The prospect held out today by David Bell, the Chief Inspector of Schools — that a new regime of short, sharp inspections could lead to more schools being classified as failing — is a necessary evil. Mr Bell is no stranger to what he describes in The Times today as “turbulence” in the education system. He has been forthright and rigorous in identifying problems. He is right to be altering an inspection regime that has all too often achieved the very opposite of what Ofsted was supposed to provide: a clear and accurate view of schools’ abilities and limitations.
In some ways the current system provides the worst of all worlds. Giving teachers six to ten weeks’ warning of an inspection has led to painful, panicky and often pointless prepping for the day when the Inspector Calls. This has imposed a tremendous burden on teachers who should have been devoting time to the classroom, not cobbling together reams of bureaucratic paperwork — much of which has been described by Ofsted in the past as meaningless. This experiment has, on the whole, been a spectacular waste of energy.
Inspection should be part of the normal business of running a school, rather than a cataclysmic event that throws teachers and students into turmoil. It should also reflect as closely as possible the daily life of the average pupil, and not some Potemkin parallel. Information is power, and it is in the interests of children and parents for that power to be shared as widely as possible. If there is bad news, let it be broadcast honestly and quickly to those who need to know.
Mr Bell’s plan to shorten inspection reports will help schools to focus on improving what really matters. And it will provide an annual school profile to help parents to make more informed decisions.
Ofsted believes that abolishing or reducing advance warning of inspections could free up time equivalent to that of about a thousand extra teachers each year. Some teaching unions will, nevertheless, still gripe that the new system is unfair. In some parts of education there is still a residual resistance to any attempt to categorise or rank schools. But this is rank complacency, when each generation of children has only one chance to escape failure.
Advertisement
Since he was appointed in 2002, Mr Bell has proved himself to be a shrewd operator with a subtle understanding of schools policy and politics. His relatively recent experience of teaching — as a primary teacher and headmaster — gives him a great deal of credibility. He speaks the language of modern education, but he has not pandered to that section of the modern educational establishment that would like to use jargon to conceal poor standards. He has never been afraid to embarrass ministers with bad news. He has rightly highlighted the scandal of 10,000 15-year-olds who are “missing” from English school rolls. And he was brave to point to the stagnation of literacy and numeracy results in primary schools, shortly before the last election.
Mr Bell seems sanguine about what he sees as the likely demise of A levels. He is too hasty in supporting a system that could well become a hotch-potch, but he would do well to keep intervening in the important dialogue about the future of education. To silence him would be to diminish the debate.