THE news that the proportion of poor or unsatifactory lessons in our schools has dropped from 18 per cent to 16 per cent was indeed welcome.

In his annual report, Chris Woodhead, chief inspector of schools, revised his previous estimate of 15,000 incompetent teachers to 13,000.

He said that the difference was largely explained by an improvement in teaching quality and he expected that to be maintained.

These are small improvements. But they are a start. We have said before that the whole future of this country depends on how our schools perform.

Poor results in the classrooms today will lead to dismal performances in economic and industrial battlefields tomorrow.

Teachers and everyone else involved in our education structure bear an awesome responsibility.

That is why teaching methods must be under constant surveillance and, when necessary, improved. The relaxed tactics of the 1960s and 70s, when many teachers rejected proven methods, were so disastrous that we now trail behind most western European countries in education standards. John Major said that head teachers may face compulsory training and he would not rule out a compulsory competence qualification for new and aspiring head teachers. He said this after Mr Woodhead revealed that about one in seven primary schools heads and one in ten secondary school heads were failing to give clear direction. More than a third of primary head teachers were judged poor at reviewing their school's work.

Ofsted inspectors highlighted this problem in recent reports on two East Lancashire schools. In both cases the heads had been replaced by the time the reports were published.

There is little hope for a school where the head teacher has got it wrong.

However, David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, says there is no need to make the qualification compulsory and accused Mr Major of "policy-making on the hoof of the worst kind". It comes as no surprise that a man in Mr Hart's position reacts with negative vibes towards such a suggestion.

But there can be no sacred cows in education. If Mr Hart was involved in the harsher, more competitive worlds of business and industry he would not find "compulsory competence qualifications" so abhorrent. They would be a fact of life.

Why should head teachers, whose performances can make or break schools, be considered above such processes?

While it is encouraging to hear from Mr Woodhead that there is a small improvement in standards of teaching, his observations on head teachers must be taken seriously.

Heads teachers are leaders in their field.

They have responsibilities similar to those of captains of industry.

And, like captains of industry, they must be judged on results.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.