19. Memorandum submitted by CASE (DP 21)
DIVERSITY OF
PROVISION—A
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
| 
