| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Could there be less distracting noise from the Benches, please?
Mr. Foster: There are concerns about the democratic accountability of Ofsted. For example, when we ask Ministers about Ofsted's work, we often get the reply, "That is not a matter for the Minister," and our inquiries are passed on to the chief inspector.
Many of us watched the television programme "Dispatches" last Thursday, when the chief inspector acknowledged that there might be a need to improve his organisation's democratic accountability. He said:
Such debate would enable us to ask some questions about certain aspects of the chief inspector's report, and help us to formulate future policy. Undoubtedly, we would wish to question, for example, the chief inspector's choice of language.
There were criticisms of the chief inspector in a recent study, which dealt with how two inspectors studying the same lessons reached different judgments in a third of all
lessons. Although the researchers pointed out that there was such a discrepancy in judgment in one third of all lessons, the chief inspector chose to interpret that as meaning that judgments agreed in two thirds of lessons.
The two thirds/one third issue is quite an interesting one. In the initial draft of one of his own reports, "The Teaching of Reading in 45 London Primary Schools", the chief inspector said:
Those who watched last Thursday's "Dispatches" programme--as I certainly did--will have been very concerned by comments by Mr. Alan Padden, head teacher of the Adel primary school, in Leeds. He was very concerned about an Ofsted report of his school, and said:
We should be able to debate also the manner in which the chief inspector collects his own data. It is quite fascinating that the chief inspector tells members of the public that the vast majority of people in schools are satisfied with how his inspections are conducted, yet I have a copy of his method of collecting data to formulate judgments.
The chief inspector uses a five-point scale. As I am sure hon. Members are well aware, a five-point scale will usually have a spectrum comprising statements from "strongly agree" and "agree", to a central, neutral position, and finally to "disagree" and "strongly disagree". However, although one extreme end of the spectrum in the chief inspector's scale says "strongly agree" and "agree", the middle statement is "broadly agree". At the other extreme end of the spectrum is "disagree" and "strongly disagree". It is thus hardly surprising that the chief inspector tells us that many people are happy with what he is doing, when the reality is that many are not happy.
If the chief inspector's report is considered so important by him and by the Government in the process of levering up standards in schools, and if both Houses of Parliament
are interested in levering up standards, as I believe they should be, we should have the right to debate the chief inspector's report on the Floor of the House.
Only a few years ago, the chief inspector said that the importance of Ofsted's work was that it ensured that it was possible to ascertain whether the emperor's clothes existed and whether they were as they might seem to an unsuspecting eye. A debate on the chief inspector's annual report on the Floor of both Houses of Parliament would give us the opportunity not only to have an informed debate on educational standards but to check whether this particular emperor--the chief inspector--has any clothes.
Mr. St. Aubyn:
I shall detain the House for only a short time. I am a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, and this issue goes to the heart of that Committee's responsibilities--[Interruption.] It is a disgrace that Labour Members are not prepared to consider the duties that the House gives to Members and how they might be affected by amendments. It is also a disgrace that no Labour member of the Select Committee is present to discuss this important subject. It is a matter of regret to me that only two Conservative members of that Committee are here. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) is otherwise detained, but she has been here for virtually the entire evening. However, not one of the Labour members of the Select Committee on Education and Employment has bothered to be here for this debate.
I regret that I have to oppose the new clause, and must point out that we have a means of examining the chief inspector: we have the right to inquire of him what his views are, and we call him before the Select Committee. My concern is that the new clause would undermine that very important role of the Committee.
Mr. Hayes:
I hope that my hon. Friend's concern is not so deep that he will not be able to support the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
Mr. St. Aubyn:
I may well end up in the Division Lobby with the hon. Member for Bath on the ground that I suspect that the new clause will be opposed by the Government, and I am deeply opposed to everything that the Government are doing in the Bill. However, I have to point out that the hon. Member for Bath did not pay enough attention in his speech--although I regret missing the first part of it--to the vital role of the Select Committee. That is where the chief inspector is primarily accountable and where we must hold him accountable on behalf of the House.
Mr. Byers:
I shall invite the House to vote against the new clause, and I give two fundamental reasons why it should do so. The first is that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has misunderstood the role played by the chief inspector. The chief inspector might advise the Secretary of State, but the Secretary of State will determine his own policy in the light of advice which he receives from a range of individuals and organisations.
The second reason, in respect of scrutiny by the House, is that the chief inspector is independent of the Secretary of State. That is one of the reasons why parliamentary questions tabled to Ministers are in fact replied to by the chief inspector--he is a Crown servant and, as such, not answerable to the Secretary of State.
In fact, the best way to scrutinise the work of the chief inspector and Ofsted is through the Select Committee. If there is an annual report, the chief inspector can be invited to give evidence, and the Select Committee can then report to the House in the light of those hearings. That is a far more appropriate way of scrutinising Ofsted's work. It keeps lines of communication and responsibility clearly defined.
Mr. Dorrell:
I listened to what the Minister had to say, but I also listened to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), and I found his arguments persuasive. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) was right to say that the Select Committee was an important element of parliamentary accountability, but I am sure that he--indeed, any member of a Select Committee--understands that the Select Committee is a Committee of the House of Commons, and that ultimate responsibility rests with the House.
"We've certainly got no secrets that we feel guilty about. So we're open to any kind of documentary inquiry, any kind of academic inquiry, any kind of inquiry that Parliament, perhaps, might want to throw at us."
It is therefore quite clear that the chief inspector himself can, and would, have no objection to the scrutiny allowed by public debate on the Floor of both Houses of Parliament.
"the quality of teaching is satisfactory or better in approximately 2/3 of lessons observed in Year 2."
However--as he wanted, I suspect, to make a rather more derogatory report--he changed that to:
"weaknesses in teaching hampered pupils' progress and attainment in reading in 1 in 3 lessons in Year 2."
Clearly, Ofsted's work is not of particular interest to Labour Members. However, given that it is costing the United Kingdom £150 million annually, I believe that it should concern them. I certainly hope that they believe that Ofsted should provide value for money. They should also be concerned about criticisms made of the chief inspector's annual report.
"four days in a school isn't good enough if your camera isn't focused and your camera isn't pointing in the right direction. The snap isn't worth having."
In that programme, Mr. Padden reported that, in some cases, judgments of lessons in his school were made by inspectors after less than five, 10 or 15 minutes. He defied any inspector to evaluate teaching quality, the attainment level of a class of up to 30 pupils and the progress that those pupils made in a lesson, and to validate those judgments, in such short periods. Perhaps even more worrying was that the Ofsted report included judgments on--and scores for pupils' attainment in--a music lesson that had not even been given. Hon. Members should have an opportunity to debate such matters and concerns on the Floor of the House.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |