Examination of Witnesses (Questions 320-339)
CHRISTINE GILBERT
CBE AND MIRIAM
ROSEN
6 MAY 2009
Q320 Derek Twigg: How many
do you plan to do this term?
Miriam Rosen: We are still considering
the exact numbers for this term.
Q321 Mr Slaughter: Do you
think this issue of the time between inspections is important?
I would have thought that it is fairly fundamental to determine
the role of Ofsted. I suspect that, like the tide going in and
out, you will move one way until everyone raises their hands in
horror that you are inspecting too infrequently, and then move
back the other way until you get to the point where people think
you are doing it too frequently, and that things will go on like
that by the year or by the decade. Five years seems such a long
period of time, and not just for primary schools. If you have
an inner-city area with very high pupil and teacher mobility,
schools are sometimes quite fragile, and the reputation or the
actuality could change or there could be a bad head teacher appointment.
Inspecting such schools every five years almost makes Ofsted irrelevant
to the process of monitoring whether a school is working.
Christine Gilbert: The approach
that we adopted essentially links right back to where we started
this morningto the nature of inspection, bringing different
inspectorates together and the notion that inspections should
be proportionate. Although we are talking about once in five years,
the idea is that that is for schools that were last judged as
good or outstanding, and where it looks, from the indicators that
we have on them, as if they would still be performing well, we
are suggesting a number of hard indicatorstests results,
attendance and so on. We also believe that perception is really
important, and we want perception survey results from pupils and
parents to be taken into account. When I look at a number of schools,
parental dissatisfaction with a schoolyou have outlined
some of the reasons, and things do change quicklyoften
emerges as an indicator before you start to see changes in exam
results or test results. We are looking at a number of indicators
that will give us a feel for what is going on in the school. Nevertheless,
they will never give us the accuracy that full inspection will.
We are aware of the dangers. Even in the reduced tariff inspections
that we have been doing, which have essentially involved less
timeagain, we are looking at schools that were good or
outstanding last time and at the indicators and so onthe
indicators are right in slightly over 90% of those schools, but
they are not right in just under 10%. So there will be a margin
of error, but in terms of adopting a system of proportionate inspection,
we think that the one where we go for five years, rather than
the reduced tariff, will be more effective. At the same time,
the focus on satisfactory schools is more intense, as I said earlier.
If their capacity to improve does not seem secure, we will go
back more frequently, and special measures and notice to improve
will continue as now. It is just a proportionate approach, and
the thinking is that good and outstanding schools do not need
inspection to the same degree as satisfactory or failing schools.
Q322 Mr Slaughter: Do you
see this as a further withdrawal of the inspectorate from hands-on
involvement with schools overall? That seems to be the current
trend. As far as parents are concerned, knowing that there is
an independent process is the most reassuring thing, because you
can get reputation wrong. As you say, reputation can be an early
warning sign, but equally there can be reputational lags, with
schools having bad reputations that they no longer deserve. Even
test results may not be as reassuring to parents as the feeling
that somebody with expertise has gone in, looked at the school
and given it the okay. Do you feel that you are withdrawing from
that process?
Christine Gilbert: We feel that
the system that we are establishing will use the voice of parents
as a failsafe to bring the inspection forward. The concern is
how we hear the voice of parents and how we get them to fill in
questionnaires and so on to tell us about the school. If parents
begin to understand that they are filling in a questionnaire to
express dissatisfactionI do not mean just a one-year dip,
but an emerging trendthey will use the questionnaires more
and tell us more, so that will have more validity. Otherwise,
it has been hard to see how we could establish a proportionate
system of school inspection. It is not right to keep inspecting
every school in the same way all the time. The other thing we
will do is continuing with our survey inspections. Even now, we
will go on a survey inspection if we pick up things that concern
us, that could also trigger a fuller inspection of the school.
Q323 Paul Holmes: I want to
go back to what you said about Key Stage 2. Head teachers are
balloting on boycotting the tests; the teaching profession and
many parents have long been opposed to them. You are saying that
they are essential to what you do. Have you not evaluated what
other countries do? The previous Education Committee went to New
Zealand and saw how it tests a random sample of 4 to 5% of the
kids in each school each year. Because it is small and random,
the schools don't teach to the testthey can't. In Ofsted
reports in this country, you have criticised schools for teaching
to the test, but New Zealand has a different way of doing it that
is less disruptive.
Christine Gilbert: A number of
countries have different ways of doing it. Interestingly, a number
of countriesI do not know about New Zealandare moving
to the system that we seem to be dismantling. The thing that parents
tell meI hear this really stronglyis that they want
to be clear about where their child is at a key phase of education.
So, there was no outcry about Key Stage 3. The parents who
speak to meand they spoke to me during our discussions
about inspectionfeel very strongly that we need some clarity
at 11 about where their child is. They do not want the school
and the curriculum distorted. They do not want months and months
of preparation for these tests, but they want some clarity at
a key phase of education. That is what I have experienced and
what I have heard.
Q324 Paul Holmes: But in Ontario,
which does very well in the PISAProgramme for International
Student Assessmentstudies, internal school-based tests
are used by local government inspectors and not by a national
organisation. They go in and say to schools, "You are not
doing well enough." Again, there are no league tables or
teaching to the testit is a whole different systemso
there are different and effective ways of doing things.
Christine Gilbert: I did say that
it depends on what gets put in its place. At the moment, we are
basing a lot on the results from Key Stage 2. They are nothing
like allbut they are an important elementof the
judgements that we make about which schools we select and whether
a school is dipping or improving its performance.
Chairman: Thank you. We are moving on
to inspectors.
Q325 Annette Brooke: The Chairman
has mentioned the differences between HMI and the regional inspection
service providers. I need to take that a bit further, because
we heard a number of comments in our previous evidence-taking
sessions that expressed concern about inspectors not being experts
in the phase of education that they are inspecting. I have asked
you about nursery education in the past but it applies equally
to primary and secondary. I would also like more detail on special
educational needs. Will you expand on what you told us initially
just to cover those points?
Christine Gilbert: I do think
that HMI are generally well respected, and there is a long tradition
of respect for them. They have the quality assurance role that
I was talking about earlier, but the additional inspectors are
also good inspectors. If they are not, work goes on with a contractor
to remove such inspectors and so on. We therefore have fairly
secureI am not saying that they could not be improvedsystems
of quality assurance. There is a clear requirement for the contractors
to provide training. I did not go into detailMiriam might
want to do soabout the ways in which we talk to the contractors.
There is a national board and so on and a number of things are
organised, so we set requirements for training. For example, when
community cohesion was introduced to the framework, it was incumbent
on us to train our own inspectors. Also, all the inspectors involved
in school inspections were trained. The same is true of HMI. I
am not saying that the people who inspect schools inspect only
in their particular area. You may well get somebody who was primary-trained
involved in a secondary inspection and vice versa. They would
have had to want to do that and they would have been trained and
supported in doing it. I said earlier that I read special measures
reports each week. If I do not look at the front cover, I cannot
tell you whether the report has been written by an HMI or by an
additional inspectorthat is the term that we give to inspectors
employed by the contractors. We also have a scheme in which we
second heads and some deputies. What I am saying is that an HMI
doesn't always write better reports than AIs (Additional Inspector).
I would stick by the brand, but I also think that AIs are good
inspectors, and our systems would suggest that.
Chairman: Miriam, do you want to come
in?
Miriam Rosen: If people are inspecting
in two phases, as I think you are suggesting, they will have the
necessary expertise and training. We would not put somebody in
an area where they were uncomfortable and untrained.
Q326 Annette Brooke: So the
teachers' fears are groundless?
Miriam Rosen: If something has
gone wrong in a particular instance, of course, there is the complaints
system. As Christine says, we take that seriously, but we also
try to ensure that the inspectors are deployed in a way that fits
their training and expertise. We provide top-up training throughout.
Christine Gilbert: But we also
look at the results and evaluate the grades and scores that are
given. We had some anxiety a few months ago that non-specialists
looking at special needs were making too generous judgements about
what they were seeing. We analysed this in some detail and then
ran an intensiveI think that it was interactivetraining
programme devised by Ofsted specialists. Every inspector was to
undergo this training. We always look at what we are doing to
see if we can improve it. It is the same with community cohesion.
We started to look at what is emerging from it and we felt that
inspectorsHMI and AIscould be more specific about
some of the things being said, so we introduced additional training
for that and so on.
Q327 Annette Brooke: A point
has been made to me very strongly by various special educational
needs organisations and representatives that they are concerned
that shorter, more infrequent inspections could result in a school's
special educational needs aspect not being given enough attention.
Clearly, the status of special educational needs within a school
can change quite dramatically following a change of key members
of staff. There is the query about whether you pick up changes
when inspecting less frequently. Should not good special educational
needs provision be an absolute requirement for getting a good
overall grade?
Christine Gilbert: I shall ask
Miriam to talk in detail about how special educational needs are
looked at in a section 5 inspection. We are about to embark on
a very large review of special educational needs, and I think
that that will be one of the issues that we look athow
to deal with less frequent inspections and so on. However, we
feel that the framework that we have devised gives a central role
to the evaluation of special educational needs provision in schools.
It requires judgements to be made about those areas. We think,
therefore, that we have addressed that in the proposals for September.
However, as I say, our survey will be very large and extensive
and will pick up those issues.
Miriam Rosen: I agree that the
inspection of special educational needs is very important. We
are not proposing to move to shorter inspections, so it is not
the case that less time will be devoted to special educational
needs. At the moment, we look at provision and pupil progress,
which involves looking at the teaching and the way in which pupils
are assessedis progress being properly monitored, are they
being properly supported and so on? It is correct that with less
frequent inspections they will not be looked at as often, but
we are not proposing shorter inspections. At the moment, if pupils
with special educational needs do not make good progress, the
overall effectiveness of the school cannot be good. Our judgement
is about the progress that all pupils make. That will be the same
as we move forward into the new system, so you will not get a
situation whereby the pupils with special educational needs are
being badly served, and their provision is inadequate, but the
school is judged "good". That could not happen.
Chairman: John wants to come in on a
specific point.
Q328 Mr Heppell: I want to
ask something a bit more specific about deaf children. I have
read the briefing from the National Deaf Children's Society. You
talked about evaluating grades. Deaf children are 42% less likely
to get five A grades at GCSE, including English and maths. I should
have thought that that evaluation tells you that there is something
wrong there in the first place. You talked about the over-generous
marks that inspectors have been giving. An NDCS case study of
a school in London, in 2008, said: "`Pupils in the PDC (provision
for deaf children) progress well because they are supported by
highly experienced staff who ensure that pupils enjoy their work
and are fully included in school activities.' However: The unit
did not have a teacher in charge who was a qualified teacher of
the deafor who was even a teacher." It went on: "No
evidence was provided to substantiate the claim that deaf pupils
were progressing well", and the "acoustics in the classrooms
were poor and constitute a hostile listening environment."
That may be a one-off, but if you currently have four inspectors
who have sensory trainingI don't know whether that is from
the 200, from HMI inspectors or from the lot in generalisn't
that a small number to be doing an evaluation of units in which
there are deaf children?
Christine Gilbert: We do use additional
inspectors from the contractors to help us with different specialisms,
and so on. One thing that is going to happen, too, from Septemberthis
is in terms of special schoolsis that we are increasing
what we call the tariff. Essentially, we are spending more inspector
days in special schools to look at what is going on, so we do
build in specialisms where we can.
Miriam Rosen: We certainly will
try to make sure that there are specialists. If there is a particular
resource unit in a school, we will try to provide an appropriate
specialist. We might not be able to do so all the time, but if
there is a unit for deaf children, I would hope that we could
provide people who have been specially trained to do that.
Q329 Mr Heppell: Do you have
any figures that you could provide later to show how many units
for deaf children were not provided with an inspector who had
specific skills in sensory impairmenthearing impairment
in this particular case? I am worried about this. In some respects,
it is not the quantity, or even the quality, of the inspectors
that counts; if the inspector does not have that particular knowledge,
they are never going to be able to judge what is necessary. I
recognise that there might be some occasions when that happens,
because you cannot have a specialist on everything, but there
seem to be rather a low number for deaf children.
Christine Gilbert: We will look
at that and get back to you.[10]
May I clarify something though. Was that information read out
from an Ofsted report, at the start of your question? If it was,
I would also be interested in that.
Chairman: John, what was the origin of
your quote?
Q330 Mr Heppell: It was from
the NDCS briefing, and the quote was from an Ofsted report. Apparently,
the local authority was aware of the inadequacy of the unit because
of a tribunal that was going on that was showing up difficulties
in the school. An advisory teacher of the deaf for the local authority
had reported that there was not appropriate leadership in the
unit and so on, so there were problems with the unit, but it got
a good report. I think that the implication is that the person
who was doing the inspection may have been a good inspector, but
did not understand the special requirements of that particular
unit. Can I just ask one further thing very briefly on British
Sign Language. I know that you answered a letter just last month,
so it is rather early to be asking if there is any progress, but
if people were going into a unit or a school where British Sign
Language was used, would they either be proficient in British
Sign Language or have an interpreter? It seems mad that someone
would not have an interpreter on such occasions. The answer you
have given seems to be, "We are reviewing that and will get
back to you on inspection arrangements for September." Have
you made any progress with that?
Christine Gilbert: I would need
to check that. I will get back to you quickly.[11]
Q331 Chairman: We could do
with the full information on that. Miriam, do you know anything
about it?
Miriam Rosen: No, we have not
finalised our arrangements for September. We are still looking
at that.
Q332 Chairman: Chief Inspector,
isn't this highlighting the problem? It is all right having Ofsted-lite,
if I can use that expression, but it has disturbed me that we
now have a language that includes a reduced tariff and a health
check. If I went to see my doctor, I would not want him to do
my health check on the internet. In this area, where we are talking
about special needs, everyone tells uscertainly when I
visit schoolsthat they particularly need highly qualified,
thoughtful inspectors looking at the SEN provision, and then they
say that they would like an HMI. Is it better to have many more
HMI, or are you just saving money by having only 100 HMI, and
lots of other cheap people from the private sector? Is it a cost
saving? Otherwise, why do you not just have 300 or 400 HMI and
be done with it?
Christine Gilbert: The contractual
position is helpful because it gives us great flexibility. It
gives us flexibility in this area, too. I do think that we need
specialisms to do some things, but I also have to say, about the
extract that was read out from that report, that you do not need
to be a specialist to know that it sounds very strange to have
all the bit at the beginning that is really positive and then
to say that there is not a specialist teacher in charge.
Q333 Chairman: Chief Inspector,
with great respect, you have not answered the question. Is it
a cost saving? Are HMI too expensive?
Christine Gilbert: No, that absolutely
is not the reason for doing this. It has given us much more flexibility
in the way that we do things. If we were to employ HMI rather
than run these contracts, I do not think that we would be able
to manage all the school inspections that we do. The additional
inspectors are paid a competitive rate, and some of them are even
ex-HMI.
Q334 Chairman: But do you
see our point? People tell us that they prefer an HMI-led inspection,
that they would like HMI rather than the people whom you are hiring
from these organisations, so it is only fair to ask you why you
don't have more HMI.
Christine Gilbert: We urge the
contractors to use head teachers who are then trained as part
of the team, and they are good, too. Additional inspectors are
good inspectors. They are not second-rate inspectors.
Chairman: All right. We will perhaps
have the organisations in front of us to talk about how they are
training. Test data: David and Annette. Who is starting? Annette?
Q335 Annette Brooke: First,
I thank the Chief Inspector for her letter following up the previous
meeting when I asked about the correlation between overall Ofsted
grading and schools' actual test results. It was quite interesting.
I think that 56% of results corresponded to the satisfactory rating,
so although it was not a close correlation, there clearly was
a connection. I really want to pursue this a bit further, because
it seems to me that we could never get away from the fact that
the results of the tests are becoming the main criteria for a
school's success or otherwise, whether in parents' eyes or Ofsted's
eyes, yet we are not really getting the full picture of the school
in the round. I really want to tease this out a bit further and
ask what you say to people who have not got a balanced view of
what is going on in schools because, whatever you say, they are
just looking at the headline result figures. We are not really
seeing innovation, a balanced curriculum or creativityall
the things that we really want to see in a school so that we know
that it is successful.
Christine Gilbert: We believe
that our reports give a much fuller picture of a schoolwhere
the school is at, the progress in the school and so onthan
just looking at straight test results. You yourself, when you
produced your report on testing, recommended that the Ofsted report,
for completeness, form part of the profile of things that would
be produced and published and so on. We think that our reports
give a full coverage. That is not to say that they will pick all
of the interesting things going on in a schoolthat simply
could not be replicated in a report. The NFER has done a more
longitudinal study of schools and says that, initially, the schools
were complaining about an over-reliance on test results and on
data. That has absolutely gone. The new system was introduced
in September 2005 and gradually, through time, that seems to have
eased off and gone. I think that I have said to the Committee
before, when I was concerned about people not understanding CVA,
that we did a publication for our own inspectors and additional
inspectors, but also sent it to all schools, to explain how they
use data and so on. So data and test results are important, but
they are absolutely far from being the complete picture. We make
30 separate judgements on what we are looking at in schools. Test
results are still very importantyou do need good results
to get jobs or to access the courses that you want to do or should
be doing at 16, 18 and so on. I hope that our reports give the
broad picture and are not completely data-ridden, which seems
to be the gist of what you are saying.
Q336 Annette Brooke: May I
follow that up? We were talking to a group of people, who were
all SIPs, and their evidence came over for the most part as their
greatest contribution being helping head teachers with the data.
That brings us full circle back to the data. Who is helping the
school improvement? Is this true improvement, if they are concentrating
on getting the data in the right form for when you come along?
Are we in some sort of vicious circle, do you think?
Christine Gilbert: Until you said
what you said at the end there, I thought that the first bit was
positive, because helping schools with the data is a real help
in terms of the schools understanding where they are and making
a really good self-evaluation of their progress and what their
needs are. If you look at data properly, you can see all sorts
of differences within your school; you are not just comparing
yourself with other schools. If the SIPs were doing that, it would
be very positive. Just interpreting RAISEonline or CVA for the
schools is not a good use of their time. That would not be a sensible
thing for them to be doing.
Chairman: Can we move to David pretty
quickly? When I said "quickly", it didn't apply to you,
David. We have three sections of questionstwo and a half
nowto get through before 11.30 am. I have guaranteed the
Chief Inspector that we will be finished by then.
Q337 Mr Chaytor: What is the
margin of error on the typical SATs Key Stage 2 test result?
Christine Gilbert: I don't think
I could say with any confidence.
Q338 Mr Chaytor: Do you accept
that there is a margin of error?
Christine Gilbert: I suppose that
there must be. Do you know, Miriam?
Miriam Rosen: The data package
that we use for RAISEonline highlights statistical significance,
so we would only say that there is a difference between, let us
say, two schools if it were statistically significant. That is
pointed out in the data package.
Q339 Mr Chaytor: So you dismiss
out of hand the academics who say that their analysis suggests
that 30% of them are wrong.
Miriam Rosen: You are talking
about the inputs into the test data.
Mr Chaytor: Yes.
Miriam Rosen: Well, our data package
cannot take that into account. What we do, of course, is supplement
that with inspections. We do not look just at test results. That
is the whole point of the inspector going into lessons and looking
at what pupils are doing, talking to them about their work, seeing
whether they understand it, doing work scrutiny and looking at
pupils' books over the passage of time to see what progress has
been made. That is the whole point of the way in which inspectors
triangulate their evidence.
10 See Ev 143-44 Back
11
See Ev 143-44 Back
|