Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
MS CHRISTINE
GILBERT, MR
DORIAN BRADLEY,
MR ROBERT
GREEN, MS
VANESSA HOWLISON
AND MS
MIRIAM ROSEN
13 DECEMBER 2006
Q60 Mr Wilson: Do you think that
there is an educational requirement for state schools to have
matched funding with private schools? So the same levels of money
spent in the state sector as in the private sector?
Ms Gilbert: I think schools need
the money to do the job that they are being asked to do. Private
schools all charge differently, as far as I can see. I think the
schools need to be funded for the job that they have to do. I
would not pretend to know the difference in the impact that you
are describing that happens in private schools compared to state
schools.
Q61 Mr Wilson: So the answer is you
do not know whether there is a case?
Ms Gilbert: I do not have enough
knowledge or enough evidence.
Q62 Mr Wilson: Does anybody within
Ofsted have that knowledge?
Ms Gilbert: I am sorry?
Q63 Mr Wilson: Does anybody—because
I know you are new—within Ofsted have that knowledge whether
there should be the same level of spending on state schools as
private schools?
Ms Gilbert: I do not think that
is something that has emerged from any report that we have looked
at, and I cannot see how we would look at it, actually. We look
at the educational provision. We make a judgment on each school
whether they are providing value for money and we set that out
in the report; but we do not make an explicit comparison in the
sort of political way that I think you might be suggesting.
Chairman: We have to move on, Rob. We
have only covered a small number of the questions we want to ask,
and you have had quite a good innings.
Q64 Helen Jones: The annual report
said that eight % of the schools that you had looked at were classified
as "inadequate" and the rest were "satisfactory"
or above. Is that good news or bad news?
Ms Gilbert: It is not good news
that we have any schools classified as "inadequate".
At Ofsted we would hope to get to a state where we have no schools
classified as "inadequate". Of those schools, it gives
some reassurance—but it is still not reassuring enough if
you are a parent near such a school—that the majority of
them, we think, have the capacity to improve within them. So they
have something called a "notice to improve", and we
go back and check that they are making that improvement. The smallest
number are the schools placed in special measures, which do give
us greatest concern because the inspectors there are reaching
a judgment that the management of the school do not have the capacity
to make the improvements that we think need to be made. So it
is not good news to have any schools classified as "inadequate".
Q65 Helen Jones: Can I look at the
schools you have classed as "satisfactory"? Your report
states that "`satisfactory' can never be good enough".
Apart from doing some violence to the English language, does that
not call into question the categories you are using and the inspection
framework that you are using? There was an article in the TES
which suggested that a comparison is made during an inspection
of schools results compared to the national average. If that is
the case, you can never have a majority of schools above average,
can you? Does it not call into question the categories you are
using and the way that the information in your report is then
conveyed? What does "satisfactory" mean?
Ms Gilbert: I do want to emphasise
that the categories are absolutely not norm-referenced. You couldn't
have all of our schools "outstanding" but more schools
could be "good". The categories themselves are not norm-referenced;
they are based on the inspector's judgment, going in to the school.
The inspector does not say, "I've got two `outstanding' this
month. I need to identify two `special measures' to compensate".
If you look at a "satisfactory" judgment, it means that
no aspect of that school's provision—no major aspect of
that school's provision—is what we would describe as "inadequate".
We would think, though, that that school had much further to go.
I do not think that any parent would choose, in most cases, to
send their child to a school that was described as "satisfactory";
they would rather want one that was described as "good"
or "outstanding". So my personal ambition is that all
of our schools are "good" schools. I think that far
more of them could become "good", and I would hope that
what we are doing in inspecting them might help them to do that.
Q66 Helen Jones: That raises two
questions, does it not? Is the TES right in what it said
about the statistical tools that you are using? I accept what
you say about the inspector's judgment. Secondly, if everything
was classed as "good"—if we got to that stage
where everything was classed as "good" or "excellent"—what
use would the categories be?
Ms Gilbert: Shall I start with
that one first? The categories would give you some reassurance
and information about what was going on in that school. The supermarket
analogy was used earlier. All the supermarkets could be good supermarkets
for a particular brand and you would not think that there was
anything strange about that. So I do not think there is anything
wrong at all in aspiring for "good" or "outstanding"
for all of our schools. The first point was about the performance
information. Some of the performance information, the CVA—the
contextual value-added information—has a norm reference.
However, as I said at the beginning, that is part of the whole
picture; it is not the whole picture. We do look at a number of
things. The overriding thing—and I really do want to stress
this—is the inspector's judgment; the debate in the school;
what she or he sees in the school; what emerges from discussions;
and what other information the school may have. We use some school
information, some of the schools use very sophisticated information
for their own schools, and for some of the small schools the CVA
is not helpful. For some of the bigger schools I think that it
is very helpful indeed.
Q67 Helen Jones: Let us return to
the categories. If you have schools classified as "good"
or "outstanding", that surely indicates that they are
better than average? They are better than the norm. If I, as a
parent, looked at your categories and all schools are classified
as "outstanding", that would not tell me anything, would
it? Then to use the phrase that "`satisfactory' is not good
enough" implies that those schools are failing. They are
not, are they?
Ms Gilbert: They are not inadequate
in any major aspect of their provision. I do not think that they
are providing a good enough education. One of the points I made
about some of the FE colleges that worried us is that too many
of them are getting stuck with a "satisfactory" rating
and not moving. Part of my job in managing a school, a local education
authority, a local authority, has always been to push up aspirations
and ambition. I think that it would be dreadful if we told schools
that "`satisfactory' is fine and we are not expecting more
of you". I think that parents who live in a local area want
their child to go to a school that is better than satisfactory.
Therefore, I would ask the schools to lift their sights and move
forward. What we are saying is we think that they have the capacity
to do that; we are making some recommendations that would help
them do that.
Q68 Helen Jones: I accept what you
are saying, that schools can improve and should always be looking
to improve. I do not think there is a dispute about that. Our
difficulty as a Committee is with the categories Ofsted use, and
with the implication in your report that "satisfactory"
is failing. I will put it to you again. Do you not need to consider
your use of categories? Because if all schools reach the level
of "outstanding", that would be a nonsense, would it
not? Everything cannot be better than average; everything cannot
be outstanding. That would not tell me anything, as a parent.
Ms Gilbert: The categories are
not based on average. To drive a car, you do not get one of four
categories: you can or cannot drive a car. I would be delighted
if every school was identified as "outstanding", because—
Q69 Helen Jones: I am sorry, that
does not make sense. In terms of the English language, that does
not make sense, does it?
Ms Gilbert: The word "outstanding"
is not necessarily related to norm-referencing.
Helen Jones: It is. It means "better
than the rest". You cannot be outstanding unless you are
better than a lot of others. By definition, everything cannot
be outstanding.
Q70 Chairman: It could be referenced
to international comparisons—but who am I to...? Chief Inspector,
I do not think that we are getting any further on this.
Ms Gilbert: If you look at the
detail for the grade descriptors, they say what an outstanding
school is. They do not reference that to any norm. If the school
is doing the best by the pupils attending it and providing excellent
provision, it would be described as an outstanding school. I think
that is about it, is it not, Miriam? Do you want to say anything
about the descriptors?
Q71 Chairman: Robert is in charge
of this area—are you not, Robert? Do you want to say anything?
Mr Green: I do have some thoughts,
if I may, Mr Chairman. I think that what Christine says about
the content of the descriptors is surely the crucial thing. Ofsted
is an organisation in which we can bat for England in terms of
deciding whether a particular adjective is the right adjective
to use. However, it seems to me that the important thing is the
substance of what is actually being looked at. We are a long way
away from a position in which all schools are outstanding, so
that at the moment that kind of language makes sense. It may be—I
do not know—if we move to a stage where 100% of schools
were outstanding, then the language would be something you would
look at; but that would not change what you were looking at in
substance in terms of what inspectors are saying.
Helen Jones: Has the percentage of schools
classified as "satisfactory" changed over the years?
If so, in what direction?
Q72 Chairman: Miriam is nodding.
Ms Gilbert: It would be difficult
to compare it with this year, but I think we could say for previous
years.
Ms Rosen: I think that it has
changed over the years, but you have to remember we are on our
fourth framework and, each time we have changed the framework,
we have changed it in a direction which is more rigorous. Perhaps
that has not been recognised, but we have raised the bar several
times and will continue to do so. So each time we introduce a
new inspection framework, actually the percentages all shift downwards;
then they creep up again as people aim higher. The trend overall
is upwards, therefore, but there are changes each time we change
the framework.
Q73 Helen Jones: I understand that.
Does that not raise questions about how we measure the effectiveness
of the inspection system? You have given us, Chief Inspector,
anecdotal evidence about people saying they found it helpful and
so on, but if you keep changing the categories it is very difficult
to measure objectively the effect of the inspection regime on
school improvements, is it not? Is there an objective measurement?
Ms Gilbert: I think that evaluative
judgments are the most effective. Though I have given some anecdotal
answers in response, the evidence that I am quoting from Ofsted
is not just anecdote; we do our own internal surveys after every
inspection, and we have done a piece of work internally on what
we thought but—
Q74 Helen Jones: I am sorry, I missed
that. Could you repeat it?
Ms Gilbert: I did not mean to
suggest that all the evidence we had was anecdotal. We have done
work internally on assessing the impact of inspection, but we
also commissioned the NFER—who reported in July on what
they had found on one year of the new process—and we are
continuing to work with them on a more extensive and detailed
survey. So there is some evidence about the impact of inspection
on improvement.
Q75 Helen Jones: I understand you
to say that that was looking at only the new process. What I asked
was whether it is difficult, over time, to measure the impact
of inspection on school improvement. If the categories keep changing,
we are not comparing like with like, are we?
Ms Gilbert: But we would not pretend
that the improvement in schools was all down to Ofsted. We are
one, and I hope an important, lever in generating that improvement;
but it is the schools themselves that do the work to improve.
I would not use those sorts of figures in that particular way,
therefore. Nevertheless, if schools were not improving and there
was no shift at all, they would not be able to tell us that we
were helping them contribute to that improvement—if you
see what I mean.
Q76 Helen Jones: I think that we
are mixing two things up, and I want to try and get some clarity
on this. I personally have no doubt that schools are improving.
The question I want to try and dig down to is what are the causes
of that improvement and what proportion of that improvement is
down to Ofsted. Do you have any evidence to offer the Committee
on that?
Ms Gilbert: I think that we are
clear about what are the ingredients that make an effective school,
and the framework that we use essentially identifies those different
elements. So we would look for performance in all of those areas.
It is difficult to assess the impact of Ofsted without engaging
the key users and stakeholders in assessing that impact. That
is not to say I would ever expect 100% satisfaction rate, and
for us to become soft and cuddly animals. The external scrutiny
does give sharpness and a rigour, but nevertheless schools are
sufficiently professional and focused now in what they are doing
that they are very honest about whether we have contributed to
the difference that they have made or not. That is what they are
telling the NFER; it is not that they are just telling us.
Q77 Helen Jones: That is interesting,
but do you accept that actually that is still not an objective
measurement? How do you think school improvement here compares
to those countries where they do not have this kind of inspection
regime? I am not necessarily advocating getting rid of it, but
I am asking the question. If some countries manage to do it without
the rigorous inspectorate, what difference does Ofsted make?
Ms Gilbert: All I can say is that,
since appointment in October, we have had a stream of visitors.
Nothing to do with me—that sounded as though since my appointment
we have had a stream of visitors. I think that this is fairly
common. There is a stream of visitors from abroad looking at our
inspection processes, because it is seen as a major factor in
the sorts of improvements that have been going on.
Q78 Mr Chaytor: Can I clarify the
point that you made earlier, Chief Inspector, on CVA data? Is
it the case that next year's report will be the first report to
take account of the publication of CVA data?
Ms Gilbert: No. CVA is core to
the new inspection framework and so we have reported now on one
year of that. So CVA has been in operation this past year.
Q79 Mr Chaytor: So where we get references
to achievement and performance, this now always takes on board
the impact of the CVA data as well as the raw source?
Ms Gilbert: Yes.
| 
