I must correct the implication given in the article "Heads split over reports on good and poor staff" (TES, March 22). I did not propose the idea to the Office for Standards in Education, though I am in favour of good quality management information for heads. The NAHT position on this is quite clear.
Inspectors have always reported to heads on what they have observed in classrooms. They have always noted excellent teaching and areas of weak practice. This information has added to that already held by the headteacher, whose responsibility it is to be aware of the expertise and experience of the teaching staff. The guidance paper issued recently by OFSTED adds to this process a cumbersome reporting procedure which has raised understandable fears as to the use and status of these reports. In consultation on these proposals, the NAHT warned against introducing formal written reports, for just this reason.
NAHT heads will ensure the confidentiality of the reports is maintained, and will handle the information in a thoroughly professional manner. Heads welcome professional management information regarding their staff, but not the bureaucracy associated with OFSTED's procedure.
DAVID HART General secretary National Association of Head Teachers