Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
DEPARTMENT FOR
EDUCATION AND
SKILLS AND
OFSTED
27 FEBRUARY 2006
Sir John Bourn KCB, Comptroller
and Auditor General, Mr Tim Burr, Deputy Comptroller and
Auditor General, Ms Angela Hands, National Audit Office,
were in attendance and gave evidence.
Ms Paula Diggle, Treasury
Officer of Accounts, HM Treasury, gave evidence.
REPORT BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR
GENERAL
IMPROVING POORLY PERFORMING SCHOOLS IN
ENGLAND (HC 679)
Q1 Chairman: Good afternoon. Welcome
to the Committee of Public Accounts where today we are considering
the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report on Improving Poorly
Performing Schools in England. We welcome back David Bell,
who is the Permanent Secretary at the Department for Education
and Skills, Maurice Smith, who is Her Majesty's Chief Inspector
of Schools and Miriam Rosen, who is Ofsted's Director of Education.
You are very welcome. Mr Bell, can I ask you a few general questions
to start with. If you look at figure one of the executive summary,
which you can find on page two, you will see there is a whole
series of events there amounting to £837 million spent on
poorly performing schools. Why is it we are spending so much money
but there are still 1,500 poorly performing schools?
Mr Bell: Chairman, the first thing
to say is that £837 million and the programmes you refer
to are not specifically related exclusively to poorly performing
schools, these initiatives are designed to raise standards in
all schools. In fact, when you try to find the appropriate amount
it is quite hard to find it because you could then say that the
£30 billion or so that is spent on schools is designed to
improve all schools, including those that are the poorest performing.
It would be fair to say that the total expenditure on schools'
education is designed to improve standards.
Q2 Chairman: I can ask the question
a different way. Instead of asking why is it that we are spending
£837 million on specific measures and we still have 1,500
poorly performing schools, why are we spending £30 billion
a year and still having 1,500 poorly performing schools? You can
ask the question any way you want, but you have got an hour to
tell this Committee why you think there is still this number of
poorly performing schools.
Mr Bell: We know from the data,
even within the NAO Report, that the breakdown of those 1,500
schools includes those that are poorly performing in absolute
senses, those that are identified by Ofsted as requiring Special
Measures or improvement. We also know those that are absolutely
poorly attaining in attainment terms as well as those that are
underperforming. You can break that down in a number of ways.
Clearly we want to ensure that all schools are good schools. I
think it is important to see this in an historical sense: there
has been a range of initiatives over a number of years and we
have brought down the number of schools that are failing. We have
seen that in terms of the data, and we are continuing to work
hard to improve schools that are underperforming. I do not think
the Department would be at all complacent about what needs to
be done, but I think over the last few years we have seen a whole
range of improvements from pupil attainment in schools through
to a reduction in the number of failing schools.
Q3 Chairman: Obviously there are
certain aspects which lead to the problems. For instance, if we
look at page 9, "Certain problems are common to many poorly
performing schools", obviously we see there that ineffective
leadership is marked up. How successful has the Department been
in developing strong leadership in potential head teacher candidates
or, indeed, in people who are already heads?
Mr Bell: I think it is fair to
say that there is a much more professional approach to training
school leaders than there has ever been. The creation of a National
College for School Leadership was evidence of the fact that we
had to take it much more seriously than we had done previously.
We know, for example, that 14,000 people have now been trained
through the National Professional Qualification for Headship,
which is about improving the skills of those who are about to
become headteachers. There is a significant training programme
of training for those who are currently in headship, and also
the National College will be looking at new ways of headship.
For example, as the Report points out, we have got some examples
of headteachers who are leading more than one school. I think
we are investing in the training of those who are about to become
heads, those who currently are heads and also thinking about new
ways of delivering headships so that the most successful heads
in this country can take responsibility not just for their own
school but for other schools as well.
Q4 Chairman: If you look at page
29, figure 20, "Effect of poor inspection results on local
authority support for schools", what that figure seems to
tell us is that the support we are putting in does seem to be
making a difference. Of course, that leads to the next question,
if this support is making so much difference why do these schools
have to be failing before they get the kind of support they obviously
so clearly need?
Mr Bell: Local authorities have
a particular responsibility towards schools that are in difficulty
including supporting schools that go into Special Measures. One
of the proposals which was in the White Paper recently was to
give local authorities an earlier intervention power with schools
that are causing concern. I think that is very important because
it is more efficient in every sense, not least in respect of the
education of pupils, if you can intervene before a school goes
into an Ofsted category. If local authorities support schools
that have gone into Special Measures or are underperforming in
some way, I think it is also important we get new responsibilities
to be able to intervene at an earlier stage to prevent the failure
from coming about.
Q5 Chairman: That leads me directly
to my next question. If you look at the section of the Report,
"Turning a school around takes time and can be expensive",
which starts on page 7, it goes on particularly to paragraphs
19 and 20 which talk about the very expensive options of academies
and Fresh Start. How do you think, with your great experience
in the education world, schools can avoid failure in the first
place so we can avoid these extremely expensive options of academies
and Fresh Start?
Mr Bell: Chairman, one of your
earlier questions highlighted the key factor and that is the quality
of leadership. Undoubtedly, if you have the right leadership,
a strong focus on high standards, intolerance of poor performance,
high expectations of behaviour and so on, that is the most likely
way in which you are going to reduce school failure. Frankly,
as we know, that does not always happen, so after that I think
you have to have a flexible set of responses. Some schools now
are coming out of Special Measures very quickly, the average time
is around 20 months. However, in some schools the failure is so
deep-seated, if I can put it that way, that you do require a more
radical option. For example, under the Fresh Start scheme 44 schools
have been fresh started, if I can put it that way, since 1998
and that is a more radical notion. On the secondary side you have
got to look at the Academies Programme as a means of tackling
even more deep-rooted failure. It is quite important not to have
a single prescription but to have at your disposal a range of
options in relation to bringing about better performance in a
school.
Q6 Chairman: If we look at page 37
we read, "A positive ethos and improvements in teaching and
learning contribute most to better pupil behaviour", obviously.
There is a case study 3 on faith schools which have turned around.
Faith schools generally seem to have a strong ethos. Do you think
that other schools can learn from the ethos that is often present
in faith schools?
Mr Bell: I think all good schools
have a strong ethos. Certainly faith schools will have an ethos
which is primarily based on the faith foundation, but very good
schools will have an ethos of hard work, achievement and high
expectation on the part of the pupils. I do not think there is
any doubt about that but, again, I would argue that ethos often
comes down to the quality of leadership in an institution. A head
teacher in a school cannot be a superwoman or a superman, but
you need somebody at the top to set the standard that drives the
expectations and the behaviours not just of the staff but of the
students. If you have got high quality leadership that in turn
will generate a positive ethos towards learning and I am sure
that is crucially important in a school's success.
Q7 Chairman: Mr Smith, let us look
please at how schools are evaluating their own performance. If
you look at page 13, "More targeted effort is needed to sustain
recovered schools". If you look at paragraph 35 in that first
bullet point, it seems that some schools are not evaluating their
performance effectively, why is that do you think?
Mr Smith: Because some schools
do not have a history of self-evaluation. In the new Section 5
Inspection Regime begun in September 2005, Ofsted now requests
self-evaluation forms from schools and indeed provides the form
in the first place for schools to complete it. This has been popular,
although demanding, and we are delighted that in the first term
of this inspection programme 96% of schools completed their self-evaluation.
Q8 Chairman: As the Report goes on
to say on page 7, "Turning a school around takes time and
can be expensive". We read in paragraph 17 of the Executive
Summary that "A third of schools are not making reasonable
progress over the first 12 months of failing an inspection".
Why is that the case, Mr Smith?
Mr Smith: Because up until now
schools have taken longer to do so. As my colleague has mentioned,
the average time to come out of Special Measures has been longer
than a year. I think with our new inspection programme, with our
faster turnaround of Reports and with our swifter monitoring visits
to schools in Special Measures, you will see a swifter turnaround
in schools improving.
Q9 Chairman: As an educational professional
do you think that one of the messages of this Report is that there
should be more of a hands-off approach in good schools or more
of a hands-on approach in the failing schools?
Mr Smith: Yes.
Q10 Chairman: Do you think that a
lot of head people are dissuaded from applying for headship because
of the amount of bureaucracy they have to undergo, even in good
schools, and that you should give them more freedom to get on
with the job? Do you think that is a message of this Report?
Mr Smith: I think the first message
that you set out is the message of the Report, that from Ofsted's
point of view we should be more proportionate in our inspection
regime and we have proposals that will be the case. In relation
to bureaucracy, my colleagues in the Department have a group which
has been working for two years now to try to reduce the bureaucracy
of schools, and the new relationship with schools is trying to
give teachers more opportunity to spend time in the classroom
and not on administrative tasks.
Q11 Helen Goodman: Mr Bell, I wonder
if we could look again at table 4 on page 4. My understanding
is that the DfES have agreed this Report with the NAO. Table 4
sets out 10 indicators of a poorly performing school. Of these,
do you think any of them are particularly significant?
Mr Bell: It is very hard just
to select one because I think our evidence about poorly performing
schools over many years would suggest that it is a combination
of these factors that makes a school a poor school. I think it
would be perhaps invidious to pull out any one in particular.
Equally, not all poor schools will necessarily exhibit all of
those characteristics.
Q12 Helen Goodman: I understand that.
Mr Bell: I think it is quite difficult
just to identify one fact alone that would suggest why a school
has poorly performed.
Q13 Helen Goodman: You would not
say that weak governance and lack of parental engagement are more
important than the other eight?
Mr Bell: I do not think I would.
I would say that you could have a school where it is more difficult
to engage the parents but find with very strong leadership, with
very high quality teaching, the students actually attain well.
We do know if parents are engaged and interested in their children's
education the school is more likely to do well but without that
it does not mean to say that the school is bound to do badly.
I am sorry I am being a bit cagey on this but I do think it is
important to keep that sense of a rounded picture.
Q14 Helen Goodman: That is fine.
Turning to the factors affecting improvement, there is quite a
lot in the Report on that. If you turn to page 35, table 25, again
we see "initiatives to improve pupil learning, increases
or changes to teaching staff, initiatives to improve performance
monitoring, changes to management team" and so on, much more
highly ranked than the other factors. Do you accept the ranking
in table 25?
Mr Bell: It is interesting that
that table was generated from those schools that in a sense have
gone through the recovery journey and that is their analysis of
what they saw as the significant factors. To some extent we have
to draw on their experience because they have gone through this
process. I think intuitively that looks like a very sensible and
understandable list. For example, the top item there, "initiatives
to improve pupil learning", it seems to me if you do not
get the pupils to learn better and more it is hard to understand
how the school could improve sufficiently. I think it is quite
interesting that leadership, again, is quite high up. I think
you can see why all those are important in terms of contribution.
The only other comment I would make about the list is if you look
at the top it talks about "major contribution" and "minor
contribution". I think you can see this sense of a whole
range of factors coming together to bring about improvement and
I do not think there ever is a single magic solution to bring
about improvement, you have to get all of these things coming
together led by a good headteacher.
Q15 Helen Goodman: Absolutely. This
is also borne out by table 18 on page 28, "Sources and types
of support for schools". Seven sources of support are listed
and none is given any particular priority.
Mr Bell: Yes. I think it is important
to stress the point that whilst schools that improve do receive
good support from outside, you cannot impose improvement from
outside. The school has to have in place the highest quality of
leadership, they have to be improving teaching, they have to be
improving learning, the behaviour must be better. I do not think
you can impose those from outside. Our experience, however, in
improving poorly performing schools is that those school-based
efforts can be well supported from outside and, therefore, can
help to drive improvement more quickly.
Q16 Helen Goodman: Just turning to
the effect of the existing programmes, particularly focused on
this. For example, table 8 on page 9 sets out the change in GCSE
performance of turned around secondary schools. Would you say
that this indicated good value for money and a good record in
the particular measures that are being used at the moment?
Mr Bell: If, for example, you
take the Excellence in Cities programme, which was one of the
programmes cited earlier, we know that the improvement rate there
is significantly greater in terms of the percentage of students
achieving five-plus A to Cs. Albeit, that is from a much lower
base but I think it has demonstrated that there are those improvements.
The other point, and I think the evidence from Ofsted would support
this, is if you look at schools that are in difficulty, the impact
of those programmes is not just about attainment, vital though
it is, it is about changing attitudes to behaviour. School attendance
is a crucial factor if you are going to bring about improvement.
Whilst you can measures these programmes in some performance measures
in relation to GCSEs and Key Stage 3 results and the like, you
also have to look at better conditions for learning along the
lines that I have suggested.
Q17 Helen Goodman: On page 15, paragraph
38b: "To recover quickly, poorly performing schools need
to give priority to . . . " and then a number of things are
listed, "Schools should: put teaching at the heart of the
school's self-evaluation". That is commonsense really, is
it not?
Mr Bell: It is. We might ask,
if it is commonsense why is it not followed everywhere? I think
sometimes schools get themselves into a spiral of decline and
that is a good reason for intervening early, but often you will
find schools that have gone into Special Measures almost have
to start again, they have to go back to basics in that sense and
think about the core purpose of the school: how do you improve
learning; how do you improve teaching; how do you set high aspirations
for students. It might seem quite obvious in schools that are
already performing well but I think it is certainly the case in
relation to the Special Measures schools that they have got to
a point where the obvious is not happening and sometimes you have
to start doing the obvious so the school can improve.
Q18 Helen Goodman: You have emphasised
the importance of leadership and one of the points that comes
out is that of those schools which advertise for a new headteacher,
20% of primary schools do not manage to appoint one and 28% of
secondary schools do not manage to appoint one. What are you doing
to deal with that particular problem?
Mr Bell: Each year you would expect
to find routinely about 11% of all schools advertising for a head,
that is just the normal turnover of headship. We know there is
a small percentage of schools that do not appoint first time round.
There are both negative reasons and positive reasons. Quite a
lot of teachers will cite a reason for not applying for a headship
because they want to stay closer to the day-to-day work of teaching,
and that is an entirely understandable and noble justification.
Equally, though, there are others who cite negative reasons. They
might consider there is a lot of stress associated with the job,
they might be concerned about the high level of personal accountability
and so on that falls on them. What has happened? I think the National
College is preparing aspirant heads through the national professional
qualification, that is one thing. Secondly, headteachers are now
paid very high salaries in some schools, indeed in London that
can go up to £100,000-plus for a large secondary school.
We have also been keen to encourage the National College to look
at other ways of doing headship, as I mentioned earlier. It may
be in the future we would have more headteachers looking to work
in other schools. The National College of School Leadership says
that around 100 headteachers are working in more than just their
own school, so there is obviously the beginnings of something.
I think if you can put all those factors together you make headship
more attractive. If we say that leadership is vital, we want to
attract the best people to become heads.
Helen Goodman: Thank you very much, Mr
Bell.
Q19 Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Could I ask
Ms Rosen, because I noticed from your biography that you did spend
18 years teaching, a question from that perspective. If you look
at page 20, paragraph 1.5, it says: "A small number of the
secondary schools defined as low-attaining have been found to
be good by Ofsted . . . .This apparent anomaly can arise in a
very deprived area because a high proportion of pupils may find
it hard to attain good levels of examination success even if teaching
is good". From your point of view, can I ask you if every
child, if the teaching was of the top quality in every school,
is capable of achieving five A to C GCSEs?
Ms Rosen: I think that is a very
difficult question to answer. Certainly there are some who will
not be able to because of the nature of the special needs that
they have. However, we are pretty certain that more can achieve
that than do at the moment. From the point of view of this paragraph,
it is true that in low-attaining secondary schools if you are
starting from a very low basis the school may have done well and
made a certain amount of progress which is not as much in schools
where children are starting from a higher basis.
| 
