Witnesses:
Mr N Hamilton )
Mr T McGuigan ) Department of Education
Miss M Matchett )
Mr S Peover )

1. The Chairperson: You are very welcome. This is your first visit to the Public Accounts Committee and possibly your last visit in your current departmental capacity.

2. This is our first opportunity to consider education matters. Today we are dealing with two aspects of the Department's business - the school inspection process, and pay flexibilities for school principals and vice- principals. We will look at these reports separately, and a team has been designated to ask questions on each.

3. Over £1 billion is allocated annually to Northern Ireland schools, therefore the Department of Education requires assurances from schools that its investment in education is delivering good quality educational outcomes. There is an increasing interest in information about children's education and the performance of schools. The Department's education and training inspectorate seeks to provide that through its inspection activity. The community needs to be assured that inspections are followed up by action which leads to improved school performances.

4. In the first part of this session, we want to consider how efficiently and effectively school inspection has been in providing assurance on the quality of school performance, and assisting the improvement of standards in schools.

5. In paragraph 2.9 of the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) report, 'School Inspection in Northern Ireland', it points out that the feedback received from some schools was that there was a need for greater clarity on the criteria used in the inspection process. We see no point in spending around £4 million a year on inspection unless schools know the standards against which they are being inspected. Mr Hamilton, would it not be an important contribution to the process of accountability if a clearer explanation of the methods of inspection was made available to schools?

6. Mr Hamilton: We took assurances from the report's reference to the degree of support provided through the inspection process, and to its professionalism. We also welcome the recommendations and views expressed in the report. Miss Matchett was appointed Chief Inspector of Schools just last September. This new appointment has enabled us to review the role, approaches, structures and processes of the inspectorate.

7. Over the past year we have tried, first, to improve transparency, and secondly, to help the wider education system to understand our procedures. We did this in five or six different ways. In October 2000, we published leaflets on the inspection process - guides for parents, teachers and others. That is an update of the earlier review. We have published the chief inspector's review which is fairly comprehensive, and which gives an analysis of the performance of primary schools, secondary schools, ethos, management and so on.

8. We have published, as the report requested, follow-up inspection reports so that schools are kept informed. To help people to understand the criteria and to improve transparency, we have also increased the number of associate assessors to 48, and more lay folk are now involved in the inspection, because we believe that that is important in helping schools.

9. We have taken three other steps, one of which I would like Miss Matchett to comment upon. The inspectorate has spoken at a number of major conferences to help people to understand the criteria used during inspections. Conferences on pastoral care were attended by 1200 principals; 600 primary school principals considered the report on 'Children and their Learning'; and another 250 post-primary school principals looked at the inspection process itself.

10.Since 1998-99, we have published around 40 separate surveys covering the range of the inspectorate's responsibilities. Those thematic reports and surveys are additional to the school inspection reports. Finally, we have published indicators of quality in 14 separate subject areas. Miss Matchett will comment on the specific indicators of quality used in some of those subject areas, which we have published.

11. Miss Matchett: In publishing our criteria we have helped schools and other organisations to gain a greater understanding of the inspection process and the criteria used by the inspectorate. We have published documentation to explain what happens before, during and after the inspection. We have published the inspectorate's indicators of what we deem "strong" or "weak" practice within individual subjects. For example, we have shown how we evaluate pastoral care within the 14 subjects to which Mr Hamilton referred. All this information is now in the public domain.

12. The Chairperson: It is stated in paragraph 4.3 of the NIAO report that school inspection in England and Wales is now carried out by independent inspection teams which work under the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED). I note that, by contrast, following a review in 1995, the Education and Training Inspectorate in Northern Ireland remains part of the Department of Education. The English and Welsh model has the advantage of the inspectorate being seen to be fully independent from the Department for Education and Employment. What is the case for retaining the existing structure in Northern Ireland? What comments do you have to make on the situation in England and Wales?

13. Mr Hamilton: We believe that it is very important, particularly since devolution, to have a unitary inspectorate. The Education and Training Inspectorate now reports to three separate Departments: the Department of Education, on schools; the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, on sport; and the Department of Higher and Further Education, on related issues. That is important. For example, some 16-to-19-year-olds are in school, while others are in training organisations, therefore it is important that there be a unitary inspectorate.

14. Secondly, in light of my initial comments, the inspectorate has two specific functions. The first is to provide an independent inspection of schools, and I assure the Committee that Miss Matchett and the inspectorate are entirely independent in that sense. The administrative section of the Department has no involvement in drawing up the inspectorate's programme of inspections, or in assessing what needs to be done. From time to time we request the inspection of an individual school, if there are concerns, or for another specific purpose, but the inspectorate is entirely independent in its daily management control.

15. On the other side, the inspectorate has a major role to play in making policy contribution across the range of education functions. We have discussed this with the current Minister, and he has also been engaged with the inspectorate. We want to enhance the inspectorate's policy contribution based on issues arising from its inspection activities and surveys in schools. This is a professional organisation, and we have available to us considerable educational resources which we want to apply when dealing with special education issues, literacy issues and throughout all inspection activity.

16. This was done before devolution, in 1995, and it was decided that there was no strong reason for moving down the road taken in England and Wales. One of the bases for this decision was that there was no external capacity for inspection at that time in Northern Ireland. We have not yet considered whether the inspectorate should become an executive agency, as has happened in Scotland over the last month or two. We want to consider the implications of that.

17. At the end of the day, we want an inspection process which is as effective and efficient as possible, and which makes the maximum contribution to individual schools and to the Department.

18. Mr Peover: Another issue for us in the mid 1990s was that in England the OFSTED arrangements were set up, because most routine inspection was being carried out by local education authority inspectors, not by Her Majesty's Inspectorate, a small central group which inspected schools only occasionally. The Government were concerned that this system did not preserve the separation of functions between local authorities, as the providers of education, and the inspectorate as the accountability mechanism. They were concerned about that this might not guarantee quality for the public.

19. In Northern Ireland we never had that arrangement. Our education and library boards have never had an inspection function. The inspection function has always been carried out centrally and independent of the providers of education. The main drive behind the changes in England did not exist here.

20. Miss Matchett: Although we have an individual model of inspection in Northern Ireland, we also work closely with our colleagues in England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland. We benchmark our existing inspection practice against these systems, whenever we can, to ensure that we offer best value in all our inspection activity.

21. The Chairperson: There is concern in Northern Ireland that certain organisations, such as the police force, inspect or investigate themselves. There is public discontent with that, and this attitude could apply to the school inspection procedure. To put it bluntly, Mr Peover, are you Miss Matchett's boss?

22. Mr Hamilton: No.

23. The Chairperson: Well, that is reassuring.

24. Miss Matchett: The chief inspector from Scotland, the NIAO and Queen's University have assessed the inspectorate in recent years. All their reports have been published and each paid tribute to the efficiency of the inspectorate's work.

25. The inspectorate also seeks to evaluate its own work during every inspection activity therefore an evaluation is completed by all schools, colleges and organisations which are inspected. We have published these evaluations of the system and, for the most part, there is overwhelming support for inspection procedures. We carry out an evaluation at the post-inspection stage, and others write to the Department to comment on the inspection process. Since September the Department has received around 80 letters acknowledging the contribution of the inspectorate. One or two of these letters have not been so positive, and we have dealt with those in the context of comments and enquiries that come in about inspection. In fact, others inspect us, and we take their recommendations very seriously, as we have done with the NIAO report. This is to ensure that we make improvements where they are seen to be necessary.

26. The Chairperson: The answers you have given are helpful and we thank you for them.

27. Mr Hamilton: Miss Matchett and I also want to adopt a process where all completed evaluation forms are eventually handed to an external agency which could make an analysis of the inspection process. In this way, the inspectorate would not be writing its own report about what others say about it.

28. Mr Dallat: I welcome the team, particularly Miss Matchett, and I hope that she will tell us something about the future rather than defending the past. I recognise the important role of schools in the wider development of pupils, and that is referred to in the NIAO report at paragraph 3.19. It recommends that reporting and academic achievements become a key aspect of inspection. Most parents would agree with this view. What steps have the Department taken to address this point?

29. Miss Matchett: As you would expect, we have individual institutional inspections as a result of which information on schools is published. We also have published cross-cutting reports on standards in regard to some issues of concern. For example, the chief inspector's review examines standards across all types of schools and organisations. We are trying, where possible, to encourage schools not to wait for inspection but to become self-evaluative so that the inspection is part of the process towards improvement. Our reports include the outcome of the inspection and the school's examination performance. Schools of similar type and size can therefore compare results and standards.

30. Under our new revised procedures we offer opportunities for parents to be part of the inspection process. They have the opportunity to complete a questionnaire on the life and work of the school, and to meet and speak with the inspectorate. Any parent's concerns can be taken on board during the inspection process.

31. Mr Dallat: Why was the Department or the inspectorate not screaming from the rooftops about the low standards which existed during the last 30 years of direct rule? Why did we have to wait until there was a devolved Government to find out that 250,000 people between the ages of 16 and 64 have serious learning difficulties? Surely that is a past that you would not wish to defend.

32. Mr Peover: That was not the first time that we were aware of literacy difficulties among the adult population. As part of a continuing trend, up to 20% of our adult population has what we regard as unacceptable levels of literacy. It is a major problem, not only in this country but in Europe and worldwide.

33. Over the years we have been investing resources to try to improve standards in schools, and we have a literacy and numeracy strategy aimed at improving performance within schools. However, it is entirely unacceptable that 20% of children who leave school after 12 years of compulsory education should be unable to read and write to a standard that will equip them to deal with the demands of adult life. That cannot be defended.

34. We must bear in mind that around 3-4% of children have significant learning difficulties. Another 16-18% of children do not have a permanent difficulty, but have problems that affect their capacity to learn, which is further reduced throughout their school careers. We have been channelling resources to deal with that.

35. Some children will be challenged by the curriculum, and they will have difficulties. We have a range of specific measures to address that problem. We were aware of this long-standing, very difficult problem. We are currently reviewing our literacy and numeracy strategies to properly address these problems.

36. Mr Dallat: I do not understand why the problem was not discussed more in the past. Why did we have to wait until now? The Institute of Directors, the Chambers of Commerce and major employers are now appearing before various Assembly Committees to point out those incredible problems. Why were you not screaming from the rooftops that schools are under-resourced, that there is no targeting of social need, and that good teachers are demoralised? You simply wrote the inspection reports, and that was it. Perhaps we could return to that point.

37. Mr Hamilton: Major attention was focussed on the issue of target-setting, school improvement and the need for an intervention strategy. That was targeted in 1997 and launched in 1998. Early in 1998, for example, we launched a comprehensive, six-part initiative, which involved the introduction of school development planning. Subject to the agreement of the Assembly and Ministers, we hope to bring legislative proposals to the Assembly next year to make school development planning a statutory requirement for every school. That would require every school to set targets on the precise issues that Mr Dallat spoke about.

38. The second and third parts of that strategy dealt with the literacy strategy. Every education and library board now has a literacy and numeracy co-ordinator and additional resources were allocated for that purpose. We agree with the model proposed in the NIAO report, whereby schools begin with self-development planning, and the inspectorate then carries out quality assurance as part of that cycle. I assure the Committee that we intend to pursue the idea of school development planning, target-setting and identifying the strengths and weaknesses at every school level, which can then be assessed and quality assured by the inspectorate.

39. Miss Matchett: You mentioned the inspection of schools. The schools' support programme, which works particularly closely with schools in greatest need, has had a significant influence, and the inspectorate has been very involved in this.

40. We inspect those schools in need at the beginning of the process. Those schools are monitored and are required to complete action plans. The follow-up inspection findings are published so that there is a focus for improvement and we can work with those who support schools in helping them to improve.

41. The inspection report acts as a trigger for schools to address issues, and for the inspectorate to become involved with others. It also provides the support that enables schools to make the improvements you identified.

42. Mr Dallat: I am glad that we all recognise that that is a critical point, and one of the most urgent challenges faced by our Administration. Last week in the Assembly I was dismayed to learn from the Minister that the targets set in the literacy and numeracy strategy for 2002 - the very document upon which you are building your case this morning - have been reviewed.

43. When I hear that something has been reviewed downwards, I regard it to be recognition that you have been unable to deliver what you originally promised. You have downgraded the Key Stage 2 English target from having 80% achieving level 4, or above, to 77%. The Key Stage 3 mathematics target of having 85% pupils achieve level 5, or above, has been reduced to 75% You might be aware that the Minister said that the remaining targets were retained, but clearly this is not the case. The Programme for Government reveals that you have moved the goalposts of the strategy from 2002 to 2004. Surely, this means that all the schedules for meeting targets have slipped by two years.

44. If I had a child at Key Stage 3, and was hoping desperately that your strategy would allow my child to leave school with reasonable standards of literacy and numeracy, I would be very angry to discover that your targets have been moved back to 2004. My child would already, perhaps, be joining that 250,000 who have serious problems; would you not agree?

45. Mr Peover: The change in the targets arose because they had been originally set when we had access to just a single year's data for the outcomes of the Key Stage assessments. Moreover, that data was affected by the fact that some of the teaching unions had opted out of the assessment process, so we only had partial data for a single year.

46. Target-setting is, in general, a difficult issue. A balance needs to be struck between setting targets that schools can achieve easily on the one hand, and targets which are too challenging for them on the other. We have tried to set good targets that present a challenge to many schools, but which are, at least, achievable. We have looked at the trend data over the last few years - we now have three years' data - and have decided that we were asking schools to achieve unrealistic standards. Levels 4 and 5 are quite high standards for pupils to attain. A child who attains level 4 is not just literate; he or she is fully literate and coping very well with the demands which arise at the end of Key Stage 2. They will be among the top pupils of that level and age.

47. You referred to the issue of the directors, employers and so on, but one of the difficulties of this process is finding a workable definition of literacy, which is meaningful to parents. We do not want to alarm parents by saying that their child, having completed Key Stage 3, is illiterate, because he or she has attained level 4 in English, because that is a reasonable achievement. We are reviewing our literacy and numeracy strategy, because we want to ensure that we, and the employers - and we are concerned about what employers say - have the same basic concepts of what should be reasonably expected of a 16-year-old school leaver entering the workforce. This takes some doing.

48. I recognise that the target dates have been put back and that we have reduced the standard of some targets, but that was a response to the information we received on the ground, what we regard as reasonable standards, and the resources. We are investing substantial resources in improving literacy and numeracy; we are doing a review, and we want to see a hard, good value return for the money we are putting into this special mission.

49. Mr Hamilton: We now have statistics for the last four years, since 1996-97. At Key Stage 1, Key Stage 2, level 2 and level 4, there has been an improvement in attainment every year. We are concerned about Key Stage 3, which is particularly difficult - that involves 14 year-old pupils. There is a problem, and I assure Mr Dallat that we are very aware of that problem.

50. In the last year the Minister and I have been having six-monthly meetings with the chief executives and the chairpersons of every education and library board to discuss our concerns. It is not good enough and we need to do more.

51. Mr Dallat: As we sit here this morning, thousands of children in Northern Ireland at Key Stage 3, in year 10, are making choices of GCSEs. Do you accept that yet again many of those children have missed out on improvements that should have taken place, given your own admission that standards at that level are decreasing rather than increasing?

52. Mr Hamilton: The analysis of Key Stage 3 assessment is mixed; and it is better in some areas than in others. However, I accept Mr Dallat's point that the standard at Key Stage 3 is not yet good enough, and that we need to do much more.

53. Mr Peover: Standards are not necessarily going down; they are broadly stable. There are small variations on percentage points year on year, but it is hard to draw a firm conclusion from those. I am more concerned that those are general figures that cover all schools.

54. Mr Dallat: The Key Stage 3 literacy and numeracy targets were published in 'A Strategy for the Promotion of Literacy and Numeracy in Primary and Secondary Schools in Northern Ireland'. The targets were that by 2002, 60% of non-grammar school pupils would achieve level 5, or above, in English and that 75 % would do so in mathematics. Have you changed those targets also and, if so, what are the new targets?

55. Mr Peover: We have not changed those targets. We have a range of initiatives that are specifically directed towards the schools that are serving the most disadvantaged populations. Those initiatives include a vast amount of resources from the school support programme, the sorts of literacy and numeracy strategies that were mentioned, and a range of other measures.

56. We are doing a review of our support for schools. We will examine the outcomes and if the targets need to be changed, we will examine those too. We have not decided to change the target in itself. We are looking at the overall target, rather than its individual components.

57. Mr Dallat: I do not want to be a perpetual pessimist, but what actions are you now taking to ensure that we are not faced with the same problem in another three years' time?

58. Mr Peover: I can only highlight the amount of investment that is going into this process, and the very hands-on way in which it is being dealt with. We are putting £20 million per year into school improvement initiatives. We are targeting those resources at schools that are suffering significant disadvantage, and we have created an initiative, the Group 1 Initiative, for the five post-primary schools that are most severely disadvantaged. Some schools have been through two schemes similar to the previous school support programme, yet they are still facing difficulties. We have channelled very significant additional resources into those schools to help them improve themselves.

59. We are examining the review of the literacy and numeracy strategies in conjunction with employers. We have invited the employers' organisations to nominate people to be involved in that review process and to work through what they consider to be problems. I am reasonably confident that we have the resources and the partnership with the other major players, and we all recognise that this is a very serious and significant problem, not only for young people and individuals, but for the economy as a whole. We are determined to do something about it.

60. Mr Hamilton: We have recently been provided with an additional £6 million for the reading recovery scheme over the next three years. That will be a very important part of our strategy too.

61. Miss Matchett: The role of the inspectorate in regard to schools with difficulties is to identify areas for improvement, to require action planning to begin to work with others to ensure that schools make a difference, and above all, to ensure that schools self-evaluate. Schools are encouraged to look at their own provision and to begin to make the improvements where they are necessary. This is done with the support of the education and library boards, for example.

62. Inspection is therefore being linked to and associated with areas identified for improvement. It is through the school support programme and the reading recovery scheme that we use the expertise of the inspectorate to help identify difficulties and to ensure that schools begin to engage in target-setting, action planning and subsequent improvement.

63. Mr Dallat: You referred to the reading recovery programme, which helps a small number of children. It is not a complete solution, but it is a welcome part of it. I also welcome the fact that employers are being brought into the picture, because they have been coming to the Assembly screaming about the problems. Some are organising their own educational programmes and linking up with primary schools to help their employees to improve their basic English and arithmetic. Each employer has spoken extremely highly of his staff and does not regard the problem as a personal one. It is the system that has failed them. That is why I feel angry that, over so many years, the inspectorate was not screaming from the rooftops that schools were under- resourced, good teachers were being demoralised, and that there was not a holistic approach to the whole problem. As you know, a child's education begins even before he comes to school, and the nursery school programme is welcome in that regard.

64. Miss Matchett: You said that the inspectorate was not screaming from the rooftops. Any difficulties with resources or accommodation are recorded in published reports on individual institutions. In the light of the NIAO's advice that we should ensure our reports are more cross-cutting, we looked at trends across area boards, or types of schools. We have been trying to do that, so that we can have a more strategic influence on the issues that you have raised. Reading recovery, early intervention and the pre-school expansion programme, in which the inspectorate is heavily engaged, are the ways in which we contribute to policy making, and how we work alongside others to effect improvement.

65. Mr Dallat: This report has been incredibly valuable, as has the opportunity for Members to ask questions to the Department. I have no doubt that it has focused attention, not only upon the Department, but across the education and library boards. I welcome the fact that chief executives are now meeting the Minister and departmental officials, and that they are becoming partners in solving the problem. That has only happened since the questions were put down for answer to the Minister.

66. We need to be assured that your Department is delivering value for money in the light of the millions of pounds that you have been allocated for raising standards. I have no doubt that we will re-examine this issue in the near future. I welcome your information that there is close monitoring of what has happened. If we were to help 10,000 people with serious problems, it would take 25 years to resolve this difficulty, and that is not good enough. Employers have told us that they might have to relocate their businesses if local employees, through no fault of their own, cannot perform simple tasks that demand literacy and numeracy.

67. Mr Hamilton: I assure Mr Dallat that since I became permanent secretary in June 1998, I have made a very big personal effort to build relationships with all the education partners, including the boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS), and the schools. We have done a number of things together, because we are all in this together. That has involved visiting schools, and meeting with trade unions. The Department tried very hard to build those partnerships, because everyone has a considerable role to play in effecting improvements.

68. The Chairperson: Your answers have been very helpful. Do you have new figures for 1997?

69. Mr Hamilton: Yes. I can provide the Committee with figures for 1996-97.

70. Mr Carrick: As a Portadown man, I have watched the career of Miss Matchett, and we are pleased about her recent appointment. We wish her well in this very challenging position, particularly when it is viewed against the background that Mr Dallat has painted. We have discussed internal evaluations, external inspections, thematic areas and indicators of quality. This all sounds very well, but let us get down to the nuts and bolts, to the coalface - the classroom.

71. It is indicated in paragraph 2.7 of the 1999 NIAO report, 'School Inspection in Northern Ireland' that classroom observation forms an integral part of the inspection process. In the light of that situation, it could be easy to overlook the fact that the process is based on judgements made on the basis of classroom observations. A variety of interpretations could be made, possibly dependent upon the circumstances, the mood of the inspector on any given day, or even the previous experience of that inspector. In these circumstances, can you ensure that the snapshot provided by an inspection does not give a misleading impression of how a school is performing? Are you certain that the present process accurately and consistently reflects a true assessment of the declared core objectives of the educational system in a particular school?

72. Miss Matchett: First, classroom observations are carried out by a professional group. The inspectorate comprises 60 people, all of whom are professional evaluators. Each must undergo a staff development programme, an induction programme, and a mentoring programme to ensure consistency. They all work to a statement of protocol, which guides their inspection, their evaluation and all the work that they do in schools. It is not only the observation of classroom practice that the inspectorate uses in order to make a judgement. For example, it uses the written planning prepared by the schools, discussions with heads of departments or curriculum co-ordinators, and discussions with the senior management team. The inspectorate also uses the outcome of the questionnaires, which are now available at pre-inspection stage, to gauge the response of parents to the life and work of the school. The snapshot is not based simply on an observation or first-hand experiences with the pupils, it includes all the documentation, pre and post-inspection.

73. The inspectorate works very hard through its subject and phase panels to ensure that it maintains the consistency that you mentioned, because the schools and the young people deserve nothing less than that. We are very conscious of the need to ensure that the inspectorate works collaboratively, consistently and objectively in all that it does. We try to ensure that we give schools and organisations an objective evaluation at that point in time. The schools themselves have an opportunity to contribute to our evaluation, to complete documentation, to reflect with us on where the schools and organisations are. It is not simply a case of the inspectorate doing something to the schools and organisations; it is working along with them in the interests of effecting improvement.

74. Mr Carrick: What mechanisms does the inspectorate have to monitor the quality of the consistency of individual inspections? What mechanisms are there to create that link, which gives you the confidence that there is consistency?

75. Miss Matchett: There are a number of mechanisms. First there is the response of those who have been inspected. Every organisation inspected completes an evaluation, and these are scrutinised by the management team to ensure consistency. Any questions about consistency are picked up. We have a staff development programme for those who are part of our inspection process. Lay people are also involved in our inspection teams, and they comment on aspects of school life and on how the inspectorate carries out its work. We involve associate assessors who are experienced principals, heads of department or lecturers, and they are also on inspection teams. Part of their responsibility is to ensure consistency and to meet the very concerns that you have mentioned.

76. As groups of inspectors, we work together regularly to ensure that we are consistent, because that is where we will gain the confidence of the educational system. It is incredibly important to the inspectorate that people believe that we are consistent and objective.

77.Mr Carrick: Public representatives, teachers and parents often face another issue, which was not mentioned in the NIAO report. There is evidence in the local media that teachers can regard an inspection as an over-dramatic event in the life of the school, and that in some cases this only serves to aggravate the teacher's stress.

78. Stress is a factor in all employment, and everyone must learn to manage and cope with it. Nevertheless, some school inspections have a negative impact on the energy and morale of teachers. The morale of teachers is an important part of the educational system. To what extent do you regard that to be a problem? What are you doing to address it? I have three questions. First, does the current inspections system demotivate staff, and if it does, what are you doing about that? Secondly, how can the inspections system be used to encourage staff, and what are you doing to bring that about? Thirdly, how can the current inspections system be amended to avoid contributing to teachers' stress?

79. Miss Matchett: You asked three questions, but there were a few more before that, Mr Carrick. I will try to address your point about the demotivation and the incentives of inspection. First, we hope that inspection is part of a process rather than an event in the life of a school. We hope that the self-evaluation by the school and the discussion with parents are part of the school's efforts toward improvement, and that the inspection adds to the school's efforts towards improvement.

80. We have tried to address the concerns about teacher stress in a number of ways. We meet with teachers in organisations that are being inspected before the inspection takes place. We explain to teachers what the inspection will entail, and we try to meet their worries and concerns. We have published some leaflets for teachers, parents and governors, which explain what an inspection entails and what they can hope to experience during inspection. We will leave these with the Committee. We try to ensure that when inspection begins people see it as a positive event in the life of a school. It is very much in the school's interests to see the inspectorate working alongside it toward improvement. We are involving associate assessors.

81. Mr Hamilton referred to pastoral care arrangements. Before we introduced those, we had conferences for principals of all organisations that were to be inspected to explain what we were doing. At all stages we want to remove the mystique which surrounds inspection. I acknowledge that there is stress, and there is an amount of pressure during inspection - something similar, I suppose, to what we experienced coming here this morning.

82. Mr Dallat: No, that is far worse. [laughter]

83. Miss Matchett: It is not in our interests that teachers should be stressed after, or during, the inspection. It is in the pupils' interests to ensure that inspection contributes to the schools' improvement. We are working very closely with, for example, the education and library boards and the Regional Training Unit (RTU) to explain and open up the process. The one thing that we say to schools is that if they have concerns about the inspection process, they should speak to the inspectors, because it is their business and their job. I hope that all the measures that we are using will reduce some of the difficulties that you have outlined.

84. Mr Carrick: I am pleased to learn that there is a partnership approach, not the "big stick" attitude. I entirely accept that there must be accountability, but that there is a more positive aspect. I am pleased that you are bringing that out and that you are working in collaboration with the schools and the boards to try to reach the declared objectives.

85. For my final question, I refer you to paragraph 3.12 of the NIAO report in which it is recommended that

".the Department should publish more regular aggregate information on school performance arising from the Inspectorate's activities in order to establish clear benchmarks for the educational system as a whole against which progress can be monitored".

86. We understand that the chief inspector has recently published a review of the achievements of schools from 1992 to 1997. The Committee considers that such monitoring is essential, particularly in the light of the Department's decision to terminate publication of annual school performance information tables. The Committee would like such a document to be produced more regularly.

87. We acknowledge that the key issue is that the inspection arrangements should contribute to school performances. Can the chief inspector comment on her plans to produce more aggregate information in the future?

88. While academic performance is important, so is the ethos of the school, and in assessing academic performance, it is important to focus on the development of sound basic tenets of education such as pastoral care, discipline, respect and courtesy. Those elements are vital to the development of young people and they must be part of their education.

89. Miss Matchett: I agree with you entirely. Inspection reports have three main areas of focus. The first is ethos, and the report addresses what it is like to be a young person learning, developing, growing and becoming confident in an organisation. The second is teaching and learning, and the third covers the management arrangements that support teaching and learning. The inspectorate is therefore concerned about ensuring that what it publishes reflects the life and work of the school or organisation, not just their performances in public examinations, or at the end of Key Stages.

90. The inspectorate has done this through the chief inspector's review. You mentioned that the review covered a number of years, and I do not intend that to be the case in the future. The chief inspector's review will more closely mirror those in England, Scotland and Wales. The review will be annual or biennial, and therefore information will be published much more quickly. The timescale will be much clearer, and people will be able to look at trends over time. They will be able to look at how their school is associated with, or compares to other schools. They will be more aware of the issues that accrue in the organisations that are inspected. The inspectorate is now much more concerned with publishing surveys or cross-cutting reports, looking at the picture across the Province, and thereby trying to look at what happens post inspection.

91. The inspectorate also revisits schools or organisations to look at what improvements have been made following inspection. The survey of science and technology that was carried out under the education reform programme was one such exercise; when an inspection took place schools were asked to look at the improvements in the year following the inspection. The inspectors went back to the schools to work with them to achieve the improvements needed. The chief inspector's report is also the stimulus for improvement and the inspectorate works with others to ensure that not only does the improvement take place but that it is sustained over time.

92. Mr Carrick: The previous report was based on 1992 to 1999 - it is now mid 2001. When does the chief inspector expect to publish the next report? I note that thereafter it will be published annually or biennially.

93. Miss Matchett: I have been in post for just six months, therefore many of the developments that you referred to will take place over time. However, I intend to publish a report in the near future. In response to some of the recommendations made by the NIAO, the inspectorate has looked more carefully at policy planning and improvement so that it can record instances where inspection makes a difference. In this way, it will also be able to place that information in the system more quickly, through surveys, individual reports and, in the future, the chief inspector's review. However, I give the Committee an undertaking that the next chief inspector's review will not cover a period of seven years.

94. The Chairperson: Could you leave the Committee some of the leaflets that you mentioned, because they will be useful to us when we are producing our report.

95. Mr Hamilton: I referred earlier to the 40 surveys that have been done since 1998-99. I will happily give the Committee a list of those surveys together with a list of the other documents that were placed in the public domain.

96. The Chairperson: That would be helpful.

97. Mr Hamilton: We will give you a complete compendium of everything that has been published.

98. Mr Close: You are giving a fair account of yourself, even though you have been in post for just six months. Applying the cliché of "things can only get better", we certainly have something to look forward to.

99. I want to probe into the post-inspection situation. In paragraph 5.9 of the NIAO report it is stated that questionnaires sent to schools by the inspectorate after inspections express high levels of satisfaction with the efficiency and professionalism of the inspection process. Perhaps I am too cynical, but I am not really surprised by that. I have spoken to parents and teachers about this, and they get themselves "het up", to use an Ulsterism, about the inspection.

100. Having reached that level of stress and concern, they are unlikely to say that it was an awful inspection, or that the inspectors did not know what they are doing, because they will suffer the wrath of the inspectorate if they do. The inspectorate would return within a lock of months, and they want to avoid that like the plague. You are kidding yourselves if you think that you are going to get anything else but high levels of satisfaction expressed in the questionnaires. Do you have any views on that?

101. Miss Matchett: It is important to set in context the high level of returns and the degrees of satisfaction in the questionnaires. The NIAO also carried out an evaluation of the responses of organisations to inspection. Queen's University has done something similar, as has the Scottish Chief Inspector of Schools. The reflections were mirrored by the other independent evaluations of our work.

102. However, in the future, we want there to be independent evaluation of inspections. For example, my colleague Mike Tomlinson, the chief inspector of OFSTED, has a similar arrangement, whereby the evaluation of OFSTED inspections is done independently. A report is then presented to the chief inspector. That is how I want it to be done here in the future.

103. I fully accept what you say, but it is not in our interest if schools automatically say that things have gone well, nor is it in our interest if they say that there were no difficulties about the inspection when there were. It is entirely in our interest to know about the difficulties and to take them on board. Our procedures for handling comments, enquiries and complaints are all designed to ensure that if there are difficulties, we look at them carefully, talk to the people involved and help to resolve them.

104. You are quite right. If we thought that everything was going well, the organsation, in itself, would not feel that there was a need for improvement. Of course we need evaluation. That is why we welcomed the NIAO report, and why we have taken a good deal of action based on the very careful recommendations that it made. However, I still believe that we need some kind of independent evaluation, and I am certainly going to put that in place.

105. Mr Close: I appreciate that, and I look forward to it happening, but, as Mr Carrick said, something more needs to be done to reduce the stress factor that immediately burdens he teacher and, through that, to the pupils. I have asked pupils what a teacher's attitude is when an inspection is about to take place. I will not repeat, in this public forum, the type of comments and responses that I got, but they were not encouraging.

106. There is a degree of falseness and façade through which the teacher will make sure the pupils know a particular lesson, because that will be the lesson during which the inspector will be at the back of the classroom. You have a big job to overcome that attitude among teachers, and I am pleased that you will address it.

107. Miss Matchett: In addressing those concerns we also intend to increase the role of the district inspector who maintains a close link with schools outside the inspection process. We intend to have the district inspector making more regular visits to schools, not necessarily under formal inspection arrangements. This will help schools, and the inspectorate, to make the necessary improvements. Therefore, the inspection will become part of the natural process of improvement for schools and organisations, rather than an event.

108. We have also reduced the notice given before inspection, because some schools have expressed concerns to the chief inspector about the interval of time between the announcement of a forthcoming inspection and the actual inspection. In fact, they tell us that that is the most stressful time, because once the inspection begins, everyone is very busy and people get on with their work. We have therefore reduced the length of notice given, and we have begun to involve schools in the pre-inspection process. We are trying to encourage our district inspectors, enhancing their role so that they have more involvement at schools at more regular intervals.

109. Mr Close: That encourages me; maybe we are getting there. A friendly face can work wonders. You are absolutely right to make it part of the natural process - that it is not an event with a long run-in. That is vital for the teachers and, most importantly, the pupils.

110. Mr Hamilton: Another important accomplishment that we have achieved over the past two years is that we have completely revamped the policy of pastoral care in schools. This is as a result of the very serious issues which were raised in regard to this policy in one particular school; Members will recall that case. The inspectorate, at the request of the Department, and with the full endorsement of the former Minister for Education, and the current Minister, must carry out unannounced inspections of schools, focussing on pastoral care. This is to reassure parents about safety, child protection and pastoral care issues. An interesting dimension is the reaction of teachers and pupils to the unannounced arrival of the inspector and we want to analyse that over time.

111. Mr Peover: A relevant point is that we mentioned quality assurance. A growing and significant element of the inspectorate's role is in assuring the quality of schools' individual programmes of improvement. The inspectorate and the administrative staff of the Department have been working with schools, boards, the CCMS and teachers' unions to examine the use of the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) for quality models in schools. We had a very successful pilot involving a number of schools, which was arranged through the RTU, and we received very positive feedback from those schools.

112. The inspector's role is not to come in and crack the whip; it is to support schools that are using the model. Miss Matchett's colleagues have been mapping the indicators of quality and inspection onto the EFQM model. They have tried to make sure that if a school is trying to improve itself by using self evaluation or a model such as the EFQM, that will relate directly back to the inspector's assessment of that school. It is not about standing as judge and jury over people; it is about enabling schools to improve their performance for their pupils. We will use all the best techniques and models available to encourage schools to evaluate themselves. There is no point in a school fooling itself by writing up policies and preparing lessons plans for a given day. That does not serve any purpose and is a waste of the teachers', pupils' and the inspector's time. The job is to pinpoint the issues to be addressed, and the schools are well placed to do that.

113. Under the school improvement programme, our activities involve schools considering what they have to do, what disadvantages and difficulties they face. Our job is to challenge, prod and encourage schools, but, in general, it is to support them during this process. They must work at this evaluation themselves; we cannot change schools from the outside. A school can only change itself through better leadership, management, qualifications, et cetera, but they have to be fully part of the process.

114. Mr Close: We all agree that the purpose is to improve the standards of schools. I am concerned that it is pointed out in the report at paragraph 5.15 that less than half of the head teachers considered that there is a link between inspection and improving standards of attainment among pupils. In fact, paragraph 6.16 refers to the outcome of analysis undertaken by the NIAO which found that inspected schools were no more likely to improve their examination results than those that have not been inspected at all. I find that extremely worrying, and I would hope that you, Mr Hamilton, Miss Matchett and Mr Peover share my worry, because we are interested in the expenditure of public money. Over 50% of head teachers say that that £4 million is not worth the candle. Can you convince me that we would not be better spending that £4 million on more teachers if you cannot demonstrate that improved standards, which we all agree should be part and parcel of the focus and purpose, are just not working?

115. If you cannot demonstrate that improved standards, on which we all agree, should be part and parcel of the purpose of this, would we not be better spending that £4 million on employing more teachers to teach our children?

116. Mr Hamilton: I will comment first, and then I will ask Miss Matchett to speak on another issue. I hope that we can provide some assurance. As stated in paragraph 9 of the summary of the NIAO report, it is very difficult to draw a direct causal relationship between school outcomes and inspection activity. Inspection activity is not the only means, or the main means by which a school improves. The inspection activity is not dissimilar to an external audit - it examines practice, standards, et cetera.

117. By the same token, if we had the best education system in the world, and if we made a huge series of quantum leaps forward, I do not think that one could claim that has been as a result of the inspectorate's work. To return to the points we were making earlier, there needs to be leadership, quality of teaching; the whole issue of resources needs to be considered; and parents' and children's attitudes need to be considered. A recent report suggests that reading recovery is very effective in Year 2, but it is least effective in areas of socio-economic disadvantage. There is a whole mix of issues to be considered. We believe that the inspection process certainly does make a contribution, and the most immediate example of this in recent years has been in pre-school activity.

118. Miss Matchett: There are a couple of examples. Under the pre-school expansion programme, the inspectorate is involved from the beginning in that it provides policy advice in regard to the indicators of good practice. The pre-school inspection team then completes a series of inspections. For example, when the inspections began, a number of those centres were shown to be less than satisfactory. The centres were inspected, they were helped to focus on the areas where improvement was necessary, and then re-inspected some six months later. At the end of this process the inspectorate was able to show that almost all the centres had made discernible improvements. The initial inspection led to improvement before the inspectorate returned.

119. In the school support programme's evaluation, the vast majority of schools, the boards and the CCMS acknowledged that there was a positive link between inspection involvement and improvement for those schools which were part of Raising School Standards and the school support programme. There is an acknowledgement, but as the NIAO itself said, it is difficult to make a direct link between the inspection and improvement. There are indicators that the inspection process helps schools to identify priorities, to carry out action planning and development planning processes, and to work alongside others to effect that improvement. The inspection process has therefore a very important role to play.

120. Mr Close: However, 50% of head teachers do not necessarily agree with you, and this is what I want to look at. Can you convince the taxpayer and me that that 50% of head teachers are wrong, and that you are right?

121. Miss Matchett: No, inspection contributes to improvement, but it does not do so alone. To enable improvement to take place, inspection requires the confidence of the system in which it operates; the will to improve of those who have been inspected; and the necessary degree of support from the boards and the RTU. One cannot simply say that inspection means improvement. Our role is to promote improvement and we do that with those who make a difference - teachers, principals, governors and employing authorities are involved in direct drive. Our job is to ensure that we evaluate, and try to move the organisations on. However, improvement involves many players, and we are just one factor.

122. Mr Close: By your own criteria, you do not have the confidence of perhaps 50% of heads teachers in that respect, and this issue is related to my other questions. The inspectorate needs to ensure that it has the confidence of the head teachers, teachers, pupils and parents. I sense that a great deal of work must be done on that.

123. Mr Hamilton: We are convinced that the inspectorate's relationship with principals is at the heart of this. I once chaired the board of governors of two schools, one of which was involved in inspection; the principal regarded any criticism or any weakness which an inspection identified as a personal criticism of him. When systems, procedures, strengths and weakness are under inspection relationships must be sensitively handled.

124. You may perhaps be aware that our pre-school expansion programme comprises nursery schools and units and primary schools, and that voluntary and private providers are being brought into the system. Among the voluntary and private sector providers 66 were inspected and found to be less than satisfactory or poor. However, six months after inspection, and as a result of the activities of those involved, and of teachers and principals, 92% were classified as satisfactory or good. That is a particularly telling figure in highlighting the difference that inspection makes in this new expanding sector.

125. Mr Close: When the NIAO sought the views of schools on the inspectorate's work it got a 40% return. Paragraph 5.12 of the NIAO's report shows that the Department of Education was not too concerned at gaining a 40% return. That strikes me as being very low. If the Department was asking schools about important issues and was only getting a 40% return it too would be concerned.

126. Mr Peover: It is not uncommon for us to get a good deal less than a 40% return when we consult.

127 Mr Close: On important issues?

128. Mr Peover: Yes. It is disappointing but not uncommon. Twenty per cent, or lower, is reasonably common.

129. Mr Close: Are judgements made on 20% returns?

130. Mr Peover: If that is all we have. When consulting the public we can only act upon the returns which we get.

131. Mr Close: That is a topic for inquiry in itself.

132. Mr Peover: What can I say? Inspection has two functions. Its first is to provide public accountability. It makes judgements on the school system available to the public. That is its fundamental purpose.

133. Assisting schools to improve is another. However, that is separate from its fundamental purpose of ensuring that there is public accountability in the system so that parents and public know what is happening in our schools and can ask questions, as the Committee is doing today, about the quality of schools.

134. That is the fundamental purpose. Improvement is quite complicated. The school improvement programmes and school support programme have included intensive inspectorate support along with the education and library boards and the CCMS to assist the most disadvantaged schools to improve. There has been much graduation out of that system. Schools have had support; they have been assisted to evaluate their own performance. They have had support from the education and library boards. They have made, in the judgement of the inspectorate and of the boards, sufficient improvement for the special help to be withdrawn. They are no longer in intensive care but are in the normal wards again.

135. It is happening. There are major successes in the most disadvantaged schools, and we are doing even more than that with the critical patients who are in need of most care.

136. In a sense, I would be more worried if 90% of schools were saying to us that they had vastly improved their performances as the result of an inspection. It would imply that there was something significantly wrong with those schools, that they had not got a clear idea of their own weaknesses and strengths before somebody from outside told them what was wrong. That would be a very worrying outcome.

137. Mr Hamilton: Just to provide some reassurance to Mr Close, not all the return rates are low, and I guess we could go back to talk to our friends in the Northern Ireland Statistics Agency about rates of return on a proposal. One thing very reassuring to us, which the Committee might be interested in, is when we carry out inspections on pastoral care. We invite parents to complete questionnaires, and we have had 8000 responses to pastoral care inspections. We thought that that was very considerable and reassuring, and it illustrates another side to the process.

138. Miss Matchett: The evaluation of inspections - the general evaluation in this report to which I referred - involves 475 schools that had been inspected. The response rate was over 55% for some of the issues that you have raised. We outlined a number of issues on which we wish to have feedback from the inspected schools.

139. The NIAO recommended that we should not simply ask the principals of schools, we should also ask the teachers. We have now altered our procedures to ensure that there is involvement for everyone who has been affected by the inspection process. We can now get closer to addressing the very question that you raise, which is whether we actually make a difference, or more importantly, do we make a difference for the better, and in the interests of the pupils?

140. The Chairperson: Returning to your previous answer, Mr Hamilton, are you suggesting that the private sector responds more effectively than the public sector?

141. Mr Hamilton: No. I could not form a view on that without consideration.

142. The Chairperson: It did seem to me as if that is what you were saying.

143. Mr Hamilton: No. I was trying to comment on responses to inspectorate activities, and comparing the response rate that Miss Matchett referred to, with the parental response rate on pastoral care. I wanted to provide some reassurance that all the response rates were not as low as 20%.

144. The Chairperson: The private ones were better than the public.

145. Ms Armitage: Section 3.38, sub-paragraph 3 of the NIAO report considers the introduction of development planning and target-setting for schools to provide an opportunity for more self-evaluation. Given the steps taken by the inspectorate towards self-evaluation by schools, do you envisage a system of school inspection in Northern Ireland that would be largely based on the outcome of self-reviews rather than on the inspections of the processes of schools?

146. Miss Matchett: Yes. We have just published a report on school development planning, which dealt with school development planning in primary and post primary schools. We were trying to look at the link between school development planning, action planning and improvement.

147. We are encouraging self-evaluation in all that we do, from pre school right up to further education and training, to the extent that a number of schools involved in self-evaluation over the years have then requested inspection. The inspectorate looks at the procedures undertaken by the schools, and it quality-assures those procedures in the interests of school improvement. We envisage a process whereby more schools will become involved in the self-evaluation process. More and more schools will ask the inspectorate to quality-assure the procedures that have been undertaken during inspection. That is part of the work of the inspectorate, but we have a number of different kinds of inspections. There are general, focused, district and unannounced inspections. In response to the NIAO request, we are examining different kinds of inspections and value for money. For example, last year we carried out over 515 different kinds of inspections, as well as surveys - four or five years ago the figure was about 350 - so we are now doing different kinds of inspections. Underpinning everything we do is our encouragement of the school to be self-reflective and self-evaluating. The inspectorate would then be part of the quality-assurance arrangements for that activity.

148. Ms Armitage: The area seems to place a great deal of emphasis on self-review. Paragraph 3.31 of the NIAO report states that the school may invite the inspectorate to assess its internal quality-assurance procedures - do you end up with different standards? That same paragraph states that schools would periodically undertake a formal self-review. In paragraph 3.34 it states that the inspectorate may consider that the condition of individual schools warrants an inspection. Who would arrive at that conclusion, and how? If I might return to paragraph 3.31, which points out that the school may invite the inspectorate for its assessment, is that not having different standards and qualities? Should the final decision not rest with the school?

149. Miss Matchett: For that type, the school would invite the inspectorate in, but the inspection activity, which applies to all schools - including those to which you refer - carries on. We have a schedule of inspections each year with a sample of schools inspected; we judge the type of inspection based on the needs of the school. There is therefore an analysis of needs and what type of inspection would best suit the school. That inspection process and programme continues. Additionally, if a school were involved in self-assessment, self-evaluation or self-review, the school could invite the inspectorate to carry out a quality-assurance exercise on the arrangements. That would not preclude the school's being involved in other inspection activities, for there is a schedule for a programme of inspections required for public accountability, and they are carried out throughout the year.

150. Mr Hamilton: I assure Ms Armitage that the concept of school development planning is one to which the Department is very strongly wedded. We hope to make it a statutory requirement, and, while it will take time to bed down, a number of schools are doing it very well. Once we have established the school development planning system, that changes the nature of some of the inspections to which Miss Matchett referred.

151. I assure the Committee that we would not simply leave it all to the school's invitation; we would have to carry out an analysis in the inspectorate or the Department based on school performance and issues or concerns drawn to our attention.

152. Ms Armitage: Can you clarify paragraph 3.34? I am concerned that, where a provision exists for earlier and more focused intervention, the inspectorate considers whether conditions and individual schools warrant it.

153. Miss Matchett: If, as a result of a district inspection, a district inspector were concerned about the quality of provision in a school, he would inform the staff inspector with responsibility for the phase, and an inspection would be carried out based on those concerns. For example, if the chairperson of the board of governors had concerns, he could write to the Department and request an inspection of a school. We use local knowledge to identify the type of inspection that would best suit the school. The schools in the support programme mentioned all had baseline inspections right at the beginning of the process of improvement.

154. Ms Armitage: Could schools like that be identified fairly quickly?

155. Miss Matchett: If a school were encountering difficulties, that would be identified quite quickly with local knowledge through the district inspector.

156. Mr Hamilton: That could happen within a matter of weeks. If an issue emerged today, we could schedule an inspection at the Department's request within two, three or four weeks.

157. Ms Armitage: Paragraph 3.38 speculates that adopting a system of inspection based on schools' self-review could lead to cheaper inspections. If it were all a matter of money, do you feel the system of self-review recommended in the report would be worth pursuing? Is it an effective way of achieving some cost savings and efficiency gains?

158. Miss Matchett: Yes. For example, when we examine inspection activity over the last five years, we see we have increased the numbers without additional staff. We have altered the type and reduced what we call the "inspector day costs", spending more profitable time doing a range of inspection activities rather than focusing on a general inspection. We have taken the business of examining how we can undertake best- value inspections very seriously.

159. We are examining the response in relation to the numbers of inspections we are carrying out, the different types of inspections and the use - mentioned by Mr Hamilton - of surveys which help to give a general picture of trends across the Province. That was not necessarily done only in response to the NIAO report, for we are also concerned about best value. It helped focus our thinking on different kinds of inspection activity to provide it.

160. Ms Armitage: The report also says, for example, that a general inspection of a secondary school currently takes 60 days and costs approximately £20,000. At what stage would you like to be down to a figure of perhaps £5,000?

161. Miss Matchett: General inspections in secondary schools have been greatly reduced in recent years - owing to the cost and the fact that we can get to the information in a variety of other ways. For example, in post-primary schools we might now do something called a two-part focused inspection. Part of the work is identified for inspection, after which we examine general management arrangements in the school. We are trying to provide the same level and quality of service but do things differently and better. The numbers of general inspections we carry out each year at post-primary level are much reduced. We have a different inspection strategy that helps to make the information and advice available to parents and others, but in a different way.

162. Ms Armitage: Do you envisage saving £15,000 per school?

163. Miss Matchett: We could save some money. I should not like to say whether it would be £15,000.

164. Ms Armitage: You would not like to say. Would you like to say it, Mr Hamilton?

165. Mr Hamilton: While the Department invites the inspectorate to carry out inspections and so on, the actual analysis of work is carried out entirely by the inspectorate. It would not be prudent for us to tell it how to do its job. I have been encouraging and supporting Miss Matchett as we try to produce a "mixed economy" of inspections. If there were fewer expensive general inspections, we should have a resource enabling us to do other things and cover the areas we discussed this morning.

166. Ms Armitage: I suppose that is as good an answer as I shall get. We shall move on to paragraph 6.29 of the NIAO report, which points out that the boards' Curriculum Advisory and Support Service (CASS) is the mechanism for supporting schools after inspection. Paragraph 6.35 recommends that the Department give consideration to the integration and amalgamation of the inspectorate with CASS - given the close links between the roles of the two organisations. Would merging the inspectorate and CASS be a better use of resources and build a greater sense of partnership with schools?

167. Mr Hamilton: Perhaps we might answer that in two parts. I shall take the first part, and Miss Matchett will answer the second; she will talk about partnership and how to involve CASS. When the report was written, we were conscious that a review of public administration had been announced. The role of the inspectorate in the Department is a major one, and the role of CASS in the education and library boards to provide curriculum support and training is equally important. The education and library boards see it as a major function. A future review would therefore have to consider whether the role of the inspectorate, as we described it, and the training and support role of CASS could and should be brought together, or whether they should be left as they are at present.

168. It was divided this way after the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. Support services went to the education and library boards, and the boards see this as an important function in their direct support of schools; that will have to be reviewed. There are pros and cons in the structure, but Miss Matchett will say something about what happens at a working level, which is perhaps just as important.

169. Miss Matchett: At present the employing authorities are involved in the formal report back afterwards, and CASS is required to offer support towards improvement. The inspector works closely with the education and library boards and the Regional Training Unit (RTU) to ensure that schools are given similar messages and that improvement takes place. It is in our interest to work collaboratively with the boards, and at present we do that within existing arrangements.

170. At the moment, as Mr Hamilton said, the advice and support generally comes from the education and library boards. That is not to say we do not have a role. We work very closely with those who provide direct advice to schools and organisations.

171. Ms Armitage: My concern is that we have the same objectiveness and impartiality in the case of amalgamation. Local people would have an interest in the school involved, and there is a danger that impartiality could be impaired.

172. Miss Matchett: At the moment, one of our functions is to inspect the advisory report service. We are inspecting the service in our efforts towards improvement.

173. The Chairperson: That concludes our deliberations on the issue. I thank Miss Matchett for her contribution. The Committee and the Department feel that inspection has an important role in schools and will play an even more important role in future.

174. Since 1997, school governors have been required actively to review the performance of principals and vice-principals against previously agreed targets where they propose to make discretionary salary awards, and to ensure that such awards are determined in a fair and equitable manner.

175. Despite the requirements of the new pay arrangements, concerns were expressed by certain education and library boards that the discretionary increases awarded to some principals were unfair, did not reflect their circumstances and were not assessed against specific measurable performance indicators.

176. Paragraphs 2.10 to 2.13 of the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) report 'Pay Flexibilities for School Principals and Vice Principals' refer to the failure of boards of governors to produce evidence to justify increasing the salaries of some principals above the band maximum. Does that not demonstrate that the new system has been unsuccessful at injecting greater accountability into the management of such staff? What are you doing about it?

177. Mr Hamilton: Having reviewed it all, I am satisfied that timely and detailed guidance was issued by the employing authorities as to the need for criteria and a salary policy.

178. Given the overall monitoring of the scheme, and considering its low use, I am satisfied that there has not been what one might describe as widespread abuse. We did two things in the school year beginning in September 1999. First, the employing authorities, with the Department's involvement, issued detailed guidance and gave a timely reminder of what should happen. We also introduced a system from 1 September 1999 whereby school principals could only advance one point per year. We introduced a system in Waterside House - since salaries are paid through the Department's teachers' pay and pensions branch there - whereby, if a school's board of governors proposed an increase of more than one performance point, it would not be paid. The situation would be challenged and the information referred back to the employing authorities for their satisfaction.

179. I am not pleased with what the report has revealed regarding the inconsistency at that time in the application of criteria by school boards of governors. With hindsight, the procedure we brought in with effect from 1 September 1999 could have been introduced previously.

180. The Chairperson: What are you doing about that?

181. Mr Hamilton: We introduced that system and are operating it. As a result of the pay deal negotiated by the employing authorities and teachers' unions earlier this year, a new system is due to come into operation.

182. Mr McGuigan: Under that new system, it will no longer be possible for a principal to move above the maximum for their group. If he or she is a serving principal, the posts will be constrained in the group. The only time in future that they will be able to move above the group will be if the school tries to appoint a new principal and finds after a number of recruitment exercises that it simply cannot get a principal at the rate in question. That school might be one with problems, so the situation would be exceptional.

183. The Chairperson: Would it be acceptable for the school to adopt that procedure?

184. Mr McGuigan: That would be part of the legal requirement in schools. Since 1997 principals have been unable to progress up the scale unless a review has first been made against grade performance criteria. Under the new system, as well as continuing with those criteria and having that review, external advisers will be brought in, and boards of governors must use their services. Those advisers will assist the board of governors and the principal in setting performance criteria linked to the school development plan. They would be connected with leadership and management. We talked about pastoral care, which is already one of the criteria given as an example. At the beginning of the year objectives would be set, linked into the school development plan, and at the end of the year there would be a review to see how well the principal and vice-principal have worked to achieve those objectives. That information would be used by a separate pay committee to decide whether the principal and vice- principal would move up the scale. If it is decided that they can do so, the maximum that they could go up is one point. On the new scale, that averages at about £1,000.

185. Mr Hamilton: Every board of governors must use an external adviser for both setting conditions and, using them, making the assessment during the year.

186. The Chairperson: What do you mean by an external adviser?

187. Mr Hamilton: The employing authorities decided, as part of the pay parity arrangements, to recruit a number of people with experience of performance-setting and other areas. The regional manager of the system, for example, is a former principal of a school. The advisers will operate on behalf of employing authorities and draw up the criteria for them to make sure that every board of governors is using broadly the same measures, thus achieving consistency of application. Those criteria are related to the meeting of certain targets.

188. The Chairperson: In paragraph 3.10 of the NIAO report 'Pay Flexibilities for School Principals and Vice Principals' I noted that

"in many instances it was not possible to verify the validity of salary increases because clear, pre-determined and measurable criteria had not always been established for principals and vice-principals."

189. I am astonished to see that education and library boards had such concerns over the payment of discretionary awards but could do nothing about it. Is this another case, like that which we recently examined concerning the salaries of senior Health Service executives, where the sensitive process of setting senior public-service salaries has been put in the hands of inexperienced appointees? Did your Department stand too far back from the process to ensure it worked properly? You answered that question to an extent in your previous answer, but perhaps you could elaborate.

190. Mr Hamilton: The decision to give this function to the board of governors was a parity arrangement with England and Wales and was part of the local management of schools (LMS) delegation. The board of governors of a school that has delegated authority has full powers to determine how many ancillary staff and teachers are appointed, whether ancillary personnel are appointed on a full- or part-time basis, and how much money is spent on books. That policy was determined with the full LMS delegation; pay flexibility was also introduced.

191. The guidance provided in 1993, 1997 and February 2000 was very detailed. I accept the criticism and the weaknesses identified in the NIAO report about the operation of the system. That is why the Department introduced, with effect from the 1 September 1999, a system that allows only a one-point increase. A one-point increase has a value that depends on the person's current position on the scale. The increase ranges from a minimum of around £700 or £800 to a maximum of £1,665. The maximum a principal can be awarded is one point.

192. Ms Morrice: I should like to examine the broader picture. I am concerned because I do not believe that teachers, including head teachers, are paid enough for the valuable work they do. The table on page 21 shows that a head teacher who runs a school of 150 age-weighted pupil units gets less than £30,000 per year, and I do not know how that compares with a senior civil servant's salary. Do you feel that teachers are paid enough?

193. Mr Hamilton: I suspect that anyone involved in delivering public services believes they are not paid enough. In our role, we are bound by two things, the first being pay parity and the negotiations undertaken for teachers' salaries, and the second affordability within that context. I do not believe that everyone should be given an immediate increase of 25%; there must be systems in which those are operated. Eighty-seven per cent of school principals currently earn £46,000 or less, though that depends on the size of the school. I am satisfied that the additional responsibilities school principals have under the LMS delegation - to manage sites, budgets, staff and so on - would justify the use of a pay flexibility system if it were properly implemented.

194. Ms Morrice: Can I confirm the figures in the table?

195. Mr Hamilton: Those are the latest figures.

196. Ms Morrice: Those figures put only a small number of head teachers above £46,000; those are the ones running schools of over 3,000 age-weighted pupil units.

197. Mr Hamilton: Eighty-seven per cent are earning £46,000 or less - that is the range.

198. Ms Morrice: You therefore have quite a large number of head teachers earning £27,000.

199. Mr Hamilton: No. The minimum is £30,000.

200. Mr McGuigan: From 1 April 2001, the minimum salary for small schools, including nursery schools, will be £33,375.

201. Mr Hamilton: We can give the Committee a breakdown of the numbers and percentages of principals in particular bands today.

202. The Chairperson: Yes. Those figures do not correspond with the figures -

203. Mr Hamilton: They are the result of the latest pay increase, and I can provide them.

204. The Chairperson: We shall need those figures for the record.

205. Ms Morrice: This session is not necessarily about the broad picture of teachers' pay but rather about how rates of pay are operated and so on.

206. In Paragraph 2.22 it mentions that the boards offered training for governors in 1993, and advice was also available. In Paragraph 2.25 there is an indication that governors are not fully aware of their duties. What training programmes do you have when a new governor joins - or is it simply the case that a board of governors needs a new face?

207. Mr Hamilton: The responsibility for training programmes rests with the education and library boards, and they try to offer comprehensive courses. During my time on a board of governors I attended several training courses. Most boards - particularly in the non-voluntary sector - are to be reconstituted this year. In the wake of the report and the issues it raised, I shall make it my responsibility, over the next month, to discuss the precise content of future training courses with the education and library boards' chief executives so they are aware of training needs.

208. Ms Morrice: What sort of training is involved? Do boards of governors go out for a day's session?

209. Mr Hamilton: There are day and evening sessions. Boards of governors operate on a voluntary basis, and one of their problems would be giving up a day to attend a training session.

210. The Chairperson: I have gone through that myself, and I can understand.

211. Ms Morrice: Are any governors able to participate in that? Can you tailor the training to meet their needs?

212. Mr Peover: Training is available on paper and as computer packages. There is also an assessment instrument available through the Regional Training Unit (RTU), where governors can look collectively at their various responsibilities. They can say whether they feel comfortable with the hiring and firing of teachers, or are unhappy with the procedures to be followed in looking after ancillary staff or setting principals' salaries.

213. Those are diagnostic instruments for boards of governors to examine their own areas of knowledge and decide whether they wish additional support or training. That can be delivered either through the RTU or the education and library board. I suspect that the facility is not very well-known or used. I have had to encourage schools to avail of it.

214.

Mr Hamilton has said that boards of governors in the controlled and maintained sectors are to be given a new basis later this year after the reconstitution of the education and library boards. That will provide an opportunity with the new boards of governors - who, even if some people remain, will have new members coming on board - to allow them some corporate time out to examine the various issues and the very serious responsibilities they have.

215. Ms Morrice: Salaries and setting performance targets will be a vital part of the new responsibility of the board. What specific measures do you have in place to train and prepare governors in setting performance targets?

216. Mr Hamilton: That will be the responsibility of the external adviser, who will meet every board of governors.

217. Mr McGuigan: That will happen every year or two. It is an ongoing process, not simply a one-off. Every year is part of the cycle. Miss Matchett spoke of the self-evaluating school and target-setting. The new system is not meant to be a bolt-on but part of the work already put into self-evaluation. It will be a requirement that it be spread over two days a year.

218. Ms Morrice: Shall we fall into a trap where the best results equal the best performance and secure the best pay?

219. Mr McGuigan: The objective-setting is only one part of the information to be taken on board by another committee to include performance management, career development and other related issues. While the pay committee will have information on how objectives were met, it can also look at the work of the school in the round, its context and the area in which it is situated. It will make its decision on that basis, not just performance objectives.

220. Mr Hamilton: We shall leave the Committee a copy of the guidance issued in February 2000. I can assure Ms Morrice that there are nine separate criteria on which principals' pay might be considered - issues like leadership and vision, a culture of tolerance, ethos, measurement of performance, the role of the school in the community, management of resources and special units.

221. Ms Morrice: I am very pleased to see that a culture of tolerance is being brought up.

222. Mr Hamilton: We shall happily provide that; it is the basis on which the new criteria will be built.

223. Mr Peover: It will be specific to the school concerned. We shall not be expecting a secondary school to attain the same level of performance as a grammar. The criteria will be set for the principals by the boards of governors in the circumstances in which they find themselves. They will be looking for improvement in current performance rather than against the top school in Northern Ireland.

224. Ms Morrice: I wish to turn to figure 2 on page 18. It shows that, in each of the three years to 1998-99, the vast majority of principals and vice-principals did not progress up the salary scale on an annual basis. However, even given those percentages, do you accept the likelihood that some principals and vice-principals are actually doing well out of the system, and that those same individuals may well have received discretionary increases in more than one of those years? Can you tell us how many received such increases?

225. Mr Hamilton: I cannot provide the precise detail of how many received increases each year. I accept the possibility that principals got increases in successive years. The employing authorities - Mr McGuigan's branch - provided a summary of the number of schools involved every year up to 1998.

226. For example, the January 1998 tables show that less than 10% of principals benefited from it the year before, and the number of vice-principals was similar. The analysis shows that a very small number of schools had used the discretionary flexibility up to that point.

227. Ms Morrice: It would be very helpful to have something in writing on the issue.

228. Mr Hamilton: The latest information, from September 2000, is that 267 schools out of 1,300 are using the discretion, either for principals or vice-principals.

229. Ms Morrice: Is there a great difference in the numbers of male and female principals and vice- principals?

230. Mr Peover: There are many more males than females.

231. Ms Morrice: Would the figure be as much as 80%?

232. Mr Peover: I do not know, but I shall get you the figures.

233. Ms Morrice: Are the majority of teachers women?

234. Mr Peover: Yes.

235. Ms Morrice: It would be interesting to see those statistics.

236. Mr Peover: Research on the imbalance has been carried out, and there have been discussions between the employing authorities and teaching unions. Action is underway to improve the deficit. We can write a note to the Committee on that subject if required.

237. Mr Hamilton: There are specific issues concerning the male/female teaching ratio. For example, there are primary schools in disadvantaged areas with no male teachers and therefore no male role models.

238. Ms Morrice: There might be a male principal.

239. Mr Hamilton: Yes. However, there is a gross imbalance in numbers, and we are concerned about it.

240. The Chairperson: Perhaps you might let the Committee have that information in writing.

241. Mr McClelland: Three cases are cited on page 30 of the report. In the first two, teachers were made redundant in the same year as principals at the same schools received pay increases. The Comptroller and Auditor General has said that "there may not be a direct link between the redundancies and the principals' pay increases." However, there is still a concern. I do not expect you to give an immediate reaction. However, might it be possible to have a written answer on the issue? There is anecdotal evidence that teacher redundancies were directly related to pay increases.

242. Mr Hamilton: We could certainly consider what statistical evidence exists. In the cases cited in the report, the value of a spine point in 1997 would have been £408 to £978. Even if a principal had been awarded two or three spine points, the total value would not have been more than a few thousand pounds. The basic starting salary of a teacher would have been over £12,000 at the time. The scale of a principal's salary rise would never have been more than the basic salary cost of a teacher.

243. Mr McClelland: I agree. However, if it were marginal enough to take the school out of its budget, it might examine redundancies or savings elsewhere.

244. Mr Hamilton: That is connected with the issue of LMS, where it is for the school to decide how many teachers it desires. In some cases redundancies could be caused by falling enrolment in the context of changing demography. If there are falling rolls, the number of teachers is reduced. In a sense, managing that situation makes the principal's job even more important.

245. Mr Peover: Another control is that there are schools in deficit. That happens for a variety of reasons. If a school had got into deficit because it had paid a head teacher a substantial increase - that system is past, so the same thing cannot happen now - the boards would not have allowed schools additional money to enable them to deal with the fallout. They would not have taken that into account as a rationale for allocating additional funds to school support.

246. The other point I should like to make is the variety of reasons for deficits, some within the school's control and some not. As Mr Hamilton said, the principal's task is to manage the school's total budget to deliver education to the children. That can be extremely difficult in a situation where teachers are being made redundant, for example, following an amalgamation of schools. Staffing is protected at the point of amalgamation, but must be reduced over time to bring the school back to its normal budget.

247. There are some very serious organisational and managerial issues for principals to address in situations where the school either has or is heading towards a budget deficit. They may justify an increase for a principal dealing with a very difficult managerial situation. That may mean exceptional performance from the principal in coping, holding the school together and delivering education to the children even when the school faces significant redundancies. From a statistical analysis of redundancies and pay increases, it would be quite difficult to disentangle whether increases were justified.

248. Mr McClelland: The statistical male/female breakdown was referred to in a previous question. Have you any statistical information on the age bracket of principals? There is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that a pay increase in the final years of a teacher's career would enhance their pension to a fair degree. While we depend on anecdotal evidence, there is great concern that the public purse might be used in such a way.

249. Mr Hamilton: The guidance specifically said that it must not be done, but from the information available we can examine the payroll and the age of the principals in that context.

250. The Chairperson: Do you have that information?

251. Mr McClelland: It is something of concern not only to teachers but throughout the public sector.

252. Mr Hamilton: Proximity to retirement is not a valid criterion.

253. Mr McClelland: A board of governors might, however, look on it favourably as a means of rewarding someone.

254. In case example four on page 31 of the NIAO report, the salary increase of £7,300 - approximately 17% - is remarkable. While it is a one-off, it does not appear to be justifiable as a use of public funds.

255. Mr Hamilton: I was personally involved in that case. When it was passed to me, I referred it to the chief executive of the education and library board concerned, since it seemed to me the board itself needed to be satisfied that the criteria were properly drawn up and applied. The result was that the chief executive, having investigated the case and talked to the board of governors, wrote to me as accounting officer indicating that she was satisfied the increase was justified.

256. Mr McClelland: I ask the Chairperson if it is appropriate to enquire as to the name of the school.

257. The Chairperson: Yes.

258. Mr Hamilton: The school was Cookstown High School.

259. Mr McClelland: Thank you. I was not sure we could mention it.

260. With regard to paragraphs 3.1 and 3.15 of the report, we note that, while the Department of Education receives notification of discretionary bonuses awarded to principals and vice-principals, it does not carry out any formal validation of their performance against pre-set objectives.

261. To remedy that, the report recommends in 3.16 that notification from governors about increases in the salaries of principals and vice-principals should be supported by details of the actual performance assessment. How do you justify the apparent lack of stewardship in the past?

262. Mr Hamilton: I was not satisfied that application was consistent. Members can be assured that we are working on a system I shall discuss with all the chief executives of boards and the employing authorities before the end of June. That system will include a new form which will ask whether the school has a salary policy and a predetermined set of criteria, what those criteria are and whether the board of governors has considered affordability with regard to current and probable budgets. That information will be provided by the board of governors to the Department, and if there are concerns about inconsistency they will be referred back to the employing authority before payment is made.

263. Ms Armitage: Case example three on page 30 of the report mentions a salary increase. What have you done - or what do you intend to do - about the above-maximum salary awarded to a principal?

264. Mr Hamilton: That has been paid, and we cannot recover it.

265. Mr Peover: The new arrangements do not allow for that. There is no provision for a serving principal to move beyond the appropriate range. Only in cases in which it has been impossible to appoint someone might we go beyond the normal salary range for the school. Under the circumstances, it was for the board of governors to satisfy itself that it was taking reasonable action. The governors were themselves subject to controls; there are audit requirements and challenge mechanisms, but it was their decision.

266. Mr Hamilton: The payment was made in June 1998, before we introduced the new system. It is not acceptable that the arrangement was made without a challenge.

267. Ms Armitage: Is there much evidence of that type of thing happening?

268. Mr Hamilton: As I said, the monitoring information made available by the Department and forwarded to the employing authorities showed a very low take-up rate and did not trigger concern about potential abuse.

269. Mr Peover: Many schools are either in deficit or have a limited budget. In those situations, the board of governors and the principal feel uncomfortable about awarding the latter significant increases. We have evidence to show that over 90% of principals did not receive awards during the period. Most schools were prudent in managing their flexibility under LMS.

270. Ms Armitage: That answer makes me feel better. I was beginning to wonder whether the board of governors was best suited to running those schools.

271. Mr Hamilton: The initial decision is taken by the board of governors. However, I wish to assure the Committee that, under the new system, the decision must be based on predetermined criteria, external advice and performance assessment; there must also be a challenge mechanism.

272. The Department pays the salaries. At least we have a mechanism to stop salaries being paid. We do not have authority over all of those things - I suppose I do - but the mechanism is in place to challenge and stop payment until the Department or employing authority is satisfied the criteria have been properly applied.

273. The Chairperson: On this occasion, are you satisfied that the governors' response was inappropriate and probably a little arrogant?

274. Mr Hamilton: Yes.

275. Ms Armitage: I shall have to accept that.

276. Mr Close: I have listened to what has been said. However, as guardians of the public purse, the only guidance we have is the evidence before us. That evidence suggests a criterion. I accept that you have changed it - you mentioned 1999 - but the work of the NIAO around the same time brings an old cynic like myself to wonder how much it was used. I may be ultra-cynical, but at approximately the same time there was a change in the criteria. It is nice to appear as though you are putting your house in order after the horse has bolted.

277. Mr Hamilton: The criteria issued in February 1997 were very detailed and also had a substantial list of things to be included and considered by the governors.

278. Mr Close: It did not work - that is my point. I should like the four cases on page 30-31 of the report to be put on the record. I could read them out, but I know time is pressing. They cover the years 1996, 1998 and 1999, and there is clearly a demonstration of what one might charitably term arrogance on the part of certain governors who set aside the criterion which states that increases must be affordable within existing budgets. In those cases the budgets were not adhered to, and teachers were made redundant. In one case, a principal was placed nine points above the recommended point for the school.

279. I have been told of a criterion, but judging from the evidence - and I fully accept that it is in only about 10% of cases - the governors were able to drive a coach and horses through it. I hear there is now a new criterion. I shall wait to see if that same coach and horses will be driven through. If that happens - and I hope it does not - it will beg the question of why that was not the case a few years ago. Why did the Department not take responsibility for stopping it from happening? Why did it not point out that it was not the governors' money but that of taxpayers? I believe that taxpayers' money was squandered. There were redundancies, and, while I accept that one redundancy or one point on the scale does not pay for a teacher, nine points go a long way towards doing so.

280. Who picked up the tab for the redundancy costs? How much false economy was there - how much human cost and suffering? We need an assurance that those situations will not arise again - that they will not be permitted to, and that, if they do, heads will roll.

281. We are picking up a great deal in the different reports about things that happened in the past. Now, suddenly, there are improvements. I hope that the fact that we now have accountable representatives and democracy is part of it. However, I also want to underline that we are here to oversee such matters, and that there is a responsibility to ensure that the criterion laid down by accounting officers is adhered to rigidly, and that any failure to do so will set heads rolling.

282. Mr Hamilton: I am in absolutely no doubt that, as the accounting officer for this or any other vote, my part in the chain of accountability is at the heart of decision-making. If that involves boards of governors and employing authorities - since it is not just education and library boards but voluntary organisations and so on - that is my responsibility; I accept that fully.

283. The Chairperson: You accept that?

284. Mr Hamilton: Absolutely. It is my responsibility as accounting officer. That is why I have tried to assure you that one of my most important tasks as accounting officer will be to meet all the boards' and employing authorities' chief executives, before I disappear to another Department, to address precisely the issues Mr Close has mentioned.

285. Mr Close: Can you assure us - and I accept that it is a difficult for you, but I must get it on record - that your successor will also take your comments to heart? It is vital for our efficiency that we do not find ourselves back at square one every time an incumbent leaves.

286. Mr Hamilton: The protocol is that the decisions taken by one accounting officer bind his or her successor. Not only will the protocol apply, but I can also assure Mr Close that I shall personally spend a great deal of time briefing my successor on the importance of the issue, the potential for what might go wrong and the implications.

287 The Chairperson: I can assure Mr Close that we can recommend such a measure in our report.

288. Mr Carrick: First, given the subject matter here this morning, I should put on record that my sister is a primary-school principal; perhaps she is one of the few.

289. I refer to paragraph 2.32. I believe I am quoting Mr Hamilton correctly if I say he was satisfied about the timely and detailed guidance issued. I am surprised to read in paragraph 2.32 that the difficulty experienced by governors at some schools was that vital, up-to-date papers on performance appraisal did not reach them.

290. My first question is, given the modus operandi of boards of governors where the principal usually acts as secretary, is Mr Hamilton satisfied that there was no intent - perhaps on the part of certain principals - to withhold information? Was information and guidance sent to the governors as individuals or given to the principal? Is Mr Hamilton happy that the procedure was working effectively, or was there a weakness in the system? The evidence in the report shows that the awarding of increases to principals and vice-principals has not complied with the guidance of the Department or employing authority. That would appear to support the view that governors were not in possession of up-to-date information.

For instance, in paragraph 2.32 it relates that at one school: "Governors were using salary scales that were five years out of date, despite the new scales having recently been sent to the school."

291. Who was at fault for not getting the information to the individual board of governors so it was properly informed? Was it the principal? Was it the school?

292. Mr Hamilton: When I said I was satisfied that timely and detailed guidance had been issued, I meant in the sense that detailed guidance was issued on behalf of the employing authorities. There was a specific requirement to have a salary policy; the guidance indicated the types of issues that should be included in that policy.

293. Secondly, the Department issued an annual policy circular on pay scales. It had to do so, for it covered ordinary teachers as well as principals and vice-principals. You put your finger on the weakness - all those circulars issued inevitably went to the school principal, and the weakness lay in whether that was passed on or not.

294. That is no comfort, but there was a similar set of circumstances regarding another issue in the Department in the last year or two. Every circular issued by the Department now has an indication on the front of the person to whom it should go. Some are for principals, and others for teachers, but it specifically says on every circular we issue now that it must go to governors and so on. I could provide that comment in respect of issuing the guidance.

295. Mr Peover may want to comment about what happened with the boards of governors, for the report clearly indicates that it was not being passed to individual governors.

296. Mr Peover: We have no evidence from audit or elsewhere to show that there is any malpractice going on, or that people are withholding information. It could be the case that things get mislaid or misplaced in the welter of documentation that goes to schools.

297. We have recently tried to remedy the situation by putting all our material onto our web site. All schools are linked to the web. If governors or principals are looking at an issue, they can check the current versions of any of our circulars, since everything is on the system. A significant number of schools now receive circulars electronically rather than by paper. There is always the risk that someone will mislay or lose it in a paper- based system. I cannot say that someone has not mislaid papers, but we have no evidence from audit or anywhere else that boards of governors have mislaid papers.

298. Mr Hamilton: The June 2001 circular will be issued on 6 June. Governors' awareness is essential, and the circular states that issues must be brought to their attention. To authorise the payment of salaries, the chair of the board of governors must sign the form that must now be filled in.

299. Mr Carrick: If you recognise that there could be a weakness - and also recognising the new arrangements - is your audit sufficiently robust to detect any further weaknesses or misuse of the new arrangements so that malpractice does not recur, wittingly or otherwise?

300. Mr Hamilton: I can give the Committee my personal assurance that the Department's internal audit and those of other employing authorities are sufficiently robust to pick that up. I wish to discuss that issue with the chief executives of the boards.

301. The Chairperson: That is the end of the session. It seems to the Committee that the system for setting pay did not work. At the same time, the involvement of governors is vital to the running of schools, and we do not want to do anything to discourage them or put obstacles in their way. Having said that, the Committee feels that governors must act more professionally. We are glad you have assured us that it will be the case.

302. Mr Dallat: May I ask a question on that point?

303. The Chairperson: Please be quick.

304. Mr Dallat: One cannot train a poodle to become a guard dog. Is there not a need to look more closely at those appointed as governors? I do not suggest that they are all vulnerable to school principals, but given today's disclosures, I should like to know whether those schools that transgressed the criteria will be included. We are to receive a comprehensive list of them.

305. The Chairperson: That assurance has already been given.

306. Mr Dallat: I should like to hear that there are guidelines for the appointment of governors that will ensure that the training you have promised will make things better.

307. Mr Hamilton: The reconstituting of the board of governors depends on the nature of the school, transfers, trustee representatives and governors acting on behalf of teachers, parents and education and library boards. We are currently looking for new governors. In an ideal world we should like every board to have experience of financial and personnel issues. Unfortunately, that is not always possible, and we have written to the business community inviting suggestions for governors. Business representatives might bring their discipline to school governors.

308. The Chairperson: Mr Dallat, I apologise. I did not realise that you wanted to ask a question.

309. Thank you for attending today's Committee session and answering the questions so fully. Today is the last time that Mr Hamilton will appear before the Committee in his present position as permanent secretary in the Department of Education. I wish him all the best in his new post.

Top

In 1996 the principal of a controlled secondary school was awarded an increase of one point, which put him 9 points above the recommended point for the school. In the same year, the school had experienced two teacher redundancies and a budget deficit. In the subsequent year, three further redundancies were required because of an increased deficit. The increase was questioned by the relevant Board, but the Governors responded that, to the best of their ability "the appropriate procedures and guidelines . were followed".

In 1998 the Governors awarded a controlled primary school principal six additional spine points, taking him above the maximum of the relevant pay band for the school. Monitoring by the relevant Board found that, in the same year, the school had required a budget supplement and had made two teachers redundant. The appropriateness of the increase was questioned.

In 1998 the Governors of a controlled primary school were challenged by the local Education and Library Board when they awarded a pay increase above the maximum of the appropriate pay range on the basis of a number of broad factors. When asked to outline the exceptional circumstances which merited an "above maximum" award, the Governors responded that the matter had been fully discussed and agreed by the appropriate committee in the school and no further comment would be made.

In implementing the pay spine which became effective from September 1999, the Governors of a controlled secondary school recommended that the principal should be assimilated on to a point above the range applicable to the size and circumstances of the school. This resulted in a salary increase in excess of £7,300. At the same time the Governors proposed to reduce the school's teaching staff.

* where percentages do not tally to 100%, the remaining pupils were absent from the test.

Note

1996/97 data is based on incomplete figures. Of the 238 secondary and grammar schools, results were missing from 19 (seven had no eligible pupils, one was involved in INTO industrial action, 11 had Electronic Data Interchange problems resulting in CCEA not receiving their data) and a further four schools returned incomplete data.

Note : Point 6 is the minimum salary for Principals

* Includes acting principals and vice-principals

Top