The Government’s education legislation is producing higher standards, according to Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector presenting the 1994 annual report from the inspectorate.

In an upbeat account of the education system which belied some of his harsher criticisms last week, the head of the Office for Standards in Education, Chris Woodhead, asserted that 1994 was “in many ways a good year”. However, the report also expands on his concerns that a large number of primary schools are failing older pupils and criticises schools for not using a mixture of different teaching methods. It calls for a national debate on the most effective strategies.

More than 40 per cent of lessons in secondary schools and nearly 33 per cent in primaries were judged by the inspectorate to be “good or very good”. At the same time, the report points to “unsatisfactory or poor” ratings in 25 per cent of lessons at key stage 1, 30 per cent at KS2, 19 per cent at KS3 and 17 per cent at KS4.

“There are clear signs that educational standards were starting to rise, ” said Mr Woodhead. He attributed this to the introduction of the national curriculum, the additional freedom of local financial management, and the new inspection arrangements. “There is a coherent framework in which schools can raise standards and demonstrably are doing so.”

The report does not present year-on-year comparisons, but separate figures released by the Office for Standards in Education indicate improvements in inspection ratings, notably in secondary schools. Mr Woodhead also pointed to the rising standards in public examinations.

But, he said, the percentage of unsatisfactory lessons remains too high. His inspectors had found sharp differences between schools serving the same sort of catchment area and between teachers in those schools. “We can’t tolerate a situation where, overall, 30 per cent of lessons at key stage 2 are unsatisfactory.” In particular, he said, there should be a renewed attempt to improve literacy and numeracy.

Mr Woodhead warned against interpreting the debate as one between traditionalists and progressives. “A doctrinaire commitment to any one approach will necessarily render lessons less effective,” he said, recommending a pragmatic approach. Schools, he suggested, should reach their own critical judgments.

In response to questioning, Mr Woodhead repeated his belief that poor teaching methods - in particular a lack of whole-class instruction - was significantly to blame for low standards. Lack of subject knowledge was a problem at KS2, where teachers have to cope with 10 subjects.

The report also found that teachers’ “diagnostic skills” - as illustrated in their marking of work, for example - need improving. More use should be made of “sustained instruction and explanation” at KS2. Reading standards across the curriculum are too low in one-fifth of schools and writing standards in a quarter of schools at KS3.

The picture drawn of urban education is of low expectations, a high level of unsatisfactory teaching and limited achievement.

The report has, for the first time, presented a list of 52 schools judged to have performed particularly well between 1992 and 1994. All the schools named have received good inspection reports and improved their examination results by 10 per cent or more. The majority are suburban or rural.

The report, Mr Woodhead’s first as the head of OFSTED, was welcomed by Education Secretary Gillian Shephard. “The report shows that there is much to celebrate in our schools. Standards are rising and our reforms are working. There is still, however, too much evidence of unsatisfactory or poor teaching. ”

The promise of a debate on teaching strategies was welcomed by Professor Peter Mortimore, the leading figure in research on school effectiveness. Professor Mortimore, director of London University’s Institute of Education, said that to date, the research effort has been directed at whole schools rather than individual teachers.

Labour’s front bench education spokesman David Blunkett criticised OFSTED for failing to meet its primary inspection targets. He also said the Government should provide programmes for improving failing schools. “Naming the good and bad schools is not enough.”

The teaching unions welcomed the positive thrust of the report, but criticised OFSTED for failing to make a stronger case for more resources.

David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Headteachers, said: “It’s quite unreasonable to expect schools to fight for higher standards with one hand tied behind their backs.”

Mr Woodhead annoyed the professional associations by saying that, overall, the current levels of resourcing are satisfactory. He also implied criticism of some schools for hoarding money, suggesting that governing bodies should not maintain budget surpluses without good reason.