Examination of Witness (Questions 99-119)
WEDNESDAY 18 DECEMBER 2002
MR DAVID
MILIBAND MP
Valerie Davey
99. Good morning, Minister. We are delighted
to have you back this time in the main in the context of the secondary
school report which we are taking a full year on but which we
have divided into four main areas, the first of which is diversity,
so the concentration this morning will be on diversity. We are
then going to look at student achievements, teacher retention
and admissions. However, the one we have started on and the one
we shall pursue with you this morning in the main will be diversity.
Looking at your remit, which I have to say is absolutely huge,
it starts off, as we have it anyway, "Transforming Secondary
Education". We are not quite sure which way that is going.
We would like your comments initially on how you see that brief.
How and in what direction are you going to transform secondary
education?
(Mr Miliband) Thank you very much, and
thank you for inviting me back. It feels like rather more than
six months since I was last here. Looking back at the transcript
it was only 24 June that I was here last but quite a lot has happened
since then. I am pleased to come back. It is a good opportunity
to take stock for me as well as, I hope, for you, and if I can
contribute to your inquiry all to the better. I try not to look
at my list of responsibilities. It makes me very tired to look
at it, but one of the things I think I said when I was here last
was that it read more like a list of problems under the previous
dispensation and what we have tried to do is get a slightly more
strategic listing of responsibilities among the different ministers
and certainly Stephen Twigg and I on the schools side are going
to try and work in a more coherent way. I would say in relation
to secondary education that what we are trying to achieve is step
change in the standards of achievement that are attained by young
people measured significantly by test and examination results
but not only by those. We think there are four key priorities
to achieving that step change in student performance and if we
can achieve these four things in every school in the country we
will be a significant way towards a much more successful education
system. Would it be helpful if I reprised those briefly and that
will give you quite a lot to chew on?
100. By all means.
(Mr Miliband) The first is school leadership because
we all know that if you have effective school leadership, by which
I mean the senior management team of a school, not just the charismatic
John Harvey Jones figure who is the headteacher. If you have a
strong management team that is able to set the right vision and
motivate students and staff alike, you are well on the way towards
creating a successful institution and that is certainly the first
of our four priorities. The work of the National College for School
Leadership is critical in that, and similarly the leadership incentive
grant which offers nearly £400,000 over three years to 1,400
schools around the country with the specific purpose of improving
school leadership. The second focus for us is to ensure that every
institution has both a strong sense of its own mission and ethos,
a distinctive focus for its work, but combines that with collaborative
arrangements locally, regionally and nationally that help professional
development and the provision of education to children in the
school. It is a balance between on the one hand institutional
specialisation and on the other hand collaboration. The third
focus for us is on the reform of the school workforce and the
deployment of a wide range of staff to support teachers in the
delivery of effective teaching and learning. We are coming to
the end of some quite productive discussions with leading partners
from the education world: teacher unions, headteacher representatives,
local government and so on about a package of reforms that would
both reform the teachers' contract to guarantee time for preparation,
planning and assessment of lessons, put downward pressure on overall
hours and tackle some of the workload issues that have been prevalent,
but at the same time bring a wider range of adults into the classroom
under the direction of teachers to improve the learning experience
of the student. The fourth priority for us is to promote the partnerships
beyond the classroom, most notably with parents but also with
community groups, with universities, which I was able to discuss
with Jeff Ennis in an adjournment debate on Monday night, that
is, the importance of bringing other partners into relationship
with the schools to help broaden horizons, raise aspirations and
improve attainment. Those four agenda items constitute the core
priorities that I see for the secondary education system. Of course,
at their heart is the teaching and learning experience of individual
pupils. That is what all this is about in the end. What unites
our programmes for leadership, for specialisation and collaboration,
for workforce reform and for partnership beyond the classroom
is the development of an effective learning experience for every
child in the country. We have no embarrassment about the prospect
of standards going up. We do not subscribe to the terrible English
curse that somehow more means worse and that every time standards
(as measured by independent data) show improvement we should all
wring our hands and say how terrible this is when standards rise
because teachers are teaching better or students are working harder.
That is a good thing and we should not be embarrassed about it.
Certainly our agenda for secondary education is dedicated to the
structural reforms and the standards reforms that will deliver
better outcomes.
Valerie Davey: Thank you for that. I
think we can all say that you have been very consistent in that
message since you have been office and that uniting of the commitment
by the Government and everyone else involved to raise standards
has come over as a clear message. Our Committee would like to
explore the detail that underpins that and some of the arguments
and concerns that are being put forward, and we would like to
look first of all at the standards issue.
Mr Chaytor
101. Minister, in your opening statement you
did not mention the word "diversity". You have talked
about a distinctive ethos within schools but do you think there
is a value in having differential status between schools and does
the Government still subscribe to this notion of a hierarchy of
schools?
(Mr Miliband) There is quite a lot in the question
if I could unpack it a bit. For me diversity is a state, not a
policy. It is a description of a reality and one can think that
diversity is good or bad. In my view the sort of diversity that
is bad is between good schools and bad schools. If that is what
you mean by a status hierarchy I do not like that sort of diversity
at all and we certainly do not want to be in a situation where
the diversity that we either promote or allow is that some schools
are good and some schools are bad. That is not a helpful form
of diversity. Having said that, I think there will be diverse
institutions within our education system and they do not necessarily
have to have different status. Some schools will be faith schools
and some schools will not be faith schools. In my book that does
not make one a higher status than the other. Similarly, some schools
will have sixth forms and in other parts of the country there
will be sixth form colleges or FE institutions or 14-19 institutions.
That does not to me determine a hierarchy. That just says that
different local custom and practice and need are being recognised
in different institutional arrangements. In that sense I think
that sort of diversity is perfectly healthy and welcome. Maybe
just to anticipate where you might be going, I think it is important
that we do encourage institutions to be as good as possible. We
should not be in the least bit embarrassed about institutions
striving and becoming excellent. One of my aspirations is that
excellence is available for, in the case of a secondary school,
the 1,000 or 1,200 pupils who are in that secondary school and
that is very important, but the more we can spread that excellence,
either through the sharing of facilities or the development in
a local area of the teaching practices in other schools that reflect
the good practice in the excellent schools or in the excellent
departments, that is a good thing. I hope that is a reasonable
way of addressing your question.
102. You are saying that the distinctive ethos
and the specialism of each school is compatible with the concept
of parity of esteem between schools?
(Mr Miliband) Yes.
103. Between particular designations of school?
(Mr Miliband) Certainly in my book there is no status
differentiation between a science college and an arts college
if you are referring to specialist status. Similarly, I do not
see a status hierarchy, as I said, between a faith school and
a non-faith school, or between a school that is 11-18 or a school
that is 11-16. I think that sort of diversity is healthy and appropriate
to local need.
104. In the process of considering applications
for specialist school status what are the main criteria that are
used?
(Mr Miliband) They are published and open. The most
important is that it can raise standards in the school. When I
say "in the school" I mean across the school and not
just in the particular area of specialism. I do not know if we
are going to come on to this, Chair, but for me the purpose of
the specialist school programme is that it is a school improvement
programme, not, as I said in the speech in Birmingham to the Technology
Colleges Trust conference, a sort of fetishism of a particular
subject. There is a danger that because we have the label "specialist
schools" it could give off the idea that if you go to a science
college all we are interested in doing is teaching you science
whereas that is not true. The purpose of the specialist school
programme is to help raise standards across the board. There are
other criteria to do with community benefits etc, which you know
about, but the prime one is about standards.
105. In terms of the track record of individual
schools, have any schools in special measures or with serious
weaknesses been designated as specialist schools?
(Mr Miliband) I think I am right in saying that if
you are in special measures you cannot become a specialist school
but if you are in serious weaknesses you can. My understanding
is that some have, and that the process of specialism has in some
cases helped them improve. I will need to write back to you to
clarify that.[1]
106. In the annual report of the Ofsted Chief
Inspector recently he suggested that leadership in 20% of schools
was not adequate. Again, would it be conceivable that a school
with leadership that was deemed to be not adequate could be designated
a specialist school or would you need to be convinced that the
existing leadership was at least sound?
(Mr Miliband) When I say that the purpose of the specialist
school programme and the criteria for designation are that the
school shows that it can raise standards, if the assessors have
no confidence in the headteacher that would be a serious drag
anchor on the application.
107. In view of that does it not follow that
if schools in serious weaknesses are excluded and if schools with
weaker leadership are excluded there will inevitably be a widening
differential in achievement between the specialist schools and
those who are left behind? It is like creating a premier league
out of the old first division, is it not?
(Mr Miliband) No, because the test is school improvement.
If there is a school with inadequate leadership, to use your terminology,
that is something that should be a serious issue for governors
and for LEAs whether the school is specialist or not. I take your
word for it on the 20% figure but if there is inadequate leadership
that should be a serious concern for the school, full stop, whether
or not it wants to become specialist. Our data suggest that there
is a wide range of schools in the specialist school programme.
It is not confined to those that are above average in terms of
pupil performance. The key test is whether becoming a specialist
school will help the school improve the education of the children
in it.
108. But you have got to be convinced that there
is the capacity for improvement there, if not already a track
record of improvement?
(Mr Miliband) Capacity for improvement, yes.
109. Therefore is it not inevitable that there
will be a widening gap, however slight that gap will be, because
we are excluding excellent schools without a capacity for reform?
(Mr Miliband) No, we are excluding a tiny minority
of schools who are in the most desperate straits and for whom
intensive action to put in the basic conditions for effective
schooling is required. That is a small minority which should not
give anyone watching this on the Parliament Channel the idea that
the majority of schools are in special measures, but those special
measures are decidedly special and I am pleased to say that the
number of schools that are in the lowest category has halved in
the last six years. I think it is about 248 nationwide now of
schools in special measures. The preponderance of those is secondary
schools but it is less than 200. There is a small minority of
schools for whom we really need to get the basics right before
they can be eligible for the specialist school programme, but
for the rest there is an open field and the Secretary of State
has announced that we are removing any cap on numbers. We have
previously always had targets and we have over-performed against
those targets for specialist schools but there has been a perception
around that it was not a universal programme and I hope the Secretary
of State's announcement made clear that this is open to any school
and it will be a demand-led programme and to the extent that quality
is shown in the applications we will respond to them.
110. In your recent speech in Glasgow you qualified
the Government's previous statements about the performance of
specialist schools by saying that now specialist schools designated
1996 or earlier outperform non-specialist schools in GCSE and
GNVQ, so what are we now saying about the evidence on performance?
(Mr Miliband) There is a more recent speech which
I gave just a couple of weeks ago to the Technology Colleges Trust
and which maybe we can arrange for the Department to circulate
to you and that was to the 1,500 heads who are part of the specialist
school movement. I tried to give them an honest message which
is that there is emerging evidence that the specialist schools
programme does provide (a) a catalyst for higher achievement (not
a guarantee but a catalyst); (b) that the longer schools are in
the programme the stronger the effect is, which maybe is what
you are referring to, but (c) there are under-performing schools
who are specialist schools as well and we should be as rigorous
with specialist schools as with any other school in trying to
help them improve performance.
Valerie Davey: We will get circulate
your latest speech and I am sure we will come back in more detail
to that particular aspect.
Paul Holmes
111. One of the criticisms that we have heard
in taking evidence of the Government's policy on things like specialist
schools is that there is a lack of evidence to explain why you
have leapt into this programme and where is the evidence for what
you say that specialist schools, for example, improve the standards
of the schools around them? There are two pieces of evidence which
we have had. One is that across the board, using the Government's
own figures that are collected every February in Form 7, specialist
schools of various kinds take below the national averages of children
with special educational needs and who qualify for free school
meals. Is that a reason why specialist schools are so successful?
(Mr Miliband) I do not think so because on a value-added
basis any "bias" in intake would be recognised. Certainly
the free school meal figures which I am more familiar with are
pretty close to the national average for specialist schools and
closer year by year so that the specialist school programme is
increasing reflective of the nation's schools (a) in free school
meals and (b) in the achievement of 11-year olds as they come
into specialist schools. The purpose of the value added data is
to try to screen out the effects of prior attainment and to recognise
those schools that are helping to improve performance. I do not
think it is as simple as saying that the schools are getting a
cushy intake and therefore that explains their success. I think
it is a more complex picture than that.
112. You do not think there is any relationship
between the fact that they take fewer children with free school
meals and fewer children with special needs?
(Mr Miliband) In relation to the value added data,
no. I think the purpose of value added data is to see how a school
builds on prior attainment. My own view is that the most important
thing about the specialist school programme is the process of
critical self-review that it sets off in institutions. For any
institution, public, private or voluntary sector,—for government
departments as well, one might say,—the requirement to look
critically at one's performance: what are the areas that one is
doing well in, what are the areas that one is doing badly in,
how can one build on the excellence, how can one tackle the weakness,
is a very powerful process for any institution to go through.
It is human nature that it is a hard thing to step up and do that
but the incentive that comes with additional finance and the chance
to develop a specialism can help catalyse that sort of critical
self-review. That is why I talk about the specialist school programme
being a school improvement programme rather than the fetishism
of a particular subject.
113. Ofsted a week or two ago when giving evidence
to us looked at this year's figures and they said that the trend
of improvement in specialist schools—and they were particularly
talking about the 500 or so specialist schools that have been
created in the last two years rather than the slightly older ones—is
broadly similar to the national picture, in which case where is
the justification for giving all the extra money and the extra
status to specialist schools?
(Mr Miliband) I am unable to quote from memory what
you are reading out but I think the same evidence said that two
years was a very early stage at which to measure that sort of
performance. One would expect it to take longer to come through
and the evidence is that the longer a school is a specialist school
the more profound the effect. I think that is what we have seen
in other specialist schools. I think that is the fairest way of
answering the point.
Jonathan Shaw
114. We need to be clear about what the emerging
evidence is. The parliamentary answers show that they are exactly
the same.
(Mr Miliband) What is exactly the same?
115. The specialist schools and regular secondary
schools. Between 1997 and 2000 it was plus 6% both for the maintained
and for the specialist schools.
(Mr Miliband) I do not know what data set you are
referring to. As I understand it there are two sets of main researchers,
one conducted by Professor Jesson at York University, and then
we have the qualitative evidence of the Ofsted data.
116. The average percentage of pupils obtaining
five GCSEs or GNVQ A-C grades in the academic years from 1 September
1997 and mainstream schools are the same improvement levels, plus
6%. That is in the parliamentary answer, so there is no difference.
What is the emerging evidence?
(Mr Miliband) Just hear me out. There are two data
sets. One is the value added data analysis.
117. We are talking about value added.
(Mr Miliband) Let me make my point. There are two
sets of data. One is the value added data. On the other hand there
is the Ofsted evidence that comes out of qualitative studies that
Ofsted inspectors do and you have quoted some of the national
evidence. On the value added scores there does seem to be a significant
effect and the Jesson work bears that out. The qualitative inspections
by Ofsted have shown that in a significant number of cases the
process of becoming a specialist school has contributed to significant
change in the school. That level of improvement is not confined
to specialist schools. There are examples of other schools that
have made significant improvements too, sometimes through change
in leadership or for a variety of reasons, but the components
of the specialist school programme in relationship to the building
up of a centre of excellence, the development of a partnership
with an outside partner or sponsor, have in the qualitative evidence
of Ofsted made a significant difference. The final point in relation
to your data is that within a data set that is (a) growing every
year and (b) has a different time line for different schools,
there are sub-trends and the trend I am referring you to is that
the longer a school is a specialist school the stronger the evidence
that its performance outstrips other similar schools.
118. You said in your speech to Glasgow University,
"From 1997 to 2001, GCSE/GNVQ scores of schools designated
specialist on or before 1996 have risen faster year-on-year than
the average of mainstream . . .". That is what you said.
(Mr Miliband) Yes.
119. You see my confusion? Now you are talking
about what Ofsted are saying and about what the added value is.
You said on 19 September that they had improved more so but in
answer to parliamentary questions on 15 October that they had
not.
(Mr Miliband) I am very happy to lay this out in complete
detail. Why do I not write to the Committee giving our full picture
of the data?[2]
You have quoted two snapshots: one sentence
from a speech in September, which I am sure is wholly accurate
since I put it into the speech, and secondly from part of a parliamentary
answer, which I am sure is also wholly accurate but I am afraid
I do not remember the details of what surrounded those things.
What I would like to do is, if you have an issue about inconsistent
use of data or inconsistencies in our answers about data, to set
out at great length for you our data base.
Valerie Davey: We are going to have to
concentrate on this evidence issue but I do want to move on. We
will get that reply from you, and thank you very much.
1 Note by Witness: Schools in Special Measures
and those identified by Ofsted as having serious weaknesses are
able to apply to be a specialist school status. Back
2
See Appendix p 37. Back
| 
