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.

ROOTED IN READING PROGRAMME-AN EVALUATION

The Rooted in Reading Programme- Improves reading levels, skills and enjoyment

Comment 

A report out  last week, published by CfBT Education Trust, looks at the impact of the  Rooted in Reading programme . ‘Rooted in reading’ is a reading promotion project offering both  primary and secondary school  pupils a suite of 12  reading ‘passports’ to encourage reading for pleasure. The passports encourage the reading of a variety of text types and aim to expand the reader’s literary and non-literary experience. They cover the whole range of reading levels from  pre-school children sharing their first books with parents and carers, through to high-achieving sixth-form students.

The report finds that complementary incentives can help children to develop a healthy appetite for reading by rewarding their success. The ‘Rooted in reading’ programme passports improve students’ reading levels, stamina and enjoyment of reading, and contribute to the improvement of their reading skills.

After reading a book, children complete an entry that takes the form of a short review in their passport. The student’s teacher, school or public librarian can then stamp their passport with the project’s tree logo to endorse their reading.

This study explored the impact of the specific reading promotion project (namely ‘Rooted in reading’) based  on survey responses from a sample of 46 schools in Lincolnshire (16 primary, 28 secondary and one special)  and Derbyshire (one secondary) which made use of the passports. The sample surveyed for this research  report included only users or facilitators of the ‘Rooted in reading’ project.

The DCSF publication: Getting Back on Track – Pupils who make slow progress in English, Mathematics and Science in Key Stage 3 highlighted several areas that schools  need to address in order to engage and extend their students as readers. These include:  providing opportunities to discuss students’ reading habits, self-identification of students’reading abilities and capabilities, referrals to texts that will stimulate and extend reading  ability, recommendations for wider reading, opportunities to read for enjoyment in a  supportive environment, awareness that all types of reading count – not just fiction, and  guidance on making independent decisions in relation to reading material.

With this knowledge, the initial passport was created during 2008, the National Year of Reading, with the aim of increasing students’ reading of a variety of text types, including fiction, non-fiction, newspapers, plays and poetry. After the creation and use of this initial passport, it soon became apparent that this one design could not meet the needs of all  primary and secondary school students, so new passports were designed. To date, over  200,000 reading passports, in 12 different designs aimed at distinct target groups, have  been requested and distributed to primary, secondary and special schools in Lincolnshire  and Rutland.

Key Findings

Schools using ‘Rooted in reading’ saw increases in attainment

In primary schools that made extensive use of reading passports, the percentage of students gaining Level 4 or higher in the Key Stage 2 reading SATs rose by 4.4 percentage points between 2007 and 2009.

‘Rooted in reading’ has increased the amount of reading children do

Both teachers and students reported that the passports have increased the amount of  reading that students do, and also, importantly, students’ enjoyment of reading; 75 per  cent of students surveyed reported that the passports have had a positive or strongly positive impact on their enjoyment of reading.

The wider impact of ‘Rooted in reading’

As well as the positive impact on the quality and quantity of students’ reading, the  research revealed a wider impact within the school community. Altogether, 68 per cent of  teachers reported a positive or strongly positive impact on teaching in their school, and  87 per cent noticed the same results in relation to the use of reading resources within the  ,school. In addition, just under half of the teachers (46 per cent) felt that the passports have had a positive or strongly positive impact on students’ use of public libraries

 

The future of ‘Rooted in reading’

Analysis of survey responses suggests that the factors most likely to make the passports successful are:

• Involvement of other teachers and the headteacher (for example by talking about ‘Rooted in reading’ in assemblies, taking an interest in the passports, asking about progress)

• Involvement of the public library

• Extrinsic rewards (stamping, certificates etc), although these work better in some  settings than in others. Generally the impact seemed to lessen as the children involved  got older; younger readers particularly liked the stamping element and obtaining the  certificates and badges.

‘Rooted in reading passports: Are they an effective way of promoting reading?’ Research report, Steve Willshaw-CfBT Education Trust- April 2012

Note-In September 2002, CfBT began a ten-year partnership with Lincolnshire County Council. The main aim was to support the school improvement agenda in Lincolnshire schools.

The contract has been expanded to include the management of  a number of services for  the County Council, and has now been extended to 2017. The Lincolnshire School Improvement Service (LSIS) has overall responsibility for the governance, leadership, learning and workforce development in schools and settings. This includes the monitoring, support and challenge provided to these establishments to raise the standards and improve the well-being of children and young people in  Lincolnshire.

CFBT Education Trust Report

PHONICS-AND THE SCREENING TEST

Synthetic Phonics and the screening check

Test rolling out this year         

Comment

Despite the best efforts of teachers and parents, last year 15% of  pupils did not reach the expected level in reading at the end of Key  Stage 1. At the end of Key Stage 2, 16% of pupils were below level 4 in reading, and 8% of pupils were below level . The Government says that the evidence shows that systematic teaching of synthetic phonics is the best way to drive up standards in reading.  Nick Gibb, the schools minister, has been a long time advocate of synthetic phonics.

The Rose Review (2006) concluded that: High quality systematic phonics offers the best and most direct route to becoming skilled  readers;  Phonic work is also ‘essential’ for the development of writing, especially spelling. The so called Clackmannanshire research project(2005) aimed to compare the effectiveness of synthetic phonics with  analytic phonics in teaching reading and spelling in around 300 children of Primary age in  Scotland. The much cited research concluded that children who were taught with a synthetic phonics  programme made more progress in reading and spelling than children in the other groups.

Nick Gibbs view is ‘Phonics is the most effective way for children to read words, and parents and the public should  have confidence that children have grasped this crucial skill. Phonics is a prerequisite for  children to become effective readers, but it is not an end in itself. Children should always be taught phonics as part of a language rich curriculum, so that they develop their wider reading  skills at the same time.’

The Government  has developed  a  phonics screening check. It has  been designed to confirm that children are able to decode using phonics to an appropriate  standard by the end of Year 1, and to identify those pupils who need additional support. The  check aims to provide parents and teachers with the reassurance they need that each child has  learnt the basic code of the language. Pupils taking the test must read aloud a list of 20 words and 20 “non-words” to a teacher. The “non-words” ensure that children are decoding and not repeating words they have learnt already

 

The test is due to be rolled out nationally this year (2012) – the cost of the policy has not been released although the trial is costing £250,000. The screening check  was piloted in a representative sample of approximately 300  schools in  June 2011.

It is expected to take about five to ten minutes per pupil and the results for each pupil will be given to parents. The school’s results will be recorded on RaiseOnline and available to Ofsted for use in inspections but will not be published in performance tables. National and local authority results will be reported.

Guidance on the tests says that the policy is aimed at encouraging schools to pursue a rigorous phonics programme but that this does not mean schools should delay teaching pupils wider literacy and comprehension skills.

The DfE is issuing three pieces of guidance for schools in relation to administering the year 1 phonics screening check. The first is the assessment and reporting arrangements (ARA) which explains the statutory requirements for administering the check in 2012. The second is a check administration guide and the third is a video version of this guide. These guides are more bespoke to the nature of the check and they refer to the responsibility of schools to ensure provision is made to meet the needs of all children with special educational needs. One of the reasons for producing a video version the DFE says is that this medium can most clearly provide advice to teachers administering the check to pupils with speech, language and communication needs.

The Year 1 phonics screening check is ‘ designed to identify children who need help with decoding using phonics at an early stage in their schooling. The Government want as many children as possible to access the assessment, including those with special educational needs.’

The Standards and Testing Agency is currently analysing all of the data from the pilot and will provide a technical evaluation of the Year 1 phonics screening check, including information relating to Ofqual’s common assessment criteria of validity, reliability, minimising bias, comparability and manageability. The technical report will include a dedicated section on the experience of children with special educational needs, including those with speech, language and communication needs. The Department intends the report to be published in spring 2012.

The screening test though has been controversial. The Guardian reported that ‘ For Greg Brooks, emeritus professor of education at the University of Sheffield, and an advocate of phonics whose research is cited by the government, the test is an “abomination”, partly because it would occur too late in year 1 for teachers to identify pupils who need help as problems develop. Much better, he said, would be to get teachers to identify the minority of pupils needing help by the middle of year 1, and direct resources to these children. He says: “This is a huge sledgehammer approach: what’s the point of testing 600,000 six-year-olds in order to identify the 100,000 pupils or fewer who need help, when these pupils should be obvious to their classroom teachers much earlier anyway?”

Brooks says the technical work needed to develop and standardise the test makes it potentially expensive, the UKLA describing it as “enormously costly [and] exceptionally hard to justify in a period of financial restrictions”.

Johnston, R.S. and Watson, J.E. (2005) The Effects of Synthetic Phonics Teaching on Reading  and Spelling Attainment: A seven year longitudinal study. The Scottish Executive.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/02/20682/52383

 

DO SMALL CLASS SIZES HELP PERFORMANCE?

DO SMALL CLASS SIZES HELP PERFORMANCE?

At the Primary level yes probably and small classes help disadvantaged pupils

But evidence less clear post Primary

Comment

Well, yes, small class sizes, according to a recent study by a Harvard Professor, do help, certainly in primary  education.

Wishing to obtain data on the effectiveness of reduced class size before committing additional funds,  as the Guardian recently highlighted,the Tennessee legislature in the USA authorized a four-year study in which results obtained in kindergarten, first, second, and third grade classrooms of 13 to 17 pupils were compared with those obtained in classrooms of 22 to 25 pupils and in classrooms of this larger size where the teacher was assisted by a paid aide. Both standardized and curriculum-based tests were used to assess and compare the performance of some 6,500 pupils in about 330 classrooms at approximately 80 schools in the areas of reading, mathematics, and basic study skills. After four years, it was clear that smaller classes did produce substantial improvement in early learning and cognitive studies and that the effect of small class size on the achievement of minority children was initially about double that observed for majority children, but in later years, it was about the same.  The second phase of the project, called the Lasting Benefits Study, was begun in 1989 to determine whether these perceived benefits persisted. Observations made as a part of this phase confirmed that the children who were originally enrolled in smaller classes continued to perform better than their grade-mates (whose school experience had begun in larger classes) when they were returned to regular-sized classes in later grades. Under the third phase, Project Challenge, the 17 economically poorest school districts were given small classes in kindergarten, first, second, and third grades. These districts improved their end-of-year standing in rank among the 139 districts from well below average to above average in reading and mathematics.  Other evidence comes from a longitudinal British study that tracked more than 10,000 pupils in 300 schools from entry to the end of primary. Care was taken to measure factors other than class size that could influence outcomes. Small classes (under 25) had a significant effect on literacy and maths in the first year. This effect endured for literacy (but not maths) in the second year. However, the literacy effect disappeared by the third year, as many of the pupils moved into larger classes. Why though does the size of class make a difference? Teachers spend more time with pupils, individually; the classes were easier to control; and more time could be spent in planning and marking work. Consequently, pupils are better behaved and are more engaged in the process of learning. They asked more questions, discussed subjects with teachers, and were more inquisitive. While bad teachers are not made good by small classes, and while there is a danger that teachers with small classes sometimes fail to adapt their techniques to individualise the pedagogy (having been trained to deal with large ones), particularly for the early years, small is definitely best.  Significantly there is little evidence that teaching assistants improve educational outcomes. While they clearly free up the teacher to provide more individualised attention, they do not have the same effect as simply having smaller classes: results in maths and literacy are not improved by having teaching assistants. So if you want to improve performance don’t expect Teaching Assistants to make much difference.

 

A recent guidance report to help Free schools, from CFBT Education Trust, Myths, evidence and innovation: a guide to   making the most of Free School freedoms –B. Lipson’ found,  having sifted the evidence ,‘  that reducing class size seems to have greater impact in the earliest grades and for students from  less advantaged family backgrounds.’  So pretty much in line with the Tennessee study. But the report  also cited evidence from Professor Hanushek  who stated: ‘the broad array of approaches, with different  methodologies and sources of evidence, has provided quite a consistent message that broad  reductions in class size are unlikely to produce significant improvements in student achievement.’ In short, Hanuskek says that small class size policies are expensive and largely ineffective.  But while most agree that reducing class sizes   is expensive, the balance of evidence does seem to suggest that small class sizes have an impact at the Primary level, but  that this is less evident at the Secondary level. Educators and politicians have to make a judgement as to whether the expense is justified or whether there are more cost effective ways of raising performance.   But, as ever, it’s the quality of classroom teaching that has the most significant impact on pupil  performance.

The Tennessee Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades; Frederick Mostelle. Professor emeritus of mathematical statistics departments of Statistics and of Health Policy and Management at Harvard University.

http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/05_02_08.pdf

http://www.cfbt.com/evidenceforeducation/PDF/MakingTheMostofFreeSchoolFreedoms.pdf

Professor Peter Blatchford, visit classsizeresearch.org.uk. 

FREE SCHOOL MEALS

Big Attainment gap between those pupils eligible for Free School Meals and those not
Comment
New figures deposited in Parliament highlight the significant attainment gap between those pupils who are eligible for free school meals and those who are not. Attainment is measured by the number of pupils gaining A*-C Grades in GCSE subjects. In 2010 77,419 pupils were eligible for FSM compared to 78,087 in 2006 In English, in 2006, 31.2% of FSM pupils met the benchmark, moving up to 42.9% in 2010. However for non-FSM pupils the 2006 figure was 61% moving to 69.8% in 2010. In Maths, in 2006, 27.1% of FSM pupils achieved the benchmark, improving to 39.6% in 2010, but this compares to 56% in 2006 and 65.9% in 2010 respectively for pupils not on FSM. The attainment gap between FSM and non-FSM pupils has not actually narrowed over the period 2006-10. Alarmingly for linguists, just 14 % of FSM pupils met the grade in modern languages in 2006, with this percentage actually dropping in 2010 to 13.5% The Education Secretary Michael Gove, when he was in opposition, through a series of parliamentary questions, established that those pupils on Free School Meals have not appeared to benefit much from the significant investment in education over the period of the last Government. Which is why he has made disadvantaged pupils his major priority and why he has introduced such policies as the Pupil Premium.So to some extent, at least, his policies will be judged on whether they improve the performance of pupils eligible for FSM, and whether the gap between them and non-FSM pupils closes over the next two or three years.

http://www.parliament.uk/deposits/depositedpapers/2011/DEP2011-1305.xls

ADMISSIONS CODE – NEW CODE IN THE WINGS – AGAIN

A new Admissions Code will be introduced

But  will guidance, stop covert selection?

The debate over the new Admissions Code is beginning. Parental choice is a keystone of the government’s education policy, and demand for a high-quality school place outstrips supply. Put simply there are too few good schools to go around. The good schools tend to be colonised by pushy middle class parents prepared to pay a Premium on their House Price to be in the catchment area of a good school. In cities competition is particularly fierce: a third of secondary-school age children in London failed to get their first choice of school this year. The Secretary of State is keen for a new Admissions Code, though Ed Balls introduced a new one not so long ago which has only just taken effect. Gove is determined somehow to ensure that disadvantaged pupils can access the best schools. One in six of England’s state secondary schools has now broken away from the control of local authorities to become an “academy”, and their numbers are expected to double in the coming year or so. The situation is made more complex because most faith schools act as their own admissions authority. Academies too are exempt from their council’s admissions policies, though they remain subject to the national code and so, for example, cannot select by academic prowess. Parents who set up state-funded “free” schools face the same restrictions and cannot favour the founders’ children under the existing rules. But as the Economist says (5 May) ‘Giving such schools a bit more freedom to manage their admissions would make sense—it should help them to build a clear identity and thus a stronger esprit de corps. But squaring this with Mr Gove’s promise to ensure that more parents get their first choice of school will be a difficult trade-off. At best his revised rule book seems likely to end up only a little less complex than its predecessors.’ Gove will find that simply changing the Admissions guidance and simplifying it will not necessarily make it fairer particularly for the most disadvantaged pupils. The fact that the current Admissions Code runs to over a hundred pages is not because some bureaucrat was getting paid by the word. It’s because it’s a very complex area and some schools have in the past (including Faith schools) devised canny ways of ensuring that they can still select pupils without leaving any evidence in their wake. Some favour a lottery system, which is probably fairer than most other systems but it seems that this is not on the cards as it too has its critics.

It remains a fact that the best state schools  are usually, at least partially, selective in that they accept less than their respective  local authority average of pupils with special needs, on free school meals or with English as  their  second language.When a school  argues that it is successful because of its ethos, superior teaching, leadership etc that may  well be the case as some schools really do add value, but cast a beady eye on the number of its pupils on SEN, FSM and English as  their second language before you accept such claims at face value!

EARLY YEARS INVESTMENT IN DISADVANTAGED PUPILS

EARLY YEARS INVESTMENT IN DISADVANTAGED PUPILS

Invest early in education of the disadvantaged and the investment reaps educational and social returns

Comment

The Jesuits maxim -  give me a child for  his first seven years and I’ll give you the man- has a certain resonance,  and there now seems to be a growing evidence led  consensus that high quality early interventions   can help, particularly disadvantaged pupils, to improve their outcomes.  Professor James Heckman of Chicago University  claims that there is very clear empirical evidence that investment in early years education  promotes equity ie fairness and economic efficiency. He and colleagues have examined many studies concerning early investment in education and its impact on adult outcomes. He concludes firstly that inequalities in early childhood experiences  produces inequality in ability achievement, health and adult health. He adds ‘while important cognitive abilities alone are not as powerful as a package of cognitive skills and social skills-defined as attentiveness perseverance, impulse, control and sociability.’

Very significantly, he found that ‘adverse impacts of genetic, parental and environmental resources can be overturned  through investments in quality early childhood  that provide children and their parents with  the resources they need to properly develop the cognitive and personality skills that create  productivity’.

Finally  investments in early education for disadvantaged children  from birth to five helps reduce the achievement gap , reduces the need for special education , increases the likelihood of healthier lifestyles,  reduces crime rates  and  lowers social costs.  ‘In fact every dollar invested in high quality early childhood education produces a 7 to 10% return on investment.  Professor Heckman says that ‘Policies that provide early childhood educational resources to the most disadvantaged children produce greater social and economic equity. We can create a level and more productive playing field by making wise and timely investments in education’.   The Economics of Inequality-James  Heckman , Professor of Economics, University of Chicago

http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/spring2011/Heckman.pdf

NEW ADMISSIONS CODE-WILL IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

ADMISSIONS CODE

Reform in the wings but will it make a difference?

Comment

With school admissions to the best schools, as things stand and despite a new stricter admissions code, the odds are stacked heavily against children from non-privileged backgrounds.

They are far less likely to attend the top performing schools, and subsequently often do not receive the support and expertise that allows them to fulfil their academic potential. It is equally true that schools with a disproportionate number of children from poorer homes face an uphill struggle to raise attainment ,against the odds.  To get around this, the Sutton Trusts recent report Worlds Apart  social variation among schools, by  Professor Alan Smithers and Pamela Robinson of  the Centre for Education and Employment, University of Buckingham  recommended  there  should be wider introduction of admissions  ballots, or random allocation, to decide who gets places in over-subscribed schools, when other selection criteria have been met. At the same time, the report recommends that successful schools should be allowed more freedom to expand where possible. . Some six years ago a Social Market Foundation report (School Admissions: A Report of the Social Market Foundation Commission 2004) made very similar proposals, equally persuasively.

We also know from a number of studies that schools are quite adept at appearing to follow the admissions code, while doing nothing of the sort, with many of the best state schools practising some form of selection(basically ensuring that they limit as much as possible the number of pupils on free school meals and  or those categorised as  SEN )

The Government intends to tighten up the admissions code but it is not at all clear that this will make much difference as selection tends to be covert rather than overt leaving no paper trail. Although 83% of parents secured their first-preference school in this year’s admissions round that still means that, nationally, nearly one in five parents failed to achieve their first choice of school. It is worse in cities, with one in three missing out on their first choice in London and Birmingham. In some local authority areas, only 50% of parents manage to get their children into their first-preference schools. In 2008-09, more than 88,000 appeals were made by parents who were unhappy with the schools that had been allocated to them, and in 22% of cases the appeals were allowed. Nick Gibb the schools Minister  wants to ease the burden on local authorities. He said on 13 December “  Rather than their having to engage in activities such as setting up admissions forums or providing the schools adjudicator with an annual report because central Government says that they must, we want them to concentrate on making the admissions process as fair and straightforward as possible.” When schools are over-subscribed, the current system allows admission authorities to set their own criteria to decide place allocations, provided that they comply with the school admissions code and admissions legislation. The use of catchment areas is a popular method, but there are others, including prioritisation based on travel distance, siblings-and feeder primary schools. The admissions code states explicitly that when catchment areas are used, they must always reflect the community served by the school and must never disadvantage particular social groups by, for example, excluding certain housing estates or addresses.  Since September this year local authorities have been required to co-ordinate all in-year applications and offers as a result of changes made by the previous Government. Apparently this is causing problems and has been the subject of numerous complaints from parents. Gibb says that this will be looked at as part of the admissions review.  Whether another review and a ‘simplified’ system that is supposed to result from it   will make much difference  and  will be seen to be fairer than the current system remains to be seen. There may be a simple way to approach admissions but it is a complex area – and a simple code might not  end up being a fair one.

ACADEMIES ACT-WHAT DOES IT CHANGE?

ACADEMIES ACT ROUND UP

The Academies Bill received Royal Assent on 27 July

What is the current status of Academies and free schools post the Academies Act?

Consultation

Governors have to consult whom they believe is appropriate during the process of transforming into an Academy. Consultation can take place between being granted an Academy order and   signing the Academy funding agreement. The Government expects governors to consult parents. Government amendments were made to require the Secretary of State to consider whether establishing an ‘additional school’ (i.e. a free school) would have an impact on maintained schools and existing academies, and to require those who wish to set up an additional school to consult with persons thought to be ‘ appropriate’.

Governing bodies

All Academies  had been required to have one elected parent and one governor appointed by the local authority. Beyond this, Academies were  free to determine their own governance arrangements. There will now  following the new  Act be  at least two parents on Governing bodies of Academies .

Admissions Code

Academies must abide by the Admissions code.  Nick Gibb said – ‘We are committed to fair admissions through the code, and all academies will be bound by it through the model funding agreement’.

Fair access protocols are established by the local authority and the requirement to take part in them is set out in the school admissions code. Since participation is a requirement of the code, it is applied to academies in the same way as other aspects of the admissions code, through the funding agreement. This means that academies, along with all maintained schools in a local area, will take their fair share of hard-to-place pupils, including those previously excluded from other schools.  Gibb said that “The funding agreement is crystal clear about the compliance requirements.” The admissions code requires all schools, including academies, to give priority to looked-after children when making decisions as to which children to admit. That does not change as a result of the Act.

Exclusions

Academies funding agreements require them to act in accordance with the law on exclusions as if the academy were a maintained school, and to have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance on exclusions.

New Schools Network

The NSN is acting as the first point of contact for groups wanting to set up a free school, and provides information and advice on the process of setting up a new school.

Free Schools – demand

Free schools,  known as additional schools in the Act, will have to show that there is a demand for  a new school in their local area .Nick Gibb said  “ A free school proposal will be required to demonstrate parental demand and support. Where there is such demand, we will not turn down the proposal simply to protect other local schools.” Gibb also said “ we expect groups to provide evidence of this demand, perhaps through a petition or a declaration from interested parties, but in every case demonstrating clear evidence of unmet local need, not just expressions of support”.

Free schools- local impact

Secretary of State will now be obliged by statute to take into account the impact on other schools of any new school established under the Bill. That is now in clause 9.

Free schools; Legal status

Free Schools will have the same legal requirements as academies. Free Schools are normally brand-new schools set up by charities, universities, business, community or faith groups, teachers and groups of parents where there is parental demand. Academies are usually a change to an existing maintained school.  Legally the structure is the same, and they are expected to meet the same requirements as other academies. Free Schools will also benefit from the same freedoms and flexibilities as academies,  see below:

Free schools and Independent schools

Independent schools can apply to become a Free School and become state-funded independent schools. These schools will need to meet the entry criteria – including an agreement that their admissions policy is in line with the Admissions Code, demonstrate they have a good record of success as an education provider and financial viability. Independent schools applying to become Free Schools will not be able to retain any existing academic selection admission arrangements.

Independent schools wanting to apply need to follow the outlined process and start by filling out the proposal form.

SEN

The Act tightens up the  requirement on SEN. Amendments to the Bill  in the Lords  gave children with special educational needs greater rights to admission to academies than existed in previous academies legislation, and new requirements for funding for low-incidence special needs have been added. One important   additional   fact  that emerged was  that there will be a Green paper in the autumn  on SEN which will look at SEN, more generally, and include LA, Academies  and free school support. The Government  also intend to review funding from 2011 onwards. It will be working closely with local authorities and other partners, and  the Minister confirmed “that we will give specific consideration to the funding of SEN services. A SEN advisory group is also being established.

Community Engagement, Cohesion

On community engagement, Gibb said the model  funding agreement specifically states that academies should be at the heart of the community and share facilities with it. In a concession the Government will add to the funding agreement ‘ an explicit requirement that academies will be required to be at the heart of their communities, to promote community cohesion and to share their facilities with other schools and the wider community’

Local Authorities

The Act removes the requirement to consult the local authority before opening an academy

Charity Status

The Act deems academy trusts to be exempt charities. Meaning that they have Charity status but are not regulated by the Charity Commission

Reporting to Parliament

There will now be an annual report to Parliament on the Academies scheme.

Academy Freedoms

The ‘academy freedoms’ the Secretary of State has identified include:

freedom from local authority control

the ability to set their own pay and conditions for staff

freedom from following the National Curriculum

greater control of their budget

greater opportunities for formal collaboration with other public and private organisations

freedom to change the length of terms and school days

freedom to spend the money the local authority currently spends on their behalf

Academies Funding

The DFE academies website (FAQ section) states that the funding for existing schools converting to academy status will be based on the level of local authority funding already calculated for the school, plus additions for central services that would normally be provided by the local authority (LA) and to cover VAT. Grant payments to academies to replace local authority services will depend on the level of central expenditure in the LA, and may vary considerably from area to area. The DFE has produced a ready reckoner which gives schools an estimate of the funding they might receive. There will also be a contribution to the costs of the conversion process, which will be a flat-rate grant, normally £25,000. The Bill’s Impact Assessment estimated the average cost of conversion at £78,000 per academy or £66,000 without VAT. It added that the cost to the DFE could be reduced to £25,000 per academy if the rest of the costs were met from the existing balances of converting schools.

The Government has stressed that becoming an academy should not bring about a financial advantage or disadvantage to a school, rather the change is to enable converting schools to have greater freedom on how they use their budgets, and other freedoms. However, commentators have questioned the effect of the changes on non-academy local schools, the ability of local authorities to provide central services where many schools in an area become academies, and the funding implications where schools converting to academy status have surpluses or deficits, for example.

153 schools have said they wish  convert so far, which  includes about 45 primary schools, at least 12 faith schools and more than 20 grammar schools. Critics suggest this is a disappointing figure, but set against the figure of  the 200 Academies  currently up and running , it is in fact   reasonably impressive,  particularly given that the  original Academies scheme has been running for  over eight  years .

LITERACY AND PRIMARY SCHOOLS

LITERACY AND PRIMARY SCHOOLS

New think tank report champions  synthetic phonics but not more centrally driven interventions

Comment

A  Centre for Policy Studies pamphlet out this week, commissioned by London’s Mayor, Boris Johnson , ‘ So Why Can’t They Read?, insists that traditional, structured methods such as synthetic phonics – in which children learn to “decode” words by combining individual letters and sounds – are the most effective, and attacks teachers for refusing to adopt them, despite government attempts to encourage their use. According to the report over a third of all children who leave London’s state primary schools at the age of 11 still have difficulties with reading (even though they have passed national tests) and about 5% can hardly read at all. About 20% of pupils leave secondary schools without being able to read or write with confidence. Nick Gibb, the schools Minister has been an  almost evangelical  supporter of the teaching of synthetic phonics in schools. Although the Literacy Strategy due to end at the beginning of next year   incorporates elements of phonics teaching Gibb believes that it doesn’t focus sufficiently on synthetic phonics.   The reports author  Miriam Gross says child illiteracy is made worse because many teachers have a weak grasp of spelling and syntax, and argues that the problem cannot be blamed on the large number of immigrant pupils in city schools.

“There is in fact a great deal of evidence … to show that it is white working-class children who have the most intractable reading difficulties,” she writes. “Unlike most immigrant parents, who are very keen on their children receiving a good education even if they themselves speak very little English, white working-class parents often seem to be indifferent to their children’s education.” Gross, said schools were not repeating phonics “over and over again” but allowing a child-led approach to hold sway. She also suggests that Primary school teachers are breeding illiteracy among children by letting them speak “street” in the classroom. In  other European states, ‘slang is not allowed in the classroom’ Misplaced fear of interfering with self-expression has led to a damaging failure to correct pupils who communicate in an argot mixing linguistic influences from Cockney to Indian,  Boris Johnson writing in the Daily Telegraph on 19 July says  Miriam ‘takes aim at some familiar targets of conservative wrath: child-centred learning, by which children are invited to “discover” the meaning of the printed page before them, rather than being taught; the hostility to academic selection that has bedevilled the teaching establishment; the lack of discipline in some schools; the time wasted in considering the “emotional well-being” of the child, rather than good old instruction in reading and writing.’  He endorses the synthetic phonics method. And rejects the view, espoused by some educationalist, who argue that phonics is  too dogmatic, too authoritarian and too demoralising for children who couldn’t spell out every word in their heads. They hold the  view that ‘Perhaps they should be encouraged just to recognise the words – and so was born the system of “whole word recognition”, intended partly to bolster those who found phonics a strain.’ An approach which, according to Johnson ,explains ‘why literacy has declined in the past 50 years, they claim, and that is why we face a skills shortage caused very largely by the inability of one million working Londoners to read and write.’

But, significantly  what Gross does not recommend ,and it is something that Gibb has been leaning towards, is centrally driven intervention. She suggests, instead,  an annual contest among primary schools to prove that phonics produces more literate children than whole-word recognition, in which pupils memorise words by looking at their shapes and sizes alongside pictures. “The teaching methods of the successful schools – as well as the conduct and enthusiasm of children – would be analysed, so that teachers and parents alike can see which approach works best … It could be sponsored by one of the large corporations which have been so vehement in complaining about the poor skills of school leavers.”  Significantly,  Johnson  concedes that  he has met London children  on Reading Recovery programmes who are obviously benefiting hugely from a mixture of phonics and word recognition and  forms up behind the idea of  a competition.  What many experts seem not to understand  is how the jargon used in this debate just doesn’t help bring the debate to a wider audience. The word ‘synthetic’ and the word ‘phonics’ are both off-putting. They make what is in fact a  simple and straightforward way of learning to read  sound very complicated, when it really  isn’t.

http://www.cps.org.uk/cps_catalog/why%20can’t%20they%20read.pdf