Select Committee on Education and Skills Written Evidence


19. Memorandum submitted by CASE (DP 21)

DIVERSITY OF PROVISIONA POLICY WITHOUT A CLEAR RATIONALE

  1.  In 2001 the Government's Green Paper Schools:Building on Success claimed that "promoting diversity leads to greater flexibility, more opportunities for all schools to learn from each other, and a wider range of opportunities for pupils and parents" . . . The Diversity section on the DfES Standards website says that The rationale for promoting school diversity is based on sound evidence that schools with a mission and a clear focus are successful in raising standards. Schools, it is said, will "use their uniqueness to drive up standards". Investment for Reform 2002 maintains "We will provide better choice for children, students, parents and learners. Specialist schools and Academies will offer more opportunities and choice, amongst the increasingly diverse range of secondary schools." In March this year the Prime Minister said "In the end, a more diverse school system will deliver better results for our children".

  2.  Despite these assertions it is difficult to discern a coherent rationale underpinning the Government's diversity policy. The diversity policy for secondary schools is completely at variance with that for primary schools which are encouraged to be similar. No one could disagree with the Government's wish "to enable all schools to develop three key characteristics of successful secondary schools—effective leadership, a resolute focus on raising standards throughout the schools and a strong ethos". The question is whether this will be achieved by having 2000 specialist schools, 300 advanced schools, 260 training schools, more faith schools, 33 academies and more schools taken over by sponsors. Some schools could be in several of the categories. Many secondary schools will be in none of them.

  3.  Furthermore we now have a new emphasis—on collaboration and federation. Papers supporting the series of conferences Making the Difference currently being held by the DfES for secondary heads say that Our vision for secondary education is underpinned by the principles of specialisation and collaboration. The secondary beacon school programme is now to become the advanced school programme. These schools are intended to encourage learning communities or "other federation arrangements". So, it seems, the policy is to bribe schools to be different and then bribe them to work together.

  4.  Perhaps the original rationale for the policy was that it is an attempt to encourage collaboration by sharing out the limited numbers of specialist teachers. However this would require a direction to schools about which specialism they might have. When asked about a target number for each specialism, the then Minister Stephen Timms said that there was no target, apart from sports colleges.

  5.  The drive to specialisation has been described as "modernising" comprehensive education. Comprehensive education has been a success, not least in encouraging social inclusion. The Comprehensive Champions website www.casenet.org.uk/champions shows what young people who went to comprehensives value about their education. This ideal should not be undermined by the Government's policy of diversity.

  6.  For many areas in England comprehensive education is yet to arrive. Investment for Reform for example, does not mention the 164 grammar schools and their related secondary moderns, which are part of the existing diversity. There is already much diversity in the system, compared to other countries. Despite two major Education Acts there is much structural diversity in schools. We still have several types of school organisation, affecting admission arrangements. There are likely to be wider differences in governance because of provisions in the new Act.

THE SPECIALIST SCHOOLS PROGRAMME

  7.  The specialist school programme sets aside a pot of money which is available to some schools, but not all. The current budget will mean that some schools will be at the bottom of the "ladder" for at least another three years. The one third of schools denied their share of extra funds will surely become weaker, and these are likely to be those where children depend more on school for their life chances. Schools which through no fault of their own fail to secure sponsorship, which have objections to the whole policy on principle, or whose parents say, quite reasonably, that what they want is a broad curriculum, will become the new sink schools as a direct result of Government policy.

  8.  Encouraging schools to specialise reduces parental choice. Where is the evidence that parents want to choose a specialism for their 10 year olds? The policy could lead to a situation where a child will be denied a place in their neighbourhood school either because the school is selecting a proportion of its intake or the child's parents feel that the school's specialism will not suit their child.

  9.  It is clear that the current range of specialist schools both geographically and in their curriculum specialities does not show any clear pattern. The range reflects the particular schools which have been able to get a bid together. This will mean that sharing of expertise and resources will be patchy and lead to greater differences in provision.

  10.  The evidence base for the specialist school policy in relation to its effect on achievement is flimsy. It must be borne in mind that the Conservative Government policy was that only "successful" schools could apply to be specialist schools. Work by Professor David Jesson and Sir Cyril Taylor (Value added and the benefits of specialism TCT Trust 2000) and Professor Anne West (DfES 2000 Research Brief 196 Examining the impact of the specialist schools programme) shows specialist schools to be doing better than non-specialist schools. However the reasons for this are by no means clear. The Committee has already heard from Professor Gorard whose work seems to indicate there is little difference in achievement. Sandie and Ian Shagen's work for NFER (The impact of specialist and faith schools on Performance 2002) said "It is important to note that the differences . . . were very small . . . average score only 0.08 points higher . . . further analysis suggested that the more able pupils in specialist schools may take an additional GCSE subject (compared to pupils in other schools) and this may help to explain why their total point score is relatively high". The Government's own statistical analysis (Pupil progress in secondary education by school type in England, 2001 17 June 2002) again showed differences in average progress were small . . .

  10.  There is also evidence that despite the Government's intention the impact on their non-specialist secondary neighbours of one school becoming specialist is not positive. NFER research (School Partnerships in Action: A case study of specialist schools. November 2002) indicates that partnerships between specialist schools and non-specialists are seen as "one of the greatest challenges facing schools". Ofsted's research (Specialist Schools: An evaluation of progress) also found that the community dimension was the weakest element of the specialist schools' work.

  11.  Good management in schools makes a difference and the process of becoming a specialist school may mean that management processes improve. But this possibility of improvement, arising almost as a by-product as a result of the process of becoming specialist, should not be deliberately withheld from the pupils in a third of secondary schools.

  12.  The specialist school policy conflicts with the ideal that children should walk to school and the overall environmental policy of reducing car use. More travel to school means hazards on dangerous roads, separation of friends and families, less local accountability, less involvement of parents in school and less involvement for the school in community activities and homes. Another part of Government policy is to encourage schools to play a stronger role in the community, if pupils are travelling further and further to get to school this aim is undermined.

  13.  The idea that secondary schools should have a curriculum specialism directly contradicts the Government's policy of the need for a broad curriculum post 16. At the moment is seems the Government wants students to specialise at 11, possibly scatter to different schools at 14 to specialise or go into work related learning and then finally have a broad education post 16.

  14.  It seems likely that the specialist school policy was a response to the much publicised middle class flight from inner city schools. It is to be hoped the Committee will be able to obtain accurate evidence about trends in uptake of private education. Although numbers of pupils in private education are high in London and the South East there does not seem to be any indication that these numbers have changed substantially over recent years, indeed the proportion in private secondary education was higher in 1964-65 before comprehensive education was widespread. (PQ House of Lords. 14.12.1999 Baroness Blackstone). One must ask what is its relevance to Cornwall, Devon Lincolnshire, Northumberland, Suffolk and Wiltshire where huge amounts are spent getting children to any school at all?

  15.  Even in schools which succeed in getting specialist status there may be a price to pay. It would be very interesting to know whether standards have at least temporarily slipped during the preparation of a bid, which consumes so much creative time. The programme results in many schools to spending time on unsuccessful bids. In the October 2001 round over 100 schools applied unsuccessfully. There must be a cost in this both in time spent and teacher morale.

  16.  It is not clear why, at the same time as extending the specialist schools policy, experiments with much smaller schools in the inner city were not tried. The Green Paper Schools Building on Success 2001 said Starting this year we intend as a pilot to offer to substantial additional support and funding to about eight or 10 well-managed secondary schools in these particularly difficult circumstances. This pilot will include a strong emphasis on much smaller classes and more flexible approaches to the use of time. This proposal seemed to offer some possibility of human scale education but it seems that this option may not have been pursued.

THE EFFECT OF DIVERSITY OF PROVISION ON ADMISSIONS AND PARENTAL CHOICE

Admissions

  17.  Until now the Government's policy on admissions has been essentially passive. It seems to be if local people do not take action then it does not matter. This "hands off" approach is in stark contrast to its approach to the rest of education policy where schools specialise and academies are set up without any need to test local opinion.

  18.  The new Code of Practice will encourage more local co-ordination with a stronger role for LEAs. Schools which are admission authorities will continue to have more opportunity to choose pupils but the now statutory admission forums will have a crucial role in ensuring fairness. The inclusion of parent governor representatives in admission forums is to be welcomed.

Selective schools

  19.  Selection impacts on the Government's aims of raising standards of achievement and inclusion. The Government's declared strategy is that it is working to make Britain a society that is: inclusive: creating opportunities and removing barriers to ensure that everyone can fulfil their potential. Retaining the barrier of selection and indeed allowing more barriers to be erected directly undermines these aims.

  20.  The continuation of the 11 plus in 36 LEAs means that many English children continue to label themselves as failures at 11. There can be no justification for this. We need to encourage high aspirations. Placing barriers before young children like this should have no place in a modern education system. The percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals in grammar schools (2.7%) compared to non selective schools in England (17.1%) illustrates the stark social segregation which selection brings about. (PQ 1 November 2000 House of Commons).

  21.  Government statements give the impression that the number of grammar schools is so small they have little impact. As there are 164 grammar schools, there must notionally be three times that number of secondary moderns, in practice if not in name. Therefore out of roughly 3,500 secondary schools in England it is likely that selection for grammar schools must affect almost one in five pupils. There are more children facing the 11 plus in England than in Northern Ireland, where the 11 plus was recently brought to an end.

  22.  Jesson recently compared the educational outcomes of two selective LEAs, Kent and Medway, with what would be expected if they were comprehensive. He found the results of national comparisons for both types of school in Kent and Medway show substantial evidence of low performance in GCSE outcomes (A review of structure and performance of secondary education in Kent and Medway 2002). Research findings by Shagen (The impact of specialist and faith schools on Performance 2002 NFER) and the DfES (Pupil progress in secondary education by school type in England, 2001 17 June 2002) both indicate that when overall results are examined selective areas outperform comprehensive areas at KS2 to 3 but importantly the reverse is true from at GCSE. It is interesting that DfES statistics that show the gap in performance at GCSE between pupils' achievement in selective areas compared to that in non-selective areas is greater than the gap between non-specialist schools and specialist. Despite this Government policy is to drive schools to be specialist whilst ignoring the need to end selection in areas such as Kent and Lincolnshire. On the evidence of this, their own data ending selection in these areas would have a greater impact on standards.

  23.  The Government policy "no more selection" (except 10% on aptitude) is incoherent and weak. Current legislation on petitioning and balloting to end selective admissions in grammar school areas means that change will never come, only frustration and cynicism. If the committee wishes CASE can provide detailed evidence on the practical difficulties of the petitioning and balloting procedures.

  24.  In some selective areas grammar schools have also been awarded specialist status, in other selective areas, non selective schools have specialist status, further enhancing the pecking order of schools.

  25.  The Green Paper Schools Building on Success 2001 said "Some of the lowest attaining schools in the country are secondary modern schools in areas where a selective system still exists. We want to encourage more partnerships between grammar and secondary modern schools in the future so that they can share expertise and learn from each other, as will happen in Ripon and Folkestone. We will provide additional funding to encourage this collaboration and in due course extend it to all selective areas". However, the initiative totally fails to address the impact on the self esteem of 10 year olds labelled as failures as selection remains despite the "partnership". The Committee will want to investigate the impact of these "partnerships".

Partially selective schools

  26.  The facility to select 10% of intake on aptitude is rightly widely ridiculed. The belief that aptitude can be separated from ability seems to be one that only the Government holds. Yet when challenged the usual Government response is that most schools do not use their right to select, so the retention of this policy is justified by saying it is rarely used.

  27.  Schools which achieve specialist status are not obliged to select their intake. In fact all schools which consider they have a specialism could select 10% on aptitude. Currently few schools have taken up the 10% selection on aptitude option. Of course it is easier for schools which are admission authorities to introduce selection. Of the 25 specialist schools listed in a recent parliamentary answer as selecting part of their intake only one is a community school. (PQ 23 January 2002. House of Commons). However any community school that wishes, with local agreement, can transfer from community to foundation status. A school becoming a foundation school becomes an admission authority. If more schools were admission authorities it would be easier for 10% selection to spread in a domino effect. So there is the potential for a huge increase in selection.

  28.  It is important to remember that even if only 10% of places are reserved for pupils with a particular aptitude, many more children will be put through the test. Parents living locally will be concerned that their children might not get in and might be tempted to put them in for the test "just in case". This adds to the burden of tests on our children.

  29.  With the exception of grammar schools where only parents may decide, parents have few rights to challenge admission policies. Parents may object to the admission criteria of the few schools, which were partially academically selective before 1997. But if local schools introduce 10% selection on aptitude parents cannot object to the Adjudicator. However they may do so if schools propose taking fewer pupils than their published admissions limit. Inevitably the introduction of 10% selection on aptitude reduces parental choice for all local parents whose children do not have the "aptitude".

  NB: CASE is aware that the Committee has already examined OECD findings which show differentiated systems are associated with social segregation and that the Committee has been sent copies of Selection isn't working. Diversity, standards and inequality in secondary education. Catalyst Forum. 2002.

FAITH SCHOOLS

  30.  Previously the Government has expressed a wish to have more faith schools. While there is provision within the maintained school system for C of E and Catholic schools it is difficult to argue against more faith schools if there is genuine local demand. Again Schagen's research does not indicate significally better results are achieved by faith schools. The issues for and against church schools were explored in debates in the House of Commons during the recent passage of the Education Bill.

  31.  The facility to give priority to children of a particular faith means it is possible for these schools to refuse places to local pupils. It is likely that more faith schools will lead to increased social segregation. We welcome the provision in the Code of Practice laid before parliament (15 November 2002) that no parents or children should be interviewed as part of the application or admission process in any school for the September 2005 intake and beyond.

ACADEMIES AND CITY TECHNOLOGY COLLEGES

  32.  A description of these schools as "independent publicly-funded schools" is surely a contradiction in terms.

  33.  The City Academy programme hands over the running of publicly-funded schools to businesses etc, whom it was said will "own and run" them (original prospectus). There has been little justification that Government should have the right to give away a maintained school to be an "independent" school run by a trust set up by a benefactor. The prospectus was not consulted upon, yet on that basis these schools have been set up. There is no doubt that the creating academies where schools were originally community schools involves the transfer of public assets over which democratically elected LEAs had the power, to a sponsoring body of trustees which have the majority appointed by a private company or individual.

  34.  CASE has many concerns about lack of local accountability and democracy in the creation of another tier of "independent" publicly-funded schools. When schools become academies the majority vote on the governing bodies is awarded to the sponsors who put up the money. Sponsors are even allowed to select the "community governor".

  35.  The funding agreement, which sets out the basis upon which Academies are to be run has to be agreed with the Secretary of State. This is the crucial document, including such issues as the composition of the governing body, disposal of assets, financial and accounting requirements, and the admission of pupils. Funding agreements for academies are negotiated virtually as secret documents. There seems to be little importance attached to views of rank and file parents, pupils and staff and the community. When CASE asked the DfES about how funding agreements could be made public we were told they would be available in the House of Commons library.

  36.  The funding agreeement for Willesden City Academy sets out that the Governing Body will have seven governors appointed by the sponsor, one elected parent governor, one elected teacher governor, one elected staff governor, one LEA governor, one local community governor and the Headteacher. Additional governors might be coopted or appointed by the Secretary of State. The community governor will be appointed by the Sponsor. The proportion of parent governors is much smaller than in an equivalent community school.

  37.  The imposition of academies also raises the question of the long term role of LEAs. Academies, like grant maintained schools in the past, will be directly funded from Whitehall. Thirty academies in London will form a significant proportion of secondary schools. This raises the question of the possibility that the Government aims in the long term to have primary education managed and funded locally and secondary nationally.

  38.  It is far too early to say whether this particular initiative will be successful for the pupils it claims to benefit.

  39.  Academies are required to have banded intakes, requiring them to admit a full range of those applying. The funding agreements of City Technology Colleges require that the intake of pupils into City Technology Colleges is representative of the full range of ability among pupils in the catchment area. Nine bands of ability are used. CTCs may carry out "structured discussions" with the pupils to determine "specialist aptitudes". CTCs are not to interview parents. Appeals about admission are only allowed about the administration of the admissions process.

SCHOOLS RUN BY PRIVATE ORGANISATIONS

  40.  The Green Paper (Schools Building on Success 2001) proposed a new model enabling a private or voluntary sponsor taking over a school for a fixed term contract. There are such schools in Surrey, where the LEA has set up these arrangements.

  41.  These arrangements will no doubt lead to diversity in governance of publicly-funded schools. It is difficult to derive clear intentions behind Government policy as to where the Government intends accountability to lie between LEAs, governors, parents and children—and shareholders.

FUNDING

  42.  It is hoped that the Committee will be able to investigate the disparities of funding between secondary schools and the effect this has on per pupil funding. This will include several aspects:

    —  the effect of education SSAs on secondary schools across the country;

    —  extra funding for specialist schools and beacon schools; and

    —  extended transitional funding for ex grant maintained schools the difference between the per pupil funding in academies and CTCs compared to local pupils.

  43.  Government policy is to provide more for schools in challenging circumstances and this and the provision of the new leadership grant seems to show an acceptance that more money is needed where schools are in difficulties. This is in contrast with the specialist school policy which seems to reward schools successful in particular curriculum areas. It would be a more consistent policy to give specific grants to schools with problems in particular curriculum areas.

  44.  Some of the challenging circumstances which schools find themselves in are a result of selection. For example the Bexley City Academy is a fully selective LEA. Surely it would be better to spend money changing the circumstances by ending selection.

EARNED AUTONOMY

  45.  The Committee will want to investigate the likely effects of the provisions of the recent Education Act schools in which schools may "earn" the right to vary the National Curriculum. This raises the possibility of schools reducing the curriculum offer, perhaps focusing on work-related learning. This could result in parents being offered a "pathway" for their children at 11 which effectively reduces the entitlement to a broad, rich curriculum.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMITTEE

    —  The Committee must ensure that the Government provides it with the "sound evidence", if it exists, to support its policy of enforced diversity for secondary schools.

    —  All pupils deserve a rich curriculum so that they are all able to play to their strengths, whatever they may be and as they change with age. We hope that the Committee will recommend that all schools should be funded to ensure this entitlement for all pupils.

Specialist schools

    —  Improvements in management and achievement which are the features of specialist schools should be made possible for all pupils in all schools.

    —  The provision of a broad, rich, properly funded curriculum for all pupils in all schools should be the basic aim of government. The aim should be that all children who wish to extend their interest in particular curriculum areas during their time at school should be able to do so regardless of which school they attend. LEAs should be able to ensure that there is specialist curriculum support offered to all children, through centres available to all children locally as of right

    —  The specialist school programme has virtually no support as a policy, most see it as divisive. However abandoning it now would alienate the many schools, which have not succeeded in getting a bid together. The aim therefore should be to provide this extra funding to all secondary schools as quickly as possible.

    —  The specialist school policy requires schools to fundraise. Schools should not have to raise funds to meet curriculum provision. Schools are educational institutions not business fundraisers. A general fund from business unrelated to particular schools and sponsor governors could be set up. We note that the Technology College Trust is already trying to gather support for schools which cannot raise the funds. As soon as possible funds should be made available for all schools without their having to raise £50,000.

    —  Instead of selecting from the Government's list of allowed specialisms schools should be able to choose their own specialism. All secondary schools should have money made available to them to develop their own initiatives, "bottom up"' for example an innovative curriculum, humanities, work in the community or work with parents. This should be over and above the rich broad curriculum which all schools should offer their pupils. This money should be a genuine extra for provision on top of what is provided. This would empower teachers as professionals rather than asking them to behave as performing seals bidding for money. If the process of tightening up the management of the school which is required for specialist status is could remain.

    —  As an alternative CASE wants to see more small secondary schools in inner city areas, funded to provide a rich curriculum rather than being required to specialise.We would like to see them being funded to allow them to be very much smaller.

Choice

  When local schools select pupils either by test or faith then "choice" of schools for many parents and pupils is inevitably reduced. We hope the Committee will recognise that parental choice of schools can only be maximised if all local schools are open to all local children.

Selective schools

    —  We hope the Committee will celebrate the achievements of comprehensive education.

    —  Selection at 11 is an educational and moral issue. We urge the Committee to encourage government to take the lead and adopt a coherent policy against selection.

    —  We hope the Committee will consider in detail the effect of selection in England on local areas and the children in them, including a fair comparison of standards. This would be no more than has been publicly funded in Northern Ireland.

    —  If the policy that parents decide about grammar schools is to remain, we urge the Committee to call for changes to the legislation and a government campaign for change, with a well argued debate, involving professionals, before parents are consulted.

Partly selective schools

    —  The provision that schools with a specialism can select 10% on aptitude should be ended.

    —  Parents should be able to complain to the Adjudicator if schools introduce 10% selection.

Faith schools

    —  CASE believes that schools funded by general taxation should be open to all children. Because of this CASE wants to see all faith schools required to open a significant proportion of their places to local children who are not in the faith community. If these schools believe that have something to offer then logically it should be offered as a choice to all local parents.

CTCs and academies

    —  The Committee should explore the issue of accountability, governance and democracy in relation to these publicly funded schools and make recommendations for change.

    —  We hope the Committee will examine admission procedures in these schools. CTCs and Academies must have open admission policies and practices and able to be challenged by local people though the adjudicator. This requirement to end interviews for admission must apply to academies and CTCs.

Structure

    —  We hope the Committee will comment on school structure. We would like to see the structure of schooling simplified by having two types of schools—community and foundation only, with church schools included into foundation status.

November 2002


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 22 May 2003