School Inspections

HL Deb 09 September 2004 vol 664 cc726-41

1.28 p.m.

Lord Dearing rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what changes are desirable to schools' inspections so that they make the best possible contribution to the quality, effectiveness and well-being of education.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, some months ago I suggested that we might have a discussion about what changes are desirable to schools inspections so that they can make the best contribution to the quality, effectiveness and well-being of education.

I begin by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, to his new appointment. We shall do our best to assist him regarding the conclusions to which he should arrive!

Since I tabled the Question much has happened. In particular, the Government published in June their proposals for A New Relationship with Schools and a month later their Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners.

I want to relate my remarks to what is being proposed. I begin by referring back to what I understand is the statutory basis for inspection set out in the 1996 Act; that is, educational standards, what is achieved in education, leadership and management and spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. I propose that to those final four qualities is added the word "physical". I do so partly against the background that in the five-year strategy the Government place particular emphasis on the health of people in schools. The five-year strategy states: In particular our aim is that every school should be a healthy school, giving good teaching and advice about nutrition and exercise, backed up by its school lunches, by PE and sporting activities". It commits itself to tackling the growing problem of obesity among our young people. All this is, supported by a policy to increase the time spent on quality PE and Sport, to two hours a week, and there is reference to an investment of £1 billion across Government by 2006 on PE, School Sport and Cub Links". On Tuesday, I read a main, front-page article in the Daily Telegraph about a study by academics at the University of Dundee of the health of 150 teenagers in that city. The finding was that one fifth of those young people had early signs of heart disease. I welcome the emphasis that the Government are giving to the issue of health. I request them to consider adding physical development to spiritual, moral, social and cultural development.

Having made that suggestion, I must welcome in broad terms the Government's intention to reduce the "run-up to the wicket" period of great hard work in preparing for inspections and the greater involvement of HMI, although I could, perhaps, wish it to be even greater than is proposed. I also welcome the intention to cut down the time taken for inspections, as long as that will produce reliable inspection reports.

It is here that I have a question. As I understand the February publication, the proposal is that inspections should be twice as frequent as at present but much shorter. Indeed, the man- or woman-hours put into inspection will be one quarter of what they are at present. That is very material. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, if she were present, would want to urge the importance of mature, individual and collective professional judgment by the inspectors and ask whether there would be time for that. If Chris Woodhead were here, he might repeat a warning that he gave to the inspectorate when he was in the chair that inspection must be free of firmly held orthodoxies about the way to do things. Will there be time for inspectors doing such quick inspections to size up an approach to teaching that is not their preferred approach?

I invited two chief education officers to give their impression of the reliability of inspections at present, with the longer commitment of time. I shall read their words. One wrote: We have suffered in the past from some of our best schools failing and some of our weakest being given a sound report". The other wrote: I have known schools that probably should have been in serious weakness or special measures which escaped it, and conversely ones where to put them under was harsh and where I was as sure as I could be that a different team would have come to a different outcome". As I understand the strategy document, there will be a lot of change in schools in the next few years—good changes—that will increase the ambit of the inspectorate and the challenge facing it. I welcome the intention—indeed, the practice—of piloting the changes before introducing them, but, given what is proposed in the five-year strategy, I wonder how reliable a guide they will be to what we will need in the future. That is my first point, and I pose it as a question. It is well intended but seriously meant.

My second point is about schools, parents, children and society having a fair deal. I can think of no other profession that is so vulnerable to inspection and public reporting of the outcomes. That has always been a worry for schools because their reputation is on the line. The Government's wider proposals for schools will make it easier for successful schools to expand and get a decision within 12 weeks. However, if an inspection report giving the thumbs-down is published, it will be not only the reputation of the teachers that may be on the line but the future of the school.

The intention is that, when the inspectors report, having completed their visitation, they will, within one day, give the school a draft of the report. That seems good, but will there be time, in that brief period, for the governors to make an input? Will there be time for the inspectors to give mature, professional, individual and collective judgment, before getting committed? It is asking a great deal of the system to expect it to move so quickly.

There is so much at risk. The report will be published in three weeks, and that will not be the end of it. There will be a school profile in which the school is required to set out the main inspection findings. It will be written in a way that is readable and understandable to parents, so that it is on the record for people.

It is important that further thought be given to providing time for the governors and for mature reflection on the inspection, before something is published. I know that there can be an appeal to an adjudicator on the way in which the inspection has been conducted, but, by then, the damage will be done. The adjudication comes later. As I understand it, the adjudicator cannot look at the judgments that have been made by the inspectors.

I turn to the judgments. As I understand it, that has been a no-go area: the inspectors see what they see and report it as they see it. But such judgments are difficult, and the inspections will be quick. There is, as I have argued, so much at stake for the school. If the governors have the support of the chief education officer in the view that a report is seriously flawed and if there is other external evidence—from SATS, say—it should be possible, in circumstances in which there is independent expert corroboration, for a second look to be taken before publication.

I want to welcome the approach, and I want to urge that physical development be added to the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of children. I have a worry that the time proposed for the new inspections will be inadequate for the job, and I want a procedure to enable proper consideration of the school's input before publication.

1.38 p.m.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood

My Lords, in the absence of the scheduled second speaker, I rise to present my speech.

The Earl of Listowel

My Lords, I withdrew my name from the speakers list last night and informed the Government Whips' Office. I noticed that there were a great many people with more expertise speaking on the subject this afternoon, and I wanted to allow them more time to speak.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that; it increases the running time from six to seven minutes.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, for introducing the debate with his characteristic sharpness and specificity. I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities and wish him well. A senior civil servant whom I knew once said that the only lobby that he thought more fractious than the education lobby was the arts lobby. Perhaps the Minister can draw some consolation from the fact that that is not included in his current brief.

I begin with a declaration of interest: I was the first HMCI under the new regime that introduced the system that is now, rightly, being rethought and amended. In 1992, when the new system was set up, there were three founding principles. It is important to re-emphasise them because they should be retained, whatever the particular changes introduced. The first was that inspections of schools should be regular. We discovered that some schools had not been inspected for 20 years. The responsibility for inspection was split between national and local sources and a number of schools reported never having seen an inspection team. That was the reason for insisting that there should be regular inspections, perhaps initially on a five or six-year cycle.

The second principle was that the inspection should be independent because there was clearly a confusion of roles among a number of those who were involved in inspection. Perhaps I may put it colloquially—they found themselves as both referees and coaches and it is difficult to combine those two roles: going to a school to inspect what is happening and at the same time providing the friendly local support that the well-oiled inspector often did. It is important the inspections are independent, whatever form that may take and it has taken a variety of forms.

The third principle was that the report should be published. That was as equally contentious as the others, but the intention, properly, was that the parents, school boards and the local communities should be aware of the manner of schools operating in their neighbourhoods. I hope that those three principles—regularity, independence and published reports—will be retained through change.

Ofsted was created and I confess that I invented the term, for which some have never forgiven me. Indeed one wag suggested that it should be called "Instead". It was deliberate that it had a new title to indicate that it was a new type of business. The context was not simply the formal creation of an independent inspectorate that would be a non-ministerial government department, but that it would sit alongside a national curriculum, of which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, knows much and over which he spilt many drops of blood; and national testing alongside the national curriculum. That was a three-pronged approach that, I would argue, over the course of time led to significant improvements in schools over the past 10 years.

Of course times change and it was always envisaged that there should be development in the inspection process from day one. We were entering an area that was almost an unknown quantity. What would we find in 26,000 schools across the country? The intention was to build up a knowledge of what was happening and a database. In the light of that we could perhaps develop new systems in due course.

Ten years on all schools have been inspected more than once. Databases of reports have been built up. There is 10 years of learning and experience of how to do that and, indeed, of how to play the game, which is one of the dangers. All of that provides reason for change and development. But the change and development can be informed by that 10 years' experience and by the database that is there. Inspection teams who go into schools now, compared with, say, 1994 or 1995, have significant factual data available about the performance of those schools. On that basis, inspections ought to be different.

I re-emphasise that the changes proposed will not involve a change of the principles: regularity, independence and publication. But I welcome the new pilots in principle and in general, with the intent to reduce burdens on schools and the focus perhaps on specific issues in the light of the knowledge that we now have. I conclude by making one or two specific suggestions that I hope that the Minister will be able to take away and discuss with his colleagues.

First, I support the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, in that the mechanisms of appeal should be strengthened. A report now ought to be well-honed, built on a database and ought to be specifically looking for the issues that that knowledge of past inspections could bring to the inspection team. That leaves room for some element of appeal.

One measure that we took that was not well publicised but that I commend as a possible way ahead for the pilot studies was that in the first 100 new-style inspections under the new framework we had external monitoring carried out by a completely independent body. Predictably in those days it was Coopers. That 100 inspection report was useful and interesting ammunition for the HMIs who were working on how to develop the new framework. It also meant that one did not go ahead simply on the basis of innuendo, hint or, perhaps, the suggestion that the inspection teams had not been up to their job. So I suggest that an external monitoring of pilots might pay real dividends. If necessary there should be re-inspection by HMIs after the report is in and published. The timescale is such that that should be fairly quick. Re-inspection ought to be strengthened.

Finally, there should be a greater focus on outcomes. The system has been process-focused. Outcomes are the final judgment of whether a school is doing well. There are different ways of doing that. There is not a single orthodoxy on how to run a school, primary or secondary. I much commend the notion of self-evaluation as central. It gives schools a role. Self-knowledge, as Socrates reminded us, is the beginning of wisdom and, indeed, of good management.

1.45 p.m.

Lord Tombs

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, for introducing this important debate and welcome the Minister to his new bed of nails, which we will try to make blunt.

Schools inspections can make an important contribution to the standards of education. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case and increased demands on inspectors have too often resulted in inconsistent judgments. Schools have come to view inspections as a lottery in which the capability of the lead inspector settles the odds and the rules are constantly changing. This, coupled with the long period of notice for inspections, has produced a febrile atmosphere in which over-preparation can present an unrepresentative picture to the inspectors and a huge additional workload for the staff. Happily, this is now changing for the better and I should like to pay tribute to the present chief HMI, David Bell, for his willingness to promote a widespread consultation and to seek to improve its efficacy as a result of that consultation.

The two main changes resulting from this process are generally welcome but, inevitably, they risk creating further difficulties. My object today is to identify those difficulties and to seek to suggest ways in which they could be managed. First, the proposal to shorten the notice period for inspections will do much to reduce the over-preparation to which I have referred. That will be welcomed by the staff and, no doubt, the pupils. But more warts will show and the inspectors will have to adjust their methods accordingly. Any shortcomings on the part of inspectors will be magnified by the necessarily increased reliance on their judgment.

More potentially difficult is the proposal to shorten the inspections. This will also increase the judgmental importance of the inspections and will therefore rely heavily on the experience of the inspectors. The proposal to have an HMI as lead inspector for every inspection is presented as a contribution to meeting that challenge. But the notion that Her Majesty's Inspectors are invariably superior in experience and judgment to registered inspectors is questionable. The plain and unsurprising fact is that neither constituency is perfect and it is on that fact that I want further to examine the problem and to suggest some ways of dealing with it.

There is a pressing need to ensure that the experience of all inspectors is adequate to the task they face. This requires that they should have practical and recent experience of the type of school under inspection, notably whether it is primary or secondary but also its social environment. Experience at senior management level is, or should be, a sine qua non. To some extent this calls for good management of existing inspectors by matching their experience to the task. But good management also calls for regular updating of that experience, perhaps by secondment to schools and regular audit of the experience and capability of inspectors. This should be seen, not as an intrusive process but as a means of helping inspectors in their important but difficult task.

I now turn to the category of "special measures" which is used to categorise schools which are seen as "failing" and which often results in the replacement of the head teacher. We should note that the "failing" head often goes on to rescue another school in the same "failing" category while a "superhuman" head comes in to perform the same transformation at the first school. We should also note that the decision to place a school in special measures is often preceded by one or more satisfactory inspections to the understandable astonishment of staff and governors.

The placing of a school in special measures is a draconian step, attracting opprobrium in the educational establishment and in the sensation-loving press, and imposing a massive additional workload and stress on the management team. It should not be undertaken lightly and, in my submission, the ensuing recovery process has not been properly examined or validated.

"Special measures" is a simplistic and unsatisfactory process which is attracting growing criticism in the educational world and urgently demands critical examination. In most cases, it involves schools in areas of great social deprivation where inspectors require a depth of understanding which is not always evident.

The need for constructive support of teachers should be intrinsic to the inspection process and the steps already taken will contribute to that. But the need for better training and audit of inspectors remains to be addressed and the penal aspect of the system, of which "special measures" remains an important and undesirable example, must be replaced by a constructive and supportive role for teachers, especially those coping with the special difficulties of deprived areas.

Without doubt, some schools are genuinely failing but, even then, it is very doubtful whether publicly pillorying them is the best way to obtain improvements. In special measures, the workload rises to meet supervision requirements, new staff are difficult to attract, newly qualified teachers cannot be appointed without specific permission and good staff leave to further their careers. How much better that could be handled in a supportive environment. But when "special measures" rests on a dubious inspection report, how much more damage can result. Steady, if slow, progress is interrupted or even reversed by the extra demands on staff. Morale is seriously damaged by a feeling of unfairness and victimisation. Nervous breakdowns can and do result and both staff and pupils suffer.

I make two pleas to the Government regarding special measures. First, commission an independent review of those schools placed in special measures over the past five years to examine the validity of the inspection recommendation and the methodology of the recovery. Secondly, abandon the public declaration of "special measures" with the general and indiscriminate opprobrium which results and concentrate instead on constructive measures to the benefit of staff and, most importantly, pupils.

1.52 p.m.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, for introducing an interesting and timely debate. I also want to congratulate the new Minister on his appointment. We shall miss his predecessor, but I am sure that we shall enjoy having the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, as Minister.

Next Monday, I shall be spending the day at a local primary school as a governor of that school. We shall be working our way through a new school plan, taking account of an inspection which concluded at the end of the summer term. It was completed under the third framework of Ofsted's old rules. It was the third cycle of inspection, which indicates that since 1992 this was the third full inspection of the school. The inspectors were there for a week, which is not a short inspection framework, and they found some problems in the school. The inspectors were critical in some senses but praising in others, as frequently happens.

It illustrates well the developments that have taken place in the Ofsted framework since the early days of 1992. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, emphasises the change that took place and the difficulties which the HMI found in its dual role of both inspector and coach. Perhaps in the early days too much emphasis was placed on the role of independent inspector. On some occasions, we saw the process of inspection, public reporting and naming and shaming producing the kind of results referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. Schools which failed found themselves at the bottom of a pit and it was difficult for them to dig themselves out.

However, we should acknowledge the considerable degree to which, during the past 13 years, the processes within Ofsted have changed considerably. The process I shall be going through on Monday, which will involve both parents and pupils giving their views, puts the emphasis on self-evaluation on the part of the schools. The criticism is there, but it is constructive and ways forward are pointed out. Central to it is the school improvement plan and self-evaluation in relation to the central core.

That illustrates the shift in particular towards self-evaluation, and that aspect is taken up in the new Government proposals. As the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, pointed out, there is now a data base and many schools do not now need a long inspection. They are not causes for concern and in most cases it is appropriate that the inspection ensures that the self-evaluation processes are in place. In that sense, I greatly welcome the change.

No one has yet referred to a large volume, which landed on my desk at the beginning of the Recess, entitled Improvement Through Inspection. It deals with the impact of Ofsted's work and comes from the Institute of Education. It is interesting and contains masses of information about Ofsted. The work was done independently by the institute, but it is published by Ofsted. It is self-congratulatory in many senses but it is a timely volume.

Perhaps I may quote two paragraphs from the report. First a head teacher of a school in "special measures" wrote, contrary to the tone adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, of, the privilege of being able to look retrospectively on a process that has undoubtedly led to a transformation in the quality of education we are providing for our students. If this is the outcome of a regular inspection process, supported by rigorous monitoring and evaluation, then it is a process to commend to others". The general conclusion of the report was that, Ofsted has been recognised by the Government as having fulfilled its statutory functions to the letter. Through assessing the effectiveness of past and current practice, this evaluation finds that Ofsted has made a substantial contribution to the improvement of the education system and—to a variable extent, alongside other powerful factors—to education providers". So far, so good. What might we see in terms of improvement? The Liberal Democrats thoroughly endorse the move to self-evaluation. Indeed, we go one step further. We would like to see in schools the development of the new Ofsted framework into one of total quality management, together with shorter inspections and only longer ones where necessary. The emphasis should be on self-evaluation and on being able to recognise what you want to achieve. That comes from total quality management.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, we feel that mechanisms for appeal should be strengthened. We also feel that the whole framework is too driven by targets. We are worried about that and we make no bones about it. Education is about questioning, creativity and learning how to learn. One of the dangers that creeps into the inspection framework is that achievement outcomes are measured against the targets that are set. In schools which fail to meet the targets, the wider framework is not recognised within the inspection framework. We should be looking at a total quality framework.

There are two other issues I wish to raise where I do not believe that the current inspection framework meets the requirements. I do not know what the answers are, but more work is required. The first is special educational needs. We have chosen an agenda of inclusiveness, which is fine. But schools have a very high proportion of children with special educational needs. They do fail to meet targets and have difficulties. That is not fully recognised within the inspection framework. We need to look at it and make sure that we are taking necessary account of the inclusion agenda and how best to meet special educational needs.

The other area, which is linked to some extent but different, is that of ethnic minorities. Last week a report was published by the London Development Agency into the performance of Afro-Caribbean boys in London. It shows that the schools have failed them time and again. It is necessary to see whether we are picking this up within the inspection framework and to think hard whether that framework is considering the needs of ethnic minorities within our schools.

Those are some of the ways forward. But generally speaking, I believe, and I believe that my party does also, that the inspection framework in this country has moved in the right direction. We would like to see it carried further. We endorse the moves that have been made.

2.1 p.m.

Baroness Seccombe

My Lords, first I would like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, on his new appointment. He has a hard act to follow because his predecessor was a dedicated, good humoured Minister, respected on all sides of the House. However, I look forward to meeting the noble Lord over the Dispatch Box and I wish him well. I, like others, thank the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, for initiating this debate.

There has been growing criticism of Ofsted since 2000 and in the light of the media articles on the July report before the summer Recess, it is indeed a timely Question. It enables us to take stock of the situation as it now stands.

While some organisations have cautiously welcomed the shift in direction, Ofsted has signalled in its most recent consultation document that many of the original concerns still remain at issue. A "Let's wait and see" attitude seems to prevail throughout the education sector, while they wonder whether this "Step in the right direction" will be followed through in September 2005.

The Secondary Heads Association, among others, remains disappointed that the inspection system appears to be extravagant, expensive and simply not good value for money. There are particular concerns regarding the cost of contracting out inspectors and of Ofsted as a whole. As some of your Lordships will be aware, the James review of taxpayer value identified savings for the education sector of £5.7 billion.

One of the main prongs of the review is the streamlining of Ofsted's inspection regime. With 2,400 full time and over 6,000 part-time inspectors, the James review recommends that by lightening Ofsted's touch and by enforcing a more focused regime, 800 posts could be released saving around £100 million. Would the Minister agree with me that it is crucial that this money goes to the front line in schools to help teachers and not to the employment of an excess of bureaucrats?

Heavy criticism has been levelled at the administration of the inspections by the school community. Filling in forms takes up the time of teachers and school administrators, placing pressure on the time that they have to spend with their students. For an average secondary school an inspection will require a whole week in which 12 inspectors are involved, plus 10 weeks of paperwork which precedes it. After all this time and effort, they are just presented with a judgment, which is often considered to be over-reliant on performance indicators, which inspectors could have found out without even entering the school.

Indeed, the process has been described by Mr Ward of the Secondary Heads Association as "unscientific". He was one of the many to challenge the Ofsted Improvement Through Inspection report in July, highlighting that the improvements in schools are made by the efforts of those who work in them, not by visiting inspectors.

Even Ofsted's chief inspector, David Bell, has questioned some of the judgments made by inspectors as a sharp rise in the number of schools failing inspections was reported in July. Education is not simply about grades achieved in exams; it is about the sound, well rounded physical and mental health and development of an individual within his or her peer group. Can the Minister inform the House what steps are being taken to address the perception that inspections are predominantly based on indicators such as grades? Can he assure the House that Ofsted inspectors will be encouraged to be positive and more helpful in their judgments and not the intimidating individuals many teachers still claim that they are?

Having said that, I must make it clear that we do support inspections and believe that they are certainly a necessary part of the process of transparency and accountability in the school system. Schools that are failing should be monitored and dealt with. We on these Benches believe that there should be non-notice inspections for schools at risk of failure. However, good schools should not be held back and continually interrupted by confrontational, intrusive and burdensome inspections. These simply restrain a school's right to choose how it is run, how it works successfully, and the right to educate our children. We need to allow good schools a free rein and to make them answerable to parents and not to Whitehall.

Ofsted was set up to act as a safeguard against poor education. It was a champion of standards, but I fear that it is being distracted from its core purposes. A case in point is the increasing amount of political correctness that can be found within Ofsted. This political correctness runs contrary to its original ethos of focusing on standards, particularly in the case of its new responsibilities for inspecting nursery education.

For example, I understand that inspectors are asked to ensure that in nurseries, the material and images used and displayed in the setting are accurate and non-stereotypical". Such guidance led to one inspector making a negative report against a nursery school because, no resources [are] available that reflect the cultural background of children". Similarly, an inspector has to read 52 pages of guidance on judging nursery schools before he or she reaches the section on, How well are the children taught?". I have raced through some of the anxieties which, despite consultation, still linger. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can give me some assurances that the Government have listened so that schools, teachers and the taxpayer can have complete confidence in the system and that of course inspections make the very best contribution to the quality, effectiveness and well-being of education.

2.8 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Lord Filkin)

My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to this first debate on my new brief. What better opportunity than a debate led by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, who is primus inter pares. There is no one greater than him on these issues. I am also grateful for the welcome that has been granted. I am very sorry to be leaving my good friend the Lord Chancellor, but I am very glad to be joining my old friend Charles Clarke, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. There are always compensations in the process.

We know that inspection matters and we know why. It is about helping to deliver better outcomes for children. That is its purpose. The challenge to an inspectoral system is whether it delivers more gain than it costs in terms of the input process. That is the central issue at heart before us. Is it the best way of achieving improvement?

The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, set out very clearly and impressively where we have reached in the past 12 years. There is hardly a voice of dissent about the importance of what Ofsted has achieved over those 12 years. He was commendably reflective of the fact that we have made achievements, which is an argument for change rather than for the status quo. I will explore that conundrum later. I assure the noble Lord that the three principles he articulated so clearly in his speech will and must be retained in the future.

First, I shall say a few words about the context within which the new inspection proposal sits. It is the context of a new relationship with schools. We set out our proposals in June or July this year. The Government wanted to have a new, more mature relationship with schools based on intelligent accountability and a simplified process for dialogue and interchange between the Government and schools; and recognition that the majority of schools have the maturity to use a less involved process and clearer lines of dialogue.

Without going into great detail, we shall be radically simplifying demands on schools by trying to have a single form of conversation with them about their development priorities. We all know how the process of government works: they keep adding on bits and after a while there are 15 bits that could be made down to one.

The process will have at its heart self-evaluation, to which I shall return in a minute. We will rationalise funding support and there will be a single plan based on a school's self-evaluation as to how it will move forward. It is important to cut bureaucracy—amen to that, with the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe—and to recognise that there has to be proportionality in the Government's interventions and efficiency in our dialogue with the schools sector. We are passionate about that, which is an important part of improvement in schools and supporting schools to improve themselves.

Let us turn to the key issues of a new inspection system. The exam question set by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, asked the Government directly what changes are desirable to schools' inspections so that they make the best possible contribution. It would be churlish of me not to try to answer it even in the limited time available to me.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and other noble Lords marked that it starts from the recognition that improvement is more likely to be effective if it starts from a position of ownership by the body that is to be improved. That says something different about the methodology: that an inspectorate does not simply come in and give a score of 55 per cent—although that has its use—but we are trying to move to a situation where, as the noble Baroness put it, the inspectorate is considering the self-evaluation process the school has gone through and whether it has accurately owned both its achievements and the challenges facing it to go further and faster to improve outcomes for the children.

That is in a sense part of a bigger journey about inspectorates generally in Government recognising that it is not about giving a number or score but trying to reinforce ownership of improvement in itself. Fundamental to making the new system work is trying to build on the ownership and therefore the self-evaluation by the schools themselves. Therefore the process starts from the school itself setting out what it thinks are its strengths and weaknesses and, equally important, what it intends to do about them. I shall not labour that point, although perhaps it is important to do so.

From that we construct the new mechanism of the system, but because we are sitting on a foundation of a statement that I hope is systematic and thoughtful, and in which there is some formality with self-evaluation, we can then move to a system with shorter, sharper and more frequent inspections. We all know how institutions can change in a period of six years—I would be so bold as to say that quite a bit has changed since 1997. To think that a school cannot change for better or worse in a period of six years is rash and therefore in principle three-yearly inspection periods should offer much greater benefit. We have to do that at the same time by reducing the burden on schools through that process.

There was a good deal of support in the consultation and in the House for reduced notice and for greater involvement of Her Majesty's inspectors. Shorter reports are better in principle. This is a classic area: a short report, if it is well written and based on sound judgments, is likely to have more impact than a longer one. That is a challenge to inspectorates; I think that Rousseau said something about it—it is difficult to do so.

Having said that, there will be no separate action plan. Actions from inspection will be taken forward as part of the school's own development plan—a bit of rationalisation and common sense. There will be less bureaucracy in the process. To address the challenge made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector aims by 2008 to have cut by 20 per cent the cost of the inspection process. That aim is set out clearly; there will be substantial benefits in cost reduction from the process.

We are not rushing into this. Although we want to move forward rapidly, Ofsted's consultation had remarkably high and positive responses to almost all its measures, which was pleasing and interesting. We are trialling the proposals both before and after the summer, as noble Lords are aware. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, that one needs some process for monitoring such pilots and therefore the pilot inspectors are being supported by quality assurance HMIs as part of trying to ensure that the piloting process is as strong as one can make it.

A number of speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, raised the reliability of the judgments. They were right to do so, because for good reason the conclusions from an inspectorate process impact on reputation and all sorts of things. For the reason we touched on before, we want the body reported on to own the conclusion as well as the input. We do not want a situation where it feels that what has been done is unfair and therefore there is a resistance to owning the actions that flow from it.

Therefore it is fundamental to the continued ownership of the will to self-improve that people feel that there has been a fair process and outcome, rather than people feeling that they have to spend a lot of time on further argument or denial. The debate is therefore not about whether that is an important part of the process to ensure that there is reliability of judgment but to ensure that we get it right without creating burdens.

In part we think that the short notice period will mean that there is less opportunity for too much lipstick to be applied, which is good—if that is not a sexist remark; I hope that it is not. However, it requires some moderation in recognising that we may see the occasional wart, as was signalled. It is important that one is mature about that in one's judgments.

HMI will conduct a large number of inspections and it will have access to sophisticated performance data, as will the school. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, signalled that we can partly make those changes because we have 12 years' experience of both inspections and performance data, which inform the performance of the schools in many if not all of their functions. Without those 12 years we could not now be making the move in this direction.

We also hope that, because it starts with self-evaluation and, I hope, self-knowledge, the inspector is not coming in from Mars; but that the inspectorate considers the self-diagnosis and self-evaluation of the school, so the debate is around that issue. That does not guarantee reliability and quality of judgment, but it says that the process should help to make them more likely. Time will not allow me to say more about quality of judgment, but if there are further points to make perhaps the House will put up with a letter from me.

I turn to the parallel issue, which is challenge and appeal. There is an important question about injustice in terms of ensuring that mistakes are not made and that a school has an opportunity to say, "We don't think you have got it quite right"; or something more robust if that is what is felt.

Under the current system schools can and do challenge judgments. If Ofsted decides that an inspection report is not sound and the inspectorate agrees, the report may be amended or republished. We hope that in future there will be fewer challenges to inspection judgments as much of the evidence base will have been supplied by the school. Schools will be more heavily involved in the inspection itself and therefore nothing in the report, if it has been done well, should come as a substantial shock.

One of the benefits of the new arrangements is that, as HMSI rather than registered inspectors will be responsible for inspection reports, Ofsted will be able to amend any report, including those written by contracted inspectors, whereas current law does not allow that unless they agree.

There is no external appeals process; we do not feel that it is automatically the right solution. One is mindful of the importance of a process that leaves a sense of ownership of the result. We are mindful of the consequences for schools of wrong judgments without there being an effective appeals mechanism. Therefore, we will give further thought to how a complaints system can be made to work effectively without the need for some ghastly mechanistic rote system. The gap between the draft and the publication, which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, mentioned, is an element of the challenge in making the system workable.

The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, is absolutely right that inspections form part of the contribution that a good education system should make to the physical health and well-being of a child. As a society we are clearer on that than we were 10 or 15 years ago. There will be a statutory imperative for school inspections to cover well-being, including physical well-being.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, mentioned special educational needs. There will be a different framework for special schools. Maintained schools will have special guidance on picking up on vulnerable children. Perhaps it would be of interest to her if I wrote to her in more detail on the matter.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, rightly said, at times one must arrive unannounced, in all sorts of contexts, for good reason. That is now possible and it will happen in the future, as it should.

We are in a process that, we hope, will lead to the implementation of the new system from September 2005. It could well require legislation; therefore we can say nothing on the matter now. But I may well have the further opportunity of gaining from the advice and experience of the House in this respect on a Bill. I look forward to that very much.

I conclude by outlining what we hope the provisions will lead to. They will be part of a coherent package of reform for schools: a less involved, lighter touch and a more mature relationship. It will integrate inspection firmly with school improvement cycles, because that is what inspection is about; it is part of the total picture. We hope that there will be less bureaucracy and cost for both the school and the inspectorate. We hope that, when we reflect on how to evaluate the approach—a challenge in itself—we find that it has led to significant improvement in the confidence of the system, the capacity for self-learning and as a consequence the educational improvement of children, for whom we are all concerned.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, for the debate, and look forward to working with him and many other Members of the House on this agenda.

Baroness Andrews

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 2.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 2.23 to 2.30 p.m.]