Memorandum by the Secondary Heads Association
(CVP 22)
1 The Secondary Heads Association represents
over 11,000 members of leadership teams in maintained and independent
schools and colleges throughout the UK. This is an area that is
of great interest to many of our members both in relation to the
operation of their own schools and colleges and out of their concern
for the education system as a whole.
General
2 Consumer choice is well established in some
parts of education but less prevalent in others. Reflecting the
interest of our members much of this paper is about choice in
secondary education but there are more general remarks about choice
and about other sectors first.
3 Choice of institution, of secondary school
in particular, is what makes headlines, but there are other choices
arguably as important if not as prominent. Chief amongst these
is the choice of what is to be studied; the subject(s), topics,
skills and knowledge, and the route through learning that follows
- this is referred to here as the programme of study. Location
is an important choice, it may follow from the choice of institution
but not always directly; and traditional correspondence courses
and more recent e-learning allow for study of a structured course
at home. Teachers are very important to learners, who rarely have
much choice over who is their teacher. Mode of attendance (full
or part time) is a significant choice in some contexts, and timing
(whether to study now, or next month, or next year). There are
cost factors associated with many of these choices, both to the
individual and the public purse.
4 The state has decided not to allow parents
the choice of withdrawing their children from education between
the ages of 5 and 16. SHA supports this. It does mean that such
children are effectively compelled to attend school and choices
about their education are made in a very different context than
those made by older students. (The 1944 Education Act allows for
education otherwise than by attending school, but cost and the
difficulty of providing a broad education mean that this is not
a choice that many parents are able to make.)
Further Education and Higher Education
5 There is no compulsion to engage in further
or higher education, though there are considerable incentives.
Parts of higher education operate in a national or even international
market, and it is understood that students are voluntary, and
have a free choice of course and of institution to which to apply.
Further education and the part-time and more vocational courses
in higher education are more locally based, and this may limit
choice to a single institution or course.
6 The Committee will be aware of the recent report
of a group led by Professor Schwartz into higher education admissions,
which found the system to be inefficient, wasteful, unscientific
and sometimes unfair. (DfES, September 2004). There are lessons
to be learnt not only in relation to higher education, but also
when considering extending choice in other parts of education.
7 SHA would also commend the report of its own
commission that has recently looked at higher education admissions
with a view to moving to post qualification application. (SHA,
November 2004).
8 It is in further and higher education that
examples of choice over location, mode of attendance and timing
can most readily be found. Even in HE there is little opportunity
for students to choose their teachers, and a frequent complaint
of university students at elite universities is that the "star"
professors who sold the course do little or none of the teaching.
Choice of school
9 This section is largely about parental choice
of state secondary schools. Some of the considerations apply to
the primary sector, but primary admissions are generally less
vexed than secondary, and primary schools retain to a greater
degree their local character.
10 Independent schools represent extra choices
for those families that can afford them. HMC and GSA schools provide
a generally high quality service but at too high a price for most
families. Many of the same considerations apply as for state schools,
but in a very different context, as the relationship is essentially
commercial, and voluntary on both sides. Boarding schools obviously
have less of a local character and operate in a national or regional
market.
11 In considering admissions to state secondary
schools, the Committee will be aware of the report of the Education
and Skills Committee (House of Commons, July 2004), with which
SHA very largely concurs.
12 A completely free choice of schools (like
any other untrammelled freedom) can never be possible, and one
of the reasons why this has become such a problem is that politicians
of all parties have raised expectations of choice that cannot
be fulfilled.
13 At present, parents do not have a choice so
much as an opportunity to express a preference. It is of concern
that as many as 10% of parents now appeal against the outcome
of the admissions system to secondary school. This must reflect
a wider sense of dissatisfaction.
14 Having said that, it should be noted that
secondary school choice is a metropolitan, or at least urban,
obsession. In rural areas and small towns there often is no choice.
15 In urban areas where there are several schools
available we might consider how parents (or students) can effectively
exercise choice. They clearly need good information about the
schools concerned; but schooling, like any other complex process,
is hard to understand, and it is difficult to extract the relevant
from a mass of information of very different kinds. There is often
a received wisdom about which is the 'best' school, but this may
be out of date and based on trivial factors or aspects of education
that are not of concern to a particular parent. A consumer guide
might assist the process, but a decision over education is more
important that what restaurant to visit, and there are different
perspectives on what factors are of particular relevance. Education
has in recent years also become more politicised, which may distort
commentators' judgements.
16 The atmosphere of denigration of state education
that has prevailed for much of the past 15 years has given the
impression that most schools are poor and that parents need to
shop around very widely to achieve a decent education for their
children. There are poor schools, but the vast majority are in
fact good - and surveys of parents with children at school show
that the great majority use a local school and are satisfied with
the education their children receive.
17 Publishing school league tables has been very
unhelpful and damaging: they focus on one or two very specific
measures that can actually mislead parents looking for the best
school for their child, and their apparent precision is largely
spurious.
Increasing choice makes planning more difficult
18 If a parent is to have a real choice between
two schools there must be a place available at each, this means
that for there to be real choice there must be spare capacity
in the system.
19 Ideally the system would reflect the choices
that are made, but this is inherently difficult in education.
Schools are large capital items that cannot be changed quickly
to reflect changes in fashion. The climate mentioned in paragraph
16 above means that there will often be a general demand for certain
schools which cannot be met. The growth of successful schools
may undermine their success.
20 If parents do not choose the nearest school
children have longer journeys, which has implications not only
for the individual family but also for planning of school buses
and traffic planning in general. There are also ecological considerations
of increased travel. These issues are explored in the recent report
of the Transport Committee (House of Commons, March 2004) and
in the SHA memorandum appended to it.
21 The present system of school admissions creates
conflict between schools (strictly, between admissions authorities),
making collaboration difficult. Again, see the report of the Education
and Skills Committee (op cit). This is exacerbated by weakness
of planning and uncertainty of direction.
22 Examples can be found in the recent DfES five-year
strategy in proposals for city academies, foundation schools,
expansion of popular schools, new schools, and new sixth forms.
In SHA's view these are unbalanced in the direction of the autonomy
of individual schools to the detriment of planning for effective
provision for all children. These points are developed in the
SHA response to a DfES consultation of December 2004 (appended
as annex A).
23 Where a wide choice of secondary schools is
exercised it creates extra problems for children's transition
from primary to secondary. In metropolitan areas it is not unusual
for children to leave a primary school to 20 destinations, and
join a secondary school from 50. This is not only a problem for
schools but also for the children themselves at an already difficult
time.
The case against planning
24 The extra efficiency promised by planning
bodies is not always delivered, and comes at a price. The last
25 years have seen a move towards competition and the market in
many aspects of education. SHA is not convinced that competition
is the best way for education, and any education market needs
to be highly regulated. The experience of schools when encouraged
to compete by the previous government was less than encouraging,
and that of FE colleges (incorporated in 1993) still less so.
Conflicting messages have come from this government too - there
has been an emphasis on collaboration between schools, but increased
diversity and a tendency to favour elite institutions.
25 Administrative boundaries may distort choice
if authorities favour their own institutions (when planning transport
for example).
26 Many secondary school leaders see local authorities
as bureaucratic consumers of resources better deployed at the
school level, more wasteful than any duplication and lack of coherent
planning in a less regulated system. In general, subsidiarity
is a principle that SHA favours.
27 Most school leaders are happy with the decision-making
shift from LEA to school that has taken place, but still see themselves
as part of the public service and are less comfortable with outright
competition between schools.
Who makes the choice?
28 As resources and hence places are always limited
popular schools may actually be choosing their students rather
than parents choosing schools. For many parents, having been told
that they have a choice, this is infuriating. The situation is
similar to that in HE, where elite universities choosing their
students is quite explicit and long established, but still not
uncontroversial.
29 Selection to grammar schools is also explicit,
reasonably objective and generally accepted where it happens,
at least by those whose children pass the entrance test. It clearly
does reduce the choice for those whose children are not selected.
30 Other selection may be less overt, and this
clearly increases the danger that it will be unfair. On the whole
SHA welcomes the extra regulation of admissions recently introduced
by the present government.
31 SHA does not welcome, however, the tendency
to increase the number of types of school for parents to choose
between. School leaders, including those of specialist schools,
report that many such choices are spurious and are really parents
"playing the system" to gain access to a school seen
as better for reasons often not related to its specialism or status.
This tends to disadvantage less knowledgeable and well-educated
parents, and to allow more scope for covert selection.
32 The effect of these changes has been to exaggerate
an existing tendency for the most able, most motivated and best
supported students to concentrate in a few institutions. This
clearly benefits those institutions, but there is no reason to
suppose that the performance of all students (or even of the elite
students) is thereby improved.
33 The government should concentrate less on
reforming the system, and spend less time in creating elite schools.
It should concentrate instead on improving all schools and celebrating
their success so that more parents will want to choose their local
school.
34 Schools organisation committees, schools admissions
forums and the Schools Adjudicator for admissions all have limited
powers but provide valuable safeguards against some schools working
against the interests of other schools and the education system
as a whole. As schools gain greater autonomy, and parents have
more choice of and influence on schools, it is important that
these and other bodies are strengthened.
Conflicts with other priorities
35 Choice of school (and hence school's choice
of students) conflicts with the inclusion agenda aimed at bringing
disadvantaged students of various types into mainstream education.
Schools that embrace this agenda are frequently punished by simplistic
league table results and simplistic inspections. Those that covertly
(or even overtly) reject inclusion are frequently rewarded.
36 Choice of school conflicts with equality of
opportunity. Though one may argue that the opportunity is there
for all, in practice admissions systems penalise less articulate
and knowledgeable parents and less well-prepared students. Changes
made to accommodate to the loudly expressed needs of the middle
classes need to be balanced with support for the choice of those
less fortunate.
37 There is a danger that choice of school (and
diversity of schools) will increase social polarisation, and religious
and ethnic separation. This has the potential to damage social
cohesion in future - religious conflict in Northern Ireland and
ethnic tensions in some cities in northern England have been exacerbated
and sustained by such divisions.
38 Increased choice in one aspect may limit it
in another. An example is the proposal to make easier the opening
of new sixth forms in 11-16 schools. This would present students
with extra choices for where to get their 16-19 education, and
in some areas may be beneficial. But if the result were to be
a plethora of small, uneconomic sixth forms offering a poor selection
of courses then student choice would actually be diminished.
39 SHA does not advocate an abandonment of parental
or student choice, but rather a balance between that and other
policy objectives.
Programme of study
40 Although interest is focussed on choice of
school, as already noted choice of programme of study is really
the more important. Young people are strongly motivated by the
opportunity to study their preferred subject or to follow their
preferred vocational pathway, and correspondingly demotivated
when that choice is not allowed.
41 At the same time that organisational and financial
matters have been increasingly deregulated and devolved to schools
the curriculum has largely been centralised and subjected to increased
bureaucracy. SHA welcomes the recent move to allow schools to
vary the national curriculum in key stage four (14-16) to allow
more choice to students, and for such students to have the opportunity
to choose more vocational routes, and even to attend college to
do so.
42 Likewise SHA welcomes the recommendations
of the Tomlinson Committee (14-19 Curriculum and Qualifications
Reform, DfES, October 2004). Its model allows students the
opportunity to follow different strands, take different modules,
specialise to an extent, and progress at different speeds.
43 Young people, and even their parents, have
arguably never had much choice over what is studied between the
ages of five and 13. That may be right in terms of large decisions
- there is an advantage in all citizens having a core of knowledge
and skills in common. When more detailed curricular decisions
are made at one's own school and by one's own teacher, however,
there is scope to at least influence them. When they are made
in minute detail by national committees or national government,
there is much less chance to do so. SHA would therefore also favour
more flexibility in key stage three, which would give more effective
choice to young people and their parents.
Conclusion
44 SHA would like to see a balance between choice
and planning in school organisation, and an emphasis on choice
(and diversity) within, rather than between, schools.
Martin Ward
Deputy General Secretary
Secondary Heads Association
January 2005
Response of the Secondary Heads Association
to the consultation on proposals for foundation schools, expanding
popular and successful schools and adding sixth forms
- A Introduction
1 The Secondary Heads Association (SHA) welcomes
the Government's proposals to give greater autonomy to secondary
schools and to place this in a framework of intelligent accountability
and effective collaboration between schools.
2 In the context of this support for greater
autonomy, there are some aspects on which SHA wishes to comment
and these are set out in the sections below. (The numbers in parentheses
refer to the paragraph numbers in the consultation document.)
3 We have organised our remarks as follows:
A Introduction
B Acquiring foundation status
C Freedoms and flexibilities
D Sponsor governors
E Expansion of popular and successful schools
F Addition of new sixth forms
G Summary
- B Acquiring foundation status
4 SHA takes a neutral attitude on whether it
is appropriate for a particular school to be foundation, community
or voluntary. Nevertheless, SHA believes that it is important
that schools should fully understand the implications of each
status and has issued a guidance paper to members on the subject.
5 SHA recognises that there are good reasons
why existing legislation requires a period of consultation and
reference to the SOC. While SHA welcomes the simplification of
the process, the decision of one school to opt for foundation
status may have an impact on other schools. Therefore other schools
and interested parties should have the right to make representations
and an independent arbiter should also be able to pass comment.
(6)
6 The current proposals under consultation still
require a governing body to consult and SHA supports this. (6)
7 SHA also supports the reduction in the consultation
period from six weeks to four, but SHA believes that this period
should not include the school holidays. (6)
8 SHA supports the reduction in the amount of
information that a school has to provide with their proposals.
(6)
9 SHA believes that it is wise to retain the
full consultation process where a school wishes to change its
religious character. (8)
10 It is difficult to understand why the government
distinguishes between 'poorly performing' schools and others in
relation to the transfer to foundation status. (9) Local authorities
and the government have the same powers of intervention in foundation
schools as in community or voluntary controlled schools. There
is therefore no reason why the proposals under consultation should
be affected by the level of performance of the school. Furthermore,
school performance does not remain consistent and 'high-performing'
schools that acquire foundation status may later perform poorly,
yet there are no proposals - and nor should there be - for foundation
status to be relinquished when performance falls. The distinction
in paragraph 9 should be removed.
11 SHA also disputes the definition of 'poorly
performing'. (9)
12 Given the arguments set out in paragraph 10
for schools to consult local authorities over certain matters
before embarking on a wider consultation, SHA believes that this
consultation should be mandatory, not advisory. Such a requirement
would be in the interests of the head and governors of the school
in helping them avoid unnecessary pitfalls in the process. (10)
- C Freedoms and flexibilities
13 Governing bodies are more likely to be confused
by the regulations covering foundations, as distinct from foundation
status, than to want to acquire a foundation. (13 ff)
14 Flexibility already exists under the School
Governance Regulations 2003 to vary the constitution of a governing
body and few schools will want to acquire a foundation in order
to extend this flexibility. (19)
15 SHA believes that governing bodies should
contain a balanced representation of the school community - parents,
head teacher, staff, local community, local authority and, where
appropriate, the church and commercial sponsors. SHA does not
believe that any one group should be in a majority on the governing
body, nor that legislation should provide for such an eventuality.
(21)
- D Sponsor governors
16 SHA welcomes the proposal to increase the
number of sponsor governors from two to four, provided that the
governing body retains the balanced membership mentioned above.
(24)
- E Expansion of popular and
successful schools
17 SHA is wholly opposed to the proposals to
make it easier for 'popular and successful' schools to expand.
The government is responsible for the education of all young people
in the maintained sector and this responsibility has to be carried
out as much for young people in less successful schools as in
those that are popular. Particularly during an era of falling
rolls, which secondary schools will soon be going through, the
expansion of one school automatically implies the contraction
of one or more other schools, with consequent effects on provision
in those schools.
18 There are good reasons why constraints are
placed on schools that wish to make a unilateral decision to expand
and SHA believes that these constraints should remain in place.
SHA does not therefore support the reduction in the period of
time for each part of the process. (7)
19 Schools that are already popular are often
large. If they are allowed to expand, they will become larger
still. The effect will be to exaggerate an existing trend to fewer,
larger schools. SHA believes that there is no evidence that large
schools are better per se, nor that parents specifically
wish their children to attend large schools.
20 The proposal to allow some schools to expand
at the expense of others runs counter to the government's strategy
of encouraging collaboration between schools.
21 We note that dedicated capital will be available
to schools wishing to expand under the proposed arrangements.
(7) Given that the funding for Building Schools for the Future
(BSF) has been fixed, SHA questions where these additional funds
will come from. Efficient use of BSF funding depends on planning
and prioritisation and this cannot be done effectively or efficiently
if individual schools are funded discretely for expansion outside
the local plan for school places.
22 SHA welcomes the government's statement that
there should be no extension of academic selection by ability,
since SHA believes that the allocation of school places between
selective and non-selective schools should be a matter for the
local authority, and not the individual school, to decide. (8)
23 Where there is a need for an expansion in
secondary school provision, SHA supports the proposal that local
authorities and governing bodies should take account of the wishes
of parents. It is also good practice for local authorities, in
reorganising provision, to take account of parent views. (9)
24 SHA rejects, however, the inclusion of absolute
results in the list of indicators of successful schools. (9) These
sometimes tell more about the prior attainment of pupils than
about the quality of the school and, if included in this list,
will discriminate against schools serving socially disadvantaged
areas and those adopting a genuinely inclusive admissions policy.
25 Now that sophisticated value-added data is
available, absolute results should have no part to play in the
decision. If the government's aim is to increase the number of
excellent schools, then popular schools with high value-added
and low absolute results are the schools that should be encouraged
to expand. This would enable them to attract more balanced intakes
and become still more successful.
26 Paragraph 10 of the consultation document
is contradictory. SHA believes that it is not sensible for there
to be a 'strong presumption' in favour of expanding 'popular and
successful' schools, when evidence has rightly to be taken into
account about the potential damage to other schools. This is accepted
later in paragraph 10, where it is recognised that there may be
a damaging effect on overall educational standards in the area.
SHA seeks more balanced advice on dealing with applications to
expand, with an obligation placed on the decision maker to take
into account equally the interests of all young people being educated
at schools in the area.
- F Addition of new sixth forms
27 SHA supports the planned provision of post-16
in an area and notes the consultative process the local Learning
and Skills Councils are obliged to undertake when developing their
Strategic Area Reviews. SHA does not therefore understand why,
in the course of the reviews, the government has introduced a
measure making it easier for individual sixth forms to expand.
28 SHA recognises that there are some 11-16 schools
where the addition of a sixth form would enhance educational provision
in an area. However, we strongly believe that this should be done
as part of an overall plan for post-16 provision and not separately
from it, as is proposed in the consultation paper.
29 SHA therefore rejects the notion of 'strong
presumption' in favour of approval, which appears to have no connection
to other provision in the area.
30 It is reasonable for schools making such proposals
to be able to attend the SOC to support their case, but natural
justice requires that other parties affected by the proposal should
then also have that right. This should specifically include other
schools (whether with or without sixth forms) and colleges in
the area.
31 Furthermore, SHA opposes the identification
of 'high-performing specialist schools' for this expansion. We
believe, as stated above, that the definition of 'high-performing'
is wrong and we cannot see why the permission to expand should
be confined to specialist schools, when there are many high-performing
non-specialist schools still in existence.
32 SHA must also point out to the government
that good teaching of pre-16 education in a school does not mean
that there would necessarily be good teaching of post-16 studies.
- G Summary
33 The recommendations in this SHA response
may be summarised as follows:
1 SHA believes that there should be a balance
between planning for efficient provision in the interests of all
children and the autonomy of individual schools. These proposals
are in several respects unbalanced in favour of the latter.
2 SHA does not accept that foundation status
should be predicated on 'high performance', especially as defined
here.
3 SHA strongly opposes the use of absolute examination
results as an indicator. This may reward schools that happen to
be situated in middle-class areas, and those that are not committed
to the inclusion agenda.
4 SHA does not accept that specialist status
is in any way relevant to judging a proposal to open a sixth form.
5 Since one school's proposals to expand or open
a sixth from affects other schools (and colleges) SHA strongly
believes that systems must give the latter a full voice at decision-making
hearings and that there should be no presumption in favour of
the former.
6 In considering such proposals decision makers
should consider the interests of all children in the area, not
just those at the school making a proposal. They should also have
regard to efficient use of scarce resources.
Secondary Heads Association
December 2004
| 
