMCI agree that it would be timely to enter into a public debate about the future format of school inspection arrangements? Given the finding that "the overall picture is positive", would HMCI agree that Ofsted should be moving towards a system of evaluating each school's self-evaluation arrangements rather than inspection of schools?

  9.  The Ofsted consultation document which set out the proposals for reduced tariff inspections said that this development was predicated on "achieving better value for money". Value for money, however, should not be the main criteria for basing fundamental changes to inspection arrangements. It is essential that the effectiveness of the service provided by Ofsted to schools is of paramount concern. The inspectorate is in the optimal position to present an overview of best practice and "what works" in a wide range of contexts, which could offer practical support to school improvement. In terms of value for money, this function should be exploited far more, as the Committee has itself recommended previously.

  Have the reforms to the Ofsted school inspection arrangements been driven by educational or financial considerations?

  10.  Paragraphs 58 and 59 of the Annual Report address the leadership and management issues. Analysis of "the quality and consistency of teaching... to ensure that the professional development provided for staff brings about improvement" is highlighted as a feature of outstanding leaders. In addition, it is suggested that "monitoring and evaluation... remain the weakest elements of leadership and management".

  Would HMCI agree that internal monitoring and evaluation have increased significantly since the introduction of the new inspection framework and that this has been driven in large part by the Ofsted Self-Evaluation Form (SEF)? What level of responsibility will Ofsted take for ensuring that monitoring and evaluation are developmental processes, linked closely to professional development identification? Would HMCI agree that Ofsted's focus on this area could lead schools to place more emphasis on the quality rather than quality of monitoring and evaluation?

  11.  On the evidence of the current "Framework for the Inspection of Schools in England from September 2005", there would appear to be little significant change to the focus of inspection, despite the inclusion of references to the five Every Child Matters (ECM) outcomes as part of evaluation requirements. As the above document says, "most refer to enjoying and achieving", although "in judging leadership and management and the overall effectiveness of the provider, inspectors will consider the contribution made to all five outcomes".

12.  The inclusion of the ECM indicators highlights a long-standing tension between what Ofsted uses to base its reports on and what parents and others want to know about schools. Ofsted, through its reliance on performance data to inform judgements, concentrates on that which is easily measurable. Fundamental questions, such as the happiness, well-being and engagement of individual pupils within a school are not so easily answered by a "snap shot" approach and are more likely to be accurately determined by on-going monitoring and evaluation, in particular, that done through schools' self evaluation work.

  13.  The NUT has welcomed previously the inclusion of the ECM indicators in the revised Ofsted inspection framework. It has noted, however, that there is considerable variation in the frequency with which the indicators other than "enjoying and achieving" appear, for example, the "achieving economic well-being" indicator is used almost twice as often as "being healthy". This would seem to imply a hierarchy of indicators, at least in educational settings, which could undermine the holistic approach taken in Every Child Matters to the relationship and inter-play between these indicators.

  14.  In addition, the rationale for assigning indicators to some of the strands of the inspection schedule appears unclear or arbitrary. Judgements on the behaviour of learners, for example, are used to provide evidence for the "being healthy" and "staying safe" indicators, although behaviour would have a fundamental impact on "enjoying and achieving" and could also be argued to relate to "making a positive contribution " and "achieving economic well-being".

  15.  A NUT head teacher member, speaking at the October 2006 NUT Leadership Convention, expressed concerns shared by many about the inclusion of the ECM indicators within school inspections:

    "There seems to me to be a great tension between inspection nominally based on the five outcomes (for which hoorah!) and inspection which is overtly and dominantly "data-focused". But there isn't comparable data for all five outcomes and data means SAT scores (ie one narrow part of the outcomes). I heartily welcome the ECM agenda but I am very sceptical about, in practice, the implications for inspection. When did a school ever go into special measures for having a poor inclusion policy?"

  16.  This exemplifies the difficulty of attempting to marry the inspection schedule with the ECM indicators, as the two have very different starting points, over-arching philosophies and purposes. Whilst acknowledging the desire to reflect the Every Child Matters agenda within the Ofsted inspection framework in order to "mainstream" it, this can only ever be on a superficial level, as the much broader and less easily measurable concerns of the former cannot be adequately captured by the "snap shot" approach of the latter.

  17.  In addition, the inclusion of the ECM indicators in the inspection evaluation criteria is predicated on schools' ability to address wider, societal issues, such as the prevailing culture of the neighbourhood and the socio-economic profile of the community from which the school intake is drawn. As the recent Audit Commission report, "More than the Sum: Mobilising the Whole Council and its Partners to Support School Success" notes:

    "improving the prospects of the most disadvantaged pupils in schools is not a matter for schools alone... . The council as a whole, along with its wider partners, has a key role in helping to create the infrastructure and conditions which maximise schools' chances of success. School improvement and renewal are inseparable issues from neighbourhood improvement and renewal, particularly in the most disadvantaged areas."

  18.  Although individual school inspection reports feed into the evaluation of a local authority's children's services provision, the contribution made by the local authority is not a factor when assessing individual schools. The inclusion of the ECM indicators within the school evaluation framework would suggest that this situation needs to be reviewed.

  Is it possible for Ofsted to gather hard data within individual schools on the five Every Child Matters outcomes, when they are equally dependent on what happens outside the school, in pupils' homes and local communities? Why is the contribution of the local authority children's services not a factor in the evaluation of the school's performance in terms of the Every Child Matters indicators?

  19.  HMCI notes in paragraphs 213 and 215 the relationship between primary pupils' enjoyment of their education and the extent to which teaching is focused on preparing for national tests in English and mathematics. In addition, Ofsted's evaluation of the fifth year of the Primary National Strategy, which is summarised on page 53, is critical of schools which "gave too great an emphasis to supporting teachers and pupils in Years 5 and 6 in improving outcomes at the end of Key Stage 2, to the detriment of earlier support", suggesting that the achievement of those pupils is disadvantaged.

  What remedies does HMCI think should be put in place which would address this imbalance?

  20.  HMCI refers to the "experience of English becoming narrower in certain years as teachers focused on tests and examinations" and to the fact that this affected pupils' achievement in speaking and listening in particular.

  Does not HMCI consider that this is a fundamental criticism of high stakes test and examinations themselves? Does she believe that there should be a review of the impact of summative testing on young people's learning?

EARLY YEARS INSPECTION

  21.  The Government's recent Action Plan for the Ten Year Childcare Strategy announced the target of one early Years Professional (EYP) in every Children's Centre by 2010 and one in every full day care setting by 2015. It made no reference, however, to the Government's previous commitment, via its planning guidance for Children's Centres, to working toward the employment of a qualified teacher in every Centre on a full time basis. The recently published Early Years Professional Prospectus, issued by the Children's Workforce Development Council (CWDC) also refers only to the Government's target relating to EYPs.

  22.  The Action Plan explained that the EYP would not be the leader of a setting but would take "a professional leading role". This role is currently undertaken by teachers who provide input into early years settings' educational provision.

  23.  This is particularly relevant in terms of the staffing ratios recently proposed by Government in the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) consultation document, which Ofsted would be required to inspect. The NUT does not agree that QTS is not equivalent to EYP status or another "relevant" Level 6 qualification in relation to staffing ratios for the educational element of the EYFS. The professional knowledge and skills gained during a B.Ed or PGCE cannot be compared to the EYP training course, which might take as little as three months to complete.

  24.  Independent research shows that qualified teachers are best for improving the life chances of young children. The Government-funded Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) research from the Universities of Oxford and London shows that settings which had more substantial numbers of trained teachers provided the highest quality care and education. Whilst identifying a clear link between level of qualification and quality of provision, it was reported that the quality of practitioners' knowledge and understanding of curriculum and pedagogy was vital and that trained teachers were the most effective in their interactions with children.

  25.  The NUT believes that all early years settings should contain a rich range of staff who work as a team. Early years teams should include qualified teachers, early years professionals, nursery officers and specialist support staff. This range of expertise is vital if all the social, emotional and learning needs of very young children are to be met. Early years education is too important to be delivered on the cheap. One type of professional cannot substitute for the other.

  26.  The NUT has had serious concerns about the EYP since it was announced. Its concerns are not about preserving the status quo, but about ensuring that the highest quality of education provision in the early years is available to all children, given its importance to their later academic performance. The new emphasis on literacy in the early years, arising from the Rose Review, makes this even more essential.

  27.  There is an urgent need to clarify, therefore, the relationship between the EYP status and QTS. Government itself appears to be confused about this issue. Lord Adonis, speaking during the second reading of the Childcare Bill in the House of Lords on 4 May 2006, said:

    "I cannot stress too strongly enough that there is no plot, whatever the National Union of Teachers may say, by us to have qualified teachers playing a lesser role in early years settings than is the case today."

although Alan Johnson, Secretary of State, said at the Daycare Trust's Annual Conference on 8 November 2006 that "The EYP is the QTS of the early years".

  28.  The NUT does not agree that the two qualifications are interchangeable. QTS is not equivalent to EYP status or another "relevant" Level 6 qualification in relation to staffing ratios for the educational element of the EYFS. The professional knowledge and skills gained during a B.Ed or PGCE cannot be compared to the EYP training course which might take as little as three months to complete.

  29.  Notwithstanding the new focus on the integration of early years care and education services, introduced by the Childcare Act, where provision is deemed to be "education", it should be provided by a qualified teacher. As indicated above, there is a wealth of research evidence to support this view, complimented by the evidence of practice in a number of other countries which are generally regarded as having high quality early years provision, such as the Scandinavian countries and New Zealand. To minimise the importance of QTS within the early years would be a retrograde step which could jeopardise the advances made in the quality of provision over recent years.

  Does HMCI believe that it is important to retain qualified teachers as part of the early years team, rather than replace them with Early Years Professionals? Is she concerned that the employment of Early Years Professionals rather than qualified teachers will impact negatively on the quality of early education provision, particularly in Children's Centres?

  30.  Paragraph eight of HMCI's Annual Report 2005-06 says that over half of early years settings "provide a good or outstanding quality of care and education for children". More detailed information on the effectiveness of provision generally is contained within Figure 3 of the Annual Report, whilst Figure 4 covers the overall quality of childcare by type of provider.

  Why does the Annual Report not contain a breakdown of effectiveness of early education by types of setting or provider, comparable to Figure 4, as in previous years? Is HMCI aware of the type of setting which consistently provides the highest quality of early years provision in each of the categories used in Figure 3? Does HMCI have a view on why quality of early education has the second lowest ranking for effectiveness? How do these findings relate to those reported in paragraph 25, that "most of the nursery schools inspected are good or outstanding"? What factors can HMCI identify that make such a difference in these inspection judgements? What implications do they have for the future of early years education provision?

THE EDUCATION AND INSPECTION ACT

  31.  School Improvement Partners (SIPs) appear to have a pivotal role in the implementation of part 4 of the Act, relating to schools causing concern in England. In particular, SIPs will have a significant impact on the extent to which local authority powers of intervention could be used.

  32.  The NUT has serious concerns about the development of the SIPs initiative. When they were first announced, they were described by Government as "critical friends" to schools. Since then, however, their role has evolved substantially and has become essentially adversarial, militating against the establishment of trust and friendship, as SIPs will inevitably see themselves as primarily accountable to the local authority and the National Strategies, not to the school.

  33.  The revised intervention powers contained in the Act, in particular the reduction in the amount of time schools causing concern would have to respond to the warning notices issued by local authorities, will inevitably mean that councils will rely on SIPs to provide them with the information they need to exercise their powers. SIPs will be under enormous pressure to act as quasi-Ofsted inspectors conducting preliminary school inspections.

  34.  In this situation, head teachers will find it very hard not to see SIPs as yet another externally imposed accountability measure rather than as a source of support.

  35.  In addition, existing local authority services are also likely to come under pressure. Effective local authorities target their services to schools that need them most while fostering networks of good practice and knowledge across schools. The idea of a single person with Olympian qualities sufficient to substitute for the rich, specialist range of services which local authorities make available to schools, is absurd. It is a one-size-fits-all approach to school improvement which sits very oddly with the idea of tailored and personalised learning for young people.

  36.  The NUT believes that it was unwise, therefore, to rely on the role of SIPs to secure the implementation of the Act, especially given that their role has been established very recently, not all schools have SIPs yet and there has been no national evaluation of their effectiveness. This is unlikely to be available in the near future, as the national role out of SIPs for secondary schools was only completed in September 2006 and SIPs for all primary schools will not be in place until September 2008.

  37.  There also appears to be a lack of coherence between the role of SIPs and Ofsted's proposal to extended its monitoring to schools deemed "satisfactory but with pockets of underachievement". Such arrangements would be frankly, "overkill"—interim monitoring by the local authority, SIP, National Strategies personnel as well as Ofsted will achieve nothing other than an increase in stress in schools and a duplication of existing information. The focus must be on harnessing the expertise of these various organisations into an effective and coherent programme of support and development, which emphasises the importance of building a school's capacity for its own improvement work.

  Is HMCI comfortable with the role of School Improvement Partners (SIPs)? Does HMCI have plans to evaluate the impact of SIPs on schools' management, leadership and standards? Would HMCI agree that SIPs are, in effect, Ofsted's "territorial army", a sub-contracted version of additional inspectors? Does HMCI think that SIPs will provide local authorities and Ofsted with the same high quality information that trained HMIs offer currently?

  38.  The "New Relationship with Schools" agenda was first announced by David Miliband, then Minister for School Standards, in January 2004. It was presented as a Government initiative to deliver an "intelligent accountability" framework and a simplified school improvement process. The following month, Ofsted published its own consultation document "The Future of Inspection", which set out how its approach to school inspection would be reconfigured in light of this policy shift.

  39.  In June 2004, a joint DfES/Ofsted document "A New Relationship with Schools" was published, which contained the outcomes of the Ofsted consultation exercise as well as detailed information on the other two strands of the New Relationship with Schools. In a joint foreword by David Miliband and David Bell, the policy was described as "our vision for a new relationship between government and schools." (NUT's emphasis) Whilst acknowledging that Ofsted should be consulted fully on policy developments which would impact significantly on its work, this close involvement in the active development of Government policy is a matter of concern.

  40.  In addition, the NUT has learnt recently that Ofsted will not be undertaking an evaluation of the Academies initiative, following Government's advice that the research programme it has commissioned from PricewaterhouseCoopers is sufficient for its monitoring purposes. As the Committee knows, the Academies programme has become highly controversial and politicised. Independent scrutiny by Ofsted, drawing on its published inspection reports and other monitoring documentation, would provide valuable information about the success of the initiative.

  In HMCI's view, how appropriate are Academies as the solution to the types of problems identified by Ofsted which lead to schools being placed in special measures? What are HMCI's first impressions of Ofsted's relationship with Government? How independent is Ofsted? Is HMCI able to speak "without fear or favour"?

  41.  HMCI does not refer to the Government's Academies initiative in her Commentary and comment s on Academies in only one paragraph of the Annual Report (paragraph 32).

  Bearing in mind that Academies are Government's flagship initiative, does she believe Academy status, of itself, will raise standards?

  42.  Draft guidance on schools causing concern was issued by the DfES in April 2006, to provide details of the practical interpretation of the Act's provisions. This document stated that after one year in special measures, "the strong presumption at this point will be that the school should be replaced unless the local authority is able to make a very convincing case why an alternative solution that has not yet been implemented would result in better outcomes for the pupils at the school." Local authorities will, obviously, have aimed to identify the best course of action originally—the required progress may simply not be achievable within 12 months.

  43.  Furthermore, if "major difficulties at any monitoring visit" were identified, the Secretary of State would be able to issue a notice that the case had become "urgent". This could mean that a school in special measures could be closed after just six months. This is an unacceptably short period of time in order to secure improvement.

  44.  These proposed new arrangements are contrary to evidence about the nature of effective school improvement. The National Audit Office report "Improving Poorly Performing Schools in England", commissioned by the DfES and published in 2005, noted that "turning a school around takes time and can be expensive". It found that "Of the schools that do not close soon after going in to Special Measures, currently less than 10% make a full recovery within 12 months, although around two-thirds of the schools make at least reasonable progress over the first 12 months."

  45.  In addition, there is evidence to suggest that the current time scales are appropriate and realistic. Only 5% of schools that recover from Special Measures after two years are assessed by Ofsted as "unsatisfactory" or worse two years later, while 60% of them are assessed as good or better. HMCI's Annual Report 2004-05 states that "gradual improvements in national test and examination results"(NUT's emphasis) can be observed in most such schools over time (Paragraph 107). Two years would therefore appear to be the minimum for the kinds of change which need to become embedded in school practice if improvements are to be sustained.

  Does HMCI agree that one year is sufficient time to turn around a "failing school" and introduce sustainable improvement, as Government claims?

  46.  Paragraph 69 of the Annual Report notes "the higher overall average recovery time for schools taken out of the category (special measures) in 2005-06" and that "the average recovery time for primary schools is shorter than that for secondary schools."

  Could HMCI specify the actual average recovery time for primary and secondary schools placed in special measures? Would HMCI agree that the "one size fits all" recovery time suggested by the DfES in its draft guidance on schools causing concern is unrealistic and unhelpful?

  47.  The Commentary to HMCI's Annual Report celebrates the achievements of the majority of maintained schools whilst raising concerns about the one in 12 schools where "persistent weaknesses remain".

  How does this view relate to that expressed by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee recently, which suggested that over 1,500 schools were failing? What percentage of secondary schools are actually failing, as opposed to requiring special measures? Would HMCI agree with the Public Accounts Committee that Ofsted needs to do more to support schools at risk of failure? Would HMCI expand on her comment later in the Commentary that "it may well be that the answer in the most challenging of neighbourhoods will be not more of the same but something different"?

  48.  HMCI notes in the Commentary that "good leadership and management are also crucial" in terms of the success of schools.

  To what extent does HMCI believe that current difficulties in recruiting and retaining head teachers is affecting the performance of schools in the most challenging circumstances? What does HMCI think could be done to make headship in such schools more attractive? Does HMCI agree with the view expressed in some quarters, that head teachers do not necessarily need to have an educational background? What impact, if any, does she think that such head teachers might have on educational standards?

November 2006





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 12 July 2007