Memorandum submitted by Mr and Mrs Dominic
Williams
1. We are parents of two girls, both now in secondary
school. In this submission, we draw on our experience of the Independent
Schools Inspectorate, a body inspected by Ofsted. We then go on
to address the wider questions raised by the Select Committee
about Ofsted's role. In so doing, we are able to draw on previous
experience of Ofsted as an inspector of state schools. We have
also taken the trouble to read a wider range material relating
to the inspections process.
2. Although the relevant government department
is now the Department for Education, the events we outline occurred
prior to May 2010, so we refer throughout to DCSF, the Department
for Children, Schools and Families.
Recommendations
3. The role of DfE should in future be limited
to standard setting. It should not be able to intervene with or
direct inspecting bodies.
4. Ofsted should not be responsible for inspecting
other inspection bodies.
5. The Independent Schools Inspectorate should
be replaced by a genuinely independent body with no conflict of
interest.
6. Inspecting bodies should have an explicit
duty of care to parents and pupils and should be liable for their
negligence.
7. Inspecting bodies should report to school
governors, not to DfE, and governors should assume responsibility
for compliance with educational and safeguarding standards, including
warranting that they have disclosed all relevant information to
the inspection team - in the same way as they assume responsibility
for the school's financial affairs.
8. This could mean that inspections were carried
out by independent private sector bodies.
9. Complaints about both individual matters and
about standards compliance would both be addressed in the first
instance to the governors and then to an independent supervisory
body (which could be a reformed and fit for purpose Ofsted), which
would have the power to take disciplinary action against the school.
10. In order to prevent governors obstructing
the process, any complaint to them would be copied to and logged
by the independent body which would automatically intervene if
the complaint was not resolved within a fixed time limit.
11. All complaints should be dealt with in accordance
with the rules of natural justice, in particular both sides should
have the right to hear the other side's case.
12. Any report produced by the independent body
would be made publicly available.
13. As is now the case, complainants would have
the right to seek judicial review of a decision or to pursue a
claim in damages where appropriate. This new system would not
impact on their rights.
OUR EXPERIENCE
14. In 2007-08, our daughter was a pupil in
Year 7 of North London Collegiate School (NLCS), an independent
school for girls. Our daughter's year at NLCS was ruined by disruptive
behaviour, bullying and poor discipline from two girls in her
class. The school had admitted the two girls knowing that they
had disciplinary problems and they rapidly ran out of control.
It started in the first term and worsened during the year, culminating
in an incident where the girls urinated on their seats in a lesson
- and ultimately one girl was obliged to leave the school. Although
the school knew it had problems controlling the two girls, it
did not realise that this was having a wider impact on other girls.
15. This behaviour had a corrosive effect on
the whole form, but our daughter, coming from a small state school,
bore the brunt. It took us some months to realise why she hated
school so much, but when we did, we complained to the school.
It was clear to us that the school was out of its depth. Senior
staff were extremely confident in their ability to manage pupils,
but actually were inadequately trained and ill-informed. After
we complained, the headmistress had to write to all the parents
to find out what else had been going on. Staff were unaware of
best practice in anti-bullying policy (as set out by DCSF); we
had to tell them what was expected.
16. In particular, the school failed to publish
and enforce its anti bullying policy as required. There was an
unintentionally comic meeting early on at NLCS in which we asked
to see the school's anti-bullying policy. At first a deputy headmistress
teacher told us it was in the pupils' handbook, then that it was
in the parents' handbook, then she eventually remembered it was
in the staff handbook in her desk - no one had access to it except
staff. We asked why it was not published to parents and another
deputy headmistress told us it was because "it could encourage
people to think we have a problem".
17. Meanwhile, while our daughter was there,
NLCS was subject to an inspection by the Independent Schools Inspectorate.
The inspection took place during the spring term, at the height
of the bullying and disruptive behaviour. The report was published
in summer 2008 and said that the school complied with all regulations,
pastoral care was excellent, staff were well trained, there was
no disruptive behaviour or bullying and everything was perfect.
The report was materially inaccurate.
18. We made a formal complaint about the report,
initially to the chair of the school governors (who refused to
discuss the matter) and then to ISI. Neither the school nor ISI
has ever disputed that our account of events was essentially correct.
The school's defence (as we discovered from an FOI request) was
that "the information given on our website was found by the
inspectors to fulfil the regulatory requirements" (ie it
was the inspectors' fault for not spotting the failing). ISI's
defence was that it was only responsible for checking that schools
had policies; it made no effect to check whether they were adequately
published or enforced.
19. After we complained, ISI made significant
changes in its procedures. It has rewritten most of its inspection
handbook. It now checks to see policies are being published and
implemented. It has also updated its anti bullying requirements
and made governors check to see policies are implemented effectively
- so our complaint appears to have had some impact.
20. ISI had a second defence - its complaints
procedure. It said that our complaint was out of time, because
it was made more than six months after the inspection date. However,
the report was not published until five months after the inspection
and, as we pointed out, it would be difficult for us to complain
about a report before it had been written and published. Moreover,
ISI reports were published undated; give no contact details for
the ISI (not even an address); and make no mention of a complaints
procedure. In other words, ISI did not have an adequate procedure
for handling complaints.
21. Meanwhile, acting on instructions from DCSF,
ISI asked to the school to set out its arrangements for publicising
its procedures. After a lengthy delay during which the school
took legal advice, it replied in April 2009, saying that the inspection
had approved the school's arrangements at the time and its anti-bullying
policy was (now) published on its website - which by then, a year
after the ISI inspection, was true. So, again, our actions had
led to an improvement in the quality of pastoral care.
22. ISI claimed throughout to be acting under
instruction from DCSF. So, from June 2009 to May 2010, we tried
to obtain details of the correspondence between ISI and DCSF using
an FOI request:
— DCSF
first denied that any such correspondence existed; we were able
to prove this was untrue.
— In
September 2009, DCSF staff said they were too busy to comply with
the FOI statutory deadlines (which require a reply within 20 days)
and they were going on holiday.
— Next,
we made a formal complaint to the department -which then ignored
its own published complaints procedure and referred the matter
to a senior member of staff who admitted she had known about the
problem all along, but had no intention of complying with the
Act yet. The complaint was then referred back to the person about
whom we were complaining.
— In
October the department formally declined our request, again contravening
the Act. We asked for a review, as the Act allows. The review
was organised by the person who made the original decision.
— From
November 2009 to May 2010 DCSF claimed that the decision was being
reviewed by an unknown set of people with an unknown brief who
were contacting unknown third parties about unspecified matters
and who would reach a decision at some unspecified future point.
— Finally
in May 2010, we made a follow up request asking for the name(s)of
the review panel, the date they were appointed, the third parties
they had consulted and so on.
— Rather
than reply to this request, DCSF released the relevant correspondence
between itself and ISI. Perhaps coincidentally, there was a change
of government at this time.
— The
department has not published the information in the list of FOI
disclosures on its website, on the grounds that it is not new
or of general interest.
23. In another apparent coincidence, in early
2010 we approached a national newspaper with our story. We did
not realise that the newspaper had nominated NLCS as its "School
of the Year". The newspaper did not publish our story, but
shortly afterwards ISI published a radically improved complaints
procedure and the school published an updated and improved anti-
bullying policy.
24. However, ISI has refused to amend its inspection
report, even though it knows it is materially inaccurate, and
the school makes prominent mention of it in its publicity material,
knowing it is untrue.
25. So, our experience of ISI reveals not just
a single instance of a sloppy inspection, but systematic failings
in ISI's inspection and complaints procedures that were readily
apparent to us as laymen but were only addressed after we complained
- and refused to let the matter rest.
26. What was Ofsted's role in driving this improvement
in standards? Nothing, as far as we can tell. Although we as laymen
could see the deficiencies in ISI procedures, Ofsted apparently
could not. Moreover, in theory, Ofsted should have been made aware
of the problems - both by ISI and DCSF. Yet Ofsted said in its
"Annual report on the quality of ISI inspections and reports
2007-08" that it had looked at 21 inspection reports, of
which 18 were good and 3 satisfactory. It said "A comprehensive
framework and handbook underpin the inspection regime" and
"The ISI has good systems for monitoring the quality of its
inspections and reports."
27. Ofsted is the dog that never barked.
28. If this were an isolated occurrence, it would
be bad enough. However, it appears that there are a number of
occasions where ISI has published a positive report on a school
which has subsequently turned out to be dangerously inaccurate.
St Benedict's School, Ealing seems to the most serious recent
case, in which ISI has had to withdraw a complimentary report
about the school, because it was untrue. However, Ofsted continues
to write approving annual reports for ISI. Any qualifications
expressed appear to be reactions to weaknesses revealed by a third
party, not by spotted by Ofsted. Something is amiss.
CONCLUSIONS
29. The first weakness in the inspection system,
now well understood, is the excessive concern with process rather
than outcomes. Inspections have become a box-ticking exercise
rather than focusing on the quality of teaching and pastoral care.
This is compounded by the deluge of legislation, standards, advice,
best practice, guidance and so on, issuing from government. Standards
for the independent sector are generally not statutory (and are
weaker than those applied to state sector schools), creating further
confusion.
30. The second issue is the overlap in accountability
among the various bodies, all of whom can (and do) argue that
if they have ticked their own boxes, they are not responsible
for anything that goes wrong. In the case of independent schools,
there is a direct relationship between DCSF and ISI that excludes
Ofsted - so Ofsted can argue that it has carried out its job by
looking at a set of inspection reports, even if the ISI has systematic
weaknesses.
31. The inspection system also became politicised
under the previous government. Instead of being a way of ensuring
diverse schools met common standards of quality, it became an
instrument to ensure all schools conformed to a rigid policy template.
DCSF evidently exercised a great deal of control over Ofsted and
ISI on all kinds of matters and appears to have had a decisive
role in dealing (or not dealing) with our complaints about ISI
procedures. The problem is that civil servants are concerned with
general policy, not with individual circumstances; they are flexible
and sensitive to opinion; they put departmental loyalty above
free flow of information; they are not rewarded for being controversial,
forthright or decisive. It is the job of civil servants to cover
up and smooth over problems, not to highlight them to the public.
These are exactly the wrong characteristics for making a fuss
when something has gone wrong and therefore exactly the wrong
characteristics for people in charge of a rigorous school inspection
system.
32. The inspection bodies also suffer from group
think and lack the independence to act as effective scrutineers.
The Permanent Secretary of DCSF was the former head of Ofsted.
ISI inspections are usually led by former Ofsted inspectors. Ofsted
acts both as an inspection body for schools and as an inspection
body for other school inspection bodies. Because Ofsted reports
on ISI, it means that any criticisms of ISI are also criticisms
of Ofsted. It is not hard to see why these bodies instinctively
close ranks to protect each other when challenged - and why parents
and pupils appear to have a much better track record of bringing
weaknesses in schools to light than Ofsted.
33. The situation for ISI is worse because, apart
form former Ofsted staff, the inspection teams are largely made
up of senior staff from other private schools. They all inspect
each other, which must make it very difficult for inspection teams
to be impartial. Moreover, it appears that that the ISI is owned
and funded by the Independent Schools Council via a levy on members.
It is not an independent schools inspectorate, it is an inspectorate
of independent schools.
34. There is also an awkward overlap between
systematic issues, which are the responsibility of the inspecting
bodies, and individual complaints which are a matter for the school
and its proprietors or governing body. In reality, the two usually
happen in tandem, but, as we discovered, the argument that the
inspectorate cannot deal with individual cases is frequently used
by them as an excuse for inaction. Equally, governors argue (as
they did in our case) that if they have passed an inspection,
their actions in a particular case are immune from challenge.
This is likely to cause particular problems with new types of
schools, if they are perceived as publicly accountable but actually
are self governing.
35. There is also a great lack of clarity about
the Freedom of Information Act and how it applies to the various
bodies.
36. It is not at all clear what benefit there
is in having such an elaborate and costly public sector inspection
apparatus that is run for the benefit of government, not for the
benefit of parents and pupils. It failed us, as it has failed
many parents and children.
RECOMMENDATIONS
37. The role of DfE should in future be limited
to standard setting. It should not be able to intervene with or
direct inspecting bodies.
38. Ofsted should not be responsible for inspecting
other inspection bodies.
39. The Independent Schools Inspectorate should
be replaced by a genuinely independent body with no conflict of
interest.
40. Inspecting bodies should have an explicit
duty of care to parents and pupils and should be liable for their
negligence.
41. Inspecting bodies should report to school
governors, not to DfE, and governors should assume responsibility
for compliance with educational and safeguarding standards, including
warranting that they have disclosed all relevant information to
the inspection team - in the same way as they assume responsibility
for the school's financial affairs.
42. This could mean that inspections were carried
out by independent private sector bodies.
43. Complaints about both individual matters
and about standards compliance would both be addressed in the
first instance to the governors and then to an independent supervisory
body (which could be a reformed and fit for purpose Ofsted), which
would have the power to take disciplinary action against the school.
44. In order to prevent governors obstructing
the process, any complaint to them would be copied to and logged
by the independent body which would automatically intervene if
the complaint was not resolved within a fixed time limit.
45. All complaints should be dealt with in accordance
with the rules of natural justice, in particular both sides should
have the right to hear the other side's case.
46. Any report produced by the independent body
would be made publicly available.
47. As is now the case, complainants would have
the right to seek judicial review of a decision or to pursue a
claim in damages where appropriate. This new system would not
impact on their rights.
October 2010
| 
