Memorandum submitted by Professor Stephen
Gorard, University of York
— The new framework for the inspection
of schools creates a "lighter touch" process, less reliant
on primary observation.
— Therefore, the grading of any school
is more reliant than before on indicators already known to Ofsted,
such as those used in the contextualised value-added analysis
of school performance.
— However, while contextualised value-added
analysis is a useful research tool for dealing with school types
and systems, it is not (yet) suitable for diagnostic use with
individual schools.
— In fact, contextualised value-added
analysis can give very misleading results, biased towards the
high attaining (rather than high performing) schools.
— This has led to a number of schools
being told on inspection that their final grade is constrained
by their contextualised value-added analysis score.
— In an extreme case, a school told
that lessons had been "good" or "outstanding"
and its leadership "excellent" was given an "satisfactory"
grade because that was the best allowable under the system constrained
by a bottom quartile CVA score. The lead inspector described CVA
as "king". Such cases have been reported to me by concerned
heads and deputy heads.
— If true, this is poor science, and
patently confusing for schools.
— It seems no better than a decade
ago, when the schools placed in "special measures" were
inner-city schools with high levels of pupil deprivation and mobility—the
situation that the development of CVA was presumably intended
to prevent.
— It leads me to consider what proportion
of an estimated £250 million of public money spent per annum
on Ofsted, and the almost incalculable cost in time and opportunity
for the schools, might not be better spent.
— As an illustration, might £500,000
per annum given to each of the 500 most deprived schools (or some
such breakdown) lead to greater educational improvement than maintaining
the existing system?
I am unable to submit the examples of schools
reporting to me that they have been disadvantaged by the new system,
because these contacts were made in confidence. However, if these
complaints are valid there should be no difficulty in substantiating
them. I append my research on the DfES secondary school value-added
tables (Gorard 2006), and point out that the same flaw also appears
in the primary school tables (publication pending).[8]
I, therefore, agree with one of the originators of pupil-level
regression that value-added was devised as a tool for research
(Paterson 1997). Its limitations are not easily understood, and
it is not yet established enough to be used directly for pupil,
teacher or school assessment.
REFERENCES
Gorard, S (2006) Value-added is of little value,
Journal of Educational Policy, 21, 2, 233-241.
Paterson, L (1997) A commentary on methods currently
being used in Scotland to evaluate schools statistically, pp 298-312
in Watson, K, Modgil, C and Modgil, S (Eds) Educational dilemmas:
debate and diversity, London: Cassell.
March 2006
8 Not printed. Back
|
