Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
CHRISTINE GILBERT
CBE, MICHAEL HART,
MELANIE HUNT,
VANESSA HOWLISON
AND MIRIAM
ROSEN
12 DECEMBER 2007
Q20 Chairman: Who is your top expert
in Ofsted on transition?
Christine Gilbert: An HMI (Her
Majesty's Inspector) on Miriam's team.
Miriam Rosen: May I say something
about transition from primary to secondary? We have been looking
at this for many years. In fact, there have been some improvements.
When we first looked at it, data were not transferred across.
We are now finding that they are transferred across, but use of
them is patchy.
Q21 Chairman: Often disregarded,
as Fiona says.
Miriam Rosen: Exactly. Sometimes
they are used well, but too often they are not. Nevertheless,
there has been improvement, and at least the data are getting
across. We are continuing to press this. We have raised it in
a number of reports over the years. We have also looked at the
pastoral arrangements for children in transition, which are very
much better. There are lots of ways in which schools try to ease
transition. The situation is further complicated by the fact that
some secondary schools take children from many starters—they
do not take from just three primaries but from a wide range—and
many primaries pass children on to a wide range of secondaries,
particularly in inner cities. It is much easier in rural areas.
We have tracked that over the years and will continue to do so.
Q22 Mr Stuart: Can I take you back
to an earlier central theme? We had 10 years of announcements
saying that we were making progress: each year, we heard that
there was still a lot to do, but that there had been real progress.
Ten years of compounded progress should lead to a better outcome
than we have today. Do you have a credibility gap? Can we have
another 20 years of continual progress during which we appear
to drop further down league tables and at the end of which there
seem still to be huge numbers of children, particularly the disadvantaged,
leaving primary school unable to read and write? Can you tackle
the credibility gap problem, and do you think it undermines the
opinion of Ofsted held by the public at large?
Christine Gilbert: Each time an
inspection framework is reviewed, certainly in recent history,
the bar is raised. Expectations of performance are higher than
they were 10 years ago. If you look at schools over the period
of a framework—say it is three, four or whatever number
of years—they improve. They then appear to drop again when
a new framework is introduced, and that is because the new framework
demands higher standards of those schools. It is entirely appropriate
that it does that, and we anticipate doing that again with the
new framework that we will introduce in 2009.
Q23 Mr Stuart: I am struggling to
square the fact that there are so many children without basic
literacy and numeracy skills at age 11 with 10 years of continuous
compounding progress and frameworks causing apparent lowering
each time, but only because the standard has been made even higher.
By the sound of it, we have a transformed and fantastic education
system, yet all the international comparison tables tell us another
story altogether.
Fiona Mactaggart: We have not fallen
back as far as we were when you lot were in charge.
Christine Gilbert: There have
been improvements, and performance has been raised. That is not
to say that the gap is not still too big, but there have been
improvements. I noticed this week some figures from the authority
where I was chief executive and previously director of education.
Ten years ago, 35% of its children were at the expected level
for Key Stage 2. Last week, it was 81%. That inner-city area of
great deprivation is now above the national average in performance
at that age. There have been significant improvements in different
parts of the country.
Q24 Mr Stuart: And you are confident
that that level has remained consistent, dealing with public concern
about any potential dilution of standards, and that it is genuinely
the same standard that is being met?
Christine Gilbert: That question
is probably better put to the QCA on Monday, but my impression
is that the standards are better than they were, yes.
Chairman: We move on to the next section.
Q25 Stephen Williams: I would like
to ask the Chief Inspector some questions about her introductory
remarks to the Annual Report, starting off with the whole issue
of those who are Not in Education, Employment or Training or NEETs.
The Government have set a target of reducing the number of NEETs
by 2%, from roughly 10.5% to 8.5% of the 16-18 age group. In your
commentary on page 9, you say that "making inroads in the
proportion of the age group in this category will take time".
However, the Government say they will reduce it by 2% by 2010
and then, five years later—if the Education and Skills Bill
that is coming to us in January takes effect—presumably
to zero. Do you think that that is achievable?
Christine Gilbert: I think that
the focus on this group of young people might well make it achievable.
The focus has not been there as strongly as it has been in the
last year to 18 months. I think that the range of initiatives
being discussed at the moment should engage young people more
than they have done in the past. There is more collaborative working
across organisations and agencies than there has been in the past,
so I am optimistic. People within individual institutions—schools,
colleges, employers and so on—are more sensitive than they
have been, both to this and to their responsibilities.
Q26 Stephen Williams: You also say
that the proportion has been "fairly consistent" for
the past decade. But are you more optimistic now that this area
is getting a real focus?
Christine Gilbert: Generally,
it has been my experience that if you shine a light on a particular
area, there is improvement in that area, so I am hoping that that
is what will happen here.
Q27 Stephen Williams: Obviously at
the moment you, and the Adult Learning Inspectorate, which is
now under your wing, inspect existing provision. What conclusions
have you come to as to why 16-year-olds do not stay on, given
the existing provision?
Christine Gilbert: There is a
range of issues. Most of the problem is to do with motivation,
but closely linked to that is their skills—or lack of skills—their
dissatisfaction with school as an institution, and their desire
to go off and do either something else or nothing else. There
is a whole range of issues, and I think that what the 20% figure
really means is that 20% of children not going on to secondary
school fully fluent in literacy and numeracy is still too high
a figure. A large number of those children are part of the 10%
we are seeing at 16. The point that I am labouring about literacy
is absolutely key: if children cannot read at 11, the secondary
curriculum is not easily accessible to them. A number of things
are happening in secondary schools, and secondary schools are
paying much more detailed attention to programmes of literacy
than they have done in the past, and that might hold more of those
children in. A range of things are happening in secondary schools,
including things post-16 that Melanie might want to talk about,
that will engage young people in courses, qualifications and so
on, that are meaningful to them.
Q28 Stephen Williams: You say that
from your existing inspections, it is hard to find encouragement
that this proportion of NEETs is going to be reduced, but from
what you are saying now, you appear to be more optimistic that
this will change in the future.
Christine Gilbert: As I go round
the country there are a number of things I ask people about, and
that issue is high on the agenda of many local authorities. It
is high on the Government's agenda, and it is high on our agenda,
so I think it will be possible to find more examples of things
to describe and share. One of the things that we have continued
to do post-16 is to identify areas of good practice and ensure
that they are available through the excellence gateway. That is
about sharing examples of things that work in engaging students.
Chairman: Excuse me, can I just say to
the school or college that has just come into the Public Gallery
that you are very welcome to come in and learn about the Select
Committee, but it does not help if you come in for only five minutes
in a large body and then walk out again? You will learn very little
about Select Committees in such a short time. This is a very important
session and you will learn a lot if you stay for longer. However,
you are very welcome.
Q29 Stephen Williams: Thank you,
Chairman. I will move on to ask some questions about Ofsted itself.
On page 9 of your introductory remarks in the Annual Report, your
very last sentence, Chief Inspector, says: "Ofsted itself
does not bring about improvement although it acts as a catalyst
for improvement." That is either very modest or quite an
admission. How do you assess Ofsted's impact on raising school
standards? Would you say that there is a moral purpose for Ofsted?
Christine Gilbert: We ask schools
and any settings that we regulate or inspect about the experience
for them. We hear back from them that the impact on improvement
has been significant. Where you can see the impact of Ofsted most
clearly is in those settings that are poor or inadequate. The
focused concentration in those places can bring about improvements
in quite a short time. You see it in schools in special measures,
but also in children's homes. An inspector going back again quite
soon to look at progress is a stimulus for improvement. In the
analysis that I read on the impact of special measures on schools,
head teachers identified the visit of the HMI as absolutely key
in helping schools to move forward and understand how to evaluate
their own progress more effectively.
Q30 Stephen Williams: So that is
absolutely key. Where would you place an Ofsted inspection in
a ranking of measures that could bring about a transformation
in a school, compared with good leadership, good buildings or
an exciting curriculum?
Christine Gilbert: We talk about
the overall effectiveness of a school and we identify a number
of areas that are key. I think that leadership and management
are fundamental. It is hard to have a really good school with
weak leadership and management. That is key, but so is the quality
of teaching and learning, which are more effective if the leadership
and management are effective. We assess a whole range of things
in terms of achievements, standards and progress, and all of those
things are key. A school has to know itself well. One of the things
that we are told in the research that has been done in this area
is that Ofsted has been very important in helping schools develop
their own skills of self-evaluation.
Q31 Stephen Williams: The report
this year is 120 pages long. This is not necessarily an invitation
to make it even longer next year, but do you think that it would
help if there was some critical self-assessment of Ofsted's role
in education? At the moment, there is no particular section on
how the impact of your own work is evaluated.
Christine Gilbert: We can certainly
consider putting in a section on impact. When I arrived last year,
I read a number of earlier reports and in one there was a section
on impact. I am very happy to consider whether we might put that
in.
Chairman: Professor Peter Tymms could
help you.
Q32 Stephen Williams: I have one
final question, about the word "satisfactory", in inverted
commas.
Chairman: Hansard cannot see you
doing those signals.
Stephen Williams: That is why I said
it and did it and looked at the witnesses at the same time. We
asked you about this issue before when you first appeared before
the Committee, and David Bell before you. Page 6 of your introduction
deals with the question of schools that you judged to be satisfactory
and states that, "progress in around nine out of 10 of these
schools is at least satisfactory." So they started off as
satisfactory and now in 90% of cases their progress or upward
trajectory is "at least satisfactory." What does that
mean? They are getting better, but are still not good?
Christine Gilbert: The category
embraces a number of different schools. Some schools might be
coasting, but we might consider them satisfactory overall. Others
might be improving, but the balance of what is happening there
means that their overall effectiveness is satisfactory. The term
covers a large range.
Q33 Stephen Williams: After your
last appearance before the Committee, and our subsequent report,
your response said, "Ofsted would never suggest that schools
found to be satisfactory overall were failing, but we would suggest
that they could do better." In recent press statements that
quoted you, however, you were reported as saying that "coasting
at satisfactory is not acceptable". That seems to be a contradiction.
Is "satisfactory" satisfactory, or is it an imperative
that "satisfactory" improves to "good"?
Christine Gilbert: I generally
say that satisfactory is not good enough. Most parents want their
children to go to a school that is either good or outstanding,
so we want satisfactory schools to be better. We want good schools
to be better too, but we particularly want satisfactory schools
to be better. Most of them actually want to be better themselves.
Q34 Stephen Williams: Do you think
that parents who read in their local newspaper that the local
school is satisfactory have a proper understanding of the term
in that context? Would they understand that the school is definitely
not failing?
Christine Gilbert: If they read
the report on the school, they would understand that. I have said
to a number of different groups that it is possible for many pupils
to do extremely well at a school that is described as satisfactory.
Q35 Stephen Williams: With your indulgence,
Chairman, I have one final question. My hobby-horse is bullying,
so I welcome the last few remarks in the Chief Inspector's introduction
that, "Every child has the right to feel safe in school."
There have been many recent initiatives on bullying and angst,
partly, I hope, as a result of the former Committee's excellent
report—some of us were members of that Committee—and
new policies on bullying were to be introduced by governing bodies. How
important do you think it is to measure the effectiveness of anti-bullying
policies and to ensure that all schools follow the guidance,—whether
on homophobic, race-related, cyber or other bullying? A plethora
of guidance on bullying is currently emerging from the Government
and from non-governmental organisations. How much will you focus
on making sure that, as you say, every child has the right to
learn in a safe environment?
Christine Gilbert: We think that
every child has the right to attend school and to feel secure
both in that school and on the way to and from it. This academic
year, we have focused on behaviour, and we have issued new guidance
on behaviour to inspectors. There has always been a sub-grade
in relation to behaviour, but we are focusing much more on it.
We do not find a great deal of bullying in schools; we find that
low-level disruption is the issue for many of our secondary schools
in particular. We look at a school and talk to pupils. I was on
an inspection a week or two ago in which a number of parents had
identified bullying as a problem on their questionnaires. The
inspector whom I was accompanying tracked that by talking to pupils
and by looking at various school records. Inspectors take bullying
very seriously and in their reports would draw attention to any
indication of it. The special measures reports that I read often
discuss behaviour issues, and they sometimes mention bullying.
Bullying would be highlighted in any report.
Q36 Chairman: Last time we saw you,
Chief Inspector, we were absolutely astounded to discover that
there was bullying in Ofsted and that many of your staff felt
bullied. What sort of example is it to the students up and down
the country in real schools who put a great priority on the freedom
to learn and work without fear of bullying that Ofsted reports
a high degree of bullying within its organisation? Have you sorted
that out?
Christine Gilbert: I should stress
that just as you drew attention to the former Committee, it was
the former Ofsted that did a survey of that issue. I arrived last
October and I think that the report was out just before Christmas.
The organisation—the former Ofsted—took the report
seriously; it echoed issues that emerged in a previous survey.
We have taken the organisational development and health of the
new Ofsted very seriously. We felt it was appropriate to have
our work scrutinised and we devised and introduced a capability
review for ourselves in the summer to ensure that a group of people
from outside the organisation looked at what we had done and at
our planning as an organisation. That group felt that we had made
a good start and that we were on the right lines. I feel confident
that the way we have established ourselves means that if people
feel that they are bullied within the organisation, there is space
and structure for them to identify that and talk about it. We
are confident that the organisation has been established in a
way that would identify and allow us to deal with the problem
early. It is clearly inappropriate for employees to feel that
they work for an organisation that bullies them. However, as I
said last time, sometimes there is a tension between pressure
of work and asking people to do things and them feeling it is
too much, which they then turn into bullying.
Chairman: I could not help thinking of
the artist formerly known as Prince when you said the former Ofsted—or
formerly known as Ofsted. I shall turn to Annette to lead us through
the Strategic Plan.
Q37 Annette Brooke: I understand
that there was a great deal of consultation on the Strategic Plan,
and I would like to start by looking at that. I think the consultation
involved asking stakeholders about appropriate targets, whether
they were stretching enough, and what sort of areas should be
covered. As well as those specific points, I would like to know
what the consultation revealed about the concerns of stakeholders,
what were their priorities for where you need to improve, and
whether you had any nasty surprises.
Christine Gilbert: The plan went
through—this links back to the Chairman's question—a
long gestation period within Ofsted itself. We felt it was very
important that the staff coming from the former organisations
felt it was their plan, that they owned it and so on. The work
of the capability review team evidenced that staff did feel involved
and engaged. We then talked with stakeholders about the draft
plan—we issued the draft plan just as the new organisation
was being launched—and did a whole series of different things.
We had a questionnaire online, engaged in focus groups, talked
with young people at conferences that they were holding and so
on. We went through a number of things and a number of comments
were made. People were generally very positive about the direction
of the new organisation and felt that the focus on "raising
standards, improving lives" was the right focus for the new
organisation. They felt, as the former Committee did, that the
targets needed to be more specific and we think that we have made
them more specific in the redrafted version. They felt that we
needed to be clearer about how we were going to collaborate—that
we needed to be more collaborative than the former Ofsted had
been. People wanted us to have a role in identifying good practice.
We did not do that in the redraft of the Strategic Plan, but we
have paid a great deal of attention to that in the way that we
are organising ourselves, working with different organisations
to share practice and to think in a more focused way about the
work that we are doing. There is some really very valuable work
that we are doing with our survey programmes and we should use
that good practice and make sure that we share it. We have said
that we will put something related to that on our website in this
first year of the new organisation. I think that covers the major
issues.
Q38 Annette Brooke: No nasty surprises?
Christine Gilbert: I suppose that
because quite a few of us were engaged in the debate with stakeholders,
we saw where they were coming from. There did not seem to be enormous
surprises. Actually, there was a surprise, but that was in the
debate, and I do not know whether it came through. A number of
teachers who were not seen during the new section 5 inspection
framework wanted to be observed. That was a surprise to us, given
the fuss that had been made in previous years.
Q39 Annette Brooke: I am straying
slightly, but I want to ask about good practice. Clearly, you
must go into schools that have cracked getting through the plateau
of 10 to 11-year-olds. Is there no way in which you can positively
spread that good practice in teaching methods and how it is identified?
That may be almost a supplementary role, but you are in the unique
position of having the information, and I am wondering whether
it is fully utilised throughout the country.
Christine Gilbert: We do not think
it is fully utilised. We have a rich evidence base, but we do
not use it sufficiently. The new organisation wants to use our
evidence in a more focused way, and we tried to do that in the
way in which the Annual Report was presented this year, by asking
questions of the evidence. Surprising things sometimes emerge
from the evidence, so that is a major focus for us. The capability
review identified that as an issue in coming years. We hope
that the new school inspection framework may allow us to pick
up themes and issues rather than it being just the survey programme
that we have at the moment. When school inspectors go into schools,
they see some really good performance in some areas, but that
does not always show in the short reports that we now do, and
there is no time to explore it in greater detail. In the coming
framework, we are thinking about how to link more with our survey
work, and perhaps asking inspectors to have a particular theme,
to look at what they are seeing, and so on, and perhaps to add
more time so that we capture that. We think we need to be more
systematic about capturing that, as you describe.
| 
