9. Diversity and standards
WHAT IS
CLEAR IS
THAT THE
GOVERNMENT'S
OVER-RELIANCE
ON A
NARROW RANGE
OF RESEARCH
ON THE
COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE
OF SPECIALIST
SCHOOLS HAS
SERVED TO
OBSCURE RATHER
THAN ILLUMINATE
THE ISSUE.
IN CHOOSING
RESEARCH PARTNERS,
THE INDEPENDENCE
OF ALL
PARTIES MAY
BE COMPROMISED
BY TOO
CLOSE AN
ALLIANCE OF
GOVERNMENT, RESEARCH
PROVIDERS (HOWEVER
DISTINGUISHED) AND
STAKEHOLDER GROUPS.
The Committee says that the Government's claims for
the success of the programme rely heavily on the work of Professor
Jesson for the Specialist Schools Trust. It is true that Professor
Jesson's work (most recently in Educational outcomes and value
added by specialist schools 2002 Analysis published 2003), based
on the 5+A*-C indicator, provides the most striking comparative
data (for both absolute performance and value added) but that
work is only one part of the evidence available to the Government
and to the Committee. In addition the following sources all give
evidence of stronger comparative performance in specialist schools:
DfES analyses of absolute and value added performance based on
the performance tables for schools' 2002 outcomes; Using National
Value Added datasets to explore the effects of diversity Schagen
I and Schagen S (NFER 2002); Pupil Progress in Secondary Schools
by School Type in England 2001 (DfES 2002); and Specialist
Schools: An evaluation of progress (Ofsted 2001); as well
as additional Jesson work based on GCSE point scores. Whilst these
sources do not produce such highly differentiated outcomes as
Jesson's absolute performance and value added analyses, they clearly
add to the evidence base. It is also important not to dismiss
too lightly the significance of the work based on the 5+A*-C indicator.
Although it has limitations, this indicator has been the most
widely used and best understood measure of school performance
for over ten years.
10. MEASURES OF
ACHIEVEMENT
WHILE WE
ACKNOWLEDGE AND
SUPPORT THE
USE OF
PUPIL ATTAINMENT
DATA FOR
THE PURPOSES
OF STRENGTHENING
PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY,
THE EMPHASIS
MUST BE
ON THE
USE OF
SUCH DATA
FOR SCHOOL
IMPROVEMENT. FOR
PUPIL ATTAINMENT
DATA TO
BE MEANINGFUL
IN THIS
CONTEXT THE
KEY MEASURES
FOR PUPIL
AND SCHOOL
ACHIEVEMENT NEED
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT
AND TO
BE APPLIED
CONSISTENTLY ACROSS
THE RANGE
OF SCHOOL
IMPROVEMENT AND
PUPIL ATTAINMENT
PROJECTS. IN
PARTICULAR, IT
IS VITAL
THAT THESE
MEASURES PROVIDE
A PICTURE
OF THE
FULL ABILITY
RANGE, INCLUDING
THE PROPORTION
OF PUPILS
WHO AT
16 DO NOT
OBTAIN ANY
QUALIFICATIONS, AND
TAKE FULL
ACCOUNT OF
THE INTAKE
PROFILE OF
EACH PUPIL.
The Government fully agrees with the need to emphasise
the use of pupil attainment data for school improvement and the
benefit of the individual pupil. This was the subject of the Secretary
of State's Lecture at the Banqueting House on 4 June. He drew
attention to the department's new Pupil Achievement Tracker (PAT)
which is being made available to all secondary schools. This will
give teachers the information to analyse the past and current
attainment of each pupil to help tailor lessons and progression
to meet pupils' needs. For example, at KS3 the PAT will enable
teachers to identify underperformance while there is still time
to address needs before pupils take their GCSEs. In addition,
the Secretary of State emphasised the importance of 'assessment
for learning': involving pupils in their own target setting; providing
structured feedback; and helping pupils judge their own learning.
As the Committee's own report acknowledges, the Department's
measurement of secondary school performance for pupils at the
end of key stage 4 is not confined to 5+A*-C at GCSE. The performance
tables also include point scores, 1+A*-G and value added. All
of these address the issue of providing a picture of performance
across the ability range and, of course, the value added measure
takes account of the prior attainment of each pupil.
11. MEASURES OF
DISADVANTAGE
THE DEVELOPMENT
OF MORE
SENSITIVE MEASURES
OF DEPRIVATION
THAN THAT
OFFERED BY
FREE SCHOOL
MEALS ELIGIBILITY
IS CRITICAL
TO IMPROVING
THE EFFECTIVENESS
WITH WHICH
POLICY AND
RESOURCES MAY
BE TARGETED.
The Committee mentions the inclusion of parental
level of education as one way forward. There is nothing in prospect
for national data on parental level of education although such
information is collected in various sample surveys like PISA.
Another possibility for supplementing FSM data is the use of postcode
data linked to other data sources such as the 2001 Census. Data
collection through PLASC must conform with the legal basis of
the survey which restricts expansion into areas of socio-economic
circumstances. FSM information is an exception because of the
legal duty of schools to provide free meals in specified circumstances.
PLASC also collects postcode. Work will continue in this area
but previous work has suggested that the pupil-based FSM variable
is as good a marker of disadvantage of schools as was the ODPM's
Index of Multiple Deprivation. The Working Tax Credit, now used
in the funding system, slightly changes the dimension on disadvantage,
but will not invalidate the FSM variable, which is a valuable
tool, albeit imperfect.
So far as the specialist schools programme is concerned
it is a policy for all schools and schools with high FSM are well
represented in the programme.
12. SEPARATING THE
IMPACT OF
INVESTMENT FROM
SPECIALISM AND
OTHER INITIATIVES
IT IS
A MATTER
OF CONCERN
THAT THE
GOVERNMENT HAS
MADE ITS
DECISION TO
EXTEND ACCESS
TO THE
SPECIALIST SCHOOLS
PROGRAMME, AND
ASSOCIATED FUNDING
TO ALL
SCHOOLS, IN
THE ABSENCE
OF CLEAR
EVIDENCE AS
TO THE
ALLEGED BENEFITS
OF SPECIALISM,
BALANCED AGAINST
THOSE OF
OTHER INITIATIVES.
EVALUATION OF
THIS INITIATIVE
IS ESSENTIAL
SO THAT
THE PUBLIC
AND POLICY
MAKERS ALIKE
CAN BE
ASSURED THAT
POLICY IS
DEVELOPED ON
THE BASIS
OF SOUND
EVIDENCE RATHER
THAN WISHFUL
THINKING.
The Committee raises the issue of the impact of the
three main elements of the specialist schools programme: processes,
funding and specialism. This issue is addressed in the response
to recommendation 20. For evidence about the performance of specialist
schools see the response to recommendation nine. For reference
to the qualitative evidence see the response to recommendation
two.
13. SCHOOL ADMISSIONS
THE EVIDENCE
WE RECEIVED
SUGGESTED THAT
ANY RATIONALE
FOR SCHOOLS
OPERATING AS
THEIR OWN
ADMISSION AUTHORITY
MAY NOT
BE SIGNIFICANTLY
OUTWEIGHED BY
THE WIDER
BENEFITS, NOT
LEAST TO
PARENTS, ASSOCIATED
WITH EQUITY
AND CLARITY
OF PROCESS.
Of the 21,297 schools in England, the local education
authority is the admission authority for the majority—16,142
(76%) For secondary schools the equivalent figures are 2375:1061;
and for primary schools are 13,767:4094. LEAs may delegate authority
for admissions to the governing body of a community or voluntary
controlled school but we are not aware that delegation is widespread.
The admissions framework, including consultation
and objection arrangements put in place by the School Standards
and Framework Act has worked well—research suggested that
96% of parents seeking a secondary school place got a place at
a school for which they expressed a preference. But in the light
of this research the Government strengthened the framework in
the Education Act 2002 with measures designed to improve local
discussion and co-operation to ensure that admission arrangements
work to the greatest extent possible for the benefit of local
parents and children and to improve the process for parents. These
measures include:
- mandatory co-ordination of
admissions which will make the process easier and more transparent
for parents. They will apply for all the schools they want their
child to attend on the LEA's common application form. Only one
offer of a school place in the area will be made and that offer
will be sent to them on the same day by the LEA, either on its
own behalf or on behalf of a governing body that is the admission
authority.
- mandatory admission forums with members representing
all those with an interest in admissions. Forums are charged with
considering how well local admission arrangements are working
collectively for all local parents and children. They should consider
how admissions processes could be improved and, in particular,
arrangements for challenging and vulnerable children and try to
promote agreement on admissions issues. All admission authorities
in an area must have regard to any advice issued by the Forum.
- wider consultation requirements so that foundation
and voluntary aided schools must consult community and voluntary
controlled schools on their proposed admission arrangements. Those
schools may then object to the Adjudicator if they wish. We are
aware that a number of community schools have objected to the
Adjudicator about admission arrangements for entry in September
2004, including to partial selection arrangements. The cases have
yet to be determined.
- abolition of section 91 so that designated faith
schools can no longer keep places open if there are insufficient
applicants from the faith.
All admission authorities are subject to the same
legal provisions and all must have regard to the School Admissions
Code of Practice. If they do not, those affected may complain
to the Secretary of State who will consider whether or not to
issue a Direction.
The amended Code, issued in January 2003:
- clarifies good and bad practice
in determining admission arrangements. It states that admission
authorities should carefully consider the possible impact, direct
or indirect, on equal opportunities, of their oversubscription
criteria. It indicates that criteria which give preference to
children whose parents or siblings previously attended the school
or whose parents followed particular occupations, such as teachers,
could disproportionately disadvantage others such as ethnic minority
or refugee families who have recently moved into the area. It
points out it would not be good practice for admission authorities
to set or seek to apply oversubscription criteria that had the
effect of disadvantaging certain social groups in society.
- rules out interviewing of parents or prospective
pupils including, for the first time and from 2005, at schools
designated by the Department as having a religious character (the
majority of which are voluntary aided schools). The Catholic Education
Service and the Church of England Board of Education support this.
We are however persuaded that there are good reasons for interviewing
for boarding places because children are faced with particular
challenges and opportunities in a boarding school—and this
is the one exception.
- indicates that faith schools can contribute to
community cohesion by having admission arrangements that are inclusive
of other faiths and of all elements of the population of their
local area. Some faith schools already achieve inclusiveness by
designating a proportion of their places for which children of
their own faith or denomination will be given priority, and the
remainder as community or open places for which local children
will be given priority.
- recommends LEAs refer objections to the Schools
Adjudicator on behalf of parents if necessary.
14. AND 15. SELECTION
BY APTITUDE—RATIONALE
AND EVIDENCE?
WE ARE
NOT SATISFIED
THAT ANY
MEANINGFUL DISTINCTION
BETWEEN APTITUDE
AND ABILITY
HAS BEEN
MADE AND
WE HAVE
FOUND NO
RELIANCE ON
ANY DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THEM.
IT IS
APPARENT FROM
EVIDENCE GATHERED
DURING THIS
ENQUIRY THAT
THE CURRENT
POLICY WHICH
ENABLES SCHOOLS
TO SELECT
ON THE
BASIS OF
APTITUDE RESTS
ON INSECURE
GROUNDS. WE
ARE NOT
CONVINCED OF
THE CASE
FOR SELECTION
BY APTITUDE.
New selection by aptitude applies to not more than
10% of places. As the Committee is aware, aptitude selection is
used by under 6% of specialist schools but where it does apply,
it allows some children with an aptitude for a particular school's
specialism, who wouldn't otherwise qualify under its oversubscription
criteria, to gain a place and benefit from the school's specialist
teaching/facilities.
Under the School Admissions Code of Practice tests
of aptitude must be objective and have a distinctive subject focus
and the assessment must test only for the subject aptitude concerned,
and not for ability or any other aptitude.
Admission Forums must consider how well local admission
arrangements are working and may advise against selection by aptitude
if they consider that this is not in the best interests of parents
and children. Admission authorities must have regard to the advice
of the local Forum.
Complaints may be made to the Adjudicator about tests
that are not objective, or which appear to test for ability or
another aptitude, even where selection for a proportion of children
by aptitude is accepted.
Similarly, if aptitude selection is considered to
be not in the interests of local children and parents, or is complicating
admissions locally, an objection can be made to the Adjudicator.
The Committee may now be aware of the Chief Adjudicator's
recent decisions (10 July 2003) in relation to 14 schools in Hertfordshire
whose aptitude selection has been objected to. These decisions
which were informed by advice from independent experts, helpfully
clarify that it is possible to test for aptitude separately from
ability, at least in certain subjects. However, the Chief Adjudicator
insisted on the need to use either a well-established aptitude
test or—where no such test exists, as in sport—an
assessment against published criteria by a qualified person independent
of the school. The Chief Adjudicator also recommended that the
ability profile of those selected for aptitude should be checked
to insure against inadvertent ability selection, and if that seems
to be happening, tests should be adjusted. A copy of the Chief
Adjudicator's article about the decisions ('Apt or able?') is
attached at Annex A.
16. COMPETITION VS
COLLABORATION
OUR CONCLUSION
IS THAT
COMPETITION AND
INSTITUTIONAL AUTONOMY
ARE FORCES
THAT CAN
BE BARRIERS
TO THE
CAPACITY FOR
SYSTEMIC CHANGE.
THE CAREFUL
COORDINATION OF
DIVERSITY POLICY
SO AS
TO ENSURE
THE CAPACITY
FOR BROAD
BASED CHANGE
SHOULD BE
A PRIME
CONSIDERATION IN
THE FURTHER
DEVELOPMENT OF
THE GOVERNMENT'S
SCHOOLS POLICY.
The Government recognises the need to ensure institutional
autonomy and system-wide change. That is why in November 2002
we made a commitment that all specialist school applicants which
met the standard against published criteria would be designated.
Lifting the funding cap on the Specialist Schools Programme so
that all applicants meeting the standard can be assured of designation
as a specialist school will help to break down competition and
encourage more effective collaboration.
Lifting the cap does not affect the requirements
and expectations placed upon specialist schools. Applicants will
need to meet the standard for designation and successful applicants
will be accountable under the established arrangements for monitoring
progress and for regular re-designation after fixed periods within
the programme.
Many Government programmes, including Excellence
in Cities, help foster an environment of collaboration between
schools. Some schools in the Diversity Pathfinder LEAs are already
reporting an increased sense of collective responsibility for
pupil performance between groups of schools. Other collaborative
based programmes, notably Federations, are also contributing to
increased collaboration and collective accountability for performance
between schools. The Leading Edge Programme is designed to ensure
that successful pedagogical practice is shared not only at local
level but through national collaboration facilitated by the DfES
Innovation Unit.
17. COMPETITION VS
COLLABORATION
THE COMMITTEE
ACKNOWLEDGES THE
DEPARTMENT'S
RENEWED EMPHASIS
ON THE
COLLABORATIVE AND
COMMUNITY ASPECTS
OF THE
SPECIALIST SCHOOLS
PROGRAMME AND
INITIATIVES BEING
DEVELOPED THROUGH
THE DIVERSITY
PATHFINDERS PROJECT.
HOWEVER, WE
BELIEVE THAT
THE NATURE
OF THIS
COLLABORATION IS
AT PRESENT
INSUFFICIENTLY FOCUSED
ON RAISING
PUPIL ACHIEVEMENT
AND THEREFORE
(TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH
THE GOVERNMENT'S
STATED POLICY)
RECOMMEND THAT
FUTURE FUNDING
FOR SPECIALIST
SCHOOLS AND
THE BASIS
OF THEIR
EVALUATION SHOULD
BE EXPLICITLY
LINKED TO
MEASURABLE SUCCESS
IN RAISING
PUPIL ACHIEVEMENT
IN PARTNER
SCHOOLS.
Guidance to schools for the preparation of their
Community Plans within the specialist schools programme emphasises
the need to express targets in terms of learning outcomes as much
as possible and the Department will continue to give priority
to this in monitoring schools' progress in the programme. However,
the Government does not feel it would be realistic to make an
explicit link between a specialist school's continued funding
and measurable success in raising pupil achievement in partner
schools. A typical secondary school partnership within the programme
might spend around £10,000 a year on the partnership's activities
which is a very small sum compared with the schools' overall budgets.
On the subject of making linkages between the outcomes
of partnerships of schools, within the Federations programme it
will be possible for schools to recognise their collective responsibility
within a federation by publishing the examination results of the
federation as a whole as well as the results of the individual
schools.
18. WHAT MATTERS
MOST?
WE RECOMMEND
THAT THE
POSITION OF
SELECTIVE SCHOOLS
IN THE
SPECIALIST SCHOOLS
PROGRAMME SHOULD
BE RECONSIDERED.
ELIGIBILITY FOR
THE SPECIALIST
SCHOOLS PROGRAMME
SHOULD BE
CONTINGENT UPON
EACH SCHOOL'S
MEMBERSHIP OF
A COMMUNITY
OF SCHOOLS
AND ON
THE ACHIEVEMENT
OF MEASURABLE
IMPROVEMENTS IN
PUPIL ATTAINMENT
ACROSS THE
GROUP OF
SCHOOLS.
The Government agrees that selective schools within
the specialist schools programme should play a full part in the
community element of the programme. Where, in the opinion of the
independent assessor employed on the task, a selective school
has failed to play that part, the school has not been re-designated
in the programme. This will continue to be the case. However,
explicit linkage of designation to measurable improvements in
pupil attainment across a group of schools would not be practical
for the reason given in the response to recommendation 17.
19. CAN THE
ACHIEVEMENTS OF
THE FEW
BE EXTENDED
TO THE
MANY?
WE WOULD
WELCOME A
CLEAR STATEMENT
FROM THE
GOVERNMENT ON
HOW IT
ENVISAGES SECONDARY
EDUCATION WILL
LOOK WHEN
ALL SCHOOLS
HAVE SPECIALIST
STATUS; WHETHER
IT ANTICIPATES
FURTHER EXPANSION
IN THE
RANGE OF
SPECIALISMS; AND
HOW THE
GOVERNMENT, IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH
LEAS, WILL
SECURE THE
STRATEGIC DISTRIBUTION
OF SPECIALISMS
SO AS
TO ENABLE
EACH CLUSTER
OF SCHOOLS
TO HAVE
AN APPROPRIATE
COMBINATION OF
SUBJECTS REPRESENTED.
When all schools have specialist status the Government
expects to see a good distribution of specialisms across the country
and across local areas. The Government has no plans to extend
the range of curriculum specialisms. The programme is based around
a specialist focus on part of the curriculum as a catalyst for
whole school improvement and the specialisms now available cover
the full National Curriculum and beyond (e.g. religious education
and classics).
Given that the final decision on specialism rests
with the school (which is important because of the need for the
school's commitment to the programme) it is inevitable that there
will not be an ideal pattern of specialisms in every area. However,
the Government, in partnership with the Specialist Schools Trust,
seeks to ensure a strategic distribution of specialisms by encouraging
local partnerships of LEAs with their secondary schools. These
partnerships, already working in many LEAs, will seek to establish
the optimum distribution of specialisms, taking account of each
school's own circumstances.
When it comes to collaboration between local schools
across a group of specialisms, the geography of what constitutes
the local area will be a decisive influence on the number of schools
in the collaboration. A densely populated urban area might possibly
cover the full range of specialisms in a programme of activity
and the exchange of expertise, whereas a small town with three
secondary schools might limit its substantial collaborative work
to those three schools. ICT links might increase the range for
some purposes and this may be important for towns with only one
secondary school.
20. CAN THE
ACHIEVEMENTS OF
THE FEW
BE EXTENDED
TO THE
MANY?
THE UNIVERSAL
SPECIALIST SYSTEM
WILL POTENTIALLY
INCLUDE ALL
SCHOOLS AND
ALL PUPILS.
THE GOVERNMENT
ASSERTS THAT
THERE IS
A CAUSAL
LINK BETWEEN
SCHOOLS GAINING
SPECIALIST STATUS
AND THEIR
SUCCESS IN
RAISING PUPIL
ATTAINMENT. SCHOOLS
WHICH HAVE
ACHIEVED SPECIALIST
STATUS CAN
BE EXCITING
PLACES WITH
HIGH LEVELS
OF PUPIL
ATTAINMENT, AS
WE SAW
DURING OUR
VISIT TO
BIRMINGHAM. THE
QUESTION IS,
WHAT IS
THE MAIN
FACTOR THAT
MAKES THEM
SO? IS
IT THE
ADVANTAGE THAT
EXTRA FUNDS
BRING? IS
IT THE
MANAGEMENT PROCESS
THAT SCHOOLS
HAVE TO
UNDERTAKE? OR
IS IT
SOMETHING INHERENT
IN THE
SPECIALIST SCHOOLS
POLICY ITSELF?
THE EXTENT
TO WHICH
THE APPARENT
ACHIEVEMENTS OF
THE EARLY
SPECIALIST SCHOOLS
ARE REPEATED
BY THEIR
SUCCESSORS NEEDS
TO BE
CLOSELY MONITORED.
WE URGE
THE GOVERNMENT
TO ENGAGE
IN A
MORE RIGOROUS
EVALUATION OF
THE CURRENT
PROGRAMME THAN
HAS SO
FAR BEEN
ATTEMPTED.
The Government regards all three of the features
identified by the Committee (funding, management process, nature
of the specialist policy) as necessarily integrated elements of
the specialist schools programme. Research, surveys and case studies
have borne on these three elements but there has been no research
attempting to evaluate in quantitative terms the contribution
made by each of the separate elements. It is possible that such
work, which would be complex, would identify particular significance
to one of the elements but the Government sees no reason in the
existing literature to expect that any one element would be shown
to be unimportant to the whole. On the broader front, the Government
will ensure that the achievements of specialist schools continue
to be closely monitored and consider what additional research
should be commissioned.
| 
