NEWS FOCUS SecEd: On Your Side


School Performance Tables: A headteacher's view


Nobody goes to work to do a bad job


IN COMMON with many teachers, I escape during my holidays by reading thrillers, full of conspiracy and intrigue. I am trying not to let that influence my views as I react


to the recently published school league tables that contain, according to the Nick Gibb Show – sorry, Department for Education (DfE) – 400 new lots of information on the nation’s 3,300 secondary schools. Transparency is an excellent principle with accurate


and reliable data. Indeed, the best informed discussions and decisions come from that data, well analysed and in context. The reaction from the Association of School and College


Leaders (ASCL) was headlined: “League tables do not raise standards.” Put another way – if you weigh the pig every which way, it does not get any fatter. They are right to highlight that “school (teachers) passionately want to raise standards”. So what are these league tables about and who are they


for? The government talks about informing parental choice and enabling comparisons between schools. However, in my years as a headteacher in a local community school, I cannot recollect a single conversation with a parent or carer that was centred on league tables in any meaningful context – not least as an informer of school selection. This year’s data is presented in tabulated form with


little contextual information. Without a huge print out and associated commentary, comparison of schools is near on impossible (notwithstanding the “Go Compare” website). In fact, is any number in the table good or bad on its own? Also, the tables exclude, I suggest, a whole swathe of households lacking the literacy capacity to interpret them. The National Association of Head Teachers has also


urged caution in interpreting the data, which it says focuses on a narrow and often unreliable measure of performance. All this extra information must, though, have a purpose.


That’s when my thriller-fuelled imagination kicks in. As a head I’ve gone through three full section Ofsteds


and have been largely satisfied with the process and personnel; the improving judgements have been fair. Having an independent Ofsted is wholly desirable in my


view and is like having an independent judiciary or church – it stops, in this case, education policy and interpretation becoming solely an instrument of state. Are there signs though of Ofsted being suspiciously


regarded by the DfE? Have they gone “native”? You hear it whispered as you read the latest not-consulted-upon pronouncements: “No more satisfactory.” “No more two days’ notice.” So, without “credible” Ofsted verdicts, or with school


judgements not saying what government wants to hear, the DfE standards become the absolute driver and any local context loses its significance. Standards are listed as cold data in pre-determined formats. Highlighting failure in the headlines was certainly a


2012 media theme for the DfE as it published its league tables, but leading to what? One speculates: An increasing justification of school


intervention, where floor standard sustainability is key to non-academy involvement and subject to a rolling five per cent increase that will eventually sweep up all but the most successful schools with their decent intakes. The end result – a privatising of education as external providers replace strapped local authorities. The annual league tables have become a key


government tool of influence and steerage – on what should be taught (EBacc?) and to what notional standard. This determines “failure”, which is then splashed in an unsympathetic press. Ominously for schools: the DfE; Ofsted and legislation


are all starting to speak with one voice – leading towards a private intervention in our state system and – as with free schools recently – allowing profiteering. Now there’s a Tory Party mantra. Anyone fancy a conspiracy theory?


SecEd


• This editorial has been written anonymously by a headteacher from a secondary school in England. The editor of SecEd is Pete Henshaw. Email editor@sec-ed.co.uk


THE GOVERNMENT’S new SEN Green Paper hopes to introduce a single Education Care and Health Plan (ECHP) for every child covering them from the age of two to 25. It is hoped that this will lead to a system which is less “bureaucratic” and “adversarial”. Elsewhere, the proposals


are aimed at improving early identification of SEN and giving parents control of the personal budget for their child. The Department for Education is expected to announce new legislation soon. The Green Paper was on


the agenda at a meeting of the Westminster Education Forum last Thursday (January 26). Sadly, the seminar – The next steps for supporting young people with SEN – had few senior managers, although the range of speakers – MPs, representatives from national charities, parents and learners – provided a valuable insight into the battles which may lie ahead for schools. Professor Neville Harris of the


University of Manchester addressed the issue of tribunal versus mediation – with the Green Paper proposing a stage of mediation before appeals are submitted in situations of disagreement. Tribunals are expensive and time- consuming but mediation has not proved popular. Parents do not like it because


the recommendations are not binding. Local authorities felt that mediation was often less effective than tribunals while charity Parent Partnerships considered that in 22


Focus on SEN


The implications of the proposals contained within the coalition’s Green Paper on SEN were under discussion during


the recent Westminster Education Forum. Sal McKeown was there


per cent of cases parents had settled for less than they were actually entitled to. Prof Harris argued that


mediation was often a compromise rather than a means of protecting the rights of the child. One solution to the problem may


be to adopt the Achievement for All (AfA) programme which looks to raise standards, address issues of deprivation and work with families. The Structured Conversation


has been a key element of AfA. Parents and teachers meet three times a year as equal partners in decision-making and set targets for how the school, parent and child will work together. However there are issues.


Some parents do not work in their child’s best interests and a child in secondary school could appeal on their own behalf against a tribunal’s decision. Other children with profound


disabilities may not have a voice in their own ECHP because they are too passive, are railroaded by professionals, or over-ruled by their parents.


IN RESPONSE…


Education unions have dismissed government claims that this year’s school performance tables provide a clear picture of student progression. It comes as changes were


made to the tables for the second year running, following the introduction of the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) last year. Tables this year also


included statistics on how well disadvantaged children have performed and how well children progress after they leave primary school. Overall, 58.9 per cent


of students achieved the benchmark of five GCSE A* to C passes including English and maths – up from 53.4 per cent. The number of students


achieving the EBacc also increased by two points to 17.6 per cent and the number entered for EBacc subjects was up 1.7 to 23.7 per cent. The new figures also show that 54.4 per cent of students


who achieved Level 4 at the end of key stage 2 went on to gain the GCSE benchmark, but that only 6.5 per cent of pupils who had been below Level 4 did so.


Nick Gibb, schools minister: “We should have high expectations for all children regardless of their circumstances. Today’s figures reveal a shocking waste of talent in many schools across the country. All too often, pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds aren’t given the same opportunities as their peers. Children only have one chance


at education. These tables show which schools are letting children down. We will not hesitate to tackle underperformance in any school, including academies. Heads should be striving to make improvements year-on-year, and we will not let schools coast with mediocre performance.”


Chris Keates, general secretary, NASUWT: “Predictably, the publication of the


tables has provided yet another opportunity for another round of teacher bashing by the government. Performance tables do not help


to raise standards. If there is, as the government claims, ‘gaming’ in the system, where pupils are pushed towards certain subjects, then it is the league tables in a high stakes accountability system which drives this.”


Christine Blower, general secretary, National Union of Teachers: “Although the government claims the new information about GCSE results will measure progress for children from the highest to the lowest attaining, the league table system is still flawed and will still create a situation in which schools are concentrating on results rather than on providing (a) broad and balanced education.”


Adrian Prandle, education policy advisor, Association of Teachers and Lecturers: “The league tables highlight


what we already know, that schools in deprived areas face tough challenges. These schools need to be given the flexibility to tailor the curriculum so that they can inspire those children who struggle to learn. They do not need politicians pushing a restrictive curriculum and making teaching to the test inevitable.”


Russell Hobby, general secretary, National Association of Head Teachers: “It makes sense to measure how well schools do with different types of learner. However, these tables focus instead on a narrow definition of progress and ability based on discredited test data at key stage 2 and actively encourage schools to focus on one group of students to the detriment of others. Until we find a better way of reflecting pupil progress and the excellent work which is routinely going on in our schools, tables like these should be treated with suspicion by teachers and parents alike.”


MP Pat Glass, a member of the


All-Party Parliamentary Group on Learning Disabilities, is concerned that the cuts in careers advisors and children’s services may lead to children being more dependent on parents and teachers for advice. Parents could be in charge of


the new Personal Budget for their children. This could be difficult for schools and it seems possible that a tranche of private providers will step in to support schools and parents. Phil Hearne, executive director


of Northumberland CE Academy, cited the case of a working single parent who is very unhappy at the prospect of managing her child’s personal budget. She needs to work and, if she takes time off to attend meetings, she will lose her job. Staff training is an issue in some


schools. Sean Stockdale from special needs association nasen pointed out that special needs modules were often optional in initial teacher training, and while all SENCOs should be qualified or engaged in taking the national award, there were few checks to find out how many completed their training.


Philippa Stubbs, assistant


director at the Council for Disabled Children, added that for some schools differentiation meant writing in a lesson plan: “TA to support children in low-ability groups.” Children with behavioural


difficulties were not well served either as some mainstream schools were “skilled in the dark arts of moving children around system without actually excluding them”. Simone Aspis, policy and


campaigns co-ordinator at the Alliance for Inclusive Education said: “The government’s bias towards academies may deprive children of the additional support they need. At present if a child needs occupational therapy or an educational psychologist it will be provided by the local authority, but academies have responsibility for their own funds and may not buy-in specialist support until it gets to the statementing process.” All in all, it looks as if


parents will have to take more responsibility for safeguarding their child’s rights and schools will have to train staff to work with different agencies that may have different agendas and use different terminology. No wonder so many of the


speakers and the audience were calling for an independent advocacy system which would put the child at the centre of this process.


SecEd


• Sal McKeown is a trainer and journalist, offering comment on educational technology and special needs, including dyslexia.


www.sec-ed.com


6


SecEd • February 2 2012


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16