Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-119)
CHRISTINE GILBERT
CBE, MICHAEL HART,
VANESSA HOWLISON,
MELANIE HUNT
AND MIRIAM
ROSEN
14 MAY 2008
Q100 Mr Carswell: I have three
questions for the Chief Inspector, but if anyone else wants to
chip in, please do. The first question relates to accountability.
Gordon Brown's paper on modernising the governance of Britain
made the excellent suggestion that we should reform the current
system to allow Parliament to have much greater say over the appointment
of officials. Do you think that this Committee should be in a
position to confirm—or not—the appointment of the
head of Ofsted? Is that a development that you personally would
welcome?
Christine Gilbert: It depends
on what you mean by "confirm". I would have been very
unlikely to have pursued an application for this post if I had
had to be confirmed by the Committee looking at me and asking
me questions.
Q101 Mr Carswell: Why?
Christine Gilbert: Because there
are issues of confidentiality when you apply for a post and all
sorts of things related to that. That is a personal view, but
I think it would be common across my profession.
Mr Carswell: Okay.
Christine Gilbert: That is not
the same as meeting the Chairman outside, or whatever, but there
is an issue about public appointments.
Q102 Mr Carswell: So, before I move
on to my next question, you would not welcome such a development.
Christine Gilbert: As I have said,
the issue is the way in which such a process would happen. It
was not clear to me, from reading the proposals several months
ago, that it would be done in the way in which I have just suggested—that
whoever was coming would sit here and be questioned by you and
then you would or would not endorse the appointment afterwards.
Nobody could tell me the answer to that.
Q103 Mr Carswell: Changing the
subject slightly, we are doing a report and taking evidence about
the independent sector. It is early days yet, but it seems to
me there is a basic fault line among the witnesses between those
who are hostile to the independent sector and want to set it new
obligations of one kind or another and, on the other hand, those
who take the view that the independent sector is excellent precisely
because it is independent, and that we should therefore be making
all schools more independent. What side of that fault line do
you come down on?
Christine Gilbert: I do not want
to come down on either side of that. We do our work fairly and
openly with the independent schools, and we do what is asked of
us. We monitor very good provision, and we see some good provision
in the areas that we inspect ourselves. You have discussed the
independent sector, which is a very wide group with a number of
things inside it. The schools in the Independent Schools Council
are generally very good schools.
Q104 Mr Carswell: At Ofsted, you
obviously want to raise standards; we all want to. Politicians
and officials have regulated for it; we have legislated for it;
we have inspected for it; we have target-set for it; but all these
top-down initiatives do not seem to be working. Do you not think
that there is another way? Do you not think that a Government
could raise standards if they took a totally different approach?
Rather than trying to inspect and target-set from the centre,
could they not achieve higher standards by giving a legal right
to every parent in the country to enable them to control their
child's pot of local education authority funding? By doing so,
you would allow choice, which at the moment only rich people have.
You would allow best-practice to spread, not because someone said
it should, but because schools were forced to emulate what worked.
It would allow innovation. You and I would not be sitting here
saying what is best for a school. Teachers would work that out,
and it would raise standards. I want to get a sense of whether
you think that perhaps the time has come to recognise that all
this top-down target-setting and inspection has had its day; Governments
of both parties have tried it; it is time for a new approach.
Christine Gilbert: When I took
this job, I said—and it is sometimes very difficult to do—that
I would try to base what I say on our evidence. The distinctive
thing about Ofsted is the richness of its evidence base, but I
do not have an evidence base on which to answer your question.
When I look at our evidence base, it tells me that there have
been considerable improvements over the past 10 years which, however,
have generally stalled. I am a passionate believer in the use
of targets—not too many but some—which concentrate
effort and minds. If you look at the past few years, they have
been effective. Whether we got the bottom-up part right is another
issue. One of things that we are looking at in what we are saying
about our new proposals for school inspections next week is trying
to engage parents much more in decisions about whether a school
needs an inspection now or whether it could wait another few years.
The views of parents will be very important in helping us to make
those decisions. The evidence that we have shows that that is
the case in all areas of our remit. Miriam and the Chairman mentioned
food, when we first came in. Our food report, which covered only
a few schools—about 27 or 28—showed that there was
a dip in the number of pupils taking school meals. Schools where
the trend was reversed were those which engaged pupils in decisions
about menus and about where they sat at lunchtime and so on. What
we call in the jargon "user voice" or "user engagement"
is fundamental to improving quality. Perhaps we have not concentrated
enough on that in the past. Our evidence shows that where institutions
do that, where the voice of individual children, looked-after
children and so on is heard, they do better.
Q105 Annette Brooke: What is the
correlation between a school's test results and the overall grading
that you give the school?
Christine Gilbert: I do not know
if we have done any work. I will ask Miriam. I am not aware of
any immediate work that has been done on it. The introduction
of contextual value-added in September 2005 with the new school
inspection framework introduced a value-added element into the
judgment in terms of looking at important school data. The focus
on test results—where we began this morning—shifted
quite considerably with the introduction of CVA, which tried to
establish the added value that the school was making. I do not
think you would find a straight line between test results and
what we are saying about overall effectiveness. I am pretty certain
you would not. For instance, I was talking to somebody last week
who is the governor of a school in Bristol. He told me that, until
he saw the CVA results for his school, which had something like
70% five A to C grades, he thought he was a member of the governing
body of a good school. The CVA results suggested he was not. Ofsted
inspected that school two months ago and gave it a satisfactory
rating overall, not just because of the CVA, although that is
an important element in looking at a school. I cannot stress enough
the fact that it is based on the inspectors' judgments about the
data, about what they see in the school, the judgments they make
on what they see and hear, and on progress, which, for me, is
absolutely key. The inspectors are looking at progress and outcomes
and making a judgment using a whole range of indicators.
Q106 Annette Brooke: How common is
it for a school to achieve a "good" grading when the
test results are judged as satisfactory? I am not really getting
any feel about that. It is just anecdotal: "Well, there are
exceptions." I would like to know what percentage of schools
can get out of this straitjacket of the straightforward comment
on their results.
Christine Gilbert: We could do
a piece of work and send it to you after the meeting. This came
up at a previous meeting. Schools often say they cannot get "good"
or "outstanding" because their attainment is only satisfactory,
but that is not the case.[1]
Q107 Annette Brooke: I wanted to
ask a very specific question, and that has led me into it. A school
in my constituency was revisited a week before the next SATs results,
about which it is quite confident, but there is a perception that
it cannot get a good rating from the recent inspection, which
is very demoralising for the school, and affects performance within
the school. I think that that is rather serious, and I do not
know to what extent you have looked at this. If there are lots
of schools that believe they are constrained by their test results,
that increases dependence on a narrow range of results and the
final outcome for the school, because the teachers then lose motivation
as well. I think it is really a serious issue.
Christine Gilbert: I will ask
Miriam in a second whether there is anything she is aware of that
I am not. I speak almost weekly up and down the country, and I
am often told about that. I always say, "Write to me with
the example," and people often do so. However, I have not
looked at a single example in the 18 months in which I have been
in this post where it was true. It is absolutely not true, in
all the cases that I have looked at.
Miriam Rosen: There is quite a
high correlation between the progress that pupils make and the
overall judgment on a school, but I would like to reaffirm that
the judgment on progress is not just a judgment about test results.
The inspectors take all available evidence into account when they
are making that judgment on progress. They take the contextual
value-added data into account, but also what they observe in lessons,
the tracking the school can show of pupils' progress, scrutiny
of pupils' work, and so on.
Q108 Paul Holmes: As a quick follow-on,
I have a slightly different take on what Annette was asking. In
most years, there is an example in the press of a school that
has received a good Ofsted report, which waxes enthusiastic about
the fact that the kids are happy, there is great leadership from
the head, a great ethos in the school, and great teaching. Then,
when the GCSE results come out, because it is under whatever the
threshold is that year—at the moment, 30% five A to Cs—it
is put into special measures. If, Christine, you are going to
send us some evidence about the issue Annette asked about, could
you include any comparisons on that? How often do you give a good
report on a school which is put in special measures year because
of its exam results later the same year?
Christine Gilbert: It is absolutely
untrue to say that any school would be placed in special measures
because of its exam results. Why would we bother to go in? This
leads back to the first question. It is what we see when we go
into the school that leads the inspector to make a judgment about
performance.
Q109 Paul Holmes: But surely that
is not the impression the Secretary of State gives when he says,
"All schools under 30% A to C will be put into special measures
or closed unless they manage to hit the bar"?
Christine Gilbert: But all those
schools were not in special measures. I think you must be referring
to the 631—I think it has just gone up to 638. Those schools
were not in special measures. In one particular year, 3% of those
schools were outstanding. We made our own analysis of one year
of those schools and saw that leadership and management was strong
in a number of them, including a number of improving schools.
That said, at some point, schools have to make sure that their
pupils achieve results. You cannot go on forever saying, "This
school is a good school because the children are making progress."
At some point they have to get results that will get them jobs
to give them the sort of life chances we want them to have.
Q110 Paul Holmes: But are you
saying that the way the press reported what the Secretary of State
said was wrong? That schools which are not achieving five A to
C for 30% or above are not going to be put into special measures
unless they manage to hit that bar?
Christine Gilbert: Well, yes.
I think Mick Brookes, when talking to the Committee, used Ofsted
as an example of how schools were not fairly judged in that way.
We are going to address that in the proposals next week, and I
think it is really important. Standards are important, and we
want to improve them. One of the things I made a lot of in my
Annual Report last year—both in the report itself and in
the press comments—was the 20% who go on to our secondary
schools not fully functional in literacy and numeracy. That percentage
really has to change, and schools have got to be responsible in
some way for reducing that percentage.
Q111 Paul Holmes: Nobody would
dispute that. The question I am asking is, have the Government
misled people, has the press misled people, or have I just read
all these reports wrongly? There is a strong suggestion that unless
schools hit 30% five A to C or above, they will be closed or put
into special measures.
Christine Gilbert: I think they
were looking at different things. They were looking just at examination
performance. Ofsted, as we have said, looks at a broader range
of things and has a stronger evidence base. Exam performance is
part of that. I really do not wish to leave Committee members
thinking that we do not think performance at any of the key stage
exams is unimportant. It is important.
Q112 Paul Holmes: I am still not
clear what the answer to my question is. Have the Government said
that any school that is getting below 30% five A to C is going
to be closed or put into special measures, or not?
Christine Gilbert: As far as I
understand it, that is what they have said, but I am not here
to speak for the Government. We are an independent inspectorate,
so I cannot comment in detail on that. My understanding is that
that is what they have said.
Q113 Paul Holmes: So Ofsted would
feel that there are cases where a school is below the bar but,
because of the head, the teachers, the ethos, and the progress
that has been made, it should not be closed or put in special
measures?
Christine Gilbert: We think that
those are improving schools, and I would not presume to make a
decision about whether a school should be closed or not with that
sort of flimsy evidence. Having once been a director in an authority
where we made school closures, you have to think very hard about
school closures. I will just reinforce the point we made. We found
that leadership and management was very high in the year that
we took. We looked at the judgments we have made on a year from
those schools, and found that leadership and management in something
like 23% of those schools was good or better, although we were
classifying only 3% of them as outstanding. That was an issue,
but they were improving schools—some of them, not all of
them.
Q114 Chairman: Chief Inspector,
before we move on to the next topic, you know that our report
on testing and assessment came out yesterday. Has anyone giving
evidence today read it, in the day you had to read it? Has none
of your staff, in the full day you had before coming to this Committee,
read our report on testing and assessment?
Christine Gilbert: I think we
got a PDF copy yesterday evening at about 7 o'clock.
Chairman: It was available from early
yesterday morning.
Christine Gilbert: We will read
it, Mr. Chairman, and there are several references to Ofsted which
we will look at in detail.
Chairman: Absolutely, but if the Committee
is going to decide whether your organisation does a valuable job,
it does worry us—and I share this view with Paul—that
we are not really getting an answer back. We took a great deal
of evidence. I hope you will look at the evidence that was given
to this Committee on testing and assessment. Time and time again,
people said that the real problem was teaching to the test in
many schools. I am not saying that about the best schools—the
high-achieving, well-led schools, as Paul said, with a good ethos.
We are talking about the average school. The evidence that kept
coming back to us was that there was a tremendous emphasis on
teaching to the test which was not good for the students in terms
of their access to the curriculum and a creative learning experience.
If you have not picked this up, if this really does not worry
you, there is a real disjuncture between your inspection process
and the kind of evidence that we are given in this Committee.
Christine Gilbert: I am sorry
if I have not been clear. I thought I had made it clear that we
did pick this up. We picked it up in reports we published, we
picked it up in school reports, and I mentioned it more than once
in my Annual Report published last year. We talked about this
very thing. The poetry report published a couple of months ago
mentioned it. Mathematics was a major theme in the Annual Report
where it is mentioned. We have picked it up. I could send you
something after the meeting which shows you where and how we have
picked it up.[2]
Q115 Chairman: But not prioritised?
Christine Gilbert: I identified
it as an issue in the Annual Report last year. I do not see that
it is inevitable.
Chairman: No one said it is inevitable.
The poetry report marked it very low down. I was delighted when
I got the report on poetry, but there was no mention of John Clare—that
was a silly aside. We want to move on to the 2009 inspection framework,
and David Chaytor is to lead on this.
Q116 Mr Chaytor: You are to consult
shortly on the new framework for 2009. Would you tell us the key
questions that you will be asking in that consultation?
Christine Gilbert: I do not feel
it would be appropriate to go into detail, because we are not
launching it until next week. The issue that I have been talking
about this morning—proportionality; how we use our resources
and so on—is a major strand. We are thinking about the regularity
with which we inspect schools, the standards of schools and making
more of a risk assessment of a school rather than just going in
automatically to inspect that school.
Q117 Chairman: So what does a
risk assessment mean?
Christine Gilbert: We will look
at a number of factors in a school. That is one of the things
that we want to consult on—what those factors might be.
We would look at test data, trends, at what the local authority
thought about the school, and the link with what the SIP (School
Improvement Partners) said about the school. We will talk to parents.
One of the things that parents have said to me is that a change
of head teacher is a risk factor. We would look at a range of
things. One of the reasons you cannot rely on test data is that
things change in a school, and they take a while to come through
in the performance test data.
Q118 Mr Chaytor: In respect of the
wider issues that have been raised as valid subjects for inspection,
particularly the Every Child Matters outcomes, to what extent
will those appear in the new inspection framework and to what
extent should they have parity of consideration with the more
traditional inspection criteria?
Christine Gilbert: They remain
fundamental to the approach that we are taking. ECM indicators
are very well established. As we try to look across our whole
remit, we think that those five core elements have something important
to say for every remit. We might phrase them differently for learning
and skills and so on, but essentially they have something to say
about every area that we inspect. However, the five indicators
remain fundamental to the school inspection framework. They are
there now in the framework.
Q119 Mr Chaytor: Do you envisage
any extension of the inspection of children's well-being in the
new framework, beyond the existing indicators?
Christine Gilbert: The Children's
Plan, which was published last Christmas, said that the Department
would want to work with Ofsted to look more closely at developing
indicators for well-being. We are in some discussion with the
Department about that, but we are nowhere near producing a set
of proposals.
1 See Ev 41 Back
2
See Ev 40 Back
| 
