Education: National Curriculum (Hansard, 15 November 1989)

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, we endorse the recommendation that each authority should ensure specialist coverage of all 10 national curriculum subjects within its inspection and advisory service; but in smaller authorities, as the Audit Commission recognises, the workload may not justify employing an inspector or adviser for each subject. These authorities should consider other ways of ensuring subject coverage.

§ Lord Peston
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his Answer to my Question. May I ask whether the Government broadly endorse this excellent report from the Audit Commission? May I also ask whether they accept one of the other main recommendations and observations of this report—namely, that the role of the local education authority changes substantially under the new Education Act—and will enhance that aspect in the future?

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, the Government support the Audit Commission's broad recommendation that inspection, based on systematic observation and recording of the quality of teaching in schools, should be given more emphasis in the work of inspectors and advisers.

§ Baroness David
My Lords, I understand what the Minister said regarding the possibility of smaller authorities sharing. But is the local education support grant to be increased so that some authorities which have difficulty in having enough inspectors/advisers will be able to employ them and have them trained?

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, the Government are already making education support grant available to support an increase in LEA inspectors and advisers. Expenditure of £25 million will be supported over five years. This should lead to an increase of some 10 per cent. on current numbers of inspectors and advisers.

§ Lord Beloff
My Lords, is the Minister convinced that strengthening the inspectorate is the best way to enhance quality in schools in the light of the 1310 inspectorate's own record? Would it not be far better if inspectors and advisers were made to teach in the schools where there is, I understand, an important shortage of teachers?

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, the Audit Commission suggests several options for authorities to consider: teams of inspectors and advisers could operate under the oversight of a joint committee of several authorities and an LEA could contract with a neighbouring authority for that authority's service to undertake inspection and advice on its behalf. To meet the point of my noble friend, a third way is that LEAs could co-ordinate appointments so as to maintain full specialist coverage for all subjects among them. They could then buy specialist expertise from one another.

§ Lord Dormand of Easington
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the report recommends not only one inspector or adviser for each of the 10 national curriculum subjects but in addition one for special educational needs, three for primary education, one for secondary education and one for further education? Does he accept that these are as important as the proposal to have 10 for the 10 national curriculum subjects? If so, while I cannot agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will the Government ensure that the people who are appointed are regarded as the leaders in organising best practices and not necessarily as the fount of all wisdom?

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, We endorse the Audit Commission's recommendation that every LEA should ensure specialist coverage for special educational needs within its inspection and advisory service. Again it will be for each authority to consider whether its workload justifies employing an inspector or adviser or whether arrangements should be made with another authority to ensure that specialist cover.

§ Lord Ritchie of Dundee
My Lords, does not the Minister agree that monitoring the national curriculum demands particular expert knowledge? The Education Reform Act itself speaks of 10 bald and basic subjects discreetly divided —with which most of us are familiar—whereas tile trend of all modern teaching is towards the breakdown of subject barriers and the integration of all learning. Therefore, the monitoring of the curriculum demands particular expertise.

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, the noble Lord has a point. LEAs need to ensure that their inspectors and advisers receive appropriate induction at the outset and suitable continuing professional development thereafter. The Government have made £40,000 grant available to the Centre for Adviser and Inspector Development to evaluate and develop a distance learning programme for inspectors and advisers. This should help to prepare them specifically for monitoring the introduction of our education reforms.

§ Viscount Caldecote
My Lords, with regard to achieving regular attendance at schools in order for children to take advantage of the quality of education, is my noble friend satisfied that there is an adequate number of school attendance officers to ensure regular attendance?

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, I am not, but that is another Question. If my noble friend tables a Question I shall be happy to answer it.

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, is the Minister aware that the Audit Commission has identified a shortfall of 1,100 advisers and inspectors which are needed in order to monitor the national curriculum adequately? Can he say how the Government intend to make up that shortfall?

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, the report recommends that LEAs should decide the workload and staffing of their inspectorate in the light of the tasks to be performed and the resources available. It gives illustrations of how many inspector-advisers a small, medium and large LEA might need depending on whether the planned workload is low or high. On this basis alone the low workload figures suggest that nationally there are 100 too many inspector-advisers. The high workload figure implies that there are 1,100 too few. The report clearly states that these calculations should not be taken to mean that net increases in LEA central staff are required.

§ Lord Peston
My Lords, contrary to what the noble friend of the Minister said, the Audit Commission actually says that monitoring educational quality and advice to improve it are crucial. In other words, the inspectors are crucial. May I further ask the noble Viscount whether he is aware of another figure in the report which is extremely worrying? I refer to the fact that as presently arranged the average teacher in our schools is observed by an inspector only once every seven years, which is about the same as never. The Audit Commission report suggests that the inspectorate and the education officers could be redeployed in order that the average teacher's work could be observed once every year. Is that an objective that the Government approve of and will they try to ensure that it happens?

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, as I said earlier, we endorse the report of the Audit Commission.

§ Lord Glenamara
My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that for once I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff? Anyone who knows the schools is aware that for years members of the inspectorate have gone around the country peddling the most ludicrous ideas and that they are a considerable factor in the low standards that we have in our schools. If the noble Viscount really wants to raise standards then the inspectorate should be abolished and the teachers left to get on with the job.

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, I find myself in a difficulty. I do not believe that we can start on a full-scale debate between the two noble Lords.