Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-119)
DEPARTMENT FOR
EDUCATION AND
SKILLS AND
OFSTED
27 FEBRUARY 2006
Q100 Mr Davidson: I do not understand
that answer. Are you targeting according to risk?
Mr Smith: To a degree.
Q101 Mr Davidson: Have you always
been targeting according to risk?
Mr Smith: To a lesser degree.
Q102 Mr Davidson: Are you in principle
in favour of targeting according to risk?
Mr Smith: Yes.
Q103 Mr Davidson: Is it not a pretty
damning indictment of the Department that you are only now moving
forward on this idea of targeting according to risk?
Mr Smith: We are not only now
just moving forward. As I said, it is a matter of degree.
Q104 Mr Davidson: How long has the
Department been established?
Mr Smith: Since 1992.
Q105 Mr Davidson: That is a fair
time ago, is it not?
Mr Smith: Yes.
Q106 Mr Davidson: It implies that
you have not given it much attention; okay. Can I ask about the
question of moving schools into Special Measures and whether or
not there is any mechanism within that inspection procedure that
identifies under-performing departments or sections of the school
as distinct from the whole school? It certainly was always my
experience, coming as I do from the west of Scotland, that there
were some schools there that were exceedingly complacent. They
were producing good results but they were not producing as good
results as they ought given the nature of the pupil intake and
there were some sections of the schools that were really quite
shocking. Does your Reporting mechanism and the equivalent of
Special Measures apply only to whole schools or does it apply
to bits?
Mr Smith: It applies to whole
schools and there are two categories: Special Measures, which
means that the whole school is failing, and a Notice to Improve,
which is a less serious category. Within both inspection judgments,
but particularly within Notice to Improve, we would identify individual
areas where that improvement was required, but it is a generic
judgment, you are correct.
Q107 Mr Davidson: So it is entirely
possible that schools with under-performing departments would
not have a Notice to Improve?
Mr Smith: But they would have
recommendations in their report that identified that.
Q108 Mr Davidson: So it would all
be covered in that way, would it?
Mr Smith: Yes.
Q109 Mr Davidson: Thank you. I am
particularly interested in paragraphs 2.52 and 2.53 which deal
with improvement in primaries. What perplexed me here about the
Primary Leadership Programme was this, if I can quote from the
Report: " . . . many of the first 4,000 schools involved
either did not require additional support or else were not capable
of making full use of it". Why in that case did they get
it?
Mr Bell: The programme in its
earliest iteration was not as well targeted as it might have been
and, exactly as the Report describes, it did not have the impact
that it should have had.
Q110 Mr Davidson: Why was it not
as well targeted as it might have been?
Mr Bell: It is partly related
to the point that Mr Smith made about data at that time enabling
us to target exactly those schools where most improvement was
needed.
Q111 Mr Davidson: Mr Smith mentioned
that the Department had been there since 1992, so presumably there
was something there before that. All that time you have been in
existence and you still do not have the data that would enable
you to target?
Mr Bell: The reality is that if
you look over the last 10 years the data has improved. When Ofsted
was created in 1992, and when the Department was doing what it
was doing in 1992, there was much less information available on
the progress of pupils. Now we have that information. The other
thing I have to say about the intensive support programme is that
the way it was organised was not, I think, designed to bring about
the kinds of improvements required. Now, however, we are seeing
significant improvement and a lot of the schools that were originally
in that programme, where the performance of the pupils was below
the 65% threshold that we use, have now improved well beyond that,
so I think we have got that programme better as time has gone
on.
Q112 Mr Davidson: Can I ask about
academies, and I am a little perplexed along the same lines as
Mr Bacon about academies? What evidence is there that the academy
model as such has been successful, as distinct from, has the same
amount of resource and attention been given to schools that were
in difficulties outwith the academy model?
Mr Bell: We know that the academies
were set up and are being set up in areas where there has been
a long history of under-performance, poor performance, and in
many cases a variety of efforts has been made over the years to
bring about those improvements and they have not happened. It
is early days, but certainly in 2005 we know that of the 14 academies
where the students took GCSEs, 10 saw rises on 2004 and 12 of
the 14 achieved better at GCSE than the predecessor schools.
Q113 Mr Davidson: Are there any other
schools in equivalent poor circumstances which received equivalent
amounts of cash and attention, and how well did they do as compared
to the academies, because it is my impression from the Report
that generally the giving of more money and more attention results
in an improvement; you would certainly hope so?
Mr Bell: You would hope so, but,
of course, as reference was made to earlier, in a couple of academies
we have not seen immediately that kind of return. However, I think
it is important to make the point that the academies are serving
communities where—
Q114 Mr Davidson: Yes, I understand
all that. We have a limited amount of time and I recognise a diversion
when I see one. I am asking you whether or not any comparisons
have been made between the result coming from the amount of money
and attention lavished on academies and from equivalent spending
and attention lavished on other schools, of which there are a
large number. It is a fairly straightforward question. Can you
tell me?
Mr Bell: There has not been that
detailed analysis that you ask about.
Q115 Mr Davidson: So there is no
proof that the academy model works in comparison to any alternative?
Mr Bell: I do not think that is
the same question. We know that the academies are bringing about
improvements greater than in the schools they replaced. As I suggested,
in 2005—
Q116 Mr Davidson: That is an argument
that says doing something is better than doing nothing, and I
think we all accept that. Can I ask about paragraph 1.37 where
there is something about the areas of deprivation. I am interested
in where it says, " . . . the Excellence in Cities initiative
found that it was making an important difference to schools in
disadvantaged areas. The greatest impact has been in primary schools
. . . ". Why has that not been the case in secondaries?
Mr Bell: I think there are a number
of reasons. One reason I can give you right away is that by the
time students get to the age of 16 they have accumulated years
of under-performance.
Q117 Mr Davidson: I understand that.
Mr Bell: Secondly, our evidence
would suggest that the wider social factors become more complicated
and complex by the time students get to 14, 15 and 16, whereas
in primary schools, for a variety of reasons, obviously, children
are not necessarily quite as disaffected. It would bear out what
we know, that turning round and bringing about improvements in
secondary school performance does just take longer than it does
usually in primary schools.
Q118 Mr Davidson: Could I follow
that up by pursuing the question of social disadvantage? To what
extent does the existing system recognise the difficulties that
are placed on teachers and headteachers in schools in disadvantaged
areas through the salary mechanism or support or anything else?
I remember that there is something in here that indicates that
the financial mechanisms are opaque or are not transparent. To
what extent are these issues being seriously tackled by the allocation
of money?
Mr Bell: If you think of the direct
schools grant that I referred to in my answer to Mr Bacon, 10%
of that is allocated according to social deprivation factors,
so there are substantial sums of money driven by trying to address
those particular difficulties.
Q119 Mr Davidson: Only 10%?
Mr Bell: 10%, although obviously—
| 
