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.

MPs ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE- WORRIED ABOUT SCHOOLS FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

They are not the only ones

Comment

The Public Accounts Select Committee, chaired by Margaret Hodge MP,  in its latest report ‘Department for Education: accountability and oversight of education and children’s services’ expresses its concern ‘ about the Department’s (DFE) ability to pick up warning signs of improper spending or poor value for money for the taxpayer.’

The report said that  it  is not clear whether existing monitoring and accountability mechanisms do enough to flag up concerns that should be investigated. For example, some academies have paid very high salaries to their senior staff and incurred expenditure of questionable value. Where reports emerge of individual failings, the Department must consider whether they indicate wider problems with financial management and governance, and deal with the underlying system-wide causes.’

The Committees adds that ‘The Department must set out how it will ensure local monitoring mechanisms promptly pick up any concerns about the regularity, propriety and value for money of spending within all schools. At present too much reliance is placed on whistle-blowers. The Department and its agencies must ensure that they have arrangements in place to address concerns identified by whistle-blowers, but it is also crucial that systems are sufficiently robust to enable those responsible to identify problems early.’

The Committee also said that ‘The Department has only a limited understanding of why some local authority maintained schools are persistently in deficit or surplus. The Department needs to undertake work to better understand the causes and consequences of persistent deficits and excessive surpluses. It should analyse the extent of deficits and surpluses among those schools under local authority control, and work with the Department for Communities and Local Government to get local authorities that have failed to resolve long-standing financial problems in their schools to address these.’

The Committee is also worried about who is responsible for securing value for money within the schools system.  The report states ‘Responsibility for value for money is shared by the Department with the Department for Communities and Local Government, individual schools, academy trusts, local authorities and the YPLA. However, the specific responsibilities of each for achieving value for money, and how they interact to drive value for money, are not clear.’  Recent scandals involving the mismanagement of school funds, most recently in Lincolnshire, cast a spotlight on schools financial accountability. Critics of the academies scheme say that the increased autonomy these schools enjoy will increase the instances of financial mismanagement.

However, most of the cases of financial mismanagement discovered, so far, involve maintained schools, under local authority control.  Three  heads ,for example,  have  been suspended  recently by Brent Council over separate allegations of financial mismanagement. So it would be unwise, surely, to use this as a stick with which to beat academies.

Local authorities have not been publishing,  for a while now ,systematic data to demonstrate how they are monitoring schools’ financial management and intervening where necessary when they have concerns. It is true that many in education  believe that   a  much brighter light should be shone on how schools manage their finances. Weak financial management and weak academic performance often go hand in hand.  And, there is a lot of taxpayers money tied up in schools. Being cavalier with taxpayers money is now frowned on, or at least in principle . The trend, if anything, is for much less scrutiny and  a reduction in the bureaucratic burden   placed on schools.  An example , from January this year , Ofsted’s new inspection regime no longer includes a value-for-money assessment.  So, it will be interesting to see how the government reacts to this report. There  are,   on the face of it, conflicting forces at work. The drive to give schools more autonomy, with less red tape and a lighter regulatory regime  is on one side  of the equation-with the desire for   greater transparency, accountability, the pursuit of best value and  cutting waste, on the other. Can a compromise be found?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmpubacc/1957/195704.htm

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.

THE BARNFIELD FEDERATION

THE BARNFIELD FEDERATION

Pioneering group of mixed schools

Comment

The Guardian, in an article last  week, reviewed the state of the government’s education reforms. Amid all the normal stuff about free schools and academies, and the latters performance, it looked at the Barnfield group of schools, which is pretty radical in its own right. In Luton, it has established a group of schools that in effect recreates the role of the council. A local cluster has been formed, which began  in 2007, that includes two (south and west) academies, a free school and a studio school, which specialises in vocational education. The two secondary schools were   significantly underperforming. However, in under three academic years, GCSE results have more than tripled in both academies and from a position of special measures, they are now judged as ‘Outstanding’ and ‘Good’ by Ofsted. These are the highest results achieved in the history of these schools. The Barnfield Federation – which hopes in future to run schools for profit – has the collective financial muscle to commission services that all its schools need. But within its cluster, there is considerable diversity. Its studio school, for example  open since September 2010, is the first of its kind in England: a small school for 14- to 18-year-olds that leans strongly towards vocational education. The other is a former prep school, Moorlands, which became a free school last September, and where the head describes the ethos as a “high standard of education with small classes”. The Federations Vision is “To be Britain’s highest performing federation, where customer and community needs are met, students are happy, successful and reach their full potential” The atmospheres in the two schools are sharply contrasting, says the Guardian.It reported that   ‘On a recent visit to the studio school, a group of teenagers were studying the barest bones of a Shakespeare play. The storyline of Romeo and Juliet had been cut up into single-line plot points, and the children were busy trying to assemble them into the right order. The school has a florist, gift shop, hair salon and restaurant attached, giving pupils work experience. It forges close links with local businesses including Monarch Airlines, preparing children for jobs in the retail, hospitality or service industries. At Moorlands primary school, housed in a cream-coloured Victorian villa, seven- and eight-year-olds are learning French. “Qu’est-ce que c’est?” says the teacher, displaying a picture card. “Le fromage – French people like lots of cheese.”  At another picture, a girl shyly tries to pronounce “chocolat”. It doesn’t come out quite right and the teacher prompts her: “Just try, we’re going to try again.” The teacher enunciates: “Sho-ko-la … très bien.”  At Moorlands, acting head Chris Sillars said that although it is now state-funded, the “culture and ethos has remained the same – maintaining the ethos is key to what we’re doing”.  Mark Cronin, principal of the studio school, outlines three “pathways” that children in Luton’s schools might take. “Pathway A are your A* standard ones. They are your high flyers; the best choice for them is probably the English bacc [baccalaureate – good GCSEs in English, maths, history or geography, two sciences and a foreign language]. They have the choice of doing single sciences, languages, humanities. “Pathway B children will have the opportunity of doing a language, humanity, and a vocational subject, but not the English bacc. “Pathway C children are those who probably haven’t achieved quite at the national average. Everyone does their core subjects still at GCSE, but they might be steered towards vocational BTecs,” he says.

More schools are entering partnership arrangements with other schools in the form of formal or loose federations, trusts or chains. There is a growing trend, of which Barnfield is a part, to build high aspiration and attainment on a multi-school rather than  an individual institution basis.

Note: The Federation is led by the Barnfield Education Partnership Trust – members of the Federation include Barnfield College (16 years upwards), Barnfield South and West Academies (11-18 years), the country’s first FE sponsored Studio School (14-18 years enterprise academy) and Barnfield Moorlands Primary School (4-11 years).  There are further academies joining the Federation this year

http://college.barnfield.ac.uk/Default.aspx

WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE PRIMARY PLACES SHORTFALL?

WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE PRIMARY PLACES SHORTFALL

Where is the funding to create new capacity?

Comment

The Government will have to do something about the chronic shortage of Primary school places.In Greater London alone, primary schools are at an average of 110% of capacity.  The problem has crept up on the DFE and it has only belatedly acknowledged the extent and scale of the problem. Figures show that more than 800,000 extra places will be needed in state-funded nursery and primary schools by the end of the decade. Demand for primary places is projected to increase by 434,000 by 2018, with acute shortages projected in cities such as London, Manchester and Bristol. According to official forecasts, the number of under-11s in the education system will rise from 4m to 4.82m by 2020 – taking the primary school population to its highest level since the early 70s. New free schools (so far just  24 are up and running)aren’t always located where demand is greatest.

Significantly increasing capacity over the medium term is not something that can be avoided. But public funding for this is in short supply.  There are three options in terms of funding the new capacity. Public capital, PFI and straight private capital. The Government looks likely to exhaust the first two options before they move onto the third, because of the perceived political risks associated with it.  But how long will they take in holding out against straight private cash, not least because PFI is  now showing  up on the books?  Clearly accessing private capital is politically problematic, but with other options limited   and so long as its seen as funding for additional schools, then maybe its manageable. One thing is for sure much more thought has got to go in to working out where new Free schools need to be established to meet surging demand. Establishing them in areas where demand is not greatest will not make much sense and will look wasteful.

Note 

In the Autumn Statement 2011, the Treasury announced an additional £600 million of capital basic need funding for schools in England. On 11 April 2012, the Secretary of State announced the allocation of this funding for local authorities. The £600m will be allocated to those authorities that show a shortfall in places as at 2013/14. 110 authorities will have a proportionate share of the £600m, based on data from the 2011 schools capacity forecast. Some  experts  believe that government funding  plans fall far short of what will be  needed  to cover the additional places that will be required. There are also concerns that many  Primary schools will increase very significantly in size, which will be unpopular with parents.Independent schools may see this as a marketing  opportunity as small class size and good pupil teacher ratios  are seen as   key attractions of  the independent sector.

FORMER BLAIR AIDE- HYMAN- SETS OUT VISION FOR A NEW FREE SCHOOL

HYMANS VISION FOR A  NEW FREE SCHOOL

Blair adviser sets up Free school

Comment

Peter Hyman, a former adviser to Tony Blair, is opening a new Free School – School 21 – in east London this September. He has been helped in this project by Oli de Botton, a Teach First graduate , Hackney Councillor and former employee of CFBT Education Trust. Hyman recently gave a presentation to the National Education Trust explaining his vision for the school.

Hyman has irritated many on the left  who see Free schools as a Tory policy, although there are  some in Labour ranks who support the policy, including former schools minister Lord Adonis, and Conor Ryan, David Blunkett’s adviser ,when he was education secretary. The shadow education secretary, Stephen Twigg, will tolerate Free schools, providing they do no  harm  to neighbouring schools and he  has no plans  to get rid of them,  should  Labour win power.

The school was given its name to denote Hyman’s determination to look ahead to 21st century teaching and learning styles.  Mike Baker in his blog helpfully reported on the presentation.

School 21 will put a much greater emphasis than usual on speaking and listening skills, or oracy, which – as Hyman argues – is greatly under-emphasised in this country compared with other successful education systems. Hyman  also said he felt many state school pupils were at a disadvantage in university admissions because of a lack of oracy skills.

It will also offer a wide variety of learning styles, mixing round-table seminars, specialist lectures, traditional classroom teaching, one-to-one tuition and mentoring, and project-based working. Hyman cited his own sources of inspiration: Rich Tasks from Queensland, Australia; the Harkness Method of discussion-based learning from New Hampshire, USA; and Project-Based Learning from San Diego, USA.  One of the tasks that Hyman acknowledges he faces is a need for a ‘new type of teacher’, someone who is comfortable as a subject-specialist but is also able to be a one-to-one coach, lecturer and facilitator. He defended  opening a new Free School in Stratford, east London, on the basis that there was a basic need for more school places there, so he would not be undermining existing schools. ‘I would not have done this in an area where I was just taking pupils from other schools’, he said. He also believes there is ‘a strong case for teacher-led schools’.

He accepted there was an issue about how – if it is successful – a Free School could scale-up its activities to reach a wider group of children. Responding to questions, he also said that current assessment regimes could threaten innovation if it does not conform with national expectations, as could Ofsted inspections. He said we need to ‘find a richer way of assessing children’ and argued for Ofsted to set up a branch that was not just about monitoring schools but would spread good, innovative practice.

More about school 21 here: www.school21.org/

Note

10 books from Peter Hyman’s journey from Downing Street to Free School:

Culture & Pedagogy by Robin Alexander

Austerity Britain, 1945-1951 by David Kynaston

5 Minds for the Future by Howard Gardner

Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

To Reach the Clouds by Phillipe Petit

Talent is Overrated by Geoff Colvin

The Unfinished Revolution: How Modernisers Saved the Labour Party by Philip Gould

The Little Book of Thunks by Ian Gilbert

1 out of 10 by Peter Hyman

Mindset: The New Psychology of Success by Carol Dweck

A full transcript of Peter Hyman’s Lecture will be available shortly at the NET website.

http://www.nationaleducationtrust.net/index.php

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

ARE ACADEMIES SUCCEEDING?

ARE ACADEMIES SUCCEEDING?

Government stung by Observers allegation that Academies are underperforming compared with other state schools

Comment

Last weekend’s Observer made a number of claims about Academy performance. Academies, it said, are under-performing compared with other state schools, raising doubts over the reform programme being pursued by the education secretary. It alleged that figures show that, while 60% of pupils in non-academy schools attained five A* to C grade GCSEs last year, only 47% did so in the 249 sponsored academies. The progress that pupils achieve over time is also lower in academies than in non-academy schools, with 65% of those in academies making expected progress in English in the year leading to the 2011 GCSE examinations, compared with 74% in the community, foundation and voluntary-aided schools that make up the rest of the state sector.

Ministers were sufficiently irritated by the Observer piece that they instructed the DfE to formulate a detailed reply (or rebuttal). The essence of the reply was that the Observer was not comparing like with like. In fact all the Observer had succeeded in doing was to provide what DFE termed  ’a very poor snapshot analysis’. The DfE said ‘it’s ridiculous to lump in the lowest performing schools which may have only become Academies five months ago, with ones which have been established for years. Much of their analysis was based on a simplistic comparison between all schools and Academies – nearly all of which were previously failing local authority maintained schools. As Academies are having to recover from such a low base such a comparison is nonsensical.’  The Observer claim that; Academies with poor results in 2008 have improved no faster than maintained schools with poor results over the same period is based on an analysis  that excludes the most successful academies that opened between 2001-2007 and which had already seen huge improvements. Research by the LSE found results were strongest for schools that have been academies for longer.’  The DFE adds that the analysis of progress measures is limited because the league tables consider progress of pupils over the full five years in secondary school. All pupils in Academies will have spent the majority of their time in the underperforming predecessor school not the Academy.  Nor, added the DFE, did the Observer ‘take into account spill-over effects – e.g. local authority schools improving because an Academy has opened nearby (as the London School of Economics has suggested is happening). They have used a narrow way of comparing schools, looking purely at the Free School Meal intake. The Government and the NAO actually use a wider range of data to create comparator statistics. We look at FSM rates, previous results and prior attainment levels of pupils. This means we are genuinely comparing like for like.’

Here is the government’s official position on Academy success:

‘This year, yet again, Academies’ GCSE results improved by nearly twice the level seen across all maintained schools

Attendance figures at academies are rising faster than in other schools, and the number of NEETS are falling faster in academies than other schools. (NAO report)

The London Schools of Economics found that Academies improve faster than comparator schools even when controlling for pupil intake and the use of GCSE “equivalent” qualifications. They also found that Academies effect helped raise standards in other local schools

The attainment rate for FSM pupils in Academies improved by 8.0 percentage points between 2009 and 2010. This more than double the improvement rate recorded in comparable schools (3.1 percentage points) and also much higher than the national improvement rate for FSM pupils (4.3 percentage points).  Results in sponsored academies are generally higher for those that have been open the longest.  In 2011, the proportion of pupils achieving 5+A*-C including English and maths was 42.7% in sponsored academies open for one year and 52.0% in those open for five or more years. (DfE research)’

Note

Nobody doubts how popular with parents many, indeed most, Academies are.

There are eight applicants for every place at Mossbourne Academy, which eight years ago was described as the “worst school in Britain” when it was still Hackney Downs. A total of 1,587 children have applied for 200 places.

Ark academy schools have seen a rise in applications, with six children per place at Ark Academy in Wembley, a rise of 12 per cent, and four per place at Burlington Danes in Hammersmith, an increase of nine per cent.

The Bolingbroke Academy in Battersea, which opens in September, has five pupils chasing every place.

West London Free School in Hammersmith, which opened in September, has seen nine children applying for each place.

Observer

http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a00204226/response-to-the-observer-article

CHARTER SCHOOL SURVEY IN MILWAUKEE-MIXED RESULTS

 

Milwaukee Independent Charter Schools Study:  Report on One Year of Student Growth

Not much difference in performance between Charters and Public schools

Comment

Supporters of Charter schools see the potential of high-quality charter schools to help transform the education system by raising achievement levels, closing achievement gaps, providing competitive pressure to traditional public schools and stimulating greater innovation.

The first evaluations of charter school achievement seemed to suggest that charter schools performed no better than traditional public schools, on average. The Charter Schools Dust-Up, a meta-analysis of early charter schools studies, found that students in charter schools scored about the same or sometimes worse on standardized tests compared to students in traditional public schools (Carnoy et al. 2005). However, more recent reviews of panel studies evaluating charter school achievement contain findings which suggest results are more mixed and more positive (in favour of Charters) than the findings for example  of Carnoy et al. (2005). The problem with the Charter movement generally is the variation in the quality of Charter schools-some are very good indded – the KIPP Chain etc-others are clearly no better in terms of performance than public schools. (Although it is worth remembering that Charter schools tend to be in the most disadvantaged areas and have, for the most part, less per capita funding than the average public school)  Supporters  posit that giving charter schools more flexibility over such practices  as hiring teachers, budgeting school funds, and selecting curricula will lead to these positive outcomes (Finn, Manno and Vanourek 2001; Payne and Knowles 2009). Further, through a system of accountability, they expect to reduce the number of low-quality charter schools that are not able to meet the standards they agreed to in their charters (basically contracts). Indeed there has been a major push to tighten up vetting procedures and contracts in states-with each state having its own charter laws.

In addition charter school have proved popular with parents, particularly from minority communities.

The aim of this particular evaluation was to assess the effectiveness of independent charter schools in promoting two desirable student outcomes: student achievement growth and educational attainment.  This report provides findings comparing the first year of achievement growth (2006 to 2007) of students attending independent charters to the achievement growth of a group of matched comparison students attending  Milwaukee Public Schools.  The report states ‘Using regression models that produce the most precise estimates of 2007  achievement, our comparisons of students in our sample of independent  Milwaukee charters to matched MPS students exhibit few significant effects of attending a charter school on achievement growth in either maths or  reading.  The exception is in one of our three models for mathematics gains.  When we control for prior achievement, and not for student characteristics or switching schools, students in charter schools gain approximately .105 standard deviations more in maths achievement than students in MPS.  Further analysis reveals that the positive impact of independent charter schools on average in maths is concentrated primarily at the lower end of the achievement distribution; these schools were estimated to improve the maths achievement of students at the 25th percentile of the achievement  distribution by .109 standard deviations. There are no differences in any models in reading. There are differences, however, when we disaggregate the charter impacts  by charter school type. Conversion independent charters, schools which converted from private schools, hold an advantage in math and reading achievement.  Prior to controlling for both student characteristics and  if students switched schools, students in conversion charters make .170  standard deviations greater gains in math achievement compared to similar  students in MPS schools. Once controlling for student characteristics and school switching, the effect is reduced to .114 standard deviations.   Similarly, in reading, students in conversion charters make .124 standard deviations more gains than MPS students without controlling for student  characteristics and switching schools. By adding these factors the effect is reduced to .054 standard deviations. At the same time, students in non -conversion, independent charter schools, schools which began as new charter schools or start-ups, achieve gains that are no different from their  counterparts in MPS.’  School switching the report noted  has a  negative impact on student achievement gains .

Again both pro and anti -charter campaigners  will  draw some comfort from this survey. It  is hard to argue though that charters are damaging pupils prospects in Milwaukee.

John F. Witte; Patrick J. Wolf; Alicia Dean; Deven Carlson School Choice Demonstration Programme CDP Milwaukee Evaluation ; Report #21 — Version 1.1; December 2010

http://www.uark.edu/ua/der/SCDP/Milwaukee_Eval/Report_21.pdf

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS SUPPORT FOR STATE SCHOOLS-WHAT’S THE FUTURE?

Independent schools and support for state schools

The Government wants the independent sector to support Academies

But the mood music needs changing

Comment

A leading think tank hosted a lunch seminar this week on the developing relationship between independent schools and state schools against the backdrop of David Cameron’s  recent very public encouragement for independent schools to support state schools through the academies scheme . Indeed there was a Downing street meeting recently on this very issue. Lord Adonis the architect of the academies scheme has long championed greater support from the independent sector for the academies scheme and used  emotive language to get the point across-referencing the Berlin Wall, apartheid and so on. He even claims that independent schools have a moral obligation to offer such support. Adonis in a 2011 speech said “ Successful private schools ought to be prominent among the sponsors for the next  wave of academies. Everything about academies is in the DNA of the successful  private school: independence, excellence, innovation, social mission. And the benefit  is not only to the wider community, it is also to the private schools themselves,  whose mission is enlarged, whose relative isolation is ended, and whose social  engagement, beyond the families of the better-off, is transformed.”

Given that the seminar operated under Chatham house rules I cannot give the source of the following comments and observations but the seminar attracted some leading heads  from both independent schools and  state schools, including Academies  .

What is clear is that there are divisions in the independent sector over what, if anything, to do to support the state sector. Many schools already have extensive links with neighbouring state schools and around thirty independent schools provide some form of support for an Academy. What has caused resentment is the hectoring tone of politicians telling independent schools and the governors and trustees what to do. It is after all their decision as to how they will deliver public benefit. Support for Academies  is certainly one option but there are a range of others –bursaries, specialist teaching support, access to equipment and facilities, advice on  governance, curriculum advice and support , exam method, summer schools, pupil swaps, community support  etc.     The feeling was that the tone of the debate and perceived hostility from most political quarters towards the independent sector hardly establishes a context within which  a constructive debate can take place, rather it encourages a siege mentality (particularly given the additional antics of the Charity Commission.)   One point rammed home at the meeting was that one of the key reasons for the independent sectors success was its independence, and , specifically, independent governance. So called ‘ autonomous’ and ‘ free schools’ are not actually free in the same way as independent schools are   and are still subject to  significant bureaucratic restrictions , constraints and stipulations in their funding agreements.  However, it was also pointed out that governance was a key area where independent schools really might help  ‘autonomous ‘ state schools-ie how to use their autonomy effectively and what it could mean in practice  so harnessing  the aspirational ethos of the independent sector . There could also be more exchanges between governing boards, so independents have state school Heads on  their governing bodies and vice-versa.

But it was also clear that most independent schools are keen to have greater meaningful contact  with state schools and there can be demonstrable shared benefits  from such contacts. Every independent school that has an arrangement with an Academy agreed that this relationship brought mutual benefits. And state schools can offer expertise and know- how in particular areas-not least in adapting to big resource challenges, encouraging leadership at every level-adding value and getting the best out of challenging pupils and so on. Indeed, one independent Head said that much of the really innovative thinking going on was happening in the state sector, suggesting perhaps, some complacency in the independent sector

There seemed to be agreement that the real problem with our education system is not the fact that a relatively small percentage of pupils are educated privately but in the long tail of significant underachievers in the state sector, ie  the bottom 20-25% cohort. They are the big challenge and  a drag on the system and there seems to be an assumption that Academies are the answer to addressing this problem, although evidence is not yet clear on this.

It was also remarked that rather too much is expected of the independent sector based on wrong assumptions. It educates just 7% of the school population and most schools operate on tight margins, with small surpluses. Large endowments are limited to a few.  So the idea of supporting an academy just on practical grounds with limited resources  is daunting and hard to sell to fee paying parents.  There was a suggestion that those organisations responsible for representing the sector ISC,HMC etc  might  provide centralised support  to schools wanting to get involved with Academies but it is clear that thinking in this area is undeveloped and these organisations  have ,as yet, shown no indication that they would want to get involved. (joint approaches and action from these bodies is rare).

It was agreed ,though, that the aim for any academy engagement must be for it to be cash neutral. You cant ask hard pressed fee paying  parents to fork out additional money  to support engagement with the state sector, whatever its perceived merits. Raise funds separately so  that  the support operation is ring- fenced.  And ,of course, don’t rule out pro-bono support because, it was agreed, some of the simplest most straightforward advice can pay the biggest dividends in return.

My view is that most independent schools want to knock down perceived barriers between the sectors and agree that there are mutual benefits at stake but this is a view that is not always reciprocated in the state sector. Support for Academies is certainly one  mutually rewarding  route and maximises public benefit in a way that bursaries clearly don’t. (indeed by removing the brightest from a state school you can damage that school) But Academy engagement carries some risks, reputational and otherwise, and is by no means the only way that schools can fulfil their public benefit requirement. Academy engagement will suit some schools but not others. If the government seriously wants more independent schools involved it should help them  more in practical ways, for example by providing a matchmaking service,  rather than  hectoring them claiming that there is a moral imperative involved, which is entirely counter-productive and  just bad politics.