Examination of Witnesses (Questions 265-279)
CHRISTINE GILBERT
CBE AND MIRIAM
ROSEN
6 MAY 2009
Q265 Chairman: Can I welcome the
Chief Inspector and Miriam Rosen to our proceedings. This is an
important session for us. All our sessions with you, Chief Inspector,
are important sessions, but this is rather out of the ordinary
as it is not on your annual report or on a specific inquiry. It
is just to help us look at the ways in which we in England evaluate
schools and hold them to account in terms of what they do for
our children. This is a more free-thinking exercise, if you like.
We are here to learn, not to push you too hard—you know
that we would not do that. We will get started. There is a lot
of territory to cover, so I will ask everyone to be quite brief
in their questions and answers. Chief Inspector, you know what
we are inquiring into—the value of inspection and the quality
of accountability that we have. Is there anything that you would
like to say before we ask questions?
Christine Gilbert: Just to endorse
your opening remarks, we consider this inquiry very important
indeed, particularly as we are revising the school inspection
framework. We are reviewing it now in the final stages for changes
to be introduced from September, so the inquiry is very important
to us.
Q266 Chairman: When will you
be publishing your plan for change?
Christine Gilbert: The pilots
have just got under way, so we think that we will be able to publish
the framework towards the end of June. We have had a lot of debate
about it up and down the country and presented different things
about aspects of it, but we still have a number of key decisions
to make. We look forward to the inquiry reporting in time for
September.
Q267 Chairman: We will have
to try to get the report out as soon as possible. Miriam, I have
just been thinking—when did you first start coming in front
of this Committee? You are a familiar face.
Miriam Rosen: It was 2004.
Q268 Chairman: So it has been
at least five years. You are very welcome again. Can I start the
questioning. You, Chief Inspector, are a new broom. You certainly
seem—listening to your comments and answers to questions
in this Committee—rather different from your predecessor.
Why is that?
Christine Gilbert: I don't know
if I am different. Certainly I think that nothing stands still
and inspections develop. Although I was appointed as Chief Inspector
of Schools in October 2006, I was essentially appointed to the
bigger job that started in the following April, so we have looked
at the fundamentals of inspection in a way that has probably not
been necessary for several years.
Q269 Chairman: Your predecessor
had a more limited view of the role of Ofsted. Every time I pushed
him, saying, "You go into a school, inspect, make a judgement
and walk away; you don't do much in terms of the school improvement
process," he said, "So be it—that's what we do."
You don't take that view, do you?
Christine Gilbert: I took the
Education and Inspections Act 2006 really seriously. I was new
and the Act created my post and created the new Ofsted. That charged
us with three things: regulating and inspecting to secure improvement,
which was very different from what was there before; regulating
and inspecting to secure the engagement of users, which meant
pupils—children and learners, essentially—parents
and employers; and ensuring value for money. Those three things
were set out very clearly in the Act. They influenced and informed
all our planning and thinking at Ofsted.
Q270 Chairman: Wasn't there
a larger move? The Prime Minister very much wanted to rationalise
the inspection process right across the public services, and one
gets the impression that part of that process—pushing a
number of inspectorates and roles into one—changed the nature
of your role and your job. Has that been for good or ill?
Christine Gilbert: Bringing the
four inspectorates together really did make us think hard about
the role and function of inspection, and what things could be
common and what things were really different. As we have discussed
in this Committee before, we do not have, in Ofsted, a whole set
of generalists; we still have specialists in a number of areas.
So it was an attempt to bring the organisations together to get
something more out of inspection than we got before. It really
is important, as you said, to go in and report objectively what
we see, but if we are just doing that and nothing happens as a
result, I would question whether even the reduced amount of money
we now spend on Ofsted is well spent. My view is that inspection
has to have some impact.
Q271 Chairman: I should have
thought that one of the things that would give you sleepless nights
is your very grave responsibility for child protection. That is
not only a vast area that is very different from what Ofsted was
involved in previously, but a dramatic and important area in terms
of outcomes, such as the Baby Peter case. Does that not dominate
your thinking and lead to you having less time to think about
the less dramatic, but certainly important, issue of schools?
Christine Gilbert: You are right
to say that the area you have identified is essentially high risk,
but I regard school inspection as core and central work and I
invest a lot of time in it. I read, as the previous Chief Inspector
would have done, every special measures report—that is,
generally, four or five a week. I also read every single survey
report—that is, or it feels like it is, one or two a weekend.
I certainly think that those things are really important. Connections
can be made across the areas. I read a report by Miriam's team—it
originated from education—on exclusions. You will recall
that there was some fuss a few months ago about exclusions of
very young children. We couldn't work out what was going on or
why, so we did what we call a rapid response report. Reading that
report, I could see that connections could be made with what we
were doing in our safeguarding inspections. We were able to pick
up on that and make sure that the new safeguarding rolling programme
inspection, which we will be undertaking next month, will look
at what local authorities are doing about exclusions. Are they
really fulfilling their statutory responsibilities? Are they providing
education for children who are excluded after six days, and those
sorts of things? We look at it holistically. It is a big remit
but it is also a fascinating one. It is really important for children
and their families that we look at things holistically.
Q272 Chairman: As you have
grown, have you not become more reliant on what I would call bought-in
help? You mentioned in your evidence that inspections have been
going for 150 years. Inspectors used to report to the Privy Council
because there wasn't a Department, which is why you are Her Majesty's
Inspector. As time has gone on and your remit has expanded, you
are forced to go to the independent or private sector to buy inspectors.
Is that not a concern?
Christine Gilbert: That was the
whole basis on which Ofsted was established back in 1992—the
number of HMI was reduced. I am not going to go back as far as
1992—
Chairman: You mentioned 150 years, so
I was thinking of the workhouse.
Christine Gilbert: I would say
that the way that the former Ofsted contracted inspectors from
September 2005 is a model of public-private partnership. It was
in place when I arrived. We have just gone through a process and
the contract that will be introduced from September will be even
better. We use a number of contractors, but we use HMI in the
inspections in various ways. I think that the model that we have
is a good one.
Q273 Chairman: In your evidence you
said that you have gone from five contractors to three. Is that
right?
Christine Gilbert: Yes.
Q274 Chairman: Who are they?
Christine Gilbert: Serco, Tribal
and CfBT. CfBT has something after its name—CfBT something.
Q275 Chairman: And which two
have been left out this time?
Christine Gilbert: Prospects did
not get a contract, and there are also Cambridge and Nord Anglia.
A number of them provided regional services. I think that our
submission said that five provided regional services, but there
were two that provided services nationally. There was an FE contractor—Nord
Anglia, I think—that provided services nationally, and we
have brought all of that work in for the three contractors.
Q276 Chairman: And how do
you ensure the quality of the providers? When the teaching unions
came before us, some of the criticism was about inconsistency,
worries about quality and the fact that not all inspections are
led by an HMI.
Christine Gilbert: The more complex
ones are led by an HMI, and 75 % of secondary school inspections
are led by an HMI, but an HMI signs off, as it were, every single
inspector we use. They are checked, monitored and shadowed on
an inspection, and every report is read by an HMI. Over and above
that there are a number of on-site visits, not for every additional
inspector, but for some. So it is a fairly intensive process.
Q277 Chairman: Are there any
other quality checks on those private inspectors?
Christine Gilbert: Miriam will
know more of the detail on that, but we check a number of indicators.
Having come fresh to this, I think that one of the benefits is
having a number of them, and our regional link with each of them
is very important, so the regional directors monitor it very closely.
I attended a session at which there was a review of what had happened
to the SATs contract and the LSC contract. Usually I come away
from such meetings with a list of things we need to do, but actually
in the way we had approached those contracts we had done all the
things you should do and more, in terms of both the way we had
chosen the contractors and the way the contracts operated. Miriam
would be happy to give some detail on how she would manage it
day in, day out and on a monthly basis.
Q278 Chairman: In a sense,
the acid test that you apply in the case of teachers—certainly
your predecessor did—is how many bad or inadequate teachers
get moved on, out of the profession. It is therefore fair to ask
how many inspectors are found not to be up to the job and get
moved on.
Christine Gilbert: They probably
wouldn't get through the first checking phase for inspectors,
but that would be a very small number, in terms of capability
and so on.
Miriam Rosen: As far as HMI go,
we have extremely rigorous and lengthy selection and training
processes, so if someone gets through all of that they really
ought to be a successful HMI.
Q279 Chairman: HMI are what
percentage of the total inspectorate work force?
Miriam Rosen: We have about 200
HMI working on the schools inspection programme for at least part
of their time. The contractors that we use have around 1,000 additional
inspectors in total. Some of those are working full time, and
some are brought in for some of the time. The contractors themselves
manage those inspectors and will assure their quality, but as
Christine says, an HMI will sign them off on an inspection to
say that they are worthy, fully trained and competent. They have
to meet the same competencies as an HMI. The contractors are responsible
for the performance management. Ofsted performance-manages the
contractors, so we look very carefully at key performance indicators
for quality, timeliness and other things that we go through with
them on a monthly basis in the regions, where the regional directors
manage the contracts, and then it comes through to me on a national
basis and I take overall responsibility. I think that they are
very tightly managed.
Chairman: Right. I am testing the patience
of the rest of the team, so I will hand over to David.
| 
