§ 11 am
§ Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab/Coop)I am going to go at a gallop, as I have a lot to say. I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to raise the matter.
It was 22 September 2003. The man who had the reputation as the best head teacher in Hemel Hempstead, Mr. Chris Pratt, was welcoming a team from Ofsted led by Mrs. Sue Walker. The school was Rossgate school in Hemel Hempstead, a town just designated by the Halifax building society as the place in which those wishing to get on the housing ladder have the most difficult task in the country. Wages are so much on the low side, and house prices so much on the high side, that one would need 11.6 times the average wage in the area to purchase a starter home The next town in the Halifax survey was a considerable distance behind.
Rossgate school in Gadebridge is in an area in which many of those who will never be able to afford to buy a house live. They are often in accommodation from which they would like to escape. Single parents live in second-floor flats and would love their children to have access to a garden. There are elderly pensioners in council houses who are desperately worried about the imminent closure of the local post office and how much it will cost them out of their minimal income just to collect their entitlement. The school faces many challenges, but it has historically transcended them, taking in children at four who often have considerable problems with socialisation and language, and turning them out at age 11 with achievements at and above the national average. The school has, and deserves, a high reputation in the local and education community.
The school was to be inspected in a new way. As a school that was doing well, it was to be subjected to a "light-touch" Ofsted inspection, called at short notice and with a brief visit. I want to make it clear that that idea has my full support. If a school is doing well, it is not necessary constantly to subject it to full, rigorous and critical inspection. A light-touch Ofsted inspection could be a touch on the tiller—a check on something that has been going well to see whether it is still going well. However, those who are asked to carry out such an inspection have to leave behind them their normal views of what they are doing in an inspection. They need to be trained to carry out that new task in the same way as we now ask our police to deal not only with criminal behaviour but with antisocial behaviour. A change of role needs a change of attitude.
Rossgate was not subjected to a light-touch inspection in the way that I have described. Within three and a half days, the team led by Mrs. Walker claimed that those at the school and in the wider education and social community were subject to some sort of self-delusion. On the basis of the most fleeting observations, the inspection team used the full weight of its powers to bring about the resignation of the head teacher and to designate this successful school as having serious weaknesses.
I ask the Minster today to embrace one key idea. I suggest that if there is a light-touch inspection, there should be a restriction on the decisions that can be made as a result of it. In particular, if a team decides that a 376WH school that is doing well enough to have a light-touch inspection is in fact not doing well, its powers should be limited to ordering that the school be subject to a full inspection. A team should not be allowed to make claims that can be justified only when a full inspection has been carried out.
In my experience, inspectors such as those on the Walker team carry out a light-touch inspection in the same way as they would a full Ofsted inspection, with one difference. The brevity of the process curtails the right of staff to present counter-arguments to suggestions that certain things are going wrong when they think that the inspectors are in error. The brevity also means that assumptions made by inspectors, which might be erroneous, as was the case for Rossgate, about what might count as "a similar school"—a phrase repeated several times in the report—cannot be challenged or corrected.
One specific assumption made by the inspectors in Rossgate was that Hemel Hempstead is a leafy Hertfordshire town that should have high levels of attainment. There are constant references in the inspectors' report to "a similar school", when it was not at all clear that they would know what a similar school was. They did not know my area the way I do. There is a high level of rented property in my area, from which families have no prospect of improvement. There are many single-parent families, and housing circumstances generate a poor level of social skills much of the time. There is a strong need to develop pupils' attention span. Most new towns have a relatively poorly developed set of cultural amenities, such as, for example, an abysmal library in Hemel Hempstead and no cultural amenities in the town centre.
It is agreed by everyone in the community that I represent that Rossgate school's achievements were extraordinarily good, given that background. The head was thought of as of the highest calibre by other head teachers in the area, to the point that he was regarded as a sort of super-head, who could be called in to help failing schools to overcome those deficiencies that a full Ofsted inspection had rightly identified. He did that at Leverstock Green school in my constituency, which has never looked back from the tremendous contribution made by Chris Pratt, whom the inspectors thought lacked leadership and vision.
A second assumption made was that the inspectors thought that the children in the nursery class that they saw were beginners, when in fact most of them had been in school some considerable time—six months or so. That caused the inspectors to think that the children had a higher level of attainment when entering the school, and it served to mask the fact that many of the children had and have great difficulties with concentration and self-discipline. Negative judgments were made about the nursery because it was thought of as not doing enough for children who already had considerable social skills, when in fact their attainment of those skills was a tribute to the work done in the nursery, which again many schools in Hemel Hempstead deemed a beacon of its type.
The general tenor of the inspectors' report was that the school was coasting, and that its management failed to give it a sense of direction, or a vision. In fact, the report itself is radically inconsistent, claiming for instance that classes in years 5 and I were unsatisfactory 377WH when not a single unsatisfactory class in those years was witnessed. There was a distinct air of Alice's White Rabbit about the inspection: everywhere one looks in the report, the inspectors had too little time to get more than a most fleeting impression of the work of Rossgate school.
In their subsequent report, the governors complained that the inspectors broke the code of conduct that should have governed their behaviour. I would submit that in some ways it was impossible for them to have conformed to their code of conduct. They visited a school with an extraordinarily high reputation. and decided that there was some sort of self-delusion on the part of the staff, and in particular its head, but they had no time to obtain the evidence that might have led them to correct that initial judgment. They found that, of the 41 classes that they visited, four were unsatisfactory. Their judgments throughout were delivered in a confrontational and unco-operative way. For instance, a teacher who had a "very good" rating for a class, and who asked what could be done to achieve an "excellent" rating, was told by an inspector:
The hairs did not stand up on the back of my neck.Such a way of dealing with that question demonstrates incompetence of the worst sort. That judgment is ultra-subjective and offers no guidance or suggestion for improvement. In another case, a teacher was told that a class was "good", but that it could not be given a "very good" because the inspector had not been able to attend the whole of the class. The shortage of time did not prevent the inspection team from producing the most damning judgments on the school's character, but such a White Rabbit syndrome was invoked to avoid praising them.There were four "unsatisfactory" classes out of 41. What of them? Two of the classes were taught by newly qualified teachers who were new to their posts when they were assessed—at the beginning of the autumn term, which is right at the beginning of the academic year. It is hardly managerial weakness not to have turned NQTs into perfect specimens of the didactic profession within three weeks. Two of the unsatisfactory classes were in the nursery.
One aspect of the inspection that I wish to highlight is the gross insensitivity of the inspection team. They arrived at the school on the next working day after the funeral of the much-loved head of the nursery, Rebecca Dickenson, who died of motor neurone disease at the age of 53. She was typical of the teachers at the school, and is one of the people who make me glad that I joined the Labour party. She was a Labour councillor who displayed the kind of love and considerateness for her fellow human beings that it is the greatest of joys to encounter. She was my friend. Her loss was a terrible blow, and the light that she spread around the school has been for ever extinguished.
Chris Pratt knew exactly how to handle that terrible event, but the inspection team, who decided entirely to overlook those circumstances, castigated him for his lack of leadership at the very time at which he displayed a quality of leadership that all who knew Rebecca and Chris would regard as typical of the man. He has resigned since those events because, I suspect, he 378WH thought that the judgments of the inspection team were inconsistent, woolly, ill-informed, repetitively erroneous, entirely without a spark of the co-operative spirit that is so vital to the educational enterprise and, as a result, unimplementable. As a former teacher of logic, I must say that the 'improvements" suggested by the inspection team appear to be incapable of being made, because they refer to "weaknesses" that were mostly of the team's invention.
Following those events, Chris Pratt was hospitalised for six days because he suffered from heart palpitations. Those who are devoted to children and schooling take it badly when, in three days, a team of people who seem to be careless of how hard it is to build a successful school in a difficult area such as Gadebridge can utter judgments that have no right of appeal or scope to be countermanded. Of course, the governors tried to remedy the situation: they pointed to what they said were 92 errors of fact made by the inspection team. However, those who are unaccountable need not address their limitations.
Rossgate was not coasting. It had a vision: to do its best for children, many of whom must do a great deal to reach a point at which they are willing to engage in the educational process. Rossgate was not stagnating. It was providing a secure, stable learning environment, while embracing the changes faced by all education. For example, its information and communications technology suite was:1 mere 12 months old, but instead of praising the suite and the work that had gone into it, the inspection team chose to focus on the general disruption caused by the new suite: the fact that the school had not yet sorted out what to do with the computers that remained in the classrooms. A problem that was caused by dynamism was considered by the inspectors to be evidence of stagnation.
There appears to be no proper right of appeal for a school that is deemed to have serious weaknesses—except, perhaps, to this place. Such a judgment seems not to be changeable. The inspectors received the governors' objections and, it seems, were charged with responding to them. I believe that to be wrong for both light-touch Ofsted reports and full inspections. Usually, if a school is deemed to have a problem, that judgment is accepted and the school gets on with addressing the issue. Like most MPs, I have seen several schools get results from inspections that are negative but helpful, and education of the children has been improved once the recommendations have been implemented. However, the Rossgate inspection was not like that. I am astonished that a school that is located in a difficult area but achieves results that are above the national average at the end of year six, could be treated so brusquely and contemptuously. The children and parents of Rossgate school feel devastated by the outcome. Moreover every school head in my constituency has said tome, "If that can happen to Chris Pratt, it can happen to me."
Ofsted has spread the fear of arbitrary judgment throughout my constituency. No one who has seen what the inspectors say about the school recognises it as accurate. Mr. Pratt, a man who is regarded as a super-head, is now a data entry clerk on the local industrial estate. If teachers are treated like that, it is hardly surprising that we find it difficult to motivate people to join the profession.
379WH I seek structural change as the outcome of this debate. As a supporter and advocate of light-touch Ofsted inspections, I did not think that they would be implemented in such a clumsy and irreversible way. If a school is deemed to be doing well, the effect of a light-touch inspection should be either to commend it further, or to judge that it is continuing 10 make good use of taxpayers' money. If a school seems to be slipping, it should be given guidance about what needs correction, and if it seems to be slipping badly, it should be subjected again to the full weight of a full Ofsted inspection.
I also seek an apology for Chris Pratt. He has been a distinguished head teacher for 17 years, but was judged a failure in three days. The supporting argument for the negative remarks about management at Rossgate School is weak in the extreme, but based on the judgment of those inspectors, Mr. Pratt was removed from doing what everyone in the community that I represent wants to see him doing—helping children to learn.
It is clear that such problems are not unique to Hemel Hempstead.The Times Educational Supplement of 13 February dealt with a similar problem at Seaford Head community college in East Sussex. The head teacher in that case was a sort of head teachers' expert, who answered questions in the TES about being a head. He resigned after the inspection, and was reported as being deeply critical of the harshness of the new inspections framework.
I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that she will give serious attention to the matters that I have raised, and that any structural weaknesses will be addressed and instructions to inspection teams revised as appropriate.
§ The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge)I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on securing the debate. In his speech he demonstrated his close personal interest in the issue and his concern to represent the interests of his constituents.
All of us in the education team value and recognise the importance of the contribution that teachers make to raising standards and thereby improving the achievements of all our children. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that the focus of everything that we do must be to ensure better outcomes for our children— that that must be our starting point. We must consider the job that Ofsted does in that context.
Ofsted has a critical job to do in inspecting, reporting and providing expert advice, underpinned by the evidence of its inspections. High standards are expected of Ofsted, as they are of teacher; in our schools. I am therefore always concerned when teachers or others feel that the inspection system has let them down.
My hon. Friend expressed concerns about the inspection process at Rossgate school and about Mr. Pratt's subsequent decision to resign. As regulator of the contracted-out school inspection system, Ofsted is responsible for assuring the quahty of inspections, and for investigating complaints when they arise. As part of that quality assurance process Her Majesty' 380WH inspectorate visits a sample of inspections and reviews reports and inspection evidence. In fact, Rossgate's inspection was subject to such a monitoring visit.
While the outcomes of those visits are confidential, I thought that it would be helpful to share with my hon. Friend, as the lead inspector has enabled me to do, the fact that the inspection met Ofsted's requirements. A quality assurance process has therefore been put in place through Ofsted itself. It is also worth putting this into perspective, and I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that Ofsted monitors how its customers view its processes. Nine out of 10 schools are satisfied with the quality of their inspection report. There is also a pretty thorough complaints procedure, with which I am sure my hon. Friend is familiar.
In the 2002–03 school year, the last year for which we have figures, Ofsted dealt with only 48 formal complaints about school inspections. Nearly 4,000 inspections were conducted, so that is about 5 per cent, which seems indicative of a relatively high satisfaction rate in a pretty contentious area where people are being held to account for their performance in their professional job.
Ofsted has, I understand, received eight letters of complaint about the inspection of Rossgate School. Of those, five came from parents, one from a former teacher at the school, one from a learning assistant at the school and one from a governor at another school. The letters have been referred to the inspection contractor for investigation, in line with Ofsted's procedures. However, no formal complaint has been received by Ofsted about the inspection at this stage, and no letter of any kind has been received from Mr. Pratt. My hon. Friend may want to consider pursuing that legitimate role, perhaps with others in his constituency.
There is however, no formal appeals mechanism against inspection judgments, nor are there any plans to introduce one. I hope that my hon. Friend understands the reasons why. Such a system could have a detrimental effect on the process, encouraging challenges that would divert time and energy away from the priority of developing and implementing post-inspection action plans. The Education and Employment Committee considered this issue in its detailed examination of the work of Ofsted in 1999, and decided that it would be wrong to reopen those inspection conclusions on anything other than questions of fact.
I turn now to the specific inspection findings at Rossgate school. First, there is no such thing as a light-touch inspection. There may be some misunderstanding and my hon. Friend may wish to talk to Ofsted in a general way about these issues. The inspections take place under the new framework of inspection that was established last year.
Secondly, my hon. Friend understands that the school was not compared with like schools. My understanding, which I can confirm in writing as well if that would help him, was that it was compared with similar schools. That is based on a whole range of data, including prior attainment, so it is possible to look at the school's value-added measure.
Rossgate school, as we have heard, was found to have serious weaknesses. Such a judgment is not taken lightly. It is arrived at, as a corporate decision, following comprehensive examination of evidence gathered both 381WH before and during the inspection, from a variety of sources, including discussions with the head teacher, staff, pupils and governors. My hon. Friend talked about this being a surprise to everyone, so let me share with him the briefing that I have received.
In April 2001, concerns were expressed about the school development plan and the strategic direction of the school. In November 2002, issues were raised about the target-setting process. The assessment data were not used successfully. Governors' knowledge and understanding was also identified as an area of concern. In September 2003, the local education authority raised concerns about the quality of teaching at the school. Concerns have been raised about the very high level of staff turnover in recent years at the school. That was evidenced by the fact that my hon. Friend talked about two newly qualified teachers being there.
A programme of support had been put in place by the local education authority, although I understand that the head at the time was reluctant to accept that. It is worth sharing the LEA's view that there was complacency at the school and that it was coasting. This was not an in-out inspection that came out of nowhere. From what my hon. Friend said, it struck me that that was his perception. However, that is not confirmed by the reports that I have read or by the evidence that was around at the time.
Let us look at the positive side, however, because the inspectors did find some strengths at the school. They praised the head for the pastoral care that he gave pupils and staff, to which my hon. Friend drew attention. They found that final-year pupils attained high standards in science, and that pupils had made good progress in ICT. They also praised special educational needs provision, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and personal social and health education.
There were, however, some important weaknesses. Significant among them were the standards achieved in the core subjects of English, maths and science during much of the pupils' time at the school. The standards reached by pupils at the end of year six compared favourably with those at other schools, but they were achieved only after considerable effort by teachers and pupils in the pupils' final year. Years five and six apart, the inspectors thought that the quality of the teaching was, overall, unsatisfactory.
The inspectors also found that teachers' aspirations for their pupils were too low and that their behaviour management was sometimes unsatisfactory. Standards at the end of key stage 1, as measured against national standards, were found to have fallen since the last inspection. It is worth quoting the report to highlight some of those points:
Teachers do not have high enough expectations of what pupils should do and do not manage behaviour well enough in some classes so that pupils can learn. Too many worksheets are used.…. 382WHBasic skills are not taught well enough and pupils are not given enough opportunities to practise and consolidate the things they have learnt in English, mathematics, science and other subjects.The inspectors also criticised the school's leadership and management. They felt that the school lacked a clear vision for the future and that there were significant weaknesses in its planning and monitoring.
§ Mr. McWalterI am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but if she looks at page 10 of the report, she will see that the average results for year two in all the subjects that she mentioned went up, not down.
§ Margaret HodgeThe new framework—I hope that my hon. Friend will accept this, too—is intended to challenge schools to improve and achieve high standards rather than to coast. If he looks more generally at the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate, he will see that more schools are being found not to provide a satisfactory education for their pupils. I hope that he accepts that we should take up that challenge to the system in our desire to raise standards.
The inspectors talked about complacency at the school, saying:
the headteacher and senior staff are complacent about standards achieved…and do not try hard enough to raise pupils' achievement as they mow through the school.We are particularly keen to tackle that issue within the inspection framework.My hon. Friend suggested that the inspection's findings came as a surprise, but I should emphasise that I am advised that that is not the case. Hertfordshire LEA not only supports the findings as an accurate reflection of the school's performance but had identified the issues raised as concerns and communicated them to Mr. Pratt on many occasions. Indeed, it had put in place a programme of support for the school before the inspection.
The framework has been revised twice since 1998—once in 2000 and again in 2003. On both occasions, we tried to realign our understanding of what is and is not acceptable in the context of rising educational standards. Again, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that.
My hon. Friend might find it useful to have a general discussion with Ofsted about the way in which it approaches inspections. If he has concerns about the school's inspection, he should pursue the formal complaints procedure to assure himself that everything was done in the proper and appropriate manner and that any decisions were properly taken.
To conclude, decisive progress in educational standards occurs where every child matters, and inspection is, above all else, about helping schools to improve children's education.
§ Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.