Examination of Witnesses (Questions 420-439)
MR VERNON
COAKER AND
JON COLES
8 JULY 2009
Q420 Mr Chaytor: In which case,
it is only the most assiduous newspapers, such as The Independent,
that will take the trouble to go through the report cards of every
school in the country to extract the data and put them in league
table format.
Mr Coaker: Yes, but what I am
saying is that the information is still available.
Q421 Mr Chaytor: But the Government
are not going to make it easy.
Mr Coaker: We are not deliberately
trying to make it difficult either. We are trying to say that
this is going to be a different way of looking at what a school
is about. We are not about trying to hide information, or about
pushing it away. I would rather say that the information people
can use will still be made available.
Q422 Mr Chaytor: But by and large,
you would accept that most newspapers will print things that are
easily available? They are less likely to construct league tables
based on hard work.
Mr Coaker: It depends. If people
want that information, it will be available. As I have said, standards
and examination and SATs results are important, but so are other
things alongside them.
Q423 Mr Chaytor: Can I ask about
the relationship between the report card and the framework for
excellence report card, which is also being piloted as of this
September. It is conceivable that an individual school may get
a very good school report card, but a very weak framework for
excellence report card. Is the framework for excellence report
card to be used to deal with the long-standing problem of inadequate
small sixth forms?
Jon Coles: It is certainly true
that an individual school with a sixth form might get strong performance
for one of the indicators and be much less strong for the other.
That is already the case with Ofsted reports, which can and do
differentiate between the quality of a sixth form and the quality
of the rest of the school. We are piloting those things together,
and the framework for excellence has had a long period of piloting
in FE—although it will only be piloted in schools from this
September—but as part of the pilot we need to align those
two things in a sensible way. But it is certainly true that the
framework for excellence may very well identify, in an otherwise
good school, a weak sixth form, and lead to action to deal with
it if that is the case. Equally, of course, it could find quite
the opposite and lead to a better focus of action on the 11 to
16 part of the school. That is absolutely possible.
Q424 Mr Chaytor: The division
at 16 is logical in one sense—I see the point of that. But
isn't the reality that when the diploma system is fully in place,
the real dividing point is 14? If the original diploma model means
that students might have to take their diplomas partly at their
own school, partly at a neighbouring school and partly at a local
college—increasingly from the age of 14 students will be
on an apprenticeship scheme that will take them to their local
college as well—what are the practical problems of completing
the school report card for students who may spend most of their
week away from the school at which they are officially registered?
How are those students' achievements reflected?
Jon Coles: The starting point
for that is that the home institution—the institution with
which the pupil is registered—is the one that is held to
account for their performance. That is certainly the right model
at the moment because you want the home institution to be taking
responsibility for making sure that the individual pupil gets
the quality of education that is their right. If they are putting
on and arranging courses in other institutions for that student,
they have a responsibility to make sure that they are not just
washing their hands of that child, but that they are making sure
that the child is getting a good quality experience. They are
still the people who are responsible for making sure that that
is the case. That is the right model. On the whole, as things
stand at the moment, models of diploma delivery are leading to
people being out of their home institution for one or one and
a half days a week. The overwhelming balance of time for almost
all students in the country is still with the home institution.
Obviously, it could be the case—we don't know this—that
the model will evolve further to a point at which people are actually
spending the bulk of their time outside their institution. At
that point, we would need to think further about whether the accountability
system needs to evolve to reflect that change in practice. At
the moment, I think we're on the right case.
Mr Coaker: I also think, David,
that the alignment of the school report card, the framework for
excellence, and the interrelationship to which you allude is something
that we are going to have to look at very carefully during the
pilot to see how you actually align them. Jon is right in saying
that it is the home institution. But you can see it is a challenge.
When we talked about initial teacher training last time I was
at the Committee a couple of weeks ago, a similar issue arose
about the movement of teaching and non-teaching staff between
different institutions. The fluidity of the system will raise
these sorts of challenge and we will simply have to look at how
best to align those two systems in a way that is non-bureaucratic,
fair to both institutions and fair to the individual.
Chairman: You can hardly say that without
a smile.
Mr Coaker: I am smiling, but you
have to start with that aspiration.
Q425 Mr Chaytor: Pursuing the question
of possible contradictions, the report card will also include
the summary of the most recent Ofsted report. What happens if
there is a sharp contrast between the assessment on the report
card itself or the rating that goes into the report card, and
the judgment of the most recent Ofsted report? Would it be more
useful to have a summary of the past two or three Ofsted reports?
Mr Coaker: The summary of the
last Ofsted report is the right thing to do because you want the
most recent information available to parents. As you know, some
schools are changing quite dramatically. Going back a couple of
Ofsteds ago may unfairly reflect on the school's improvement,
which the most recent Ofsted report would show. Even though the
most recent Ofsted report would show it, there will almost be
an aspersion cast, because of where the school was a year or two
ago. It is important that the latest Ofsted inspection is there—it
is an important part of the report card and of the information
that should be available to parents when they make their judgment.
Chairman: We are going to drill down
on Ofsted.
Jon Coles: May I make one other
comment on this, in passing, which is important. The fact that
it is going to act as the risk assessment for Ofsted is really
important in that context, because if you see a sharp decline
in the report card, that would obviously be evidence for Ofsted
to say, "We should go and have a look at what's going on
in this school." Aligning it as part of that process is quite
important.
Q426 Mr Chaytor: Finally, on parental
perceptions, how will the system guard against what might be described
as the inevitability of schools with active and well-informed
bodies of parents and with energetic head teachers mobilising
parental perceptions through the report?
Mr Coaker: That is a reasonable
point to make but, frankly, it was made when Ofsted went out to
get parental information to inform its inspections—people
were saying that in some schools, you'll get the school mobilising
parents. What happens is that one indication comes in, and you
make that judgment against the whole range of other judgments
about a school. Clearly, when it comes to parental perception,
the way it is done and the way it is looked at is something that
needs to be tested in the pilots to ensure that you don't get
that skewing of opinion that you might have if it was done in
the way that you suggest.
Q427 Chairman: Minister, before
we move on, you have to admit that it is going to be a difficult
job, once a child gets to 14, to track his or her well-being as
he or she goes off to FE college or to diplomas on different sites.
It is going to be much easier to do this in terms of a standard
secondary and primary career, but it is more difficult when you
get to 14 to 19, isn't it?
Mr Coaker: To be fair, that probably
is the case, but if something is difficult or challenging, or
you wonder how it could be done, the fact is that if it is the
right thing to do, you have to press ahead with it. I think it
is the right thing to do. It is challenging, as you say; it is
more challenging in those circumstances, but none the less, it
is something that we should pursue.
Q428 Chairman: Does it seem that
the softer end—parental and student satisfaction—becomes
more difficult? Will it become more difficult, in terms of the
softer data, when you're polling people about what they think
of the experience? That will be much more difficult across a number
of institutions.
Mr Coaker: Yes, but not impossible,
and not something that is not worth doing, notwithstanding the
practical problem you raise.
Q429 Mr Timpson: We have touched
briefly on the role of Ofsted and where it fits into the chain
of accountability, but the prospectus that we've seen appears
on the face of it to be a joint publication. It has Ofsted written
on it—indeed, even the report card example you have has
Ofsted written on it—but it is meant to be an independent
regulator. Isn't there a worry that if the Government are going
to be deciding the aspects of performance that will be on the
report cards and how they are measured, and if that will be informing
Ofsted in deciding whether a school under the risk assessment,
or its inspection, is underperforming and needs to be inspected,
that is compromising the independence of Ofsted?
Mr Coaker: Ofsted is independent—it
is important that we put that on the record; and I am sure that
Christine Gilbert will go on that independence, as she should.
It is not a case of compromising independence but of trying to
work together in order to improve accountability and improve the
way that the system works. As I have said, in the production of
the prospectus that we have before us, we have worked closely
with Ofsted. The inspection regime will stand alongside it and
will be a part of it, but will be separate from it.
Q430 Mr Timpson: But it won't
be separate, will it, if Ofsted is looking to the school report
card to help inform it of its own decision on inspection? Surely,
all Ofsted should be doing is relying on its own inspection regime
and ignoring what the school report card says, because that is
something that the Government have set as a measure of performance.
That is something that Ofsted should not be involving itself with.
Mr Coaker: It will be one of the
ways in which a risk assessment or something indicates to Ofsted
that there may be a problem. There will be other things that it
uses, of course, and the inspection that then takes place and
the way in which Ofsted operates in looking at a school and coming
to a judgement about a school, looking into the processes that
take place and the qualitative judgements that it makes, will
be completely independent in coming to the conclusions it wants
to make about that.
Jon Coles: It is worth adding
that Ofsted has produced its own revised version of its inspection
process and framework. By doing that, it wanted to have a way
of deciding which schools should be inspected on the five-year
cycle and which should be inspected more frequently, and to have
a way of judging the risks and deciding which of the schools are
at risk of going downhill and which we therefore ought to go and
have a look at quickly. What Ofsted has said is that assuming
we get the design of the report card right, it will use that as
the basis of its risk assessment, but that does not mean that
it will constrain itself to looking only at the report card as
evidence; it might choose to look at other things as well. We
have worked very closely with Ofsted, and I think that we have
a much better product because we have worked with it and taken
its educational advice. This is a joint consultation, which means
that Ofsted is saying that it is serving its purposes as well
as ours. Clearly, if at any point Christine decided that it was
not serving Ofsted's purposes and would not work for it as the
basis of its risk assessment, I am sure she would say that she
would not use it as the basis of her risk assessment, because
that would not be the right thing for her to do.
Q431 Mr Timpson: Could I ask that
you take away and consider the fact that some people will view
Ofsted's involvement in the creation of this school report card—the
ultimate contents of which have been decided by the Government—and
Ofsted's reliance on that to inform it of its own independent
inspection, as leaving both Ofsted and the Government open to
the charge that Ofsted has been taken under the wing of the Government
and is simply acting as their poodle in the way that people within
government would want it to?
Mr Coaker: We certainly will take
that away. The Committee will come forward with its report about
accountability, and we will look very carefully at the recommendations
that the Committee makes. Obviously, if that is something of concern,
it is something that we need to consider as well, because we do
not want to compromise the independence of Ofsted—that is
not the intention. Our intention is to work with Ofsted to produce
a better product.
Q432 Mr Timpson: Just one final
question, if I may. Jon, you touched on the new inspection framework
that is rolling out in September 2009. One of the changes of emphasis
within that is that schools that are already performing well have
to be able to demonstrate ongoing improvement in order to maintain
their inspection grade. That leaves open the scenario in which
you have a high-performing school with a grade 1 that is going
to have to try to show improvement, but cannot get any higher.
How do you envisage their being able to show that they are significantly
improving, to avoid their grade going lower?
Jon Coles: This is a moment when
I might pray in aid myself the independence of Ofsted, because
obviously it is its inspection framework, not ours. I think that
what Ofsted is saying is that every school, no matter how good,
ought to be improving and looking for continuous improvement.
It is the sort of Japanese production-line model that, no matter
how well you are doing, you ought to be looking to improve your
processes and continuously improve. It is not saying, "You
must be looking to improve your inspection grade", but that
"You must look to be improving teaching practice and processes,
and your processes of developing staff and monitoring the attainment
and progress of children and young people. You must be looking
to extend the areas in which you are excellent, and to identify
the subject departments that are perhaps slightly weaker than
others and look to improve those". There is no doubt that
what Ofsted is doing is again raising the bar on the expectation
of what is needed in the system, but that push towards continuous
improvement is a very positive thing. You are absolutely right
that the way in which that is then judged by inspectors, sensitively
and taking care to look at the context of the school and at what
it is doing, is absolutely crucial in getting that right. What
you do not want, of course, is a school that is the most outstanding
school in the country but struggles, therefore, to demonstrate
that it is improving, and is marked down for that. What you do
want is that most outstanding school in the country to be looking
always to be stretching and improving itself, to be identifying
where it is weaker and to be improving in lots of areas. That
is what it is trying to achieve.
Mr Coaker: Briefly, the striving
for continuous improvement, even when you are excellent, is what
keeps you excellent. Jon was saying, Ofsted is independent in
that sense, but I think that that is what they mean—the
continuing drive to do even better, even when you are doing exceedingly
well, is what keeps you there. You will know, Edward, from your
own constituency, as I do, that some of the best schools, which
are right at the top of their game, are still always looking to
see what more they can do.
Q433 Chairman: We did see one
of the top schools in New York, which could not get above a B
in its school report card.
Mr Coaker: That is because of
the limiting judgment.
Q434 Helen Southworth: In terms
of the opportunities that might be brought in by the school report
cards and accountability to local people and pupils' parents,
what are you expecting to be able to do in terms of indicating
responses for children who find it difficult to achieve in school
because of challenging circumstances? That could be because of
long-term conditions, or it could be children who go missing or
who have challenging family circumstances.
Mr Coaker: One of the things that
we are looking at is the whole issue of contextualisation, of
trying to look at the context in which schools are prey to some
of the more difficult and challenging circumstances that some
schools have compared with others. What we are trying to do is
to devise a system that allows that to happen in a way that does
not reward poor performance or does not have people saying, "Well,
what do you expect around here, we can't achieve anything?"
There is avoiding that, but also allowing us to devise a system
that shows where a school is making sufficient progress despite
some of the issues that it has. One of the things we shall do
with pupil progress—not with pupil attainment; there will
be no contextualisation for that—is that there will be this
contextualisation in which we try to look at some of the indicators
you have mentioned, some of the issues around poverty and ethnicity,
and some of the other issues, to see what impact they have on
a school and in what ways the school has made progress despite
that. One of the ways that we are looking to do that is to give
credits to a school—in terms of taking account of that,
credits would add to a school's overall score. Clearly there is
a lot of technical detail, which I would not pretend to be able
to explain to the Committee. Certainly, the idea of trying to
take into account some of those factors will be welcome to many
schools that make fundamentally excellent progress in difficult
circumstances, and that sometimes feel they are not adequately
accepted or acknowledged.
Q435 Helen Southworth: In terms
of the particular examples I gave—long-term conditions and
children going missing—they can happen irrespective of the
challenging circumstances. Will this be an opportunity for Ofsted
to inspect the support that schools give for children with long-term
conditions, for example?
Mr Coaker: Certainly Ofsted would,
or should, look at how a school tackles any of those issues, whether
special needs or children with learning difficulties, or how they
deal with children not at school—missing or not attending.
All those things it would take into account in coming to an overall
judgment about a particular school.
Q436 Chairman: You have certainly
put an interesting gloss on this, both of you. Some people might
say that Ofsted deeply resents this new intrusion on a job that
it thought it was doing perfectly well. There is a minor voice
coming out of Ofsted, which we picked up, that seems to be sulking
a bit about this. This is Ofsted's job—accountability, inspection
and telling parents. All these things that you want the school
report card to do, Ofsted could say, quite justifiably, "We
do that. This is a question mark over our existence. We are going
to be peripheralised by this." That is true, isn't it?
Jon Coles: No, I don't think it
is. Can I just say that we have produced this report card absolutely
jointly with Ofsted.
Q437 Chairman: Well, perhaps you
shouldn't have. I thought Ofsted was supposed to be independent.
I thought Ofsted should have had the guts and the courage to say,
"Look, we don't like this. We think we weren't consulted
enough. Where's the evidence base for it?" Why is Ofsted
in this cosy relationship? What is the point of having Ofsted?
Why do we not get rid of Ofsted if it is so cosy with the Government
and doing all these nice little joint policies?
Jon Coles: I think that Ofsted
are completely free to say that they do not wish to use the report
card in the way they have said they wish to. Where we have worked
together with them is on the design of the report card, and their
educational advisers are absolutely invaluable in doing this properly.
I am sure that if they felt that they resented it and did not
want to do it, that is what they would be saying, because they
have the independence to say that. Of course, it is absolutely
vital in the system that we have an independent inspectorate which
can comment independently on schools, on government policy, and
so on, and they do that absolutely freely.
Q438 Chairman: They don't, Jon—come
on. Sitting where we sit, we do not see that. We see quite a comfortable
relationship between Ofsted and the Department. I know it is not
popular to talk about rocking the boat, but they do not want to
rock the boat, do they? It is hardly Chris Woodhead in charge
at the moment, is it?
Mr Coaker: No, but it is somebody
who works hard and does challenge us and will challenge us, no
doubt, in the annual report.
Q439 Chairman: We have not seen
any challenge with this. You have picked this up in a year. A
year ago, no one had ever heard of it, then someone scratches
his or her head in the Department and we have suddenly got this
fashion. You have introduced it and I would imagine that many
people in Ofsted were saying, "What on earth is this all
about?"
Mr Coaker: We think that the role
that Ofsted plays in looking at the process that takes place in
schools—observation and a lot of the qualitative work that
they have done—is significantly different to a report card,
which is outcome-based and data-based. The way that Ofsted drills
down underneath that is of huge importance and significance.
| 
