 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Education and Skills Bill |
Education and Skills Bill | ||||||
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Nick
Walker, Tom Goldsmith, Chris Shaw, Committee
Clerks
† attended the
Committee
WitnessesJonathan
Shephard, Chief Executive, Independent Schools
Council
Christine Ryan, Chief Inspector,
Independent Schools
Inspectorate
Miriam Rosen,
Director of Education, Office of Standards in Education,
Children’s Services and
Skills
Roger Shippam, Deputy Director of
Education, Office of Standards in Education, Children’s Services
and Skills
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 24 January 2008(Morning)[Hugh Bayley in the Chair]Education and Skills BillFurther written evidence to be reported to the HouseE&S 07 National Union of
Teachers
E&S 08 Zacchaeus
2000
Trust
9
am
The
Committee deliberated in
private.
9.2
am
On
resuming—
The
Chairman:
Before I call in the witnesses and begin the
evidence we have a little Committee business to transact in relation to
the evidence sessions next Tuesday. I call the Minister to move the
amendment to the programme
motion.
Ordered
,
That
the Order of the Committee of 22nd January 2008 be amended as
follows:
In the
Table—
(a)
leave out the second entry relating to Tuesday 29th January and
insert—
(b)
leave out the fourth entry relating to that day and
insert—
—[Jim
Knight.]
The
Chairman:
We can now turn to the evidence session. I start
by welcoming our first witnesses, who are Jonathan
Shephard, chief executive of the Independent Schools Council, and
Christine Ryan, chief inspector of the Independent Schools
Inspectorate. We will start our
questioning.
Q
191191
Mr.
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)
(Con): Thank you very much for coming to give evidence.
Referring to part 4 of the Education and Skills Bill, what is
registration and regulation of schools? How does it differ from the
inspection role and why are the Independent Schools Inspectorate and
the Independent Schools Council unhappy with the proposal to transfer
the registration and regulation of independent schools from the
Department for Children, Schools and Families to
Ofsted?
Jonathan
Shephard:
Firstly, it is a matter of principle. I
think it is desirable for legislation to be done on the basis of facts
and not fiction. If you look at the regulatory impact assessment, page
14, under the title “Analysis and Evidence”, it
says,
“Independent schools
will benefit from only dealing with Ofsted.”
But that is untrue in
respect of more than 80 per cent of the children in independent
education in England who will deal not only with Ofsted but with the
ISI.
As a matter of
principle, it is very important that inspection and regulation should
be separated. Inspections can be wrong. Inspectors can make mistakes.
It is important that when they go to a regulator to say that there is a
problem with the school, the regulator has the power of decision to say
what should be done because that is a necessary check and balance. If
the inspector goes to itself, that check and balance is not
there.
Conversely, if
the regulator is told—by members of the public or others, as
does happen—that there are concerns about a school, it is
important that the regulator should be able to direct the inspector to
go into the school and sort out the problem. If the inspector and the
regulator are the same body, that may not happen because the inspector
may decide not to direct itself, because it may think there is no
problem. So the separation of powers is really important, and the
rationale behind the whole of these proposals does not exist, because
it is based on a complete misunderstanding of what happens on the
ground.
Christine
Ryan:
It might be helpful if I just make a
distinction between the registration function and inspection.
Registration occurs when schools want to set up as independent schools.
Now, they must be registered with the Department, and that means they
apply to be registered as independent schools. They then have an
initial inspection to check their suitability to operate as independent
schools.
The
inspection function is one that occurs routinely on a rolling programme
and that inspection function is not carried out by the Department or
the regulator. Inspection is carried out either by Ofsted for
independent schools, or by ISI for the vast majority of the children in
independent schools, or by another approved inspectorate that looks
after schools that are members of the Focus Learning Trust—I
think there are 26 members at the moment. There is a distinction
between what happens now with the Department, which is the body by
which schools register, the regulator, and the interpreter of the
regulations for the inspectorates, and what happens in terms of
inspection and ongoing inspection—the quality assurance side of
what happens on a routine basis on the rolling programme for all the
schools. Those two things are quite
different.
Q
192
Mr.
Gibb:
But even after these proposals come in, the
inspection role will still be separate because you will carry out the
inspection of ISC schools, not
Ofsted.
Christine
Ryan:
That is
right.
Q
193
Mr.
Gibb:
Is there really a big difference between registered
with the Department and being registered with
Ofsted?
Christine
Ryan:
Well, I think there are two things here. One is
that a lot of the thrust of the proposals repeats the desire to create
a single unified strand of registration, regulation and inspection. Now
of course that will only occur—if the proposals are put in
place—for independent schools inspected by Ofsted, which have
only 20 per cent of the pupils educated in
independent schools. The vast majority of them will
still be inspected by the ISI. So even if the proposals come in, you
will not have a single unified strand of registration, regulation and
inspection; you will still have a division across two bodies. One of
the thrusts of these proposals reflects the desire to create a unified
body, but that will not occur, because they will still be inspected
either by ISI, or by the Focus Learning Trust, or any other approved
inspectorate that comes forward in the
future.
Why does
it matter which body is acting as the regulator? At
the moment, of course, as an inspectorate, we liaise with and have very
good links with the independent schools team in the Department. One of
the very important functions that we carry out is to check on
regulatory compliance of independent schools. The regulations—as
is the nature of the beast—are often open to some
interpretation. If a school challenges whether or not regulatory
compliance is there or not and we want to be sure, we can go to the
Department and we agree a decision on interpretation, say, of
regulations on a particular matter.
That link and that contact with
the Department works very smoothly—it has a dedicated team who
know our system very well. Ofsted is already having to cope with a very
large number of changes from the other duties it has taken on. If this
transfer happens now, we are concerned about the loss of that
communication. We often deal with problems that are happening in real
time—while inspections are going on, perhaps. It is crucial that
you are able to liaise properly with the regulator, so that you are
giving correct information to schools and that you are supporting
inspectors who are out in the
field.
The
Chairman:
May I remind colleagues and witnesses that,
unfortunately, we only have 40 minutes for this session, with quite a
lot of Members who would like to ask
questions?
Q
194
Mr.
Gibb:
Were you consulted by the
Government on these proposals before they were firmed up? Are you happy
with your relationship with officials at the Department for Children,
Schools and Families? Would you be able, if it were thought desirable,
to inspect all the independent schools other than the Focus Learning
Trust schools, as a way of unifying the
process?
Jonathan
Shephard:
If I may, I will answer the first question,
on consultation. It is quite clear that the consultation did not follow
Cabinet office guidelines in that ISI, an important stakeholder, was
not consulted as it should have been, in advance of the consultation
going out. It is also fairly clear that almost immediately after the
consultation ended, the Bill came to the Commons. In my view, it was
not genuine and transparent consultation.
Christine
Ryan:
The simple answer to your first question about
whether we were consulted prior to the formal consultation is,
no.
We are very happy
with our liaison with the Department. We find it to be excellent in its
dealings with us.
In
answer to your third question about whether we would be able to inspect
all independent schools, we have the capability to inspect all types of
independent
schools now, and we do so. We deal with everything from 0 to 18-plus
provision and a range of different types of school, both in the UK and
overseas. I would not see any problem there, so long as we have
sufficient time to prepare.
Q
195
Mr.
David Laws (Yeovil) (LD): In some of your written
evidence, there is a suggestion that some of the concerns about
Ofsted’s greater involvement are down to what is described as a
one-size-fits-all approach that might not be suitable for independent
schools. Could you say a little more about those concerns and how they
might impact on the ground in terms of their effect on the
schools?
Jonathan
Shephard:
Christine is the expert on this, so I shall
give a very brief answer. There is a concern about creeping regulation
and Ofsted-isation. The management standard, which came completely out
of the blue, is particularly worrying because, if you have Ofsted
imposing a management standard on all independent schools, then the way
in which the schools are run will tend to conform with that standard.
You may or may not like independent schools—there are perfectly
valid views held on either side—but they do educate children at
all levels of ability in a very good, effective and workmanlike way.
They do that because they are able to be flexible and responsive and
they have to answer to three demanding constituencies: parents,
children and universities. If you get a one-size-fits-all, increasingly
prescriptive manner from Ofsted, which is beginning to set criteria for
qualifications of staff, you may lose that flexibility and independence
and that is a very serious
worry.
Christine
Ryan:
In terms of the one-size-fits-all approach, it
is important that people are aware of the difference between the two
approaches to inspection. Ofsted’s remit on inspection has
changed over the years as schools have matured in the inspection
process, and as Ofsted has taken on different roles. Whereas Ofsted and
ISI inspections were at one time very similar in what they did, they
are now quite different. Ofsted has transferred a lot of the things
that used to happen on inspection out to other bodies, such as local
authorities, regional inspection service providers and so on. ISI still
has an inspection set-up where school improvement is an integral part
of the inspection process.
Both Ofsted and ISI carry out
checks for regulatory compliance—we check schools’
compliance with the independent schools standards, so we both do the
regulatory bit. Ofsted does not do a great deal beyond the regulatory
sections because they are dealing with a whole range of schools, not
just those in the independent sector. However, our inspections are
specifically tailored to the very varied set-ups that we find in the
independent group. The starting point, for example, for an ISI
inspection is the particular aims of the school, so one of the things
that we judge schools against are their own aims—what it is that
they claim to do. Judgments will be made in the report, so that parents
can see whether the school is fulfilling what it claims to
offering.
Q
196
Mr.
Laws:
So, you see the change as, in some
sense, running the risk of compromising the independence of the sector.
Is that right?
Jonathan
Shephard:
I think that that is exactly right. Parents
are entitled as a human right to educate their
children out of the control of the state. You are getting towards a
difficult line that might be crossed in the
future.
Q
197
Mr.
Laws:
Can I ask one final question? There is a section in
the Bill dealing with the removal of the section 347 approval
mechanism. That sounds like an unusual—in the perception of
Opposition parties—Government move to pass downwards from
central Government to local authorities to give them the power of
judging which special schools are the right setting for individual
youngsters. When I read that I thought that it must be a good thing,
but you are concerned about it. Why are you worried about that
change?
Jonathan
Shephard:
It puts a huge burden on every individual
local authority to have the ability to judge the level and quality of
provision in schools against a whole range of special educational
needs.
Christine
Ryan:
From an inspectorate point of view, my main
concern is a procedural one. At the moment, it is very clear that if
independent schools—even if they are members of the ISC, which
would normally fall under our remit—have approved status, they
are by definition inspected by Ofsted. It is very straightforward: even
if they are ISC schools, if they have approved status, they are
inspected by Ofsted. We all know where we are with that. Once the
approved status is removed, my concern, from an inspection point of
view, is that there may be schools in that category where it is not
clear who should be their inspectorate. For my part, I would say that
it needs to be clearly defined.
The Bill talks about schools
that have children who are statemented, but it needs to be very
specific about where the trigger point is—when the school
becomes one that needs to be inspected by Ofsted because it is like the
former approved-status schools, or when it becomes a school that needs
to be inspected by the ISI.
First, can
you tell me what proportion if independent schools are affiliated to
the ISC? Your evidence gives numbers of pupils, but not the proportion
of independent schools. In the past, say, five years, how many
institutions have been set up, registered and immediately affiliated to
the ISC through its various member
organizations?
Jonathan
Shephard:
The definition of independent school is any
independent institution educating five or more children or any one
child with special educational needs, so there is a large number of
schools that would not be recognised by a member of the public as being
a school, but could be quite a large school under that term. We have in
our membership schools in England that educate north of 80 per cent. of
the pupils, so we cover the great
majority.
Christine
Ryan:
May I help? The Department for Children,
Schools and Families have very helpfully produced some fresh figures
this week. They cite that there are 1,123 independent schools inspected
by Ofsted, 1,153 by ISI, and 26 are inspected for the Focus Learning
Trust by the School Inspection Service.
Jonathan
Shephard:
The answer to the second part of your
question on whether schools can be set up and immediately come into ISC
membership is no. I am not aware of any example where that has
happened.
Christine
Ryan:
No, it is quite a lengthy process by which they
need to be first accepted for inspection by an association, and only
when they successfully meet the inspection standards are they admitted
into membership of the association.
Q
198
Jim
Knight:
Obviously you have procedures in place to ensure
that your members are of a high quality and that is very important. I
am interested in why you have concerns about a registration process
going to Ofsted which does not really affect your members. Your members
are registered and operating as independent schools for some time
before they then become members of the ISC and become inspected by
ISI.
Christine
Ryan:
It is really the same point as we made at the
beginning on registration and regulation. Regulation is the thing that
concerns me from an inspection point of view—being able to have
a smooth, transparent system, good communications, proper liaison, and
proper support of the inspectorate’s work, with that separation
of the body that will ultimately sit in judgment on the quality of the
inspections taking advice from Ofsted. I am concerned about all of that
being rolled into one
body.
Q
199
Jim
Knight:
Do you currently have a
relationship with Ofsted as an inspectorate? Do they quality assure you
at the
moment?
Christine
Ryan:
Yes. We have a standing agreement with the
Secretary of State, through the Department. Ofsted has a requirement on
it to monitor the quality of our inspections and our reports, as to
whether or not they comply with that
agreement.
Q
200
Jim
Knight:
Exactly how will that change under this
legislation? What clauses will change that relationship around the
quality assurance of your
inspectorate?
Christine
Ryan:
The agreement is itself set
up between the inspectorate and the Department. The Department sets the
terms of the agreement, because it is the regulator, and we are judged
against compliance with that agreement with the Department. If you have
a situation where Ofsted is the regulator, Ofsted will set the terms of
the agreement; it will also be monitoring our compliance with that
agreement. Suddenly you are not dealing in the independent way you were
previously. At the moment, Ofsted monitors on behalf of the Department,
and publishes a report. Any debate or dispute there might be about
Ofsted’s findings on its judgments of ISI will ultimately go to
the Department, and the Department will resolve those disputes. There
is no obvious proposal on how that will change in the
future.
Q
201
Jim
Knight:
Can I just ask one final question? Mr.
Shephard, you said you had concerns about consultation, do you recall a
DCSF official, Penny Jones, writing to you on May 9 2006 about the
transfer
of functions, setting out in outline what is contained in the Bill? Do
you recall further conversations over the following 12 months to
explain why we had not had an opportunity to legislate according to the
terms set out in that
letter?
Jonathan
Shephard:
I have spoken to Penny and I do know there
were discussions. The body that should have been consulted was ISI, and
that did not
happen.
Jonathan
Shephard:
They are separate corporate bodies. We do
consult. What you are saying to me in effect is that we were told about
all this and we were properly consulted. I have enormous respect for
Penny Jones and we have a very good working relationship. However, I am
afraid it did not get through. Maybe it did not get through to my thick
head, in which case I am sorry, but it did not get through. We did not
recognise the seriousness of what was being
proposed.
Q
203
Nia
Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): May I declare an interest? I am
a former Estyn inspector, Estyn being the Ofsted-equivalent in
Wales.
I am somewhat
concerned at the negative tone of your comments about Ofsted. It almost
suggests that you have something to hide. I would have thought you
would be proud to take part in the same inspection regime as other
schools and bodies across the UK, and I wonder what advantage you see
in remaining
separate.
Christine
Ryan:
There is not a negative agenda regarding
Ofsted as far as I am concerned. I am a former Ofsted inspector myself,
so there is no agenda of that type at all. I have given responses to a
consultation document and I can only give truthful responses to the
things laid out in that consultation. The fact that there are things in
there that are factually incorrect is not something that that I can
fail to do anything about: I must respond to those things, and I must
respond to them properly.
As for our relationship with
Ofsted, we have quite a good working relationship with it on many
levels and that goes back to ISI’s creation. We discuss with it
issues that it finds when it monitors our schools. Those things are not
part of the formal reporting, but I am always happy to hear about them.
There is no issue with Ofsted per se; the difficulties are with the
consultation document, its layout and the premise on which it is based,
given our recent experience of having to deal and liaise with Ofsted on
other matters such as the transfer of boarding welfare. In reality, the
experience of late has not been great, and it is acknowledged by both
Ofsted and the Department that such communications have not been of the
quality that they would have liked.
Christine
Ryan:
We are doing so. We have now established more
regular meetings, and are trying to establish points of contact with
Ofsted. However, it is in a state of flux so officials are doing what
they can at the moment.
Q
205
Nia
Griffith:
What impression of transparency does it give the
general public if you are trying to avoid interaction with
Ofsted?
Christine
Ryan:
I do not see how we are in any way trying to
avoid interaction with Ofsted, which monitors a high proportion of our
inspections, reports on all of them and publishes an annual report that
is open and easily accessed by any member of the public. We work with
Ofsted, and we have joint working agreements and so on with it, so
there is no reluctance or lack of transparency in what we do. Our
framework for inspection is also a public document, as are all the
guidance notes. There is nothing hidden.
Jonathan
Shephard:
Can I just come in quickly here? Quite
recently, in the last few weeks, there was a very useful meeting with
Ofsted. I was there, so was Christine and, importantly, so was DCSF. It
is very important and healthy to have DCSF in the room, as it were, as
a referee. We would like to continue that.
The
Chairman:
Before I turn to Oliver Heald, may I tell
colleagues that although we want this discussion to range as widely as
necessary to inform later discussion of the Bill, the questions and
answers ought to focus on provisions in the
Bill.
Q
206
Mr.
Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Under
clause 89, there is a power to deregister an independent school that
makes an unapproved material change in its provision. That would
probably follow some form of inspection or peer review of what had been
the opinion of the Independent Schools Inspectorate when looking at
that school. Is that your concern? Ofsted’s role is to review
what the ISI does—to inspect and, in a sense, to
investigate—and it is quite right for Ofsted then to produce a
report setting out its views. For probably 99 per cent. of the time,
you would have no disagreement, yet there will be genuine disagreement
in a tiny proportion of cases—perhaps 1 per cent. or less. Is it
right in those circumstances for Ofsted to be the judge of those
matters?
Jonathan
Shephard:
I think it is exactly right that the
proportion of disagreements will be small. We have a lot of respect for
Ofsted, which monitors ISI inspections, but in the end we would like
DCSF to be the referee and Ofsted not to be judge and
jury.
Q
207
Mr.
Heald:
Is it an important matter to you because of the
ultimate consequences of the decisions that Ofsted could take in those
circumstances?
Jonathan
Shephard:
Indeed.
Q
208
Mr.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool, South) (Lab): Mr.
Shephard, you said earlier that you were concerned about Ofsted taking
that position, because it had a lot of responsibilities and was
over-egging the pudding—I think Christine Ryan assented to
that—and that might create the impression of Government
interference in the independent sector. Is that an accurate summary of
what you said?
Jonathan
Shephard:
Pretty much. We have
absolutely no problem with our schools complying with regulations on
safety and so on. We are looking for independence of management within
a regulatory standard.
Q
209
Mr.
Marsden:
I just wanted to get that on the record.
Commenting on the Ofsted proposals to the Children, Schools, and
Families Committee, Ofsted’s director of education, Miriam
Rosen, said:
“We do not see this as a
very big addition to our
workload.”
That
would seem, would it not, to rule out, or at least to question, your
concerns that Ofsted is going to be overloaded in this
process?
9.30
am
Jonathan
Shephard:
Ofsted is, at the moment, having trouble
with its workload and the Select Committee that
preceded the Children, Schools and Families Committee made such a
comment when looking at Ofsted.
Jonathan
Shephard:
Yes, although that is a second-order issue.
The major point is one of principle: you should not combine regulation
and inspection in the same
person.
Christine
Ryan:
I do not think that this is always going to be
a problem. All I can talk about is our recent experience to date. We
have, in particular, experienced difficulties over the transfer of
boarding welfare and what has happened in terms of agreements not being
adhered to or even recognised. We have had difficulty with
communications,
too.
Q
211
Mr.
Marsden:
The clauses on which the Minister has just
commented on, do not, as far as I can see, give Ofsted any new powers
in terms of interference, recommending improvement or making the sorts
of comments that they make on schools in the state sector. They merely
establish a base line for schools to be examined. Is that not the
case?
Christine
Ryan:
It partly depends on what base line is being
used. May I give you an example of what happens at
the moment? There are different sets of regulations that affect
independent schools. There are three sets of different standards:
regulations; independent schools standards regulations; and the
standards relating to boarding welfare and so on. The way in which
those regulations are interpreted on the ground in inspection is
slightly different depending on whether you are looking at it from a
boarding welfare inspection point of view or an education inspection
point of view. At the moment, you can have two different teams in the
same school, one inspecting boarding welfare and one inspecting
education. Each team is looking at different sets of regulations and
coming to different conclusions about the same sort of provision. That
cannot be a good idea.
If the regulator who sets those
regulations is the body that does one side of the inspection and not
another, that raises questions in your mind about which decision and
view needs to be interpreted and take precedence. At the moment, the
Department sorts those things out. From an inspectorate point of view,
I would want it to be very clear where things were and how things
happened.
Q
212
Mr.
Marsden:
Okay, but in principle, if that clarity were
obtained that would be something you could live with, would it
not?
Jonathan
Shephard:
The management standard that is being
proposed is quite a serious concern. There is a real example of Ofsted
specifying qualifications for early-years settings, which is causing
trouble.
Q
213
Mr.
Marsden:
One final point for you, Mr. Shephard.
You have made very specific points, but in previous comments, not least
to my colleague, Nia Griffith, you have taken a rather broad brush
approach and—I would agree with my colleague—a rather
negative view of the proposals are in the Bill. Is it not somewhat
unfortunate that this comes at a time when you are also being extremely
negative about the Charity Commission’s proposals on independent
schools? Does not create the impression that you are intending to avoid
and want to evade any
responsibility—
Q
214
Mr.
Marsden:
They are relevant, Mr. Bayley, in the
sense that Mr. Shephard has expressed concerns across the
whole spectrum of the Government’s attitude, so I am praying the
proposals in aid as an
example.
Jonathan
Shephard:
We issued a press release only last
week welcoming the Charity Commission’s new guidance on public
benefit, saying that the organisation has engaged in genuine
consultation and so on. We have a very good and constructive dialogue
with the Charity Commission and there is a lot of mutual
respect.
We are not negative at
all; we have gone out of our way to say that we want schools to deliver
public benefit and so on. I also do not think that it is negative to
say that proposed legislation should be based on fact rather than
fiction.
Q
215
Mr.
John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): Two
mercifully brief questions. No sensible Minister or reasonable
Government would have made these proposals without evidence that the
current system is not working. What is the evidence—ideally
independent evidence—that the current arrangements are
failing?
Jonathan
Shephard:
None at all, I
think.
Christine
Ryan:
In terms of the inspections of ISC schools by
the ISI, the last annual report indicated that all our inspections were
of good quality. None of the schools that we inspected were found to
have unsatisfactory leadership and management. There are always areas
in which we can suggest improvement.
Independent school inspectors
already inspect and report on governance, leadership and management;
that is an integral part of our inspection. Of the schools we have
inspected, none in the past two years under the current cycle of
inspection have had unsatisfactory management and
leadership.
Q
216
Mr.
Hayes:
You have spoken very positively about the
relationship with Ofsted and the Department and, indeed, you have
answered questions in a positive way. Are you really saying that there
is no empirical, evidential base for this proposal—that the
current arrangements work, and that you do not understand why this is
being suggested?
Christine
Ryan:
From our point of view as an inspectorate, the
current arrangements work very well. The schools that we inspect are
generally of a good standard. We have rigorous systems in place to pick
out any weaknesses in those schools and systems in place to address
those weaknesses—including weaknesses of governance and
management.
Q
217
Mr.
Gibb:
People are allowed to criticise Government
proposals, however unfortunate some Labour MPs think criticism is. But
may I just ask who registers and monitors the maintained sector at the
moment?
Christine
Ryan:
The
DCSF.
Christine
Ryan:
Well, unless the position is to move that as
well.
Q
219
Mr.
Gibb:
We can question Ministers about that later. May I
just ask about some incorrect facts in the consultation document? In
the first consultation document that came out in July 2007, it
says
“The
recent transfer of welfare inspection from the Commission for Social
Care Inspection (CSCI) to Ofsted has brought registration and
inspection of boarding welfare into Ofsted, to support the unified
arrangements for early years
provision.”
Is
it correct that this brought in the inspection and registration of
boarding
welfare?
Christine
Ryan:
Of boarding welfare? No, it did not. It just
brought in the inspection of boarding welfare. The regulatory impact
assessment also says registration and regulation was transferred, and
it was not. Only the inspection of boarding welfare was transferred
from CFCI to Ofsted. Registration and regulation remain with the
Department.
Q
220
Jim
Knight:
I do not disagree with the high quality of the
membership of the ISC and those inspected by the ISI, but you said
earlier that you inspect about half of independent schools. Are you
aware of any quality issues that these measures might address in the
rest of the independent sector, that you do not inspect
yourselves?
Christine
Ryan:
Only anecdotally. I do not have any facts or
figures. I have it only anecdotally that a very small number of
non-association independent schools are difficult in that, because
there is not a management regulation, there is difficulty in tackling
some of the long-standing problems. But as I say, the anecdotal
evidence to me is that this is a very tiny number of
schools.
The
Chairman:
I would like to thank both of our witnesses for
attending and giving evidence. We are grateful to
you.
Mr.
Heald:
On a point of order, Mr. Bayley. If it
is right that there is a mistake in the regulatory impact
assessment—and given that a lot of people who are not in this
room are obviously following our proceedings—should the
Government not issue an amending document? Even if it is only a short
one—it can be released and put on the website and so
on—it will make people aware that there is an
error.
The
Chairman:
The question of whether there is a factual
inaccuracy in the regulatory impact assessment is a matter for debate.
I am sure colleagues will debate it during the passage of the Bill, but
it is not a matter for the Chair to rule.
Mr.
Heald:
Further to that point of order, Mr.
Bayley. If the Minister is saying that there is not a mistake, I fully
accept that he would not wish to issue a memorandum. However, I cannot
think that an experienced Minister would not wish to put out a
memorandum correcting something that is wrong. It would be interesting
to know what the Minister’s position
is.
The
Chairman:
No, I do not think I am going to take any more
on that. What I have heard so far makes it perfectly clear that this is
a matter for debate rather than for the Chair, and I do not want to eat
into the time of our second set of witnesses.
May I welcome Miriam Rosen, the
Director of Education in the Office for Standards in Education,
Children’s Services and Skills, and Roger Shippam, the Deputy
Director? I turn first to Mr. Gibb to ask a
question.
Q
221
Mr.
Gibb:
Thank you for coming in to give evidence. Can I ask
who currently registers and monitors maintained schools in this
country?
Miriam
Rosen:
The register of maintained schools is held by
the Department. The inspection of maintained schools is conducted by
Ofsted.
Q
222
Mr.
Gibb:
Yes, it is the registration and monitoring that I am
concerned about, because that is the issue in the Bill. Do you know why
there are proposals to transfer only the ISC schools registration
monitoring to Ofsted? Did you ask for this
proposal?
Miriam
Rosen:
We did not ask for it. The
Department asked us if we would take on the registration of independent
schools and we agreed to do so. You may be aware that we are already
the regulator for the early years sector—we inspect and regulate
it. That has worked very well so it seemed to us that it fitted well
with other work that we do. We also felt that there would be efficiency
gains, because at the moment, in the registration process for
independent schools, the Department always relies on our advice through
inspection as to whether or not we should register. So, if we were
giving ourselves the advice, as it were, that would cut out some
paperwork and bureaucracy. We saw it as efficiency in deregulatory
work.
Q
223
Mr.
Gibb:
So you think that there are going to be efficiency
gains. I therefore take it, since you have made that statement to the
Committee, that you have done an estimate of what it will cost you in
terms of staff to run the registration monitoring of the ISC
schools?
Miriam
Rosen:
Can I just point out that the registration
would be of all independent schools, and not just the ISC schools? The
idea is to transfer all the registration across to us. We are still
discussing costs with the Department, but at the moment, if the school
applies to be registered to the Department and it asks us to inspect,
then we go and inspect prior to that registration taking
place.
Q
224
Mr.
Gibb:
Yes, but you just said to me, and to the Committee,
that this would deliver efficiency savings by transferring the
registration and monitoring of independent schools to Ofsted. I just
asked you whether you have done a cost analysis of that and you said,
no you have not, you are still working on it. On what basis have you
made the assertion that this is going to be more efficient?
Miriam
Rosen:
Because we would not have to talk to the
Department. The Department would not have to ask us to make the
registration visit and we would not have to go back to it—it
would be in one place.
Q
225
Mr.
Gibb:
How many members of staff would you need to run the
registration and monitoring of the independent
sector?
Miriam
Rosen:
We are still working on the exact numbers. I
am not quite sure exactly what numbers we will need to transfer to us,
to do that work. We think it will be about 10. Do you have further
information on that
Roger?
Roger
Shippam:
We are working on a presumption of somewhere
between seven and 12. In terms of the efficiencies, Ofsted already does
a number of the sorts of functions we are talking about in relation to
early years child care—as Miriam has already said. We are
therefore confident that there will be economies of scale in that we
will be taking on some additional work that will add to that
work.
Q
226
Mr.
Gibb:
So are you happy for me to table PQs in a
year’s time, and then a year after that, asking what staff
levels you are using to perform this function? Can we back up your
word, that you are giving to us now, perhaps with a National Audit
Office inquiry, or perhaps some PQs asking what this level of staffing
will
be?
Miriam
Rosen:
We would be happy to look again at staffing.
We did not request to take on this work, but we were asked to do so and
we could see that it made
sense.
Q
227
Mr.
Laws:
May I start by asking you whether you think the
existing system of regulation and inspection of independent schools is
deficient in any
way?
Miriam
Rosen:
No, we consider that it works satisfactorily
at the moment.
Q
228
Mr.
Laws:
Thank you, that is very clear. On the point that Mr
Gibb was asking you about, the whole costs and the net value of all
these changes, there are some figures that the Government has produced
which appear to imply a net cost from these changes. Taking the impact
on your own costs, the independent sector and the other affected
bodies, such as local authorities, are you confident that this will
save money, or will it, as implied, have a modest net
cost?
Miriam
Rosen:
I cannot answer that question, I am afraid. I
do not know the exact costs because we are still working on them with
the
Department.
Miriam
Rosen:
I doubt that it would have a net cost in
totality. When we agreed to take on the work, we did say that as it was
extra work we would clearly need to be funded for it, and that was
agreed. We are still discussing with the Department exactly what funds
we need for
it.
Q
230
Mr.
Laws:
In the regulatory impact assessment, when it lists
the benefits of all these changes, it says
that:
“one of the
benefits would be improved standards for pupils in independent
schools”.
Is there, in
your view, any evidence for that
statement?
Miriam
Rosen:
We are content with the inspection
arrangements that go on at the moment for independent
schools.
Roger
Shippam:
Perhaps I might reflect that Ofsted’s
strategic policy actually specifies that we intend to bring about
improvements in all sectors that we work in and therefore I think that
statement is saying that that would be our intention, to secure
improvement in any aspect of the work we do, including this piece of
work.
Q
232
Jim
Knight:
So drawing on your experience of work in
independent schools—and clearly you do not inspect all
independent schools, because some have their own
inspectorates—will you tell the Committee what type of
independent schools need the most
scrutiny?
Miriam
Rosen:
Those independent schools that need the most
scrutiny are those which do not belong to one of the affiliated
associations such as the Independent Schools Council. They are often
very small ones, ones which have difficulty in meeting all the
regulations. A particular type of independent provision that sometimes
has difficulty are children’s homes that provide education as
well as care. Some of them are catering for children with special
educational needs. These are the sorts of schools that have most
problems. Last year we had only 6 per cent. of the schools that we
inspect that did not meet quite a proportion of the standards, but
obviously, we are concerned about that 6 per
cent.
Q
233
Jim
Knight:
In the long term, if these measures go through, do
you think you will be able to integrate boarding, education and child
care registration and inspection better for those institutions that
have two or more different types of provision?
Miriam
Rosen:
Certainly we think we can do that. For the
institutions that do not belong to the Independent Schools Council,
they would have one inspection body looking at child care, education
and welfare. Obviously we are harmonising those inspections at the
moment because the boarding inspections only came over to us in April.
Those that the ISI inspects, we are also working with them to make sure
that, for example, boarding and education inspections could go on
perhaps at the same time. So we are trying to harmonise all our
arrangements.
Q
234
Jim
Knight:
Obviously a lot of the debate around these
sections is informed by the concerns we have just heard from the ISI
and the ISC. How do you see your relationship changing with the
independent inspectorates and the large organisations such as the
ISC?
Miriam
Rosen:
We do not think that it would change very much
at all. When we brought the inspection of welfare over from CSCI, we
started to have more frequent meetings—we needed to—and
that will continue. We have a good relationship and we do not see big
changes there.
Q
235
Mr.
Heald:
Obviously, most of the time you see eye to eye with
the ISI and there is no problem. In a case where you do disagree about
an issue, should you be the judge of it? Should you be the final
arbiter in Ofsted, or should it continue to go to the Department, so
that there is some independent mechanism for resolving it? Obviously,
it will not happen very often, but it did strike me that it does not
seem fair that on occasions where you two have a disagreement about
something you should decide it. It seems unfair.
Miriam
Rosen:
We have not had instances of disagreement that
we can remember. Should one come about, we have a complaints procedure
and there would be an appeal procedure.
Roger
Shippam:
We are talking to the
Department about extending the remit of the Independent Complaints
Adjudicator for Ofsted, who is appointed by the Department, not by
Ofsted. Currently, their remit does not extend to that type of
complaint, but we see it as a logical
extension.
Roger
Shippam:
Yes.
Q
238
Jim
Knight:
In your last answer to me we talked a little about
how your relationship with the larger, more established independent
schools affiliated through the ISC would not largely change. What about
the smaller non-affiliated independent schools? Do you see any changes
for them as a result of the
measures?
Miriam
Rosen:
There would be changes for them, because they
would not need to deal with both the Department and Ofsted as they do
at the moment. They would just be dealing with Ofsted, which would
conduct the registration visits.
Miriam
Rosen:
We always hope to drive up quality. At the
moment, if an institution does not meet the standards, we would go back
in and monitor to bring about improvements in quality. That is the
whole point in it. If institutions cannot make the improvements, they
are eventually de-registered. So, yes, we would hope to see
improvements in quality.
Q
240
Jim
Knight:
Finally—unless there is more time later on,
because I can carry on for a while if you like, Mr.
Bayley—because there is concern around the independent
inspectorates, can you outline for us what your current role is in
quality assurance and whether there is anything in the Bill that would
change the nature of that quality
assurance?
Miriam
Rosen:
Currently, we quality assure in a
proportionate way: for example, we only monitor a small proportion of
the ISI inspections; it is a well-established inspectorate. Last year,
that was 10 per cent. of inspections and about 15 per cent. of reports.
We also looked at some of their quality assurance mechanisms. Our
report was based on that. We monitored more of the inspections of the
Schools Inspection Service, which inspects for the Focus Learning
Trust. We made sure that we monitored all of its lead inspectors, for
example, because they were a new inspectorate. So we take, and will
continue to take, a proportionate approach. As I understand it, the
point of the Bill is to give public assurance that any inspectorate set
up to inspect independent schools is providing a good service and is
inspecting at the required standard. We would provide that by our
monitoring.
Q
241
Mr.
Gibb:
The regulatory impact assessment referred to
by Mr. Laws says that independent schools will benefit from
only dealing with Ofsted. Presumably, that is not true, is it?
Independent schools will also continue to deal with the ISI.
Miriam
Rosen:
But that would be true for those schools that
are not affiliated to one of the
associations.
Miriam
Rosen:
It is correct for the schools that are not
affiliated, but schools affiliated to the ISC would continue to work
with it as well.
Q
243
Mr.
Gibb:
So the whole process seems to be riddled with
errors. Does it not concern you that we are basing our proposal on
untrue facts?
Miriam
Rosen:
It is unfortunate that some errors are in
there. I do not think that the whole thing is based on
errors.
Q
244
Mr.
Gibb:
Okay. In terms of boarding
provision, that is currently inspected by CSCI, but that provision is
coming over to you. Where does CSCI get its inspectors and expertise
from to take the boarding provision inspections?
Miriam
Rosen:
May I point out that it already came over in
April?
Miriam
Rosen:
So, the welfare inspectors are with us
now.
Miriam
Rosen:
Well, they are now inspectors of welfare and
care within Ofsted.
Jim
Knight:
On measures in the Bill, I have no more questions.
There is clearly much debate that we could have on things outside the
Bill; incidentally, while I have the opportunity, if there are factual
errors in the RIA, I would obviously seek to correct them for the
Committee.
Q
246
Mr.
Laws:
May I ask one final question? At the beginning, I
was asking whether there was anything wrong with the existing system,
and you were not very critical of it. Would there be savings? We were
not really clear about that. Would it definitely drive up standards?
That was ambiguous. All that did not seem to make a strong case for
this change. If this part of the Bill did not actually go through,
would you be terribly worried about the implications for the standards
and inspection of the independent sector?
Miriam
Rosen:
There are no changes with regard to the
inspection of the independent sector. The changes regard registration
and, as we have said, it is working satisfactorily at present. We can
see that working perfectly well if the changes went through as well. At
the moment, the Department has to ask us to do a lot of registration
visits; this would mean that those would not have to take
place.
Q
247
Mr.
Laws:
But you could live with it either way? It does not
sound like you are passionately in favour of or against it.
Miriam
Rosen:
We could live with it either way, but we are
perfectly happy to take it on.
Q
248
Mr.
Hayes:
By way of respite, I am going to change the subject
to another part of the Bill. You report that only 45 per cent. of
pupils are gaining five or more GCSEs at A to C grade, including
English and Maths. What implications does that have for their readiness
to begin apprenticeships?
Miriam
Rosen:
I am not sure that I see your
point.
Q
249
Mr.
Hayes:
Then let me remind you: in your evidence to the
House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, which looks at these
matters, Ofsted said that there
are
“in total probably in
the region of 300,000 16-19 year olds not really ready to start
apprenticeships”.
Do you
stand by that?
Miriam
Rosen:
That is not really within the education
directorate’s brief. I am sure that we would stand by that if we
said it, but we came today to answer on part 4 of the
Bill.
Q
250
Mr.
Hayes:
My point is that if a 16-year-old has not gained
sufficient core skills, it is unlikely that they would be able to start
an apprenticeship, which is precisely what you said to the House of
Lords Committee that was looking at those matters.
Miriam
Rosen:
In that case, we stand by it. I am sorry, but
I have not read through all that evidence before coming
here.
Q
251
Mr.
Hayes:
Well then, moving on to something entirely
different, when did you last inspect Connexions?
Miriam
Rosen:
That would be a few years
ago.
Miriam
Rosen:
I am sorry, I do not know
exactly.
Mr.
Hayes:
Well, according again to the evidence that you gave
the Select Committee, you have not inspected Connexions since
2004—there has been no proper oversight of Connexions since
then.
Jim
Knight:
On a point of order, Mr. Bayley. I seek
your guidance. On what basis were the witnesses invited to come and
give evidence to the Committee? If it was made clear to them that they
would give evidence on one part of the Bill, is it reasonable to
question them on parts for which they have not
prepared?
The
Chairman:
It is reasonable to question witnesses on any
part of the Bill, but it is also perfectly reasonable for them to say
that they do not work in that area and that they are unable to
comment.
Q
253
Mr.
Hayes:
In essence, when you gave evidence to the House of
Lords Economic Affairs Committee, you said that there
“has been no proper oversight of
Connexions...since
2004.”
How can we have
any confidence in the Connexions service when it has not been inspected
since
2004?
Miriam
Rosen:
Again, this is not the bit that we came
prepared to answer. If we were asked to inspect Connexions, we could
obviously consider doing that.
Q
254
Mr.
Gibb:
Can we just go back to part 4 of the Bill and the
independent education institutions about which you have concerns? My
understanding is that there are concerns about just four settings. In a
parliamentary question that I asked the Minister, I said that those
four unregistered settings
were:
“a small tuition
group which...operates for five hours a day for up to 20 children;
a support centre for home educators...an establishment providing
161/2 hours of education from Monday to Friday for three to
six-year-olds”
and,
fourthly,
“a centre
educating both pupils placed by local authorities and others.”
—[Official Report, 16 January 2008; Vol. 470, c.
1269W.]
Are those institutions
that you have inspected?
Miriam
Rosen:
No, they are not. The point is that they are
not registered as independent schools, because they do not satisfy the
criteria for independent schools at the
moment.
Miriam
Rosen:
That is right. They are not inspected under
any regime at the moment.
Q
256
Mr.
Gibb:
Could we not have found a way around this problem
without the whole paraphernalia of the provisions in part 4 of the
Bill?
Miriam
Rosen:
We have no locus to inspect
them.
Q
257
Mr.
Gibb:
No, but could we not find a way that did not involve
transferring the registration of 50.1 per cent. of independent schools
and 80 per cent. of the pupils educated in the independent
sector?
Miriam
Rosen:
I think they are unrelated points. The whole
point is that these institutions are not registered, so the transfer of
the registration has nothing to do with that—it is about the
definition of an independent school.
Miriam
Rosen:
We could tackle them only if they were
registered as independent schools. If they were
registered, we could inspect them. As unregistered provision, we cannot
inspect them at the moment.
Miriam
Rosen:
We cannot at the moment.
Roger
Shippam:
May I just clarify that?
We cannot inspect them under the section 162 inspection regime, which
is the regime that we apply to those independent schools that we
inspect. However, we have right of entry to independent schools or any
schools that appear on our radar. We can go in to make initial
visits—again, in liaison with the Department—but we do
not produce a formal report in the sense that we do as part of a 162A,
which I think my colleagues is referring to. So we do not inspect those
institutions in that sense.
Roger
Shippam:
We will have been, I think—yes. I do
not know them personally, but once we are aware that any school has set
itself up to operate, either registered or unregistered, we will liaise
with the Department to make a visit to that
school.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Michael
Foster.]
Adjourned
accordingly at four minutes past Ten o’clock till this day at
One
o’clock.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 25 January 2008 |
