Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100
- 119)
WEDNESDAY 13 DECEMBER 2006
MS CHRISTINE
GILBERT CBE, MR
DORIAN BRADLEY,
MR ROBERT
GREEN, MS
VANESSA HOWLISON
AND MS
MIRIAM ROSEN
Q100 Fiona Mactaggart: You are confident
that you can pick up weaknesses in teaching and give an assessment
of that through this process?
Ms Rosen: We will find out quite
a lot about the teaching in the schools that we visit, because
we will spend quite a lot of time in classrooms. I think that
we will be able to pick up on particular trends. As I say, we
are not really pretending to give a state-of-the-nation report
on it but, even so, it will be authoritative and it will pick
up on particular issues of the day. For example, our modern foreign
language inspector at the moment is particularly looking at uptake
at Key Stage 4, because she realises this is a problem. So she
is concentrating on that in the programme of modern foreign languages
inspections.
Ms Gilbert: I would just add to
that, by referring you to a report that I read fairly recently
in this vein on history teaching post-16. I learnt phenomenally
from just reading this report and seeing the sort of innovative
practice going on. So the issue for me is how the outcomes of
that report are disseminated; how they influence practice; and
what we are doing in terms of the impact of some of the reports
that we are producing.
Q101 Fiona Mactaggart: Let us take
an area that we are presently looking at, where there is some
confusion about what constitutes good practice. As you point out
in your report, there is a lack of consensus about the aims of
citizenship education, and we are studying it at the moment. What
is your role in trying to sort this out?
Ms Gilbert: Miriam will answer
the citizenship questions, but I would say that we have a role
in seeing what is going on—citizenship is slightly different,
is it not?—highlighting good practice and identifying that.
We would disseminate it in a number of ways. We would attend conferences.
I have spoken at conferences recently about the Creative Partnerships
report, and so on. There are a number of things that we would
disseminate in that particular way.
Ms Rosen: Going back to citizenship,
I think that our recent report Towards Consensus? pointed
the way very clearly. We were talking about what we had found,
what constituted good practice, what did not. We were giving practical
approaches on how schools could deal with this and we had recommendations
there. I think that we have a clear role in picking out good practice
and on giving clear recommendations, and I think that this is
a very good example of it.
Q102 Fiona Mactaggart: Chief Inspector,
you referred in your response to me to your report on Creative
Partnerships. What do you think the next steps ought to be
for Creative Partnerships? You have identified how they have highlighted
issues of skills in terms of economic well-being for pupils. I
think that in this report you have not looked—although in
the other report I thought that you did more so—at the issue
of how they contribute to creativity in schools.
Ms Gilbert: I looked at a number
of reports, because I was asked to speak at the conference. So
I went back a bit over the time before I had arrived. The areas
visited were hand-picked, so they probably do not give a warts-and-all
picture; but I thought that a number of very practical recommendations
were made. The more general thing, which is not made explicit,
is that it would encourage schools to think more creatively—I
am sorry to use that word!—about what they are doing. Because
one of the key messages was that taking a more creative approach
to some of these things could improve the basic skills, such as
literacy, numeracy, and ICT was mentioned. However, there were
a number of very practical things recommended, such as experience
of working with creative practitioners, work experience placements
with creative practitioners, and so on: all of which I thought
were very helpful and designed to generate improvement. What I
have not teased out yet, and want to over the coming year, is
what happens with these reports. People are waiting for school
reports and every line is read and pored over, but there is some
terrific work going on and some very important work going on in
some of these reports. Is it having the impact that it should
have on people in schools and colleges?
Q103 Chairman: Could I follow that
up for a second? This Committee looked very carefully and were
very committed in the recommendations in our report to the value
of out-of-classroom learning. We believe that it is a mark of
a truly successful school that they take the out-of-classroom
learning very seriously indeed, and there has recently been the
publication by the Government of a manifesto for out-of-classroom
learning. However, you do not have any purchase on that. How do
you evaluate that? Are you able to evaluate it? Do you find it
important? There is no demand from the Department that you should
evaluate it.
Ms Gilbert: I do not know if it
was a result of your report but certainly the guidance behind
the school evaluation form points to this sort of area, suggesting
that the school might want to consider what it does in this area.
In the reports that I have read—even the ones in special
measures—generally there is some reference to what is going
on, and the children's broader curricular experiences are outlined
in those reports. Ofsted itself does have the view that this is
valuable and is important, and acknowledges that in the work that
they see within schools. It contributes to the personal, social
and physical development of young people, for instance, and there
is always a section in the reports on that.
Q104 Chairman: It is an area that
we care about and I think that the report was quite a seminal
one.
Ms Rosen: Can I point out that
we did publish a survey report in 2004 which was looking at outdoor
education, which said many of the things you have said? We value
it very much and we were encouraging schools not to lose sight
of it. We gave lots of examples of good practice. We will be including
another look at education outside the classroom in our next survey
programme, that is 2007-08.
Chairman: That is very encouraging.
Q105 Paul Holmes: Coming back to
the question of the citizenship report, was there a clear picture
that emerged from the citizenship inspections that having a specialist
teacher who was qualified in citizenship made any particular difference
to the quality of what went on?
Ms Rosen: That was one of the
main findings of the report. Having a specialist teacher who understood,
was enthusiastic and could use, for example, political events
of the day to help illustrate their teaching, really did help
improve the quality of the citizenship curriculum.
Q106 Paul Holmes: So the relatively
low number of places—220 a year—that are available
for training citizenship teachers, would you say that needs to
be increased?
Ms Rosen: We did recommend that
in the report and there has been a response to that. One thing
we would say, though, is that some of these young teachers who
are being trained in citizenship are being taken on by schools
to teach other subjects. So we would also say to schools, "Consider
recruiting a specialist citizenship teacher", because obviously
schools are not always focusing on that if our young citizenship
teachers are having to go in to take up other subjects.
Q107 Paul Holmes: On Monday afternoon
we had a series of witnesses sitting there, representing Muslim,
Jewish, Sikh, Catholic and Church of England faith schools. I
think that one of the unanimous messages from them was that the
curriculum was far too crowded; they were not really interested
in recruiting citizenship teachers. They did it already anyway,
because they were faith schools. Do you have any comments on that
from the report?
Ms Rosen: The report did comment
on that and said that, particularly early on, after the introduction
of citizenship in 2002, schools felt they did it because they
had a good ethos and they were naturally dealing with citizenship.
What we found in the report was that it was rare for schools to
be able to teach citizenship successfully if they did just spread
it across the curriculum, because it did tend to disappear. The
recommendation was that, in schools where it has been most successfully
taught, there is a discrete core. That might be as a subject in
its own right or it might be as a discrete part of PSHE. Some
schools have successfully taught citizenship across the curriculum,
but that is rarer and harder to do.
Q108 Paul Holmes: So you would not
accept a general message, which we received on Monday afternoon,
that if you are faith schools you do this anyway, and so it does
not apply?
Ms Rosen: There is a particular
body of knowledge which is part of the citizenship national curriculum
and that does actually have to be taught. So the schools, if they
are teaching it across the curriculum, would have to be auditing
very carefully to make sure that they are teaching what they need
to teach for national curriculum citizenship. As you know, there
are three strands to this. It is not just a question of a bit
here and a bit there. If they are doing that, they have to look
very carefully to make sure that they are covering things, and
we know there are certain areas that tend not to be covered.
Q109 Paul Holmes: In your report
you said that there was insufficient reference to local, national
and international questions of the day and how politicians deal
with them.
Ms Rosen: Yes.
Q110 Paul Holmes: Over the 22 years
that I was a teacher I did a lot of citizenship before the term
was ever invented, but under different headings. There was always
a pressure from heads, governors, LA advisers and all the rest
of it, not to be political—because they cannot be seen to
be controversial and indoctrinating and everything else. Whereas,
when the Committee went to Dublin, we saw very open civics or
citizenship lessons, where they were encouraging their kids to
write to Tony Blair about radioactive pollution in the Irish Sea;
to write to the Taoiseach about cuts that had just been made in
charitable funding in E«ire, for example. That was very up-front,
whereas in this country we seem to back away from that. So your
report would agree with my version rather than—
Ms Rosen: Yes, I think that it
goes back to the need for specialist teachers, because specialist
teachers who have been trained in this area are much more confident
in dealing with political issues of the day, with controversies,
with resolving conflict; whereas teachers who are out of their
comfort zone, because in fact they have been trained in something
else, may find that very difficult to deal with.
Q111 Chairman: So you would like
to see more specialist teachers in schools trained in citizenship?
Ms Rosen: I have made the point
that there are specialist teachers who are not being employed
to teach citizenship. It is not just an issue for the Government,
therefore; it is also an issue for schools.
Q112 Chairman: But is it a fact that
there are fewer being given the full, one year of teacher training
this year than last?
Ms Rosen: There has been a gradual
improvement in the number of specialist teachers available. That
needs to continue. Schools need to think about how they take the
specialist teachers on. There has also been an improvement and
an increase in the continuous professional development available
for teachers. That is important.
Q113 Chairman: Unlike you, Miriam,
you are dodging and diving a bit on this one.
Ms Rosen: I am sorry?
Q114 Chairman: Uncharacteristically,
you are dodging and diving a bit. Do you think that there is a
need for more, properly trained specialists in citizenship or
not?
Ms Rosen: Yes, we did say that
there should be more; but I am trying to make an additional point,
which is that they need to be employed to teach their specialism.
Chairman: They need to be kept on their
subject rather than taken off.
Q115 Mr Carswell: A quick question
about Creative Partnerships. I saw some very good evidence in
Clacton about the role that Creative Partnerships plays in making
pupils more creative, more ambitious, more aspirational. I am
afraid that I have not had a look at your report. Could you elaborate
a little on the importance of Creative Partnerships in raising
standards? If there is a danger of reducing the Creative Partnerships
programme because of a loss of funding, how serious would that
be?
Ms Gilbert: I had seen it as a
sort of pump-priming programme. I would stress that the report
is based on probably the best practice that we were seeing, because
these areas were identified. I would not feel confident, therefore,
on the work that I have done, to say that is more important than
funding something else. I think that the report was giving licence,
if you like, to some flexibility within the curriculum; that you
could increase standards and still have this going on, in terms
of the broader curriculum. That was the main message for me on
reading the various reports—in particular the last one—and
the very focused, practical examples that were given which schools
could find ways of doing, or local authorities might find ways
of doing, to increase that. Examples are work experience placements
and those sorts of things.
Q116 Fiona Mactaggart: You say in
your Annual Report that the phrase Every Child Matters is central
to Ofsted's mission, and indeed it is clear from the way you structure
your report. But do you think that Ofsted actually adds value
to the Every Child Matters agenda? If so, how?
Ms Gilbert: I suppose the fact
that we are inspecting in terms of the five outcomes will mean
that the schools look more closely at the five outcomes, and that
those five outcomes feed into the school's self-evaluation is
key. I think that would be the major thing: that we are going
to be shining a light on that area and the school's contribution
to those areas. It is not something that they can do next year
or the year after, therefore—or they can, but they would
not get a very positive report if the progress of the children
had not been good in terms of those areas. I think that is the
most important element. Over and above that, we will then be reporting
more generally on how we find progress in those outcomes, at a
general level through an annual report process. That is just the
first year that you see before you.
Q117 Fiona Mactaggart: Do you think
that our traditional emphasis on academic achievement, examination
results, test scores and so on, has meant a diminution of the
emphasis in school settings of being safe, the emotional outcomes
for children, and so on?
Ms Gilbert: I do not, because
I think that the very best schools have a holistic view of the
child and do not just look very narrowly at literacy, numeracy
and test results. If you look holistically and you are worried
about the child's safety or health, and make sure that you do
what you can to support in those areas, the results of the enjoy-and-achieve
part would improve too. So I think that it is a whole picture
that is very important.
Q118 Fiona Mactaggart: You spoke
earlier about the importance of parental support in terms of what
happens in a school, and the difference in different areas. That
is obviously true for different children within a school: that
there are some children who do not have that network of support
beyond the school, which is so significant to a child's self-confidence
and success in future life. How can you, in your inspection, identify
whether schools are dealing equally well with children with different
sets of experiences?
Ms Gilbert: One of the things
that the new framework is doing is asking schools to look at the
different groups within their schools and reflect on the progress
of those different groups. That might do some of what you are
suggesting. One of the things that we are conscious of is that
we do at the moment ask parents about a school. We think that
we might be doing more in this area over the next few years, engaging
parents more in what is going on in the school. The difficulty
of course is engaging with those parents who are most difficult
to engage with, if you like. We need to find some more imaginative
ways perhaps of doing that. That is why the four organisations
coming together into one does give us a fresh focus, and a look
across to see what other organisations are doing to try to engage
parents more in the whole process.
Q119 Fiona Mactaggart: We all know
that there are various predictive factors which signal that a
child is at risk in terms of their success and their development;
for example, children who are in the care of the state do shockingly
badly. I am wondering whether you have thought that, in your new
Ofsted role, you might look at settings and ways of tackling the
needs of groups of children who those predictive factors are depressing,
and those settings which actually help those children to outperform
what was predicted for them. Do you have any plans to look at
that and to provide guidance for other settings on what works
well?
Ms Gilbert: One of the things
it is important to do, and we have done it in the report, is to
identify things that make all of us feel uncomfortable—so
our responsibility. We all have a responsibility in some way to
look after children and for their progress. We have been working
too with the DfES on some of the recommendations set out in their
Green Paper in this area. I think that it is always important
to look at areas that buck the trend, if you like, and for people
to find out more about why those things are happening, to see
if the lessons are transferable. Sometimes they are not transferable.
We have been talking about Creative Partnerships. One of the fascinating
things there is that people did find it quite difficult to transfer
the skills they had gained in those areas more broadly across
the curriculum. It is whether we can identify areas, schools or
places where that is happening, and we can write it up. This is
where the theme approach is really important—the three-year
programme that we are looking at. So the debate with the DfES
should help identify some of the sorts of things that you are
asking us to address.
| 
