GOVE’S ATTACK ON PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND THEIR EFFECTS

Goes for the soft target-but what exactly is he doing to narrow the gap?

Comment

Michael Gove said in his speech at Brighton College that the dominance of the public schoolboy in every prominent role in British society is “morally indefensible”. “More than almost any developed nation, ours is a country in which your parentage dictates your progress,” he said. “Those who are born poor are more likely to stay poor and those who inherit privilege are more likely to pass on privilege in England than in any comparable country. For those of us who believe in social justice, this stratification and segregation are morally indefensible.” It is impossible to justify such inequity although when politicians start talking about morality they are on dangerous ground –so its worth taking a much closer look. We are certainly an unequal society in terms of outcomes. But it is  too simplistic to blame the 7% of people who are educated here in private schools for such inequity and the lack of social mobility. The problem is deeply ingrained. Anthony Sampson in his book ‘Anatomy of Britain’ first published in the 1962, with later variants, highlighted that the establishment was dominated by the privately educated. The Sutton Trust has helpfully up-dated Sampson’s seminal analysis and findings but told us not much that is new in this respect.   The reasons for the lack of social mobility are many and varied. What happens in the home up to the age of  three is  regarded as very important  indeed, for example.    Politicians (educated in both state and private schools) in successive administrations   have largely failed to grasp the nettle to identify the nature of the problem ,let alone the policy levers that might help   alleviate it , and these levers  are not by any means all  related to education. Certainly its true that  if you fail to get good GCSEs at school your chances of doing well   in the world of work are severely circumscribed.  Bashing private schools though, even for a Tory Minister,  it seems, pays political dividends.  They are the soft target. Too many stubbornly underperforming state schools are at the heart of the problem, and it’s a difficult challenge to address. The biggest problem in our system is the long tail of our significant underachievers in school, perhaps 20% of the school population. The next big problem is  the way we treat the brightest pupils in our schools, those who have the potential to succeed but who are not being given personalised support and guidance in schools  to  enable them  to reach their  full potential. This is bad for them, and us.

But lets be clear there is nothing immoral about choosing the type of education you want for your child, a right  that happens to be enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and those with money have every right to choose how they spend it subject  only to the law. For those like George Monbiot (privately educated) who naively call for the abolition of private schools the message is clear -it wont happen.  The Government would rightly be held to account for such an illiberal act under Human Rights law. His other solution is to remove charity status for these schools-which will marginally decrease their numbers, mainly the smaller ones, on the tightest of margins, but also serve to   make the sector more elitist ,less inclusive  and less prone, probably, to helping  the state sector. And if they lose their charity status, there will follow a major  cull of thousands of other charities  which provide less public benefit than many private schools.

Looking at the advantages provided by an independent school education, they are perceived to be many.  Which is why surveys suggest that most parents, if they had the  means, would choose a private education for their child. Of course, class sizes tend to be much smaller. Some say the teaching is better although this is difficult to prove . But many parents are drawn to these schools because of the pastoral support, extra-curricular activities (arts music, drama), sport and facilities.   Also importantly these schools tend to  support character development,  values, self-sufficiency, self-discipline, resilience, leadership skills, teamwork, sporting prowess and nurture , too, creative talent , and ultimately  more rounded and socially- confident individuals.

Rather than abolish these schools the state sector should be learning from them. Lord Adonis talked about transferring the independent sectors DNA into state schools. And it is in the area of supporting character development, positive thinking and resilience where the state system has much to learn and where there are huge possibilities.  It is not absolutely clear though how this governments reforms will help support the development of these characteristics and attributes among  our state school pupils,  and so  help  close the gap between state and private schools and promote equity. Indeed, it could be argued, and has been by Professor Tony Watts, that Gove has been personally responsible for pulling out the state-school funding for sport, music and the other performing arts (where the disparities with public schools are now particularly significant). Also the programmes for raising aspirations and improving social mobility (career guidance, AimHigher) have been halted.  How exactly are state school pupils, particularly the most disadvantaged, going to be more socially mobile if they are not  given  access to high quality, professional,   face to face advice in school  about their options and  pathways into further, higher education, training  and employment?

The Government is, of course, introducing significant reforms. The structural reforms – making schools more autonomous and giving them more freedom may well  help, providing they use this to improve educational outcomes, (some seem to have converted simply for the extra funding) . But few believe that they are sufficient in themselves to deliver significantly improved outcomes. In short, the changes are necessary but insufficient.  But the other side of this coin is what happens in the classroom, at the chalk face. There need to be improvements there in the quality of teaching. Evidence shows that improving the quality of teaching is essential to driving up standards in schools. Pupils taught by good teachers score nearly half a GCSE point more per subject than pupils taught by poor teachers. But its also, crucially, about  what children are taught , so that teachers are supporting the provision of a rounded education, and not just teaching to the test.(critics believe that exams are now the master not servant of education) .The delayed curriculum reforms and introduction of the Ebacc, might have a positive  effect. But, overall are  these  ‘ game-changers’ likely to  measurably  close the  attainment gap, to tackle the long tail of underachievement  and the widening divide between the state and independent sectors? Even after the Blair governments reforms,  Professor Barbers ‘deliverology’ and  significant new investment, the attainment gap  between the sectors actually grew (and productivity in state  education fell).  So what else is on offer? The Pupil Premium targeted at the most disadvantaged? –a possibility but unions claim that this money is being used to fill gaps arising from other cuts in school funding. Even if not, the sums involved are relatively modest and there is no guarantee that schools will use the ‘extra’ money effectively. The government has not ring-fenced Pupil Premium cash, but it will – via Ofsted and league tables – hold schools accountable for how it is spent. Unless we learn from what schools do with the premium, the money may well be wasted, and hence do nothing to narrow the achievement gap. So, what else is going to narrow the gap and improve equity? Gove deserves credit for pushing through reforms, often overcoming resistance even from within his own Department, and one would be hard pressed to name a Minister who has achieved more.  But, in terms of transforming the system, to make it fit for the 21^st Century, we are probably edging towards the end of the beginning, rather than the beginning of the end.

GOVES ATTACK ON PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND THEIR EFFECTS-A SOFT TARGET

GOVES ATTACK ON PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND THEIR EFFECTS

Goes for the soft target-but what exactly is he doing to narrow the gap?

Comment

Michael Gove said in his speech at Brighton College that the dominance of the public schoolboy in every prominent role in British society is “morally indefensible”. “More than almost any developed nation, ours is a country in which your parentage dictates your progress,” he said. “Those who are born poor are more likely to stay poor and those who inherit privilege are more likely to pass on privilege in England than in any comparable country. For those of us who believe in social justice, this stratification and segregation are morally indefensible.” Gove was certainly not calling  though for the abolition of  private schools to remedy the problem.  What he meant was that state schools needed to improve to private school standards, and not that private schools should be abolished.

Clearly it is impossible to justify such inequity although when politicians start talking about morality they are, as a rule, on dangerous ground –so its worth taking a much closer look. We are certainly an unequal society in terms of outcomes. But it is too simplistic to blame the 7% of people who are educated here in private schools for such inequity and crucially  the lack of social mobility. Social mobility has stalled in our country, for sure. The problem is, though, deeply ingrained. Anthony Sampson in his  seminal book ‘Anatomy of Britain’ first published in 1962, with later revisions , highlighted that the establishment and business was dominated by the privately educated. The Sutton Trust has helpfully up-dated Sampson’s analysis and findings but  in truth  have told us not much that is new in this respect.   The reasons for the lack of social mobility are many and varied. What happens in the home up to the age of three  and parental support and education  are   regarded as very important  indeed,  in influencing  social mobility. The Jesuits maxim “Give me the child for seven years, and I will give you the man” is  probably only half correct in that a child’s trajectory  may be largely determined even earlier, at least according to some experts and recent research (although there is a danger of being too deterministic about this).

Politicians (educated in both state and private schools) in successive administrations   have largely failed to grasp the nettle to identify the nature of the problem ,let alone the policy levers that might help   alleviate it , and these levers  are not by any means all  related to education. Certainly its true that  if you fail to get good GCSEs at school your chances of doing well   in the world of work are severely circumscribed.  Bashing private schools though, even for a Tory Minister, it seems, pays political dividends.  They are the soft target.

Too many stubbornly underperforming state schools are at the heart of the problem, and it’s a difficult challenge to address. It is mainly about addressing  the long tail of our significant underachievers in school, perhaps as much as  20% of the school population. The next biggest  problem is  the way we treat  our  brightest and most able  pupils  , those who have the potential to succeed but who are not being given  either the personalised support  or  guidance in schools  to  enable them  to reach their  full potential. Depending on how you measure and define this group it could  range from 5%-20%. of pupils.This is bad for them, and us.

But lets be clear there is nothing immoral about choosing the type of education you want for your child, a right  that happens to be enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and those with money have every right to choose how they spend it subject  only to the law. For those like George Monbiot (privately educated) who naively call for the abolition of private schools the message is clear -it wont happen.  The Government would rightly be held to account for such an illiberal act under Human Rights law. His other solution is to remove charity status for these schools-which will marginally decrease their numbers, mainly the smaller ones, on the tightest of margins, but also serve to   make the sector more elitist ,less inclusive  and less prone, probably, to helping  the state sector.  It would also mean that tens of thousands of pupils end up looking for places in an already hard pressed state system .And if they lose their charity status, there will follow a major cull of thousands of other charities  which provide less public benefit than many private schools.

Looking at the advantages provided by an independent school education, they are perceived to be many.  Which is why surveys suggest that most parents, if they had the  means, would choose a private education for their child. Of course, class sizes tend to be much smaller. Some say the teaching is better although this is difficult to prove . But many parents are drawn to these schools because of the pastoral support, extra-curricular activities (arts music, drama), sport and facilities.   Also importantly these schools tend to  support character development,  values, self-sufficiency, self-discipline, resilience, leadership skills, teamwork, sporting prowess and nurture , too, creative talent , and ultimately  more rounded and socially- confident individuals.

Rather than abolish these schools the state sector should be learning from them. Lord Adonis talked about transferring the independent sectors DNA into state schools. And it is in the area of supporting character development, positive thinking and resilience where the state system has much to learn and where there are huge possibilities.

It is not absolutely clear though how this governments reforms will help support the development of these characteristics and attributes among our state school pupils,  and so  help  close the gap between state and private schools and promote equity. Indeed, it could be argued, and has been by Professor Tony Watts, that Gove has been personally responsible for pulling out the state-school funding for sport, music and the other performing arts (where the disparities with public schools are now particularly significant). Also the programmes for raising aspirations and improving social mobility (career guidance, AimHigher) have been halted.  How exactly are state school pupils, particularly the most disadvantaged, going to be more socially mobile if they are not  given  access to high quality, professional,   face to face advice in school  about their options and  pathways into further, higher education, training  and employment?

The Government is, of course, introducing significant reforms. The structural reforms – making schools more autonomous and giving them more freedom may well  help, providing they use this to improve educational outcomes, (some seem to have converted simply for the extra funding) . But few believe that they are sufficient in themselves to deliver significantly improved outcomes. In short, the changes are necessary but insufficient.  But the other side of this coin is what happens in the classroom, at the chalk face. There need to be improvements there in the quality of teaching. Evidence shows that improving the quality of teaching is essential to driving up standards in schools. Pupils taught by good teachers score nearly half a GCSE point more per subject than pupils taught by poor teachers. But its also, crucially, about  what children are taught , so that teachers are supporting the provision of a rounded education, and not just teaching to the test.(critics believe that exams are now the master not servant of education) .The delayed curriculum reforms and introduction of the Ebacc, might have a positive  effect. But, overall are  these  ‘ game-changers’ likely to  measurably  close the  attainment gap, to tackle the long tail of underachievement  and the widening divide between the state and independent sectors? Even after the Blair governments reforms,  Professor Barbers ‘deliverology’ and  significant new investment, the attainment gap  between the sectors actually grew (and productivity in state  education fell).  So what else is on offer? The Pupil Premium targeted at the most disadvantaged? –a possibility but unions claim that this money is being used to fill gaps arising from other cuts in school funding. Even if not, the sums involved are relatively modest and there is no guarantee that schools will use the ‘extra’ money effectively. The government has not ring-fenced Pupil Premium cash, but it will – via Ofsted and league tables – hold schools accountable for how it is spent. Unless we learn from what schools do with the premium, the money may well be wasted, and hence do nothing to narrow the achievement gap. So, what else is going to narrow the gap and improve equity? Gove deserves credit for pushing through reforms, often overcoming resistance even from within his own Department, and one would be hard pressed to name a Minister who has achieved more or performed better, certainly in the eyes of his own leader Tory MPs and  electors.  But, in terms of transforming the system, to make it fit for the 21^st Century, we are probably edging towards the end of the beginning, rather than the beginning of the end.  And attacks on private schools tend to deflect attention away from other areas that require urgent attention and the sustained  investment of   political capital.

DO WE NEED A MIDDLE TIER TO HOLD SCHOOLS ACCOUNTABLE?

Is a middle tier needed to ensure better accountability in the schools system?

Comment

The RSA was discussing last week the idea of a middle tier in education. There is  concern that as schools are given greater autonomy from local authority influence, and   made directly  accountable to the Secretary of State, through their  funding agreements,  they will, in practice, be less accountable than they were before the changes.  There are over 1700 schools now with academy status and the numbers continue to rise.   Who  is keeping a close  local eye on their performance, providing  ,for example, early warning of a school that is  badly under performing ?  Local  authorities are/were  supposed to do this (  with varying degrees of success, it has to be said)

Rick Muir of the IPPR  has argued that school improvement cannot be driven successfully from Whitehall. The Department for Education cannot run 20,000 schools. Every successful school system, he points out, has a middle tier of governance between schools and the centre. Ofsted is currently proposing to re-inspect schools requiring improvement after 12-18 months.  But, he argues,   it is not close enough to schools to monitor performance on a month-by-month basis, spot problems early on and  to intervene before the problems  escalate. There are a number of functions this (middle) tier will need to perform, he says. In successful systems intermediary bodies help to drive school improvement by monitoring the performance of the schools under their jurisdiction and supporting weaker school leaders to improve. They are crucial in managing the relationship between schools and central government, such as by explaining national policy developments and ensuring that critical national programmes are implemented. He adds that ‘An effective middle tier also fosters collaboration between schools, for instance by moving teachers around to fill gaps or by supporting their professional development through specialist training and peer support. It ensures that the needs of all local children are met by regulating fair access, providing sufficient school places and managing services for children with special educational needs. The middle tier can also carry out administrative roles, such as in finance and procurement, that can distract schools from their main purpose.’

Muir concludes that the government seems content to see local authorities wither away, while hoping that academy chains such as Harris, ARK and Oasis will take on these roles. While Academy chains are well placed to carry out some of these tasks it has become clear that chains will only cover a minority of schools: so far, only a quarter of ‘converter academies’ have joined these wider chains. Moreover, some of the chains are rather loose arrangements, without clear leadership and effective coordination’

So, Muir recommends the  creation of  local schools commissioners, who would commission (but not run or manage) all of the schools in their area, including free schools and academies, and have a singular focus on school improvement. Schools would retain the freedoms they enjoy today and these would be guaranteed in statute. But if schools coast or underperform the schools commissioner would have the power that currently rests with the secretary of state to intervene, ultimately by appointing a new head and governing body.

Christine Gilbert the former Head of Ofsted ,for her part, believes town halls should no longer be at the heart of school improvement and monitoring. Nor is she keen on the idea  of local commissioners or any other kind of new “middle tier” idea. Ms Gilbert thinks the job should be left to schools themselves. “It would be the profession supporting the profession,” she explains. “They (local authorities) have a role, particularly in making sure that vulnerable children are well served,” she concedes. “But I see the energy in the system coming from schools. I would really like to see the schools themselves in prime position, to be leading and driving this. “You can do it with other private, public or voluntary sector partners. But I would like to see (groups of schools) given contracts to do that for four or five years. Notions of commissioners and other sorts of middle tier are not the right way for us to be going at the moment.” She added, talking to the TES ,that there would need to be a proper framework with contracts that could be terminated if schools were not meeting their performance indicators or contractual duties.

Sir Michael Wilshaw, the chief inspector of schools, says that there could be a system of nationally-funded local area commissioners. He suggested that the local commissioners would report directly to the secretary of state, monitoring the performance of schools and chains in their area and bringing in other agencies where necessary and appropriate.

John Dunford points out that McKinsey research has shown that all the highly successful school systems in the world  have a middle tier between central government and the individual school and most of the jurisdictions in the McKinsey study are much smaller than England.  So, he suggests a network of about 40 District HMIs charged with monitoring performance of schools in their area, getting to know head teachers and keeping an ear to the ground for good and bad practice in local schools.  He says that  with a truly independent Ofsted, this could provide valuable intelligence to the system, helping to spread good practice and advising Ofsted and the government on where intervention is needed at an earlier stage than tends to happen now. Their remit would cover all types of school and issues between local authorities and academies would be entirely avoided by this nationally-led system. In short, the reinvention, in an up-to-date form, of district HMIs would be beneficial, not least because it would force Ofsted to play a stronger role in school improvement, as well as in (intelligent) accountability.

The RSA looks at the middle tier from a curriculum perspective. RSA is concerned about who determines the curriculum offer provided by schools, and on what basis.  The Government will need to monitor the different emergent curriculum offers provided, in relation to effectiveness, it says. The RSA advocates that such consideration include the curriculum’s role ‘in promoting engagement and local cohesion and agency.’

The RSA recommend, as part of another tier, that the respective roles of teachers, communities, parents and school leaders are considered in developing curriculum offers, and in their evaluation.  However, the RSA has doubts about teachers capacity  on their own to develop curriculum and to engage with communities and supports the idea that local commissioning or regulatory bodies may be necessary to form an intermediate layer between individual institutions and the centre. What these intermediate bodies look like is  the subject of on-going debate.  The RSA advocates that such bodies be comprised of teachers, parents and community representatives as a means of ensuring local accountability and engagement.

Schools, yes  ,even Academies fail. Spotting schools that are on the cusp of failure and  which need urgent support is important and saves much bother and expense further down the line.  As Dunford says ‘With autonomy in any public service comes greater accountability for the efficient and effective spending of public money. The issue is not whether there should be this accountability, but whether it is intelligent accountability and by whom it is exercised.’  Whether his model is the best to deliver this is a moot point.  But this debate is certainly useful  and important as evidenced by the Regulators intervention.

SOME CHARTER SCHOOLS SPEND MORE PER PUPIL THAN SIMILAR DISTRICT SCHOOLS

 

Mixed results but KIPP schools spend substantially more per pupil than district schools in the same city and serving similar populations

Comment

Policymakers have long pursued more cost effective, scalable alternatives for delivering elementary and secondary education. The elusive goal is identifying how to reform educational systems so that children will consistently achieve more academically—at a lesser cost. According to a new report  ‘ A frequently heard reform claim of this sort is that charter schools deliver higher performance at a lower cost. While the test score side of this question has been addressed by a great number of studies (with generally mixed findings), the cost side of the question has received far less attention.’

The description of the Research by Bruce D. Baker, Ken Libby,  and Kathryn Wiley is as follows:

‘This study evaluates the cost claim by comparing the per-pupil spending of charter schools operated by major charter management organizations (CMOs) in New York City, Texas and Ohio with district schools. In each context, we assemble three-year panel data sets including information on school level spending per pupil, school size, grade ranges and student populations served for both charter schools and district schools. For charter schools we use both government (and authorizer) reports of spending, and spending as reported on IRS non-profit financial filings (IRS 990).  We compare the spending of charters to that of district schools of similar size, serving the same grade levels and similar student populations. Overall, charter spending variation is large as is the spending of traditional public schools. Comparative spending between the two sectors is mixed, with many high profile charter network schools outspending similar district schools in New York City and Texas, but other charter network schools spending less than similar district schools, particularly in Ohio.  We find that in New York City, KIPP, Achievement First and Uncommon Schools charter schools spend substantially more ($2,000 to $4,300 per pupil) than similar district schools. Given that the average spending per pupil was around $12,000 to $14,000 citywide, a nearly $4,000 difference in spending amounts to an increase of some 30%. In Ohio, charters across the board spend less than district schools in the same city. And in Texas, some charter chains such as KIPP spend substantially more per pupil than district schools in the same city and serving similar populations, around 30 to 50% more in some cities (and at the middle school level) based on state reported current expenditures, and 50 to 100% more based on IRS filings. Even in New York where we have the highest degree of confidence in the match between our IRS data and Annual Financial Report Data, we remain unconvinced that we are accounting fully for all charter school expenditures.’

Spending by the major Charter Organisations- Comparing Charter School and Local Public District Financial Resources  New York, Ohio and Texas-   Bruce D. Baker, Rutgers University Ken Libby and Kathryn Wiley University of Colorado; May 2012; National Education Policy Center

http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/rb-charterspending_0.pdf

MANAGING EXPECTATIONS ON FREE SCHOOLS

MANAGING EXPECTATIONS ON FREE SCHOOLS

Slow take- up hampered by shortages of capital and sites

Comment

Its been apparent for some time that the Government is managing expectations down on Free schools. For a combination of reasons the Free schools initiative (as opposed to the Academies initiative) is not taking off in the way that was anticipated. There are two main problems. Shortage of capital, and shortage of sites. As the Times Educational Supplement reported last week , around half free school bidders are still seeking sites.  Katherine Birbalsingh is just one of many who has failed to find a site for her south London bid, and has had to delay opening until next year. Gove once spoke of a “superb new school in every community”. But last year, the department for education – approved just 79.  DFE briefed journalists that this was because they had tight vetting procedures, to ensure that only strong bids that could be justified were getting approved. For example before entering into a funding agreement, each proposal for a new free school is subject to an analysis of what the likely impact of establishing the additional school would be on maintained schools, academies, etc in the area in which the additional school is (or is proposed to be) situated. And ,of course, there have been some wacky organisations making bids who have to be vetted out.  But this is only part of the story. A more prosaic reason was that there was just not enough capital around  and some of the first Free schools were rather expensive to set up. Lisa Nandy the Labour MP and Select Committee member, says that the West London Free School, for example, received £12,416 per pupil in its first year, compared to an average of £7,064. The WLFS, among the most high profile of the institutions, and the first   Free school to sign a funding agreement, has cost the DfE £15m.  Setting up free schools requires upfront capital expenditure, but the education department has taken a 60 per cent cut to its capital budget. The DfE expected building costs for the first 24 schools to come to £124m. But as Chris Cook pointed out in the FT ‘this is a poor guide to the costs of further free schools. For example, many of the first wave have been subsidised by local authorities. Furthermore, several are private schools that have become state schools, so have only small building requirements.’ Cook  added, probably correctly that ‘ Insiders believe the only way to achieve significant numbers of new schools is to find a way to increase the capital budget using private finance – perhaps by letting free schools borrow to pay for their buildings or permitting profit-making companies to enter the market.’  This low number anticipated for opening this year was even less impressive than it first seemed – as the department counted 16 University Technical Colleges towards the total. It appears that the department is planning for around 50 openings of free schools this September. And this is when there is a shortfall of Primary places in London and many other areas of the country, so the demand for new school places is clearly  there, if not the capital and sites. So the funding shortage is not just about Free schools but  has become a major issue for the  Primary sector  too. The £600m extra set aside this year to help local authorities deal with the shortfall  in Primary places will need topping up sooner rather than later, and it looks as if the Government will have to turn to the private sector for help here too.

BRITISH CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE REPORT-IMPORTANCE OF LANGUAGE TRAINING FOR EXPORTERS

BRITISH CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE REPORT

Focus on  the importance of knowledge of other languages

Comment

A survey of over 8,000 businesses released on 12 April by the British Chambers of Commerce, shows that exporting activity continues to increase. However, the findings also suggest that providing firms with more training in foreign languages, and increasing their exposure to international companies would encourage more business owners to export. Economic growth relies upon British businesses being able to export more, so the British Chambers of Commerce is calling for more support for firms to help them trade internationally.

Knowledge of other languages is an important skill for exporters. 61% of non-exporters that are likely to consider trading internationally consider a lack of language skills as a barrier to doing so.

However, of those business owners that claim some language knowledge, very few can speak well enough to conduct deals in international markets. French is the most commonly spoken language, with 73% of business owners claiming some knowledge. However, only four percent are able to converse fluently enough in French to conduct business deals. This number drops significantly for those languages spoken in the fastest growing markets. In 2012, the IMF projects that the Chinese economy will grow by 9.5%, but just four percent of business owners claim any knowledge of the language, with less than one percent confident they could converse fluently.

Re-establishing foreign languages as core subjects within the UK national curriculum and in workplace training would mean that the next generation of business owners are ‘born global’ with language skills. The BCC is calling for the National Curriculum to be revised so that studying a foreign language is compulsory until AS level. Businesses could also be helped in training staff in new languages, if the government offered additional financial incentives such as tax credits for small and medium-sized businesses that make a significant investment in language training.

Key Recommendations in report:

Re-establish foreign languages as core subjects within the UK national curriculum and in workplace training.

There needs to be a fundamental reappraisal of the importance of language learning to Britain’s future competitive position and business success. The National Curriculum must be revised so that studying a foreign language is compulsory until AS level. It is important  to ensure that the next generation of business owners are ‘born global’ with language  skills. Businesses must also invest in language skills for their existing staff. Additional financial incentives, such as tax credits for small and medium-sized businesses that make a significant investment in language training, could support both take-up and ensuring a tailored business language offer.

 

And

Understanding of the commercial aspects of exporting must be embedded in higher and further education courses. Business degrees and further education qualifications focussed on commercial subjects must include compulsory modules on international  trade and exports so that incoming commercial staff are export-ready as they enter the workforce over the next 2 – 5 years.

Note 1 The Daily Mail reported on 12 April that ‘A report by the CfBT Education Trust reveals that in 2001 321,207 pupils sat a GCSE in French. In 2011 just 141,700 did so. Those taking German plunged from 130,627 to 58,300. Kate Board, head of languages at CfBT, said: ‘There is no doubt this has and will continue to have a significant impact on our ability to participate fully in the global marketplace unless changes are made.’

Language Learning in Secondary Schools in England-CFBT Education Trust- Teresa Tinsley, Youping Han-2012

 

http://www.cfbt.com/evidenceforeducation/our_research/evidence_for_government/national_policy_reforms/language_trends_survey.aspx

Note 2 The Daily Telegraph reported on 10 April that few diplomats are fluent in the language of the country where they work. Just one in 40 British diplomats is fluent in the language of the country where they work with the majority lacking even basic grasp sufficient for day-to-day exchanges.

 

Downloads

Exporting is Good for Britain: Skills

http://www.britishchambers.org.uk/assets/downloads/policy_reports_2012/12-04-05%20FACTSHEET%20-Trade%20SKILLS%20(KM).PDF

LEARNING FROM CHARTER MANAGEMENT ORGANISATIONS (US)

LEARNING FROM CHARTER MANAGEMENT ORGANISATIONS (US)

High Expectations for student behaviour and Intensive teacher coaching and monitoring

Comment 

The National Study of CMO Effectiveness is a four-year study designed to assess the impact of CMOs on student achievement and to identify CMO structures and practices that are most effective in raising achievement. Earlier reports from the study documented substantial variation in CMOs’ student achievement impacts and in CMOs’ use of particular educational strategies and practices.  The last report from the study found that the most effective CMOs tend to emphasize two practices in particular: high expectations for student behaviour and intensive teacher coaching and monitoring. This report provides a more in-depth description of these two promising CMO practices, drawing on surveys and interviews with staff in high-performing CMOs that emphasize one or both practices.  However, CMO leaders say that high expectations for student behaviour and intensive teacher coaching should not be considered “silver bullets.” These leaders suggest that these practices are more effective when coordinated or implemented in conjunction with other strategies, such as:

 Recruitment and training of strong school leaders who can monitor and improve instruction, hold teachers accountable, and set the tone for student behaviour and school culture

Commitment to college-going expectations and academic supports for all students, regardless of background

Development of strong data systems, time set aside for teachers to analyse and discuss data, and an expectation that teachers will regularly adjust instruction based on evidence

Formulation of school- or system-wide instructional goals and frameworks to guide teacher, coach, and principal action

Development of strong, trusting relationships between school staff and students

Provision of resources (such as handbooks and online lesson plans) from the central office to inform teacher practice

Cultivation of commitments from parents to reinforce school actions

Learning from Charter School Management Organizations:   Strategies for Student Behaviour and Teacher Coaching Robin Lake, Melissa Bowen, Allison Demeritt  Center on Reinventing Public Education  Moira McCullough, Joshua Haimson,  Brian Gill  Mathematica Policy Research  March 2012

http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/download/csr_files/pub_CMO_Strategies_Mar12.pdf

THE CHARITY COMMISSION, PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC BENEFIT-MORE COCK UP THAN CONSPIRACY?

Charity Commission will leave it up to private schools to determine public benefit

And will only act if substantive complaints  made against a school

Comment

The Sunday Times covered the recent news that the Charity Commission has backed down in a six-year battle with private schools over the tax breaks they enjoy from their charitable status. The commission, chaired by Dame Suzi Leather, who irritates many  conservatives because of her close links with the Labour party,  and  her career in the quangocracy, has announced it will no longer carry out assessments of schools to decide whether they are doing enough to provide “public benefit” under legislation passed by the last Labour government. Alan Milburn said memorably that the Charities Act will have failed if most private schools   retained their charity status. On that basis it has failed. Public benefit is at the heart of what it means to be a charity. The Charities Act 2006 requires all charities to have aims which are, demonstrably, for the public benefit. A Trustees’ Annual  report must include  ‘ a report of those activities undertaken by a charity to further its charitable purposes for the public benefit.’  Many on the left had seen the new Act as a means of attacking and fatally undermining the private sector by removing charity status. Politicians though passed the buck to the Charities Commission to define what Public Benefit actually meant in education and in schools. Its initial guidance was   a study in opacity and left schools largely in the dark and uncertain as to what they had to do to demonstrate public benefit. There was a pilot programme in which  five  schools were examined by the Commission  to see if they measured up to the new public benefit criteria. Or, as the Commission put it, ‘to illustrate how the public benefit principles identified in its guidance apply in practice’. Two of the five  schools were told that they had failed the public benefit test.  In the opinion of the Commission they ‘failed to demonstrate that they made more than minimal or tokenistic provision for the poor to benefit (identified in the Commission’s fee-charging guidance as a requirement of charity law) and so were required by the Commission to prepare plans to address this. Both schools subsequently did this to the Commission’s satisfaction.’ The Commission then came under intense pressure from private schools, who through the ISC   immediately threatened to launch a legal challenge to its interpretation of the Act (the ISC lawyers said that the Commission was making up the law as it went along). The Commission had created the perception that the number of bursaries offered by a school would provide the clearest indicator of public benefit.  This managed, simultaneously, to alienate both sectors. State schools were worried that this would provide a licence for private schools to up their game in poaching their best pupils. Private schools, on the other hand, were determined to preserve the independence of trustees to determine what measures would satisfy the public benefit requirement.  In May 2011 a judicial review was brought against the Commission’s guidance by the ISC challenging the legal basis of that guidance. The Upper Tribunal gave its judgment in October and December 2011. In short, the judgement found that the Commission had failed in its  efforts  to provide clarity on this, albeit complex, issue. The Tribunal  found that parts of the Commission’s guidance on public benefit were ‘obscure’ or ‘wrong’. The Tribunal ruled that it is for the trustees of a fee-charging charity to decide how best to meet that obligation in the circumstances of their charity (not for the Commission, the Tribunal or the courts), provided they did so in a way that any reasonable trustee would have done, and that support should not be tokenistic. The Commission says it now will leave it up to schools to decide how to provide benefits to the community and will act against them only if they receive complaints with evidence that they are abusing charitable status. The Commission is currently in the process of redrafting the guidance and aims to publish it in draft form in spring 2012. There will then be a public consultation for three months before publication of the final guidance in summer 2012.However this is spun by the Commission, it amounts to a defeat for it, in that its initial guidance was found to be inadequate, a charge that had been laid firmly at its door by private schools at  the  very beginning of the process. Its been a pretty unimpressive performance from  Commission  and was entirely avoidable.

ACADEMIES-ARE CRITICISMS JUSTIFIED?

ACADEMIES

Some criticisms-but are they justified?

Comment

There are a number of criticisms being levelled at Academies. Lets look at four.

First, they amount to privatising the state education system.  George Monbiot, the privately educated left wing commentator, recently made this claim in R4s Any Questions?. The normal definition of privatisation is that it involves transfer of government services or assets to the private sector. Wikipedia puts it as follows ‘the process of transferring ownership of a business, enterprise, agency, public service or property from the public sector (the state or government) to the private sector (businesses that operate for a private profit) or to private non-profit organizations.’ So does this apply to Academies? Clearly, not. Academies are not owned by private sector companies, nor are any of their assets. In ,fact they are required to be charities by law. Private companies can ,of course, now  support the Trusts that run Academies, just as they were able to under the last Labour government. Indeed private companies can also support local education authorities (Islington /CEA) too.  But the body running an academy school  has to be a  charitable trust. One is tempted to think that that the Government might as well privatise the system  given they are accused as having done  so already, so in a political sense the issue has already been discounted. To claim these supply side reforms amount  to privatisation is nonsense on stilts.

But Academies are selective aren’t they? Well, this is not quite so cut and dried. Quite a few state schools have always had some form of selection. Church or faith schools may ask for confirmation of attendance at a relevant place of worship. This is a form of selection and they have been accused of not taking a proper share of pupils eligible for FSM(See this weeks Guardian story). There are also grammar schools, and, this   is something of a secret,   quite a few other schools that select a proportion of their pupils on the basis of academic ability, award places on the basis of an entrance exam or a selection test. Specialist schools that award a percentage of their places (10%) to pupils with an aptitude for certain subjects may use some form of assessment or audition where appropriate. State boarding schools may interview  a child to assess their suitability to be a boarder (interviewing is not allowed for admission into any other type of state-funded school-although there are ways of getting round this-ie having school  open days which provides the school a chance to meet informally with parents and children.) As far as academies are concerned (around 50% of all secondary schools will  have academy status by the end of this parliament)  the Academies Act 2010 allows schools that already select all or some of their pupils on the basis of ability to continue to do so. It does not provide for existing academies to become selective. When a school becomes an academy, the academy trust will become the admission authority. For some schools, such as foundation and voluntary aided schools, this will mean little change, but for community schools and voluntary controlled schools the academy will need to manage its own admissions process. This will involve periodic consultation, and regularly publishing the academy’s admission arrangements but they still remain subject to the Admissions Code. Indeed the academy funding agreement requires them to be non-selective. Remember most academies started their lives providing education in disadvantaged areas. Most have high numbers of FSM pupils, and many use banding to achieve fairer intakes than many comprehensives with middle class catchments. And you can criticise Michael Gove for a few things but  surely not his commitment to disadvantaged pupils and their education which is one of  the key priorities that inform government reforms.

But what about  their  accountability? Surely without the overarching  Local Authority responsible for the school, accountability is lost. Pause for a second, and think how many local authorities have allowed badly underperforming schools to continue teaching pupils year in ,year out while either failing to intervene or intervening ineffectively? The traditional local democratic accountability regime, which can be termed ‘long’ accountability which allows officials who have presided over failure to stay in place, regardless of local election results, is hardly a panacea.  Take a look at the academy funding agreements. Through funding agreements academies are accountable to the elected national, rather than local government.   It is true ,that with so many schools directly accountable to the Secretary of State  (over 1500 schools are  now academies), there is an interesting debate to be had around the notion of local school commissioners, providing additional accountability  (which the IPPR  think tank has been looking at ),  which is on-going.  But the Ofsted accountability regime is firmly in place  and the  newly revamped  league tables  give a clearer idea of how schools are actually performing, than they did before.  And  academies are now subject to the Freedom of Information Act, which means that it is much easier to find out what they are up to and what exams their pupils are sitting.    So ,  although academies are ‘autonomous’,  they are accountable, with   accountability working at several levels . It’s also worth noting that academies are not that autonomous and very much remain part of the state system-though  their funding agreements.  They  certainly don’t have the kind of independence from politicians and officials enjoyed by schools in the independent sector.

But are academies still focused on the most disadvantaged?  Labour Academies were focused in the most disadvantaged areas and the Coalition government is now allowing outstanding schools in wealthier areas to become academies.   Some including Ed Balls argued that this was a  corruption of the original idea behind academies .  But critics forget that not all the Academies started under Labour were in the most deprived areas. Indeed, Ed Balls who gave the impression of being ambivalent about academies, (like Gordon Brown,) when he was education secretary gave academy status, as Conor Ryan has pointed out, to two highly successful secondaries that wanted to help improve weaker schools. Indeed this is an area where the new, successful academies can play a significant role in the future.

And then  there is  the issue of how academies are using their autonomy. Are they being  more innovative than peer schools that are not academies   and personalising education, making good use of technology, providing a rounded education  for  their children perhaps encouraging more positive attitudes resilience and the development of non-cognitive skills ? The suspicion is that rather a lot of schools converted not because they were in pursuit of new freedoms but they wanted the extra cash. This goes against the grain. Supply side reforms alone will not transform our system.  Structural changes  need to go hand in hand with improved teaching at the chalk face and a move away from teaching to the test  combined with  new cutting edge thinking about what education is actually for.   Interestingly the Reform think tank is shortly to publish a report on this very issue and the extent to which academies are using their new freedoms.

Note:   Total number of secondary school places in England                  3,608,970

Total Number of (wholly ie Grammar) selective school places               161,660

Percentage of places in selective schools                                                          4.5%

The three authorities with the highest percentage of places in  selective schools are Buckinghamshire 41%, Trafford 40% and Slough 37.%

 

Note 2

1,580 Schools are now academies

1,243 Schools have converted to academy status since the election, of which 578 are outstanding

37 are sponsoring 44 academies

47% of all secondary schools are academies

53% of all outstanding secondary schools are academies.

Source: Hansard 6 March

THE CASE FOR PROFIT MAKING STATE SCHOOLS?

The case for bona fide profit-making  state schools

Sahlgren champions for -profit supply side reforms and says they should not be half-hearted

Comment 

Gabriel Sahlgren, the Swedish academic, who has done work for right of centre think tank the IEA,  put a powerful case for profit making schools in the state sector  at the recent launch of a Policy Exchange report (see below)  that pushed the John Lewis  ‘social enterprise model for school management.’ The social enterprise’ schools, would be forced to reinvest 50% of any surplus in the school. Currently schools are either run by the state, by charitable not for profit   trusts or for-profit companies, the latter confined to the independent sector, though for-profit management companies can be contracted by a charitable Trust to support a state school. (There are a couple of examples of this happening).

Sahlgren  began by asking, rhetorically, why the profit motive is important. Here, he agreed entirely with the report’s conclusions. Firstly, profit provides strong incentives for schools to grow and capitalise on scale economies. Non-profit schools generally do not have these incentives. Secondly, non-profit schools have a more difficult time finding up-front capital because they cannot target investors and obtain funds in exchange for future potential profits. Thirdly, even when non-profit schools grow, they do so because of philanthropy, and there are few incentives for philanthropists to back the best schools, as evidence from California shows. In essence, in order to produce a well-functioning education market in the UK, he claimed we need a supply-side dynamic that gives parents and pupils more than just a theoretical right to choose schools. Such a supply-side dynamic requires for-profit actors as the Swedish experience shows. The Free school initiative would not have taken off there (as Anders Hutlin has confirmed on many occasions)   had it not been for the interest and engagement of the private sector- that is the private profit making sector rather than the private charitable sector.  But doesn’t the profit motive drive down quality? The short answer is no, Sahlgren claimed.  On the whole, research from America, Chile and Sweden displays either positive or null effects vis-à-vis public and non-profit schools. One study from Sweden displays a small negative effect in upper-secondary education but he says, the results are likely to be driven by other factors than the profit motive.  He would also like to emphasise that null effects are important since we are more interested in the overall systemic-level effects from competition than in specific ‘school effects’. While evidence on competition’s effects from various reforms around the world is mixed – which could be due to the fact that competitive incentives have rarely increased more than marginally in most cases, and also that it takes time before competition matures – cross-national research analysing PISA scores and focusing on long-run, systemic effects, is not: the best estimation strategies find relatively large positive effects of specifically private-school competition on PISA scores, for pupils in both private and public schools, and also that it drives down costs. In other words, private school competition gives us more bang for our buck.  However, he also wanted to  discuss the evidence from Chile,  (which was not mentioned  in the Policy Exchange report). Chile is the only country apart from Sweden that allows for-profit schools to participate in a universal voucher scheme. And just as in Sweden, many have blamed these schools for producing more segregation rather than increasing quality. Is this true? No. He says. The most recent research demonstrates that for-profit schools that do not charge top-up fees enrol more disadvantaged pupils than non-profit and public schools. What about performance? Here the evidence is a bit more complicated: for-profit chain schools perform better than public and Protestant schools, while there are no systematic differences between for-profit chain schools, Catholic schools and non-sectarian, non-profit schools. Among pupils in eighth grade, however, for-profit chain schools also out-compete non-sectarian, non-profit schools. Small, independent for-profit schools, on the other hand, perform on a par with public and Protestant ones, but lower than the other types of for-profit and non-profit schools. Yet, the evidence is still clear: nothing indicates that the profit motive per se is dangerous. If anything, the opposite is true. While there have been, and continue to be, many flaws in the Chilean school choice model, the profit motive is not one of them.  What about the Social Enterprise model? He argues that while it is a step in the right direction, it is not the best policy option available. A duty to reinvest 50% of surplus would make it more difficult to attract investors to support new schools, or expansions of existing ones, since it means much higher risk taking. The corollary is that the sought-after supply-side dynamic might not materialise or at the very least be significantly diluted. This is not a risk we should take, Sahlgren argues.

Secondly, he understands that the social enterprise model is supposed to be a political solution, but  wonders whether critics of profits would be satisfied since they do not claim that it is okay if 50% of profits go to what they argue are exploitative capitalists. Instead, they argue that all money should be reinvested. He  therefore questions whether the proposal makes for-profit schools more politically palatable.  But aren’t there dangers in producing a more competitive framework in education, which for-profit schools are supposed to do? Yes, there certainly are, he claims. Evidence from reforms all over the world indicates that while it is relatively easy to make schools compete, it is more difficult to make them compete by increasing quality. An example is Sweden, which combines an extremely decentralised grading system – where individual teachers set the grades – with a heavily centralised admissions system that depends almost entirely on those grades. This has produced perverse incentives among rational parents and pupils to seek out the schools and teachers who give the highest grades for the least effort. A more relevant example for the UK is the danger of undifferentiated funding. Since the real cost of educating a pupil is a function of his/her background and ability, funding should be systematically differentiated based on pupil background and prior ability. If it is not, there is a danger that schools compete by attracting richer and more high-performing pupils rather than by raising quality. While the pupil premium is a step forward in this respect, it is not sufficient.  The upshot is that if schools are given opportunities to compete by other means than quality, they are likely to do so. When we allow commercial interests to enter the publicly funded education sector, it is therefore crucial that we also promote a healthy framework that harnesses incentives and channels them towards improving quality.

In conclusion, he agrees with  American Eric Hanushek, one of the world’s foremost education economists, that the key problem in today’s education systems is that there are no incentives to improve pupil performance. For-profit schools are not sufficient to improve the incentive structure. Many other complementary reforms are necessary, and  he will  discuss these in detail in his  upcoming paper for the Institute of Directors. He also mentioned the importance of a robust regulatory and accountability framework within which profit making schools would have to operate.  He argues that for-profit schools are but one important element in a coherent reform package designed to transform the current education system into an education market. He is aware of the political difficulties involved in allowing businesses to participate in a publicly funded education sector. However, he concluded that if there is anything the past 30 years of school choice research has shown, it is that half-hearted reforms are unlikely to generate more than meagre gains.

Note Graham Stuart, the Commons Education Select Committee Chair, was surprisingly downbeat about profit makers role in state education at the launch of the report , and while accepting that they had  a role in running  support services he claimed  that the most successful education systems in the world, such as South Korea, had no need for the profit motive. Actually he didn’t choose a great example in support of his case. South Koreas system relies heavily on  a massive profitmaking after school  tuition industry  to raise pupils to the  appropriate level to access Higher Education, because of the deficiencies in  their state schools.

 

The Government is currently not prepared to allow profit making state schools.Critics claim that the school  system, because of the introduction of  ’autonomous’ state schools  is being privatised . Privatisation is accepted to mean the transfer of ownership of state enterprises and assets  to private ownership . This, demonstrably,  has not happened in our state school system.

Additional Source;Institute of Economic Affairs

Policy Exchange- Social Enterprise Schools: A potential profit-sharing model for the state-funded school system 2012

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/social-enterprise-schools