APPENDIX 3
Memorandum from the Secondary Heads Association
(SHA) (OAR 05)
SUMMARY
1. SHA welcomes the report and would like to
group its comments under three headings. The Association believes
there is much to celebrate in this report. But that the Chief
Inspector has missed a wonderful opportunity to applaud and celebrate
the improvements which are occurring in schools.
2. In commenting that improvements have
been "steady, but unspectacular" a false impression
is given for the following reasons:
— student progress improved in the
vast majority of schools, by comparison with 1997-98;
— teaching improved by similar proportions;
— in the overwhelming majority of categories
schools have made improvements in a wide range of measures;
— such improvements were in excess
of 25 per cent in a number of categories;
— of categories which were unsatisfactory
or poor in a significant number of schools in 1997-98, crucial
improvements were made in 1998-99;
— clear leadership is good or very
good in three quarters of the schools and the percentage where
it was unsatisfactory or poor halved in 1998-99 compared with
the previous year.
3. SHA disagrees with the Chief Inspector
in the following areas:
— Key Stage 3 test results have improved
when measured against prior attainment;
— the GCSE results are not "deeply
disturbing" as alleged, because they have improved over the
last few years, although it is acknowledged that more needs to
be achieved;
— the quality leadership has improved
significantly;
— Head teachers have heeded the advice
of previous reports and have acted accordingly;
— quality research has an important
role to play in the development of improved teaching and learning;
— initiatives are important so long
as they are equitably funded.
4. SHA agrees that:
— A national funding formula should
be established;
— accommodation is inadequate and in
decline;
— schools face an uphill struggle to
persuade parents not to condone absence or to take holidays in
term time;
— continuous professional development
needs a fresh focus;
— the support and training services
offered by many LEAs are inadequate.
INTRODUCTION
5. SHA welcomes the opportunity to offer
comment to the Education Select Committee in preparation for the
taking of evidence from the Chief Inspector on 15 March. As our
members are representative of almost all the secondary, special
and independent schools in England we would wish to confine our
comments to these sections of the report.
6. There is much also to welcome in the
report. The data in particular provides evidence from which to
draw conclusions about the progress of schools and colleges. However
the Chief Inspector has failed to make extensive comment about
the wide range of improvements, some of which are significant.
In addition there are a number of matters on which we would disagree
and some on which we would be supportive of his comments.
A MISSED OPPORTUNITY
7. In his opening paragraph the Chief Inspector
comments on " . . . steady, but unspectacular improvements
. . . ". This is faint praise and understates the true picture
by a significant margin. The data in his own report declares otherwise.
To miss such an opportunity to praise and applaud the dedication,
commitment and quality of the teaching profession is a significant
mistake. Improvements are recognised in the report, but are usually
followed by comment on how much more needs to be done. Unqualified
and generous appreciation would have achieved much more.
8. The statistics on student progress can
be found in annex 4 on page 92. With the exception of Information
Technology there are 27 sets of judgements. Of these, only two
show a decline on the previous year in the good/very good category.
Almost all of the remaining 25 show an improvement, sometimes
of significant proportion. The unsatisfactory/poor category shows
the same pattern. This is cause for significant celebration.
9. The pattern in the quality of teaching
on page 93 shows similar progress. Only one of the 27 judgements
at good/very good is lower than 1997-98, with a similar conclusion
for the unsatisfactory/poor category. Again much cause for celebration.
Both progress and teaching can be said to have improved significantly
on the previous year.
10. A similar conclusion can be drawn from
the other section of annex 4 on pages 97 to 99. These pages contain
90 sets of judgements, not including those which are composites.
With the exception of attendance and accommodation, for which
schools hold a shared responsibility, only four were lower in
the good/very good category, compared with 1997-98 and only one
in the unsatisfactory/poor category showed a decline.
11. Almost all showed improvements of which
many were significant. For example the percentage of schools where
student progress was good or very good improved by 10 points on
the previous year. The rise from 42 per cent to 52 per cent showed
an increase of nearly a quarter. The use of homework at Key Stage
4 improved by an even greater margin.
12. In 1997-98 six of the 90 judgements
were unsatisfactory or poor in 30 per cent or more of the schools.
All of these showed significant improvement in 1998-99. Whilst
further improvement is needed, this change clearly demonstrates
that schools are listening to the messages from previous reports
and taking action to make the necessary changes. Indeed SHA has
been instrumental in this respect in that the Association has
been working with schools and head teachers to improve performance
in these very areas during the last 18 months.
13. Paragraph 149 comments that leadership
fails to provide clear educational direction in 8 per cent of
the secondary schools. He is quite right that this is unacceptable,
but he fails to draw attention to the fact that this is almost
half the level of the previous year and such leadership is classified
as good or very good in nearly three quarters of the sample. It
is the latter which should constitute the headlines, not the 8
per cent. It is also worth noting that in all five sections on
leadership, significant improvements were evident compared with
1997-98.
AREAS ON
WHICH THE
SHA DISAGREES
14. In the opening commentary, page 18 paragraph
4, the Chief Inspector comments that he is "disappointed"
at the relatively small change in National Curriculum test results
at Key Stage 3 over the previous five years. Yet apart from one
brief comment (92), he gives no reason for this position.
15. Firstly, his own evidence confirms that
student progress and teaching have improved significantly since
the previous year's report. Secondly, it should be recalled that
the validity of Key Stage 3 tests was open to question throughout
this period. Perhaps most importantly it should be noted that
students who took the tests between 1995 and 1999 started their
primary education in the period 1986 to 1990.
16. At that time primary schools were in
turmoil with the introduction of the full range of the National
Curriculum. Whilst some of the damage was repaired at a later
stage, and primary school teachers worked hard to meet the expectations
made of them, it was the children who ultimately suffered. SHA
has anecdotal evidence that the prior attainment of students on
entry to secondary school in these year groups was lower than
both those who preceded them and those who are currently in Key
Stage 3. In effect, the attainment of students at Key Stage 3
over the last few years has improved when measured against prior
attainment. If prior attainment was lower and the raw results
were static, then a net improvement has occurred.
17. A similar effect has begun to occur
at GCSE. To describe the year on year results at this level as
"deeply disturbing" (page 18 paragraph five) is at best
a misinterpretation of the statistics and at worst deeply insulting
to the vast majority of teachers who work so diligently and effectively.
The truth is that the GCSE results have continued to rise, in
spite of the problem referred to above. There has been a steady
increase in the percentage of pupils who gain five or more higher
grades and a decline in those who leave with no qualification
at 16.
18. The impression gained from paragraph
four on page 19 is that leaders are being remiss in various aspects
of their work. Again the statistics contained in the report provide
a contrary picture. Not only is clear leadership good or very
good in three-quarters of the schools, but (as noted above) the
aspects for which leaders have been less effective in the past
are now being tackled and significant improvements are being achieved.
The negative comments contained in this paragraph are largely
refuted.
19. The final paragraph of the opening commentary
on page 21 is unusual. The Chief Inspector appears to be using
the platform of his report to raise a series of personal agendas
without an evidence base. Whilst SHA would agree that "labyrinthine
demands", reduced bureaucracy and the twin drive to "improve
teaching and strengthen leadership", are all important, such
actions are already in hand.
20. Contrary to the Chief Inspector's comments,
research plays an important role in helping schools to understand
what actions are necessary for further improvements to occur.
SHA would also disagree about "expensive initiatives which
distract teachers and head teachers from their real responsibilities".
The Association is opposed to the bidding culture, as a result
of which the "haves" receive more and the "have-nots"
less, but teachers are creative people and there needs to be a
mechanism which funds such developments on an equitable basis.
Teachers love a challenge and will commit their own time and energy
to making developments work for the benefit of their students
if given the resources to do so.
AREAS ON
WHICH SHA AGREES
21. SHA has long campaigned for a national
funding formula. It is heartening to read that the Chief Inspector
has now added his own voice (paragraphs two and three on page
20) to that of the STRB and a breadth of influential people in
the political and educational sectors. It is very disturbing,
but not a surprise, that a significant number of LEAs fail to
convince their schools that funds are equitably and accurately
allocated (394).
22. Nor is it a surprise to SHA that much
accommodation is inadequate and declining (161). The fact that
this is occurring at a time when more resources are reportedly
being allocated is a paradox. Clear objective evidence is needed
on the true position: the adequacy of accommodation, the level
of current resources and the efficiency with which the resources
are applied to meet the need.
23. The report comments on the "uphill
struggle" faced by schools in persuading parents not to condone
absence or to take holidays in term time (241). SHA has the same
concern and is prepared to co-operate with the government in devising
strategies which will address this problem.
24. Only a brief mention is made of continuous
professional development (CPD). SHA agrees with a number of comments
made by the Chief Inspector in this regard (353/4), but believes
that he fails to grapple with the real issue. The Green Paper
of December 1998 devotes a whole chapter to CPD, but as yet no
clear rationale has been presented in order to address the issue.
On the one hand, the proposed National College will provide for
the development of leaders and on the other the revised remit
for the TTA will cater for the needs of initial training and induction.
In the middle there is a significant vacuum. The Select Committee
may well find this a fruitful subject for enquiry in the near
future.
25. SHA and the Chief Inspector agree that
the support and training offered by LEAs is variable and in need
of improvement (381/7). Such support is largely devoted to the
continuous professional development of staff and would be another
reason why the Select Committee should consider the issue of CPD.
Secondary Heads Association
February 2000
| 
