Examinatin of Witnesses (Questions 180-199)
MS CHRISTINE
GILBERT CBE, MS
ZENNA ATKINS,
MS MIRIAM
ROSEN, MR
DORIAN BRADLEY
AND MS
VANESSA HOWLISON
9 MAY 2007
Q180 Stephen Williams: That is praise
indeed! It is about 18 months since the new light-touch inspection
regime has been in place. What evaluation have you made of the
success of that new approach?
Ms Gilbert: Miriam might like
to come in with some of the detail. We have conducted our own
regular evaluations through forms that we send out—that
are online in fact—through telephone calls, through visits
and so on, so we have kept the whole system under review and built
in minor improvements throughout that period. But we also commissioned
the NFER to do a review of the implementation of those. We have
used the results of that. With the reduced tariff inspections,
we focus closely on those, asking the inspectors how the experience
was for them, how the schools found them and so on. We were trialling
those initially and they expanded it to about 30% of schools from
April. So there is a whole range of different ways of looking
at it.
Ms Rosen: This is the report we
commissioned from NFER which was published last Friday.
Q181 Chairman: Could you not get
a proper photographer? It made me feel quite dizzy looking at
the photograph on the front!
Ms Rosen: This was published last
Friday and it is good news for us. A large number of schools were
surveyed, over 2,000, and there were also a number of schools
which were subject to visits. This report shows that they were
very positive about the impact of Ofsted inspections. They feel
that, on the whole, they do contribute to improvement or are likely
to contribute to improvement in the future. They do say that the
main way in which the inspections contribute to improvement is
by clarifying and prioritising what the school is going to do
so they have a better idea of how they want to take forward the
actions they have in their plans, but there are also instances
where there are new recommendations on which the schools act and
which then bring about improvements. This is an independent evaluation
which is pretty positive. It also gives us some pointers for things
we need to do for improvement, which we will take very seriously.
Q182 Stephen Williams: Chairman,
as that was published last Friday, we have not had a chance to
see it. Maybe in a future session, we will ask questions based
on its findings. Talking to staff in schools or just to friends
who are in the teaching profession, under the old system they
used to have nervous trepidation about the arrival of your staff.
That has largely gone away but there are still complaints about
the burden of, effectively, a self-assessment system, particularly
on the head teachers. It is a bit like the Inland Revenue getting
taxpayers to do all the work to make it a light-touch experience
for the Inland Revenue itself. Do you feel that the burden of
the work is perhaps still a bit too heavy on schools, and particularly
principals?
Ms Gilbert: Schools still tell
me that they do get nervous before the inspection, so it is not
quite stress-free, and I think it is entirely appropriate that
that happens. The whole focus of the new inspection framework
is on self-evaluation. One of the things that has emerged is that
people have found it time-consuming to complete the school evaluation
form which we propose they might use—they do not have to
use it but most do—to help them produce their own self-evaluation.
One of the things we found early on was that people were producing
very long school-evaluation forms—90 pages; 120 pages, in
one instance. We gave guidance and produced guidance formally
with the DfES a few months ago where we stressed that length was
really not the issue; the issue was the accuracy and what the
schools were doing with their own information and their own review
of their own school. So we tried to help with that. We are also
getting feedback that, having done it once, updating it is much
easier than producing it cold, as it were, for the first time,
so we think there has been progress there. That said, one of the
things that has come out of the impact report is the very point
you are making, so we do need to be sure that we are addressing
all of the issues.
Q183 Stephen Williams: One of the
aspects of any self-evaluation process, self-assessment or whatever,
is that it is going to be focused on data that is provided. Because
it is now a light-touch, briefer inspection, it is also more of
a snapshot. How in those circumstances can you be confident that
other aspects of Every Child Matters to do with child welfare
are being properly assessed by your organisation because not all
of those deliverables are done by the school. There is a role
for the local council's children's services as well. How do you
have that sort of holistic approach?
Ms Gilbert: The school has some
role across each of the five outcomes. The school framework does
ask that each of those areas be addressed. In fact, I think the
title of the framework is Every Child Matters so the framework
is really embedded in the ECM agenda. The school reviews itself
using the data that it has available and then the inspector uses
contextual value added information. Inspection looks at that,
it looks at the school's assessment of itself, but then the important
thing is the visit, where it tests out a number of things about
which it has come to a hypothesis from looking at that information.
It will test out in various ways—firsthand observation;
classroom discussion with pupils, teachers, parents, in some instances
and so on—in order to get an overall view of the school,
some debate about how the school itself is using the information
it has available to it. The data are one aspect of that information
to progress and move forward.
Q184 Stephen Williams: Let us take
as an example something that was in the news this morning just
as I was getting ready to come into work and which I have raised
at this Committee before: young carers. How would Ofsted satisfy
itself that the welfare of young carers in the school is being
addressed and that their home needs are not impacting on their
attainment in school? What role does your organisation have in
mind?
Ms Gilbert: It would depend. We
focus on particular groups within a school. It would be unlikely,
in all honesty—I think this is right—that young carers
would emerge as a particular group to focus on. Though we have
been talking about school inspection, a really important strand
of our work which I am really keen for us to develop over the
next few years, because we could look holistically across Ofsted
at some very interesting areas, is the survey, topic and theme
work where we might take an issue and look at it right across.
That is a perfect example of an issue or an area that we might
look at, make some visits, talk to some young carers and so on
and do a focused piece of work on that particular group. So it
would not emerge from a school inspection process or it would
be unlikely to—and Miriam might have something to add there—but
we certainly could build it into our programme. We have a three-year
rolling programme. We are picking areas to look at and one of
the things I think we need to be doing is thinking much harder
about the things we are looking at and making sure the work we
are doing has greater impact and influences, people on the ground,
policy and thinking and so on.
Q185 Stephen Williams: In the context
of the report you have commissioned, which, from what you were
saying, is based upon the information schools have fed back to
you, have you commissioned any studies of what parents think about
the contribution Ofsted makes, particularly of the light-touch
inspection regime?
Ms Gilbert: We certainly had a
study—just after I arrived in October, the results came
through, so it was sometime last year—where Ipsos MORI had
been commissioned to do a piece of work with parents, where parents
were very positive about inspections. Only 4% of parents were
saying they did not think it was a good thing. We have done some
work with pupils. A lower percentage there of people knowing about
Ofsted, but thinking still it is a very good thing. I am meeting
Ben Page from MORI next week to talk about ways of progressing
some of this in the new organisation.
Ms Rosen: In the NFER report the
researchers did talk to groups of parents in the schools that
they visited, so the parents were able to give their view there.
Q186 Chairman: We are a little bit
cross—I am sensing a frisson on this side—that we
did not have a chance to look at the NFER report before you came
in. You said it came out on Friday. Is it the bank holiday that
has stopped us getting a copy of this?
Ms Rosen: I would have thought
you would have been sent it. I think we need to investigate that.
Q187 Chairman: We have not. That
does leave us at something of a disadvantage, in that you are
referring to a report that we have not been able to scrutinise.
Ms Rosen: Yes, I am sorry.
Q188 Stephen Williams: Pursuing this
theme about parents, is asking parents what they think about the
inspection regime something you are going to do on a regular basis?
Ms Gilbert: We would be engaging
parents. We need to think about how we engage parents in the regime.
One of the things that previously used to happen was the meeting
of parents. It was never very well attended but it was an opportunity.
We do say that, if possible, if any parent wants to see an inspector
we will find an opportunity for them to come in and see that inspector
but I think we do need to think about this more. We have begun
to think about it because of Ofsted's new role with parental complaints.
Q189 Stephen Williams: On a completely
different area, Chairman, from my last couple of questions, this
is about the different types of inspectors the organisation has.
There are your own full-time HMIs, additional inspectors and private
sector inspectors as well. What is the rough proportion of personnel
you deploy on inspections between your own staff, additional inspectors
and private sector inspectors?
Ms Gilbert: I think they are different
on different areas and both Dorian and Miriam would give different
examples. For the first time with the new Ofsted, we have created
HMI in all directorates, so there are HMI now coming over from
CSCI, from ALI, from HMICA and joining HMI in Ofsted. They will
be in different directorates in Ofsted.
Ms Rosen: Within the Education
Directorate there are now approximately 220 or 230 HMI and virtually
all of them will lead school inspections, but there are between
1,000 and 1,500 additional inspectors employed by the regional
inspection service providers who also lead and act as team members
on school inspections. Overall, there are more additional inspectors
than there are HMI working on school inspections. We particularly
deploy HMI to lead secondary school inspections, whereas only
a small minority of primary inspections are led by HMI. Within
the joint area reviews, all of those will be led by HMI, and those
HMI are either originating from old Ofsted or from CSCI, and there
will be inspectors from other inspectorates working on those as
well. We do occasionally use additional inspectors on those inspections
but not very often.
Q190 Stephen Williams: In the case
of a primary school, where the inspection would be led by the
additional inspectors rather than HMI, how does Ofsted evaluate
the quality of their work?
Ms Rosen: Schools are asked to
complete an evaluation form at the end of that process and that
is the same whether they are HMI or AIs. The schools will complete
an evaluation form, but the RISPs themselves will evaluate the
work of their own inspectors and within Ofsted we also deploy
HMI to undertake quality assurance visits. That is going on and
the review that we did looked at the work of both HMI and AIs.
It looked at inspections. It did not differentiate who was leading
those inspections.
Ms Gilbert: Mr Chairman, could
I ask Dorian to add a bit to that, so that the early years and
Children's Directorate are covered too.
Mr Bradley: For completeness,
Chairman, the Children's Directorate tends to employ staff directly.
We do not have as much of a contracted-out system as is in existence
in schools. Transferring from the old Ofsted we have just over
700 inspectors who will continue with the childcare work. On 2
April we inherited just under 300 staff from CSCI, with 230 of
those being engaged directly on inspection work. We also had just
about 30 HMI and they will be joining Miriam's colleagues on joint
area reviews of children's services. So there is a different pattern
of employment across the different directorates in Ofsted.
Q191 Chairman: Are HMIs much more
expensive? Is Vanessa Howlison trying to make sure you get all
this inspection on the cheap? The cost of change from the old
to the new is at £9 million, you are a bit tight for budget
and so you are cutting down on the quality of inspection, are
you, Vanessa?
Ms Howlison: That is absolutely
not the case.
Q192 Chairman: You are the evil genius
behind all this.
Ms Howlison: It is true that creating
the new Ofsted did cost money but we were very careful to make
sure that we kept that to an absolute minimum.
Q193 Chairman: Ministers usually
say these things are going to save money.
Ms Howlison: It has saved money.
Q194 Chairman: The report says it
has cost £9 million.
Ms Howlison: It cost a little
more than that, in actual fact, but the payback period was 18
months, so we think that is money well spent. There is not just
a financial benefit; there are the benefits that the Chief Inspector
and the other directors have already set out—
Q195 Chairman: Yes, but you sitting
at board meetings saying, "Let's have less HMIs because they
are expensive and let's do it cheaper because the other people
come cheap."
Ms Howlison: That is not what
I say. My role is to make sure we have enough money to deploy
effectively to deliver our remit. It is certainly not my role
to sit there and state that one staff group should be paid differently
from another.
Q196 Chairman: Are HMIs more expensive
than the other inspectors?
Ms Howlison: They are paid more
than the other inspectors. We have been careful to make sure that
we understand the market that we are pulling from: it is very
much a reflection of what staff are paid in these sectors from
which we tend to draw staff.
Q197 Chairman: But HMI are better
trained.
Ms Howlison: It is not a case
of that.
Q198 Chairman: What is the difference
then? Chief Inspector, why do you use one rather than the other?
Ms Gilbert: They are doing different
jobs. The nature of the work is generally, not always, different.
We now have HMI going across the different directorates, in working
together, for instance, on the joint area reviews, so they are
doing the same task and therefore they are being paid the same
money but generally the work is different. If you compare the
payment of a childcare inspector with an HMI, I am told that in
terms of the market we pay well. Dorian is nodding to that. Dorian,
you were going on to elaborate and I think it would be helpful
if you talked a bit about the level of inspections.
Q199 Chairman: I am sorry, Dorian,
did I cut across your answer.
Mr Bradley: I am quite happy that
you did, Chairman.
| 
