1 Introduction
1. With one in three people in England using
the services which it inspects or regulates, Ofsted is a major
entity in the English education and children's care systems today.
As the state inspectorate in England for education, skills and
children's services, its remit includes the scrutiny not just
of schools, colleges and local authority children's services but
also a wide range of other settings including children's homes,
education on the secure estate, nurseries, adoption and fostering
agencies, and adult learning establishments. By Ofsted's own reckoning,
its work touches millions of people; indeed, it receives more
than seven million hits to its website every month.[1]
2. As a non-Ministerial Department, Ofsted has
an Accounting Officer—Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education,
Skills and Children's Services—who reports to Parliament
on the organisation's work. Under the Chief Inspector, an executive
board of seven directors is responsible for the day-to-day running
of the organisation, as well as for the delivery and development
of inspection across Ofsted's broad remit. The Chief Inspector
also sits on Ofsted's non-executive board, chaired by Baroness
Morgan of Huyton, which sets Ofsted's strategic direction, targets
and objectives, and ensures the Chief Inspector's functions are
performed "efficiently and effectively".[2]
The role of the Board is discussed in Chapter 3 of this report,
and a basic organisation chart for Ofsted can be seen at Annex
3. Ofsted's own workforce numbers around 1,500, including around
400 Her Majesty's Inspectors. Around 2,700 Additional Inspectors
are employed by the three Regional Inspection Service Providers
who undertake inspections on Ofsted's behalf.[3]
Their roles are discussed more in Chapters 3 and 4. In 2009-10,
Ofsted's estimated total public spending was over £201m.[4]
3. Perhaps inevitably for an organisation with
the scope to touch so many lives, Ofsted is a source of much controversy.
Despite the Government's recent abolition of several high-profile
agencies and arms-length bodies—including the Qualifications
and Curriculum Development Agency (QCDA) and the British Educational
Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA)—Ofsted has
remained intact on the grounds that it is "performing a technical
function which requires impartiality":[5]
a sure sign of the Government's own regard for the role the inspectorate
plays. Ofsted's own surveys emphasise how valued its work is by
the public as well: the Chief Inspector told the Committee that
"nine out of ten [responses] are very positive", based
on the thousands submitted. Independent evaluations commissioned
by Ofsted—for example by BMG Research—suggest similar
figures.[6]
4. By stark contrast, evidence from the teacher
unions shows a very different picture regarding Ofsted's performance.
For example, in a recent poll conducted by the National Association
of Head Teachers (NAHT) of its members, almost a quarter of the
1,500 respondents described Ofsted's performance as inadequate;
only three respondents called it "outstanding".[7]
Similarly, Ofsted's children's care inspections have come in for
considerable criticism, not least in the wake of the death of
baby Peter Connelly.
5. It is in the context of this enormous scope
and influence that the Committee undertook its inquiry into the
role and performance of Ofsted. Our terms of reference aimed to
examine the very reasons for Ofsted's existence, its impact on
improvement in the settings it scrutinises, the breadth of its
remit, and its performance—at both strategic and operational
levels. In light of the formation of the Coalition Government
and its principles of professional and institutional autonomy,
the terms of reference also called for evidence on Ofsted's role
in inspecting a system with greater localised freedom, as well
as on existing frameworks and inspection processes. Additionally,
in Chapter 6, we consider key policies of the new Government relating
to Ofsted, including its proposal for the new schools inspections
framework.
6. We received 120 written submissions from a
spectrum of witnesses including parents, teachers, retired inspectors,
local authorities, universities, Members of Parliament and unions,
as well as from various settings inspected or regulated by Ofsted.
The Committee then heard oral evidence from ten panels, where
witnesses ranged from former Chief Inspectors to academics to
front-line practitioners.[8]
7. The Committee also advertised, via the Times
Educational Supplement and online, for serving and retired inspectors
to attend a seminar at the House of Commons, and was very pleased
to receive 219 responses. Of these, twelve—representing
the breadth of Ofsted's remit, as well as a good geographical
spread—were selected to attend the seminar. All the other
applicants were sent a questionnaire, and the 77 responses provided
very useful information for the Committee's inquiry.[9]
8. Finally, ever-keen to learn from international
practice, five Committee members undertook an official visit to
Finland, consistently ranked as one of the world's finest and
fairest education systems despite its complete lack of formal
centralised school inspection.[10]
9. We are grateful to all witnesses for taking
the time to contribute to this important inquiry—whether
in writing or in person—and especially to those who travelled
substantial distances to take part in panels in London. We are
particularly grateful to Gerard Kelly, Editor of the Times Educational
Supplement, for advertising our seminar; to Matthew Lodge, Her
Majesty's Ambassador to Finland, and Mark Armstrong and Susanna
Eskola at the British Embassy in Helsinki; and to officials at
Ofsted and the Department for Education for their assistance and
knowledge.
10. Finally, special thanks are due to the Committee's
standing advisers, Professor Alan Smithers and Professor Geoff
Whitty, and to the specialist advisers for this inquiry: Dame
Denise Platt and Dr David Moore CBE. The Committee has benefited
greatly from their combined expertise.[11]
1 See http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/About-us/Working-for-Ofsted Back
2
See http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/About-us/Our-structure-and-leadership
Back
3
These figures were provided by Ofsted staff for the purposes of
this inquiry Back
4
Ofsted Resource Accounts 2009-10, HC 302, p. 72. See Chapter 3
of this report for further detail on Ofsted's savings targets Back
5
Explanatory Notes to the Public Bodies Bill, HL Bill 25-EN Back
6
See Q 396 Back
7
Ev 111 Back
8
A list of witnesses and written evidence received can be found
at the back of this report Back
9
A note of views expressed at the seminar can be found at Annex
1. The questionnaires were conducted on a non-attributable basis
and, therefore, comments quoted from those are not referenced Back
10
A note of the visit can be found at Annex 2 Back
11
Specialist Advisers have declared the following interests: Professor
Geoff Whitty declared interests as Director of the Institute of
Education and Trustee of the University of London, until 31 December
2010, and as Trustee of the IFS School of Finance; Dame Denise
Platt declared interests as a member of the Committee on Standards
in Public Life, as a Trustee of the NSPCC, as a Governor of the
University of Bedfordshire, as a Trustee of the Adventure Capital
Fund, as Chair of the National Aids Trust, as a member of the
Independent Review Board Cheshire Fire and Rescue Services, and
as a member of the Commission on Assisted Dying; she is also a
former Chief Inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate and
former Chair of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Dame
Denise took no part in the development of the NSPCC's evidence
to this inquiry Back
|
