Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
MS CHRISTINE
GILBERT, MR
DORIAN BRADLEY,
MR ROBERT
GREEN, MS
VANESSA HOWLISON
AND MS
MIRIAM ROSEN
13 DECEMBER 2006
Q40 Mr Carswell: Why do we have an
Ofsted?
Ms Gilbert: Why do we have an
Ofsted? I think we have it for a number of reasons. I think we
do have it to generate improvement; we have it to demonstrate
that public money is being used effectively; we have it to give
assurance that what is happening in care and education up and
down the country is reaching at least minimal standards; and I
think we have it to give advice to the Secretary of State. Have
I missed anything out? I am sorry, and information for parents—that
has been absolutely key.
Q41 Mr Carswell: So we have had years
of Ofsted, and yet in your report you say that standards are not
good. How can you claim that Ofsted is actually good for standards:
it has not done terribly well if improving standards is its raison
d'etre, has it?
Ms Gilbert: I think I say in the
report, and I said at the launch of the Annual Report, that things
were still not good enough. As I said in response to some of the
Chairman's remarks and in my introduction, I think there has been
significant improvement. Ofsted cannot take all of the credit
for all of that improvement—I do not think Ofsted would
pretend to—but I think it has contributed to the improvement
that we have seen. I think one of the things that Ofsted is very
good at is reporting fairly and frankly about what they are seeing,
even if it is unsettling for people, even if people do not like
it, and I think that people take those remarks very seriously.
The research that we did with parents told us that 92% of parents
think that Ofsted is a very good thing and they felt reassured
by it and it led to improvement.
Q42 Mr Carswell: You have talked
me through the actual mechanics for improving standards, how can
it drive up standards? Is there not a case for saying that actually
the additional paperwork and the distraction from the classroom
that Ofsted inspections create for teachers and the senior management
teams in schools maybe distracts from high standards? How can
the tick-box inspection system actually drive up standards? Could
you talk me through what is a measure of performance which actually
influences outcome and process?
Ms Gilbert: I will ask Miriam
to say something about the grades and the detail of the framework,
because I think that would be helpful in terms of the general
answer, but I do want to emphasise that Ofsted is not asking for
loads of paper, it is not asking for anything other than a look
at the school evaluation form, which I think most schools would
tell you is a real aid to their own development, and particularly
having done it once where they did find it time-consuming, and
so on, they find that they are just amending it and adjusting
it during the course of the year, they find it a very valuable
tool in terms of their own improvement. I cannot stress enough
that it is the schools that improve themselves. We give them information
that they might not have got anywhere else. The external scrutiny
is really important, I think, and certainly on the receiving end
of it as a local authority, both in education and the wider view
through the comprehensive performance assessment, it was very
rare for inspection not to just hold a mirror up in a slightly
different way and help you see something or help you see your
way through something that you had not been able to see your way
through before. So I think the element of external scrutiny, which
is why an Ofsted inspector's role is so different from the role
of the SIP, is really valuable. In the discussions with colleagues
from FE when I went to speak at their conference, a very large
conference at the Association of Colleges a few weeks ago, I was
expecting some hostility to Ofsted. There was absolutely none.
There was a real welcome for the level of scrutiny people get
externally from us, and they feel that the way we are going in
terms of proportionality, and so on, is absolutely right; but
I did want to clarify that people are not being expected to do
loads of extra paper work because they are now being inspected.
In terms of the level of improvements, I think that the grade
descriptors are really helpful. Perhaps Miriam could add to what
I have just said in terms of that.
Ms Rosen: Can I, first of all,
say that the new current schools inspection framework has certainly
reduced the stress for schools. All the feedback that we have
had from head teachers and teachers says that the stress is reduced
because the inspections are shorter and also it is much less noticed.
There is not the six weeks of waiting for the inspectors to come
doing additional preparations; so we definitely cut down the stress.
The framework makes explicit the standards that we are looking
for, and this helps the schools know what they are aiming for,
helps them with their self-evaluation. That has been a significant
driver for improvement. One of the things we have done with the
new school inspection framework is that the criteria are actually
more rigorous, and because we have the new performance data, which
enables us to look very closely at how different groups of people
are making progress, again, that helps both the school and the
inspectors to see: is enough progress being made by the pupils
of this school? That is a significant driver for improvement.
Q43 Mr Carswell: You used a phrase
"driver for improvement". Standards in supermarkets
or shops are not maintained by government inspectors. We do not
have an Ofshop. Standards are maintained by choice. Surely, if
you are out to drive up standards, you should be recommending
that a driver for improvement should be a bottom-up choice rather
than purely top-down inspection?
Ms Rosen: Parents do have a choice
as to where to send their children to school, and Ofsted actually
informs that choice by producing independent external reports
on schools, but I think at the same time the fact that we give
schools very focused recommendations that they can concentrate
on would also help them to bring about improvement. There is not
a single answer to your question, I think.
Ms Gilbert: Chairman, could I
ask my colleague to say something about Early Years.
Q44 Chairman: Dorian, we would hate
for you to remain silent for any longer?
Mr Bradley: Thank you, Chairman.
Certainly since Ofsted took over Early Years in 2001 we have reduced
the impact on the providers that we inspect in a number of ways.
We have gone for a longer inspection period for the good providers.
We have reduced the time on site, as it were. We certainly do
not use tick-boxes; it is a professional dialogue with the providers
and an in-depth assessment of what the providers do for the young
children in the country. We can point to a fairly significant
improvement in the quality of what we have seen. Compared with
the inspection programme that ended in March 2003, which was our
first major programme, the new programme shows that about 56%
of child minders and 46% of day care providers have moved from
unsatisfactory to satisfactory in that period, and a similar improvement
from satisfactory to good, 25% of child minders and 18% of day
care providers; so it is a steady growth in the quality which
is measured by inspection and, as Miriam and Christine have stressed,
it is important that providers take on that quality improvement
agenda but they do it against the background of that external
scrutiny and the recommendations made by the inspectors.
Q45 Mr Carswell: One final question,
if I may, to Miss Howlison. At the beginning we heard that an
efficient use of public money was a key objective of Ofsted. Could
you tell me what is the total annual budget of Ofsted this year
and how many inspectors you employ?
Ms Howlison: The total budget
of Ofsted for the current year is 204.
Q46 Mr Carswell: Two hundred and
four million?
Ms Howlison: Two hundred and four
million pounds, my apologies, and we currently employ, I think,
260 HMI inspectors and we have around 750 childcare inspectors.
Apart from that, of course, a considerable amount of our work
is contracted out as part of the inspection contract connected
to our five inspection partners in the private sector.
Q47 Mr Carswell: How many roughly?
Ms Howlison: The value of that
contract is about £45 million a year. How they deploy their
resources is their own business. Obviously we have a degree of
involvement in their work, and I think that is more into Miriam's
territory, but that is the kind of scale.
Chairman: I now want to move to deal
with the Annual Report. Rob Wilson.
Q48 Mr Wilson: Thank you, Chairman.
After ten years of almost constant initiatives in our schools,
can we say that as a country we are proud of the results that
have come out from our schools?
Ms Gilbert: I think we can be
proud of the improvements and the achievements that have been
made, and I did say that in my Annual Report and in my comments
linked to the report, but I still think there is much further
to go. In the authority that I left, when I went there in 1997,
26% of young people were leaving school with five A-C GCSEs and
this summer they achieved 56% five A-C. That was not including
English, before you ask me that. So there is still a lot more
to do, but that sort of progress is really impressive. Nevertheless,
almost half are still not leaving with those qualifications, so
there is still much more to do in these different areas.
Q49 Mr Wilson: One in eight secondary
schools are inadequate, by your own terms, 13% of secondary schools.
You think we should be proud of that?
Ms Gilbert: No, I did not say
we should be proud of that. I would like to say it was one in
eight schools inspected in the course of the year. That is what
is in the report. There is a very important distinction which
I think has got lost in the reporting. We absolutely should not
be proud of that. It is very important that we address that issue
and tackle that issue, because every young person deserves to
go to a decent school where they are going to make good progress
and do well.
Q50 Mr Wilson: One in five 11-year-olds
is leaving primary school with poor literacy. Is that something
we should be proud of? I think you agreed that it was a national
disgrace.
Ms Gilbert: Yes, I am not saying
that we should be proud of these, and I did not use the term "national
disaster".
Q51 Mr Wilson: You said you agreed
with it when it was described to you?
Ms Gilbert: I think it is a national
concern. It is absolutely related to the point I am making about
secondary schools in the report and in my introductory remarks,
because one of the key questions is: why are these schools not
providing an acceptable education for these pupils, and leadership
and management is very important and has a major role. Nevertheless,
if young people are coming to those schools not able to read and
write effectively, I think it is a major issue that needs addressing
before they get to secondary school. Nevertheless, if they are
going to secondary school not able to read and write in a fully
functional way, that is a very important issue for us. I am not
trying to gloss over anything. I think the improvements have been
significant, but I think we have got much more to do.
Q52 Mr Wilson: Chief Inspector, are
you a fan of Little Britain, the television series?
Ms Gilbert: No, I am not a fan
but I have seen it.
Q53 Mr Wilson: If I said the phrase
"Yeah, but no, but yeah", would that mean anything to
you?
Ms Gilbert: It is a phrase I associated,
when I saw the reports of what I had said, actually, with myself—"Yes,
but...."
Q54 Mr Wilson: In a sense you are
associated. There is a report out today that says that teenagers
have a very narrow vocabulary, along the lines of a character
in Little Britain called Vicky Pollard. I just wonder whether
you think that is something we can be proud of coming out of our
schools, with teenagers barely able to string two sentences together.
Ms Gilbert: I think that oracy
is a major part of literacy, and it is really important that we
have a focus on this. I have seen well-qualified young people
not getting jobs because they have not been sufficiently articulate
at interviews. This is sometimes described as a range of soft
skills, but I do not think that they are soft at all. They are
work skills, if you like. Being confident orally is a very important
part of those skills. If people are not confident orally, they
are often not demonstrating how good they are at a number of things
they can do.
Q55 Mr Wilson: Presumably you have
seen some of the criticism from, for example, Chris Woodhead,
a former Chief Inspector, about the current inspection regime.
How much faith can we actually have in this annual report, when
we are now at a point where most schools are doing self-assessments;
there are very short inspections; you only visit for a day or
so into the schools? How much emphasis can we put on these results?
It all seems a bit vacuous to me.
Ms Gilbert: I do not want to repeat
the things that I have said earlier, but we feel confident about
the process that we have started after one year, and we are reviewing
what we are doing. I cannot emphasise enough the importance of
the performance information as part of that, and the importance
of the school thinking in a much more focused way about its own
self-evaluation. I think the very best schools always did do this.
That was clear when you looked at their school development plan:
that they had reviewed themselves very effectively. The other
element—the very important element—is the inspector's
judgment. I have mentioned performance information, but I also
think—and we are talking about ways of getting at this more
fully—the views of the parents and the views of the young
people themselves are key. So I would stand by the system that
we have established. In fact, we are seeing more schools. We saw
more schools last year than we have ever seen before. So we are
getting a picture of what is going on in those schools.
Mr Wilson: How do you respond to a highly
respected former Chief Inspector of Schools who thinks the current
inspection regime—
Chairman: He is highly respected in some
quarters but not with some members of the Committee here who used
to interview him.
Mr Wilson: Am I allowed to ask my own
questions?
Chairman: Carry on.
Q56 Mr Wilson: How do you respond
to the highly respected former Chief Inspector's remarks that
the reports are basically worthless now?
Ms Gilbert: I do not think that
they are worthless. I would invite him to look at the sort of
detail that we have on the school before an inspector goes in,
and I would invite him to look in some detail at the reports themselves.
Actually, a number of the schools of the company that he is involved
with very proudly display on their websites reference to their
Ofsted inspections and so on.
Mr Wilson: Can I move on to money very
briefly? Is that possible?
Chairman: Yes, briefly.
Q57 Mr Wilson: Does funding make
a huge difference to the results outputs?
Ms Gilbert: I think it is how
you use the money that is absolutely key.
Q58 Mr Wilson: So it is not the totality
of the money spent; it is how the budget is deployed?
Ms Gilbert: The most important
thing for me is how you would use the money that you are given.
Q59 Mr Wilson: You said earlier that
you have to demonstrate that public money is used effectively.
Does Ofsted have any evidence about the levels of spending and
the outputs that are resulting from it?
Ms Gilbert: We are doing the sort
of analysis that I referred to earlier, in terms of value for
money. We are asking people if it made a difference. We have looked
at our costs and worked out what it costs the taxpayer to have
Ofsted, and we have looked at the costs that we have reduced over
the years. So cost is a real issue for us and we are very alive
to it. I am not saying we cannot do more, but we have looked very
hard at costs, as Vanessa went through them. You could not make
the sorts of reductions that Ofsted has made over the past few
years unless you were very sensitive to cost, and I think that
the reductions that are being made demonstrate that.
| 
