Why does it matter?
6 In March 2002, following the publication of
the OECD PISA report,[2]
the Committee travelled to Paris to take evidence from OECD on
the results of the PISA study.[3]
We were struck, first by the comparative success of the young
people from the UK who participated in the study, but also by
the range of achievements recorded. The students who participated
in the study demonstrated knowledge and skills in reading, mathematics
and science significantly above the OECD average, ahead of France,
Germany and the USA. Although the scores of the lowest performing
English students compared well with those in other countries,
the study showed England to have a wide variation in the performance
of the most and least able students.[4]
Perhaps contrary to expectations, this variation was shown to
be greater within schools[5]
rather than between schools and showed a clear correlation
between pupil achievement and social class.
7 The PISA study also identified links between
the structure and organisation of education and performance within
schools, suggesting that models of education provision with high
levels of selection and differentiation between schools, deliver
wider differences between the most and the least able, and suggested
that selective practices, including streaming, can have the effect
of depressing levels of pupil attainment.[6]
"The best performing countries secure high average
performance consistently across schools. Conversely, countries
with larger disparities among schools tend to achieve lower overall
performance. Securing similar performance standards among schools,
perhaps most importantly through identifying and reforming poorly
performing schools, is not just an important policy goal in itself,
but it may also contribute to high overall performance.
Where there is a high degree of variation between
schools, students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds
tend to do worse. This, in turn, means that some of the inequality
of outcomes is associated with inequality of opportunity. In such
circumstances, talent remains unused and human resources are wasted.
The more stratified an education system is, the larger
are the typical performance differences between students from
more and less advantaged family backgrounds. Both overall variation
in student performance and performance differences between schools
tend to be greater in those countries with institutional differentiation
at an early age between types of programme and schools. PISA also
suggests that the effects of social clustering are larger in school
systems with differentiated types of school than in systems in
which the curriculum does not vary significantly between schools
and programmes."[7]
8 International comparisons, while popular with
the media, are problematic for policy makers and we recognise
the limitations of relying too heavily on findings from a single
source, or indeed a multiplicity of international projects. Nevertheless,
the results of the first PISA study have provided a valuable backdrop
to this inquiry, offering a helpful basis for formulating questions
about the performance of schools and pupil achievement, scrutinising
policy assertions and research findings.
9 It was with these findings in mind that we
developed our terms of reference for this inquiry into secondary
education and determined to pay particular attention to the impact
of policy on the least, as well as the most, able; the disadvantaged
as well as the privileged.[8]
10 The benefits of education and learning are
widely acknowledged and the subject of extensive research.[9]
Higher levels of educational achievement are known to bring access
to employment and economic independence, but they also contribute
to physical wellbeing and to mental health. It is these reasons,
as well as for reasons of social justice, that we support the
Government's declared aim that education policy should serve all
people, whatever their background.
11 The Committee is mindful of the Government's
target to increase the participation of 18-30 year olds in higher
education towards 50%. In 2002 just 51% of 16 year olds achieved
5 A*-C GCSEs, the first step on the road to higher education while
5.4%[10] of 15 year olds
did not achieve a single GCSE. While the proportion of pupils
obtaining 5 A*-C GCSEs is increasing and the proportion failing
to obtain any GCSE qualifications is decreasing, the profile of
pupil achievement remains a matter of considerable concern. This
Committee has previously demonstrated its commitment to widening
access to higher education and to second chance opportunities
for adult learners, but we believe that more needs to be done
in secondary education to increase the proportion of young people
who have the knowledge, educational achievement and aspirations
to prepare them for further or higher education, without recourse
to second chances.
12 Our final purpose in focusing on the Government's
policy of using diversity in secondary education as a means of
increasing parental choice and raising levels of attainment is
in respect of our responsibility to hold the Department for Education
and Skills to account for its expenditure. It is through inquiries
such as this that we are able to scrutinise the work of the Department
and evaluate the impact of policy and the extent to which public
finds have been wisely spent. In this context we are particularly
interested in assessing the extent to which the Government's policies
are supported by evidence. The specialist schools programme is
a major area of education funding, amounting to £145.3 million
in 2002-03.
1 
