Select Committee on Education and Skills Fourth Report


FOURTH REPORT

The Education and Skills Committee has agreed to the following Report:

APPOINTMENT OF NEW HMCI

Introduction

16358.   The "illustrative model" of common objectives for select committees was recommended by the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and approved by the House on Tuesday 14 May 2002 one of the objectives is "to consider, and if appropriate report on, major appointments by a Secretary of State or other senior ministers".[1] Mr David Bell took up the post of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools [HMCI] on 1 May 2002. Interested parties had been invited by the Committee to comment on the process of appointing a new HMCI and the way forward for OFSTED under Mr Bell's leadership. The Committee took evidence from Mr Bell on Wednesday 8 May 2002.

The HMCI appointment process

16359.   In its Fourth Report of 1998-99, our predecessor select committee recognised the formal position that Crown appointments cannot be made subject to Parliamentary veto. It believed, however, that Parliament should be given an advisory role in the appointment or re-appointment of HM Chief Inspector. The Education and Employment Committee recommended that the Chief Inspector should continue to be appointed by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister, but that before the appointment (or re-appointment) was confirmed, the Select Committee should be given the opportunity to take evidence in public from the nominee and to report to Parliament on the proposed appointment. A debate could then be held in the House on the Committee's report. Although the Government would not formally be obliged to make time for such a debate, the Committee recommended that the Government should give an undertaking to do so.[2]

16360.   In its response to the Education and Employment Committee's Report, the Government resisted the Committee's recommendation:

"The Government has accepted the recommendation in the First Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that ministerial accountability and selection on merit should be the key elements of the appointment system for public bodies. The Government therefore has no plans to propose Parliamentary involvement in such appointments, including that of HM Chief Inspector of Schools".[3]

16361.   Similarly, the official OFSTED response at that time was negative:

"The procedure for the appointment or re_appointment of HMCI is a matter for Parliament. We would, however, wish to remind the Committee that the appointment of the present HMCI involved a public advertisement, an interview with a Board made up of senior civil servants, a businessman, a headteacher and Sir Ron (as he was) Dearing. The Secretary of State had then to come to his decision. His decision had to be ratified by the Prime Minister and, on the advice of the Privy Council, the Queen. We question whether further mechanisms are needed to ensure transparency".[4]

16362.   More recently, Mr Chris Woodhead has expressed a rather different personal view:

"...it would be better if the [appointment] decision were made by the Select Committee on behalf of Parliament. ...Such changes would not eliminate the potential for conflict. Nor should they. They would, however, strengthen the Chief Inspector's position, and, difficult though it might be for Ministers, constitutionally this would be a good thing".[5]

16363.   The Education and Employment Committee returned to the issue in its Second Report of 2000-01, which was based on Mr Woodhead's final appearance in front of the Education Sub-committee on Wednesday 1 November 2000, the day before he announced his resignation. The Committee recorded the fact that it had been announced by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on Thursday 16 November 2000 that Mr Mike Tomlinson had been appointed to a one­year term as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools. The Committee announced its intention to hold a confirmation hearing on the appointment proposed by Government at any time of an HMCI.[6] In her response to the Committee's Report, Estelle Morris [then the Minister for School Standards] wrote that:

"The Government continues to believe that ministerial accountability and selection on merit should be the key elements of the appointment system for public bodies. As I said in 1999 in the Government's response to the report of the Committee's enquiry into the work of OFSTED, we have no plans to propose Parliamentary involvement in the appointment of HM Chief Inspector of Schools. The appointment of Mike Tomlinson as HM Chief Inspector was confirmed, as required by section 1(1) of the School Inspections Act 1996, by Order in Council on 13 December 2000".[7]

16364.   In its next Report on OFSTED, the Education and Employment Committee cited its two previous Reports and noted that Mr Tomlinson had frequently been exposed to scrutiny by the Education Sub­committee and that it had been made clear at the time of his appointment that he would not be staying on for a full five­year term.[8] The Committee stated that it would expect the incoming Secretary of State in the new Parliament to give priority to selection of a successor to Mr Tomlinson for the longer term and that it would welcome further discussions with the new Secretary of State on what contribution could be made by the Select Committee to the process of confirming the appointment of a new head for OFSTED, a unique non­Ministerial government Department.[9] The Government's response stated that:

"The Government has no plans to propose Parliamentary involvement in the appointment of HM Chief Inspector of Schools. Recruitment for the post will be run in accordance with the guidelines of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments following advertisements in the national press."[10]

16365.   We indicated in our First Report of this Session that we would be holding a meeting with David Bell in the near future.[11] In giving evidence to the current Education and Skills Select Committee, Mr Tomlinson declined to comment about the appointment process in detail, but observed that:

"The process is open in so far as it is an open competition: adverts are placed and people are entitled to apply. There is a usual procedure which surrounds any appointment of that nature within the civil service. I do not think I can give you a simple answer to your question about whether it would have been better. It would have been different, that is for sure; whether it would have led to a better process, a different outcome, I really cannot speculate".[12]

16366.   In our Second Report of this Session, we stated our belief that Parliament should have a role in the appointment of HMCI and that such a role would contribute positively to perceived and actual transparency in the public appointments process and the accountability of HMCI to Parliament. We also indicated that we would welcome further discussion with the Secretary of State as to how future appointments might be informed and supported by Parliament.[13]

16367.   As a Crown appointment, made by the Queen in Council on the recommendation of the Government, the post of HM Chief Inspector of Schools falls outside the remit of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments [OCPA] and the Civil Service Commissioners. Nevertheless, for reasons of openness and transparency, the DfES followed OCPA public appointment procedures throughout the process.[14] PricewaterhouseCoopers [PwC] were engaged to administer the competition and to carry out an international executive search. The recruitment process ran to time, being scheduled to begin in September 2001 and finish with an announcement of the recommendation by early January. National advertisements were placed in The Sunday Times on 16 September, The Guardian on 19 September, The Times Educational Supplement on 21 September and The Economist on the 22 September.[15]

16368.   PricewaterhouseCoopers received a total of 51 requests for information packs and 33 candidates applied subsequently. There were 5 candidates who expressed an interest in the post prior to the advertised deadline of 11 October but submitted full applications after that date. The selection panel were content that the reasons (including illness) for late submission justified acceptance of the later applications, and all applications were received prior to the first meeting of the selection panel. The selection panel comprised Dame Rennie Fritchie, Commissioner for Public Appointments, as Chair, alongside David Normington, Permanent Secretary of the Department of Education and Skills, Professor Peter Scott, Vice Chancellor of Kingston University and Erica Piennar, headteacher at Prendergast School, Lewisham. We note that the panel included one independent person and three education providers, directly or indirectly representing those who will be subject to HMCI. It appears that no-one was on the panel to represent consumers of education either directly (pupils, students or their parents) or indirectly (business, universities, representatives of the public services). The panel met for the first time on 24 October and agreed a list of 11 candidates to go forward to the next stage.[16]

16369.    PricewaterhouseCoopers assessed the 11 candidates through a substantial interview with each and produced reports for consideration by the panel. The full panel met on 13 November and agreed a short­list of six candidates. One of the candidates subsequently withdrew his candidature. The remaining five were interviewed by an occupational psychologist who prepared a report on each before the final interviews. Each candidate was briefed by the Permanent Secretary about the post. References were also taken. The panel interviewed the 5 short­listed candidates on 26 November 2001 and subsequently made their recommendations to the Secretary of State. The panel recommended that the Secretary of State should see three candidates, all of whom were regarded as suitable for the post. She did this as soon as possible after the panel had met.

16370.   On 6 January 2002, the Secretary of State announced that she would be recommending to the Queen in Council, that David Bell be appointed as HM Chief Inspector of Schools from 1 May 2002. As the Committee noted in its Second Report of 2001-02,[17] this announcement was made a day earlier than intended, following an article in The Sunday Times. At a meeting of the Privy Council, held on 12 February, David Bell's appointment from 1 May 2002 to 30 April 2007 was confirmed. Mr Bell will be paid £115,000 per annum with a maximum 12 per cent non­consolidated and non­pensionable performance bonus available.[18]

16371.   The DfES told us that it was not standard practice for the names of unsuccessful candidates to be disclosed and that "furthermore, our view is that if it became standard practice to do so, prospective applicants may be deterred from applying at all".[19] In our recent evidence session Mr Bell told us:

"My view is that I have been through all sorts of different kinds of appointment processes and I suppose that if this Committee had had a role, it would not have put me off."[20]

16372.   We do not agree with the DfES that prospective applicants would necessarily be deterred from applying by the prospect of parliamentary involvement in the appointment process. We recognise that conducting interviews or short-listing in public might hinder attracting candidates of the right quality, but it would be perfectly possible to hold any or all of the interviews in private. It is made clear in the documentation supplied by the DfES to potential candidates that "accountability to Parliament operates principally through the Education and Skills Committee".[21] We concur with the Department's own view. The House has already endorsed the "illustrative model" of common objectives for select committees, as proposed by the Leader of the House, which includes the consideration of major appointments.[22] We believe that this Select Committee should play a part, on behalf of Parliament and the public whom we represent, in the process of appointing a new HMCI.

16373.   The Order in Council appointing HMCI is a statutory instrument, but like the great majority of Orders and Regulations which are required to be laid before Parliament it is subject to annulment.[23] Under the present system, the only way to secure a debate on the appointment of a new HMCI would be through the invidious, and almost certainly ineffective, route of tabling an Early Day Motion objecting to a decision that had already been taken. If, on the other hand, these Orders in Council appointing HMCIs were dealt with in the same way as Orders establishing British Summer Time or Orders giving effect to international agreements on reciprocal Double Taxation Relief, (that is to say, laid before Parliament in draft), there would be an opportunity for this Select Committee to hold a public hearing with the Government's nominee before the draft Order was debated, probably in a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, before it was formally submitted at a meeting of the Privy Council for Her Majesty's approval. We recommend that any Order in Council appointing [or re-appointing] Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools should be subject to the approval of the House of Commons.

The new HMCI

16374.   Mr David Bell has an MA and an M.Ed from Glasgow University. He trained as a primary teacher at Jordanhill College of Education and began his working life in the West of Scotland. He then moved to deputy headship and headship posts in Essex before moving to Labour-controlled Newcastle upon Tyne as Assistant Director of Education. In 1995, Mr Bell became Director of Education and Libraries in Newcastle. The OFSTED report on the ILA in 1999 commented, "The enhanced effectiveness derives from a remarkable improvement in the ILA's performance as an organisation that coincides with, and to a large extent results from, the appointment four years ago of the current Director of Education and Libraries". Whilst in Newcastle, Mr Bell trained and qualified as an OFSTED registered inspector, with an additional designation to inspect the early years. He also began the work that has led to the recent signing of a private finance initiative [PFI] deal in the city, which will lead to the rebuilding of a number of schools. Mr Bell told us that he was proud of his work at Newcastle in relation to rasing standards in an inner city area, piloting the literacy strategy and building a good partnership between schools and the LEA.[24]

16375.   Mr Bell became Chief Executive of Conservative-controlled Bedfordshire County Council in early 2000. In his two years there, he was instrumental in securing a ground breaking partnership with the private sector for the delivery of back office services.[25] Mr Bell has also been a part-time lecturer for the Open University, In addition, he has held a variety of non-executive posts in the public sector including being a board member of a FE college and a careers company. Mr Bell is married with two daughters, both of whom attend LEA-maintained schools in Bedfordshire.[26]

16376.   In his evidence Mr Bell highlighted three main areas of responsibility to which he intends to give priority:

  • to maintain and manage the inspection programme;
  • to manage and lead OFSTED;
  • to build and maintain good relationships with stakeholders.[27]

16377.   Mr Bell said that the key responsibility of the HMCI was to report on the evidence that OFSTED found, and he assured us that "that is the basis on which I will speak out."[28] He told us that he did not believe in "heroic" leadership in an organisation and he emphasised the importance of creating a leadership culture and a leadership team.[29] The reason that he applied for the job was partly that it was "a real honour" to hold the position of HMCI, but also "a sense that it can influence very profoundly developments in education in this country".[30]

Early Years  

16378.   HMCI's responsibilities include the regulation of child-minding and day care provision under the Children Act 1989, including registration of providers and securing the inspection of registered child minders and day care providers at specified intervals; to keep the Secretary of State informed about quality and standards of child minding and day care provision and to provide advice about that provision, as requested by the Secretary of State; and to include in his Annual Report an account of the exercise of those functions transferred to OFSTED under the Care Standards Act 2000.

16379.   Mr Bell admitted that new IT systems in the early years area had been a "teething difficulty ... but I think we can work our way through those."[31] OFSTED now has eight regional centres for early years. Mr Bell told us that he was keen to ensure that each centre maintained strong links with the Early Years and Childcare Development Partnerships within their areas. OFSTED plans to publish its first Early Years report during the summer, based on a 10 per cent sample of all the early years centres inspected.[32]

The burden of inspection

16380.   Mr Bell told us that after he had been selected as the next HMCI he had been consulted on the development of the new inspection framework, to be introduced from September 2003.[33] He did not regard the new cycle of inspections as over burdensome.[34] He offered to provide the Committee with examples of how OFSTED had tried to reduce some of the bureaucratic overload associated with inspection.[35]

16381.   In written evidence submitted to this Committee, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers commended OFSTED for "its awareness of the unduly demanding nature of inspections and for its concern to minimise burdens".[36] Mr Bell was supportive of his predecessor's work on reducing the burden of inspection:

"I think it was very interesting that one of the first acts that my predecessor undertook was to write to all the schools and say when an inspection is coming, we do not want specially prepared schemes of work, we do not want specially written lesson plans, we went to be able to see the school as it is."[37]

16382.   Mr Bell indicated that his appointment would not result in a radical change of direction: "as far as inspection is concerned, I am a believer, as in most things, in evolution rather than revolution and I think that if we look at how the inspection system has evolved over the past 10 years, we have come to what I think is a reasonable position in the sense that we are now consulting on a new framework for September 2003 which emphasises even more the need to have inspection proportionate to risk".[38]

16383.   Mr Bell thought that inspection would never be stress-free: "I think there will always be a degree of stress associated with inspection because it is an important moment in the life of any institution."[39] He cited his own experience, telling us "I am quite happy to admit that I felt that stress when OFSTED was to visit me".[40] Mr Bell has committed himself to visit at least one school each week.[41]

Serving teachers and headteachers in inspection teams

16384.   OFSTED is committed to involving more serving teachers and headteachers in the school inspection system. In response to the recent consultation document,[42] inspection contractors had expressed concerns about maintaining quality standards with serving teachers and head teachers who could carry out inspections only occasionally.[43] Mr Bell told us that he recognised the need for caution: "we are committed and we were committed during the consultation process to try to get more serving teachers and head teachers, but I think we also have to be mindful of those concerns".[44]

Self-evaluation

16385.   Much of the written evidence presented to the Committee referred to the draft Framework for Inspection and, in particular, to the advantages of self-evaluation. The National Union of Teachers sought to secure a balance between external and internal evaluation of each school.[45] The National Association of Head Teachers strongly supported the greater use of self-evaluation in school inspections,[46] and the Association of Colleges said that self-assessment should be seen as the way forward in terms of driving up standards.[47] Mr Bell emphasised the continued importance of external inspection:

"I have to say that I believe strongly in independent rigorous inspection and nothing that I will do in my time as Chief Inspector will compromise that position because whilst independent inspection has a role to play in assisting school management and helping schools get better, that is not the only purpose. The other very important purpose of independent inspection is to secure public accountability".[48]

Supply teachers

16386.   The regulation of supply teacher agencies falls within the remit of the Department of Trade and Industry's Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and is covered by the Employment Agencies Act 1973.[49] During a recent evidence hearing with Mr Mike Tomlinson, the former HMCI informed this Committee that he had raised the issue of supply teacher agency regulation with the Secretary of State.[50] Mr Bell stated that OFSTED had demonstrated over the years that it had been able to take on new inspection responsibilities, but he expressed some reservations on this point:

"I am just cautious at sitting here and saying, 'Yes, it is a great idea to inspect supply teaching agencies,' when I am not entirely sure (i) what the responsibilities are of other local government departments for the regulation of employment agencies, and (ii) what value OFSTED would bring to the process if it took on inspection responsibility".[51]

  

Combatting racism

16387.   The Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools for 2000/01 stated that about 40 per cent of Local Education Authorities had not responded adequately to the Macpherson report on the death of Stephen Lawrence. In particular, they had not renewed their guidance, and had failed to monitor racist incidents.[52] Supplementary evidence from Mr Mike Tomlinson set out the relevant extracts on combatting racism from the inspection reports of LEAs not considered to be doing sufficiently well in this area. Mr Tomlinson emphasised that he would expect to see substantial progress in most of those LEAs when they were next inspected.[53] When asked what OFSTED could do to address LEAs' shortcomings in this area, Mr Bell replied:

"First and foremost, where that evidence has been collected, it is the responsibility of the LEAs. In those authorities where it has been judged as unsatisfactory, it will be one of the key issues that the authority has to pick up. I think the responsibility properly is back with the authority to deal with the issue. I guess there are a number of ways in which the authorities can do that, but I think it is not really OFSTED's responsibility. If OFSTED have found the evidence and made a recommendation, it is then the responsibility of the authorities to pick it up".[54]

16388.   OFSTED has recently reported on good practice regarding the achievement of black Caribbean pupils.[55] Mr Bell expressed the hope that other schools would "take those reports, have a look at what successful schools are doing and perhaps amend their own practice in the light of that material".[56]

Inspecting special schools

16389.   Evidence submitted by the National Association of Head Teachers [NAHT] expressed concern that there could still be difficulties regarding the experience of inspection teams for special schools. They added that it was important that team members should have direct understanding of the needs of the particular youngsters in the specific school.[57]

16390.   In the recent consultation document, OFSTED recognised the need to apply a differentiated model of the inspection framework to special schools and pupil referral units, and that this posed particular challenges.[58] Commenting on feedback from the consultation, Mr Bell said that the NAHT was not alone in having concerns:

"One of the concerns that has been raised by a number of organisations is: Do you get the right range of experience in an inspection team where you perhaps have a range of needs to inspect? That is an important element of the specification that is given to contractors, to ensure that they actually do provide that kind of experience".[59]

Conclusion

16391.   The independence and accountability of HMCI are inextricably linked. It is now time for Parliament, through this Select Committee, to have a say in the appointment or re-appointment of the head of OFSTED. Our confidence in Mr David Bell makes it all the easier for us to express a view on this as a matter of principle rather than in any way as a criticism of Mr Bell, whom we believe to have the experience, qualifications and vision to be an outstanding holder of the position of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools. We look forward to a long and fruitful relationship with OFSTED during his term of office.

16392.   Our predecessors called for a debate to be held at least annually on OFSTED,[60] and we recommended in one of our earlier Reports that such a debate should be held in the current Session.[61] We repeat that recommendation, and we further recommend that the debate should take place on the following substantive Motion:

"That this House takes note of the First, Second and Fourth Reports from the Education and Skills Committee, relating to the Work of OFSTED, Standards and Quality in Schools: the Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools for 2000-01, and the Appointment of a New HMCI; and calls on the Government to introduce legislation to amend the Schools Inspections Act 1996 so that future Orders in Council appointing Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools should not be presented for Her Majesty's approval unless a draft of the Order has been approved by both Houses of Parliament."


1   First Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, Session 2001-02, Select Committees, HC 224-I, paragraph 34; see also HC Deb 14 May 2002 vol 385 cols 648 to 726 and Second Report from the Liaison Committee, Session 2001-02, Select Committees: Modernisation Proposals, HC 692 paragraphs 16 and 17 Back

2   Fourth Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1998-99, The Work of OFSTED, HC62-I, paragraph 205 Back

3   Fifth Special Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1998-99, Government and OFSTED's Response to the Fourth Report from the Committee, The Work of OFSTED, HC 791, Annex I, paragraph 55 Back

4   Fifth Special Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1998-99, Government and OFSTED's Response to the Fourth Report from the Committee, The Work of OFSTED, HC 791, Annex II, paragraph 44 Back

5   Chris Woodhead, Class War, publ. London 2002, page 109 Back

6   Second Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 2000-01, OFSTED Corporate Plan 2000, HC 34, paragraph 55 Back

7   Second Special Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1999-2000, Government and OFSTED's Response to the Fourth Report from the Committee, OFSTED Corporate Plan 2000, HC 258, Annex I Back

8   Eighth Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1999-2000, Standards and Quality in Education: The Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools for 1999­2000, HC 362, paragraph 27. Mr Tomlinson was formally appointed on 13 December 2000 until 30 November 2001; his term was subsequently extended on 18 July 2001 to run until 30 April 2002.  Back

9   Eighth Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1999-2000, Standards and Quality in Education: The Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools for 1999­2000, HC 362, paragraph 28 Back

10   First Special Report from the Education and Skills Committee, Session 2001-02, Government's and OFSTED's Response to the Eighth Report from the Education and Employment Committee Session 2000­01: Standards and Quality in Education: the Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools 1999­2000, HC 215, HC 215 Annex I Back

11   First Report from the Education and Skills Committee, Session 2001-02, The Work of OFSTED, HC 437, paragraph 27 Back

12   Second Report from the Education and Skills Committee, Session 2001-02, Standards and Quality in Education: the Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools for 2000-01, HC 699, paragraph 4 and Q.1 Back

13   Second Report from the Education and Skills Committee, Session 2001-02, Standards and Quality in Education: the Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools for 2000-01, HC 699, paragraph 5 Back

14   The account of the appointment process in this and subsequent paragraphs was supplied by the DfES - Ev 23. A note on the appointment of Mr Woodhead and Mr Tomlinson for their terms as HMCI is at Ev 36 Back

15   The advertisement was displayed on the websites of these publications (except for The Economist) and on PwC's website. In addition, the DfES Permanent Secretary wrote to the Head of the Civil Service on 26 September 2001, with copies sent to other Permanent Secretaries, requesting that any suggestions for suitable candidates be passed to PwC Back

16   Professor Scott was unable to attend this panel meeting, but gave comments, which were taken into account Back

17   First Report from the Education and Skills Committee, Session 2001-02, The Work of OFSTED, HC 437, paragraph 27 Back

18   Other documents enclosed with Mr Bell's contract were: the Civil Service Code; the rules on political activities; a basic guide to the Official Secrets Act 1989; and the guidance on the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme Back

19   Ev 24 Back

20   Q.2 Back

21   Ev 28 Back

22   See paragraph 1 above Back

23   Some Orders or Regulations made by Ministers under powers granted by Acts of Parliament [statutory instruments] are laid in draft and need to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, or in some cases only by the House of Commons, before they come into force. Most statutory instruments are subject to the 'negative' procedure, under which they may come into force on the date specified, subject to annulment if either House of Parliament passes a Motion 'praying' that the instrument be annulled. The time limit for tabling such 'prayers' is extended to the end of 40 days (excluding periods of dissolution or prorogation or days on which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days). Statutory instruments laid under the negative procedure are seldom debated, even in standing committee, and only in extremely rare cases have such instruments been annulled. As a matter of practice, the Government usually lays such Orders or Regulations at least 21 days before they come into force. Back

24   Q.15 Back

25   Hyder Business Services provides support to schools in Bedfordshire's local authority. Services include finance, payroll, IT, personnel, property services, education advice and consultancy. Back

26   QQ.49 to 51 Back

27   Q.1 Back

28   Q.9. See also QQ.29 and 29 Back

29   Q.16 Back

30   Q.8 Back

31   Q.43 Back

32   Q.54 Back

33   QQ.32,36 Back

34   Q.27 Back

35   Q.31. See First Report from the Education and Skills Committee, Session 2001-02, HC 437, Ev 19 Appendix 18; and Reducing the burden of inspection, OFSTED, May 2001 Back

36   Ev 40 paragraph 5 Back

37   Q.31. See also First Report from the Education and Skills Committee, Session 2001-02, The Work of OFSTED, HC 437, paragraph 5 Back

38   Q.5 Back

39   Q.6 Back

40   Q.30 Back

41   Q.11 Back

42   Improving inspection, improving schools, September 2001, paragraphs 45 and 46 Back

43   Q.34 Back

44   Q.35 Back

45   Ev 18 paragraph 14 Back

46   Ev 40 paragraph 3 Back

47   Ev 38 paragraph 11 Back

48   Q.5 Back

49   Ev 42 Back

50   Second Report from the Education and Skills Committee, Session 2001-02, Standards and Quality in Education: the Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools for 2000-01, HC 699, paragraphs 33 to 37 and Q.59 Back

51   Q.69 Back

52   Standards and Quality in Education: the Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools for 2000/01, page 104, paragraph 426 Back

53   Ev 42  Back

54   Q.76 Back

55   Achievement of Black Caribbean Pupils: Good Practice in Secondary Schools (HMI 447); and Achievement of Black Caribbean Pupils: Three Successful Primary Schools (HMI 448) Back

56   Q.55 Back

57   Ev 40 paragraph 4 Back

58   Improving inspection, improving schools, September 2001, paragraph 29 Back

59   Q. 45 Back

60   Fourth Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1998-99, The Work of OFSTED, HC62-I, paragraph 204 Back

61   First Report from the Education and Skills Committee, Session 2001-02, The Work of OFSTED, HC 437, paragraph 28 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2002
Prepared 2 July 2002