APPENDIX 13
Memorandum from the National Primary Headteachers'
Association (NPhA) (OAR 20)
1. The National Primary Headteachers' Association
(NPhA) welcomes the invitation to comment on HMCI's Annual
Report. We apologise that half-term has resulted in the late arrival
of our comments but hope that they may be of use to members of
the Committee.
2. We are delighted to see HMCI'S positive
statements regarding the improving levels of achievement in primary
schools. This has been achieved by a tremendous amount of hard
work by all who work in primary schools and it is a welcome change
to see those achievements lauded publicly. Schools and teachers
have endured years of blame and scorn in certain sectors of the
press and the educational establishment with the result that morale
in the profession has never been at such a low ebb. Comments such
as those by HMCI are welcome and overdue.
3. Like HMCI, the Association is concerned
about the lack of progress made by many of our Key Stage 2 pupils
following the transition to Key Stage 3. We have always felt that
our pupils were disadvantaged because of the reluctance of secondary
colleagues to accept the validity of assessments made in primary
schools. We feel this makes a mockery of the long-established
increase in funding between Years six and seven. This can hardly
be called "payment by results" and we would be pleased
to hear Mr Woodhead comment further on this issue.
4. Similarly we would like the Committee
to pursue the issue of the role of local education authorities
with HMCI. His report indicates that only nine of the 41 LEAs
inspected were found to be effective. An inefficiency rate of
78 per cent cannot be tolerated and we wonder how long this situation
can be allowed to continue. LEAs may need their schools but do
the schools need their LEAs?
5. This issue is inextricably linked to
the problem HMCI raises about the amounts of money actually reaching
schools. This is particulary worrying when one considers that
LEA Administration seems to be the current growth industry in
Times Educational Supplement advertising (up to 20 pages
in some weeks). When one considers that many of these posts carry
salaries of £50K+ this proliferation would seem to fly in
the face of HMCI's comments, "Each and every penny spent
outside the school needs to be scrutinised and each new administrative
post challenged." (p 20). We contend that some LEA's
Education Development Plans are being used as a smokescreen to
protect the jobs of administrative and advisory staff who have
done little to help their schools in the past.
6. As the Committee is aware, the variations
in funding between schools in different LEAs highlighted by HMCI,
were recently explored in some detail by NPhA in our policy
document Waiting for Hadow, copies of which were sent to
each Committee member. We currently have a situation where primary
schools in Lambeth receive £2,832 per pupil and their cousins
in Darlington are funded at only £1,432 (Hansard 16.2.00).
This clearly cannot be justified and we repeat our call for the
Committee to visit this issue in the near future. We share HMCI's
view that a new system of funding to eliminate these discrepancies
is long overdue.
National Primary Headteachers' Associaion (NPhA)
March 2000
| 
