Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-159)
CHRISTINE GILBERT
CBE, MICHAEL HART,
VANESSA HOWLISON,
MELANIE HUNT
AND MIRIAM
ROSEN
14 MAY 2008
Q140 Chairman: Good bedtime reading,
Chief Inspector, includes not only our report that came out yesterday
but the one that a previous Committee wrote on early years about
five years ago—one of the first reports under my chairmanship.
I am just a little bit worried that a discussion is going on out
there about early years—about formal versus informal and
whether Ofsted is driving the process—and you do not seem
to know much about it.
Christine Gilbert: I am sorry
that we have given that impression. It is a major theme of our
work at the moment. We are training all our inspectors in how
to inspect the early years foundation stage. That is a major thrust
across two directorates, so it is a major issue for us. What I
am saying is that we do not advocate a particular model of learning.
We look at effectiveness when we go into different organisations
and institutions. Learning by play is a major strand of good practice.
That said, I have also seen very formal work with four-year-olds
that was inspirational. So it is looking and seeing, and looking
at the needs of the pupils and the progress that they are making.
Miriam Rosen: May I add that if
you look at our reports on maintained schools, under section 5
you will often find that the foundation stage is an area of strength?
Q141 Chairman: But Miriam, as
Chairman I worry a great deal about the quality of the care and
stimulation in early years, and I do that because early-years
employees are still the lowest paid and least trained section
of the education work force. You know that and the Committee knows
that. I am surprised that when Ofsted inspects early years, it
never seems to say anything about that. Everybody knows that people
are on minimum wage-plus in that area, that there are not enough
graduate teachers and that the whole area is under-resourced.
I hear that you do the inspections, but I do not hear your voice
criticising anything.
Miriam Rosen: Are you talking
about a particular sector?
Chairman: I am talking about the whole
of the early-years field, which you now are responsible for inspecting,
and about which you seem to be mute.
Miriam Rosen: I am not aware that
in the foundation stage in schools there is a particular problem.
Our school inspection reports often identify it as an area of
strength within a primary school. Perhaps Michael wants to respond?
Michael Hart: May I comment on
what was shown by the data that we published last year in Getting
on Well—the data that we looked at recently continue
to support this point. Getting on Well was a publication
that looked at a full year of inspection, and 96% of inspections
of early years and child care came out as satisfactory or better,
while some 57% came out as good or outstanding. So, overall, parents
should be very encouraged by the available provision, from the
perspective of what we found in our inspections. Perhaps equally
encouragingly, when you look at the other 4%—the 4% that
we found inadequate—we always went back into those settings
to see whether there had been improvement over the following year.
The picture was that 94% of that 4% had improved in that period,
and had become at least satisfactory. The picture overall is very
encouraging, and more than 20% of those have gone to being good
from previously being inadequate settings. That goes back a little
to your first question about showing the impact of inspectors,
who have made a real difference. I met yesterday with representatives
of one of the major national organisations for childminding, who
were very supportive about work in inspecting childminders. They
constantly say to us how much childminders value the inspection
and what it does for them in terms of being able to promote their
work in their neighbourhood.
Chairman: That leads us into our third
section of child and welfare issues.
Q142 Annette Brooke: Is there
always an early-years specialist on an inspection team that goes
into an early-years setting?
Michael Hart: If you are asking
about all the private and voluntary settings that we go into,
it will always be one of our early-years inspectors. We have a
team of around 700 early-years and child care inspectors, who
transferred from local authorities with that experience. They
are the inspectors who go into the early-years and child-care
settings.
Q143 Annette Brooke: And into
other settings? On an inspection team for early years, is there
always an early-years specialist?
Michael Hart: Miriam will speak
about what goes on when we go into schools, but in all other settings
it will always be an early-years inspector.
Q144 Annette Brooke: May I follow
up on that? So, it would be incomprehensible that any inspection
team would recommend a nursery to use more worksheets. Is that
a fair statement?
Michael Hart: It sounds very unlikely
to me that any of our early-years or child care inspectors would
recommend that in a playgroup or nursery, or with a childminder
or out-of-school club. I covered that area in what I was just
talking about. I am sure that Miriam will want to say something
about school settings.
Miriam Rosen: First, with regard
to the inspectors, all those whom we send into schools are fully
trained. In primary schools, you will find that the appropriate
inspectors are sent in.
Q145 Annette Brooke: With respect,
being a trained inspector is not the same as having a background
and professional qualification in early years.
Miriam Rosen: If you are talking
about a small primary school with one inspector, that inspector
may be somebody who is primary trained rather than specifically
early-years trained, but we still consider that to be appropriate.
They will have had appropriate training.
Q146 Annette Brooke: Moving on,
you previously expressed a great deal of satisfaction with Ofsted
inspections, and yet a recent BBC programme gave a rather different
picture. What is your response to the allegations in that programme
that Ofsted inspectors are being urged to keep up with targets
for the number of child care facilities inspected, rather than
checking thoroughly on each inspection that the facilities are
appropriate? How did you react to that programme? What was your
immediate response?
Michael Hart: We took the programme
very seriously, because it raised important issues. I will pick
up the issue of targets, which you have just mentioned. In the
past, there was some variation in the amount of work activity
that some of our inspectors carried out. Quite reasonably, a year
or so ago my predecessor wanted to look at the amount of output
and the number of inspections carried out by different inspectors.
The inspectors worked towards what they thought was a reasonable
amount of work for each person to carry out. Some inspectors found
that process quite difficult, and a small proportion perhaps felt
that they were being a bit pressured. However, all we were doing
was looking for a reasonable amount of work from each of our inspectors.
Q147 Annette Brooke: Did that
cause you to look back at some of the reports that had come out
during that time period to ensure that the majority of them were
thorough?
Michael Hart: We always look back
at our reports. There is a quality assurance process that goes
on where all reports are read before they get sent out, and quality
assurance is carried out for a proportion of them to ensure that
the evidence that we found marries up with what goes into the
report. That is an ongoing process that takes place all the time.
Certainly, we looked back at the settings that were on that programme,
and it is worth saying that it featured only two settings. We
understand that the BBC had some difficulty finding other settings—it
managed to identify only two. Importantly, I stress that out of
those two settings, in one of them Ofsted had been going back
on a regular basis for just over a year because of some concerns.
Eventually it reached a decision that that setting was inadequate,
which subsequently led the owners to decide to close it down.
That showed the impact of our inspection during a period of just
over a year.
Q148 Annette Brooke: Another comment
on the programme was that nursery inspections should take place
every three years but, perhaps because of the amount of work you
have to do, there could be up to four and a half years between
inspections. Obviously, that would be a very long time in a nursery
setting.
Michael Hart: Yes, that was hard
for us to explain when we sent the information back to the BBC.
We work on a cycle of three years for inspections, but we do not
automatically say that the inspection will take place exactly
three years to the day after the previous inspections. That obviously
makes sense because if a setting knows that it is going to be
inspected more or less exactly three years after the previous
inspection, it will be prepared. We want to conduct unannounced
inspections, so that they do not know and they cannot be prepared.
In fact, what happens is that sometimes inspections take place
earlier in the course of a three-year programme, and sometimes
they take place rather later. There will be variation. What is
important is that the settings are constantly kept on their toes,
not knowing when the inspector will arrive.
Q149 Annette Brooke: But four
and a half years is rather a long gap, is it not?
Michael Hart: There will not be
many like that. On the whole, we are looking for something nearer
to three years, but there may be some that are rather longer or
rather shorter.
Q150 Annette Brooke: Finally,
do inspectors always check whether Criminal Records Bureau checks
have been carried out on any of the staff or any of the people
who might be visiting the playgroup or nursery setting?
Michael Hart: There are two aspects
to CRB checks. We have responsibility for some checks. We are
responsible for making sure that the manager has had a CRB check,
and we are responsible for making sure that those who have overall
responsibility for running the playgroup have had their CRB check.
As far as the employees of a nursery are concerned, it is down
to the nursery manager and their management team to ensure that
the CRB checks have been carried out. We check that they are doing
that when we do our inspection. That would be sampled and checked
on each of our inspection visits.
Q151 Annette Brooke: Does the
four and a half year gap mean that there is a similar gap in checking
whether the relevant people have had CRB checks?
Michael Hart: We would do that
when we carry out our inspection. The other thing is that if we
receive any information, such as a complaint or a comment from
a parent or member of the public that such checks have not been
carried out, we would immediately investigate.
Annette Brooke: After the event. I will
let that lead into the next set of questions.
Q152 Fiona Mactaggart: Does Ofsted
always consider issues of child protection when it inspects a
school?
Christine Gilbert: Yes it does.
Q153 Fiona Mactaggart: What happens
when those who are responsible for child protection in a particular
area have raised concerns about an institution? I am thinking
of Caldicott, a private preparatory school in Farnham Royal, which
was recently inspected. Buckinghamshire County Council and the
local safeguarding children board had had a series of meetings
about historical abuse issues at that institution and had given
assurances to concerned members of the public that those matters
would be considered in an Ofsted report. Yet I have read the report,
and I can see no consideration of them at all.
Christine Gilbert: Michael has
been involved in detailed discussions about that school.
Michael Hart: We would have taken
it into account. That does not necessarily mean that that would
be reported in the final report that you have seen.
Q154 Fiona Mactaggart: The report
mentions that vitamin pill bottles did not have their lids on,
yet it makes no reference to the policies that relate to child
abuse in an institution about which there has been widespread
public concern—legal action has also been taken against
someone involved, and specific commitments have been given to
people by the LSCB (Local Safeguarding Children's Board).
Michael Hart: That was quite a
while ago, was it not? It is quite historical.
Q155 Fiona Mactaggart: The meeting
of Buckinghamshire County Council and the LSCB took place in July
last year.
Michael Hart: I would need to
look in more detail into the particular points that you are raising
about the latest report.
Q156 Fiona Mactaggart: The issue
is largely an historical one. However, my impression from reading
the report is that where concerns about sexual abuse have been
raised there is a reticence—that is the politest way of
saying it—or a reluctance to mention that in the report.
This is something that is in the public domain, where there clearly
is a real level of concern about an institution. I accept that
much of that concern is historical, but there are continuing issues
of concern. The only mechanism for informing parents about whether
there is a concern is your report, yet your report does not even
refer to the issue. I do not understand why.
Michael Hart: We would have commented
only if we were saying that there was some continuing concern.
Christine Gilbert: The other thing
is that it is an independent school, is it not?
Fiona Mactaggart: It is.
Christine Gilbert: I would emphasise
that nobody has to wait for an inspection if a concern has been
raised. That is why I checked whether it was an independent school.
Independent schools are registered by the Department, and the
Department would handle the complaint. If the Department felt
that the complaint was sufficiently serious for us to go in immediately,
we would go in and inspect immediately. In this particular case,
it cannot have done so. We will look at it and get back to you
on that particular case.[3]
Q157 Fiona Mactaggart: Thank you.
It is important. As far as I can see, although I have not written
to you about it or anything like that, there is clear evidence
that the local safeguarding children board and the local authority
felt after the police investigation, part of which was resolved
and part of which was not, that there were continuing issues that
needed to be looked at, but they said that a massive investigation
was not appropriate, as much of it was an historical case. People
in the area have talked about it a lot, so rumour, school-gate
gossip and all that sort of stuff is going on, but the authorities
pointed out that an inspection report was coming up that would
consider those issues. I do not know whether it did, but whether
it did or did not, there was not a word about it in the report,
which might give people profound concerns. It is not as though
you did not need to mention it because there was no worry; there
is a worry. The local authority and the safeguarding board made
that clear through meetings with the police and abused people.
They said that they expected the inspection report to deal with
it. As I understand it, Ofsted is responsible for boarding inspection.
I am never quite sure who owns what bit of the inspection in independent
schools, but nevertheless, the word is not even said. How can
we, or parents, have confidence? I am not sure that parents can
have confidence in those circumstances, in which case they will
turn to school-gate gossip.
Christine Gilbert: It would be
a false expectation to expect the Ofsted report to address all
those concerns, but I absolutely agree that if concerns are being
voiced in the school by parents and so on, the report should have
addressed those concerns. We will look at that particular case
and see why those concerns did not emerge, or whether there is
a group talking about something that happened, very tragically,
a number of years ago, but that is no longer going on in the school
and does not affect the groups in the school. We will look at
the matter and get back to you.[4]
Q158 Fiona Mactaggart: Can I ask
a specific question about the new framework, which relates to
that issue? The new inspection framework will include a specific
responsibility for investigating child well-being. I would hope
that if issues are raised before an inspection—I accept
that if no concerns are raised about child abuse in an institution,
making a report to say that no concerns have been raised is probably
not a sensible thing to do—parents could expect your report
on child well-being to address those issues.
Christine Gilbert: Miriam may
want to add to this. If such issues were raised during an inspection,
I would expect them to feature in some way in the report. For
instance, one of the things that I see now and again is parents
complaining about behaviour. Even when the inspectors did not
find a behaviour problem, they would address it in their report.
They would refer to the parents, show that a number of parents
have cited it and say something about it; I would expect that.
I want to clarify that the new proposals for school inspection
are about maintained schools. The school that you are describing
is an independent school, so that involves another set of regulations.
We need to go back and look at the particular case to see whether
the concerns that you are raising can be addressed. The proposals
that we are launching next week would not make any difference
to the case that you gave us a few minutes ago.
Fiona Mactaggart: This is not the only
concern about the independent schools inspectorate to have been
presented to the Committee. I hope that you will look at the issue
in general.
Q159 Mr Slaughter: This is almost
the opposite end from what Fiona was asking. A lot of the questions
that you are being asked this morning are about well-being, child
welfare and even child safety. Clearly, those are important matters
per se, which could affect the ability of children to learn. However,
do you feel that too much emphasis is being put on those issues
as far as Ofsted is concerned? Most parents would probably still
think that Ofsted is concerned with educational standards and
with seeing that the quality of education in schools and in early
years is the best that it could be. Do you feel that your purpose
is being diluted or that you are being overloaded in some way
by these other responsibilities?
Christine Gilbert: Absolutely
not. Last April, we formally took on responsibility for children's
social care and adult learners. Even before last year, however,
I would always have argued that if you were concerned about the
educational development of a child, you would need to look at
the whole child and at their well-being to ensure that their educational
performance is as strong as possible. The focus on learning in
a school is still absolutely central to that school, but a healthy
child is likely to learn more effectively, and we want to make
our children more healthy. The five outcomes capture the whole
child, and they have been there since September 2005.
3 See Ev 42 Back
4
See Ev 42 Back
| 
