Further written evidence to be reported to the House
Education and Skills Bill
12:00 pm
Jonathan Shephard: Firstly, it is a matter of principle. I think it is desirable for legislation to be done on the basis of facts and not fiction. If you look at the regulatory impact assessment, page 14, under the title “Analysis and Evidence”, it says,
“Independent schools will benefit from only dealing with Ofsted.”
But that is untrue in respect of more than 80 per cent of the children in independent education in England who will deal not only with Ofsted but with the ISI.
As a matter of principle, it is very important that inspection and regulation should be separated. Inspections can be wrong. Inspectors can make mistakes. It is important that when they go to a regulator to say that there is a problem with the school, the regulator has the power of decision to say what should be done because that is a necessary check and balance. If the inspector goes to itself, that check and balance is not there.
Conversely, if the regulator is told—by members of the public or others, as does happen—that there are concerns about a school, it is important that the regulator should be able to direct the inspector to go into the school and sort out the problem. If the inspector and the regulator are the same body, that may not happen because the inspector may decide not to direct itself, because it may think there is no problem. So the separation of powers is really important, and the rationale behind the whole of these proposals does not exist, because it is based on a complete misunderstanding of what happens on the ground.