We hear a steady trickle of calls from the press and the public for major inquiries into some disaster or policy failure. Few demands are granted - there are usually quicker and cheaper ways of sorting things out. However, I'd make the argument for two major government education inquiries to start straight away.

The first would be into how we hold schools accountable, and the second into the future provision for special educational needs (SEN). Both are cornerstones of our education system and between them affect every child and every school. Both build on principles established over two decades ago - and both are at risk of defending the principles while failing to learn from the practice.

Resolving the debate about the accountability framework is the most urgent. I am a great believer in testing, inspection and letting the public know how schools are performing, and I support the learning entitlement afforded by the national curriculum. These approaches have played their part in the higher standards we've seen in recent years, and the main winners have been children - often from disadvantaged backgrounds - in the most underperforming schools.

It's obvious, though, that this framework still drives the behaviour of some teachers and the management of some schools in a way that was never intended. There have been innumerable adjustments to the system, all designed to make the whole thing less bureaucratic, and more flexible and finely tuned. Despite this, accountability often remains the master rather than the servant of the education system.

Why do I believe that we need an inquiry now? First, because of a little-debated incident in the recent troubles in Haringey. Over the last six years or so, we have increasingly relied on school data to determine a whole raft of further actions - how frequently to inspect, the resources to allocate, whether to intervene, to list but a few. It's part of a strategy of letting those who are successful get on with it and targeting our resources where they are most needed. It is less intrusive and schools are more trusted.

However, we are told that in the Haringey Baby P case Ofsted received inaccurate data and on that basis did not intervene. The accountability framework increasingly used for both schools and children's services is predicated on data-driven judgments. If the data is unreliable, it weakens the whole system. One incident shouldn't undermine the veracity of all data, but it does raise a question that needs to be addressed.

My second reason is that too many schools are risk averse because of what they imagine the response of Ofsted or the effect on the test results might be. The government has established groups to look at assessment for key stage 3 and a school profile to enhance league tables. This is a chance to look at the whole package, giving us all an opportunity to reaffirm the principles but look at the practice afresh.

The second inquiry is even longer overdue. There hasn't been a comprehensive look at SEN since the Warnock report over 30 years ago. We now have more evidence of what patterns of schooling work and what parents want; there's been a revolution in our knowledge about learning difficulties. Yet government policies on inclusion and special schools are often misinterpreted by the public and there is probably a higher level of parental dissatisfaction with this aspect of our education system than with any other.

Sometimes, defending a principle stands in the way of considering legitimate concerns. At other times, accommodating someone else's point of view is seen as reneging. Yet on issues as important as these, we have to take the country, not to mention the education system, with us. A thorough discussion and debate would do no harm; in fact, it might be just what is needed for the next stage of reform.

Estelle Morris is pro vice-chancellor of the University of Sunderland