| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
16 July 2009 : Column 640W—continued
Schools
Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families with reference to paragraph 2.25, page 32 of his Department's publication, "Your child, your schools, our future", what is the research evidence referred to. [286886]
Mr. Coaker: The following is a summary of the research evidence referred to in the first sentence of paragraph 2.25 of "Your child, your schools, our future, building a 21(st) century schools system":
Summary of research evidence on the importance of high quality teaching and teachers:
1. Having high quality teachers and teaching is essential to the achievement of whole-school success. Improvements in teaching have been facilitated by organisational factors, for example, careful recruitment, quality assurance schemes, support for teachers to focus on teaching and sharing of good practice (Rudd et al., 2002).
2. Barber and Mourshed (2007) at McKinsey and Company, argued that the biggest driver of variation in pupil learning is teacher effectiveness and present a strong argument for focusing on recruiting high quality teachers in order to raise attainment of pupils. In particular, they refer to a US study by Sanders and Rivers (1996) that showed that two average eight-year-old pupils placed with different teachers diverged in their performance by more than 50 percentile points within three years. However, this study needs to be treated with caution as the research was conducted in a small number of schools.
3. Slater et al. (2009) estimated the effect of individual teachers on pupil outcomes, and the variability of teacher quality, which they refer to as teacher's impact on test scores. They used a unique primary dataset linking over 7,000 pupils, their exam results and prior attainment to the individual teachers who taught them. They found that a high quality teacher (75(th) percentile) compared to a low quality teacher (25(th) percentile) can add 0.425 of a GCSE point per subject to a given pupil, or 25 per cent. of the standard deviation of GCSE points. This further demonstrates the importance of having effective teachers.
Summary of research evidence suggesting that pupils from deprived backgrounds are less likely to experience good quality teaching:
1. There is evidence to suggest that pupils from deprived backgrounds may be less likely to experience good quality teaching. Sammons et al. (2006), in an analysis of teaching practice in 125 year 5 classes, found that the quality of teaching tended to be poorer in schools with higher levels of pupils eligible for free school meals. Differences were apparent in areas such as basic skills development, depth of subject knowledge, social support for learning, pupil engagement and classroom routines. Cabinet Office (2008a) cited evidence that teachers in schools with more than 20 per cent. FSM eligibility were more likely to be rated worse in their teaching, and less likely to have come from an outstanding teacher training institution. Furthermore, Thrupp and Lupton (2006) reported that unchallenging work was evident among schools with deprived intakes.
2. Also, secondary schools with higher proportions of pupils eligible for FSM have, on average, teachers with lower levels of qualifications than other schools.
Charles et al. (2007) found that schools in the higher FSM quintiles had fewer teachers with degrees in the subject they taught, compared with schools in the lower FSM quintiles. This was true for most subjects analysed, with the exception of ICT and design and technology, in which teacher qualifications were higher in schools with higher proportions of FSM.
References:
Barber, M. and Mourshed, M. (2007). "How the worlds best performing school systems come out on top". McKinsey and Company.
Cabinet Office (2008a). "Getting on, getting ahead. A discussion paper: analysing the trends and drivers of social mobility".
Charles, M., Marsh, A., Milne, A., Morris, C., Scott, E. and Shamsan, Y. (2007). "Secondary School Curriculum and Staffing Survey 2007". DCSF RR026.
Rudd, P., Aiston, S., Davies, D., Rickinson, M. and Dartnall, L. (2002). "Performance gains in Specialist Schools: What makes the difference?" NFER.
Sammons, P., Taggart, B., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Barreau, S. and Manni, L. (2006). "EPPE: Summary report: variations in Teacher and Pupil Behaviours in Year 5 Classes". DfES RR817.
Slater, H., Davies, N. and Burgess, S. (2009). "Do teachers matter? Measuring teacher effectiveness in England". Centre for Market and Public Organisations (CMPO), Working Paper 09/212.
Thrupp, M. and Lupton, R. (2006). Taking school contexts more seriously: the social justice challenge. "British Journal of Educational Studies", 54(3), 308-328.
Schools: Sandwell
Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how much capital spending there was on (a) schools and (b) children's centres in Sandwell in each of the last 20 years. [286380]
Mr. Coaker: The information is as follows.
(a) Support for capital investment in schools in Sandwell is shown in the table. Information prior to 1996-97 is not held centrally.
| Schools (£ million) | |
| (1) Includes a PFI project of £17 million | |
In addition, Sandwell has a Building Schools for the Future (BSF) wave 3 project with an indicative allocation of £137.2 million of conventional funding and £62.9 million of PFI credits.
Sandwell has a further BSF wave 5 project at planning stage. Allocations have also been made for traditionally procured academies of £24.4 million in 2002-03 and £57 million in 2006-07.
(b) Support for capital investment on Children's Centres in Sandwell is shown in the table.
| Ch ildren 's Centres (£ million) | |
A breakdown for the years 1999 to 2005 is not available as the funding was provided as a single capital allocation through the Sure Start Local Programme. Please note the total allocation for the current spending period (2008-11) has been provided as the 2008-09 audited spend data are not yet available.
Schools: Standards
Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families with reference to paragraph 3.3, page 44 of his Department's publication, "Your child, your schools, our future", if he will publish the data supporting his statement that children educated at schools which operate in a form of partnership achieve better results. [286888]
Mr. Coaker: The statement in paragraph 3.3 of "Your child, your schools, our future, building a 21(st) century schools system" that children educated at schools which operate in a form of partnership offer enhanced opportunities to children and achieve better results is based on published evidence.
Atkinson et al. (2007) conducted a literature review of inter-school collaboration(1), which synthesises and extracts common characteristics of how partnerships can be effective, and gives an overview of the ways partnerships can work. They listed 17 recent initiatives that involve collaborations (for example Diversity Pathfinder Initiative; Beacon Schools scheme; and extended services schools).
(1) The review focused on 39 studies from 1997 onwards.
Atkinson et al. (2007) report gains for school, school staff and pupils taking par t in inter-school collaboration
economic advantages (for example sharing of resources, accessing new funding streams and economies of scale);
school improvement and raised standards, including improvements in pupil attainment (for example from an enhanced curriculum and development of teacher expertise);
the forging of closer relationships between participating schools and from this outcome, a greater awareness and understanding of other schools; and
it was said that bringing schools together can break down barriers so that they can work together in a mutually beneficial way.
opportunities to exchange ideas and good practice;
new opportunities for training and professional development; and
an enriched support network (a larger number of colleagues available to discuss concerns and issues) which reduced a sense of professional isolation, which could lead to an increase in staff confidence, motivation and morale.
enjoyed an enhanced educational experience (for example better choice of subjects, access to specialist teaching i.e. more personalised learning, and opportunities for out-of-school excursions);
improved attainment was also reported;
increased social opportunities from interacting with pupils from other schools;
where these pupils came from different backgrounds (for example faiths and cultures) there was also the possibility of increasing awareness and understanding of different lifestyles; and
where partnerships existed between primary and secondary schools, increased contact was said to make the transition much easier for pupils moving on to secondary school.
A report published by the National College of School Leadership (2008) entitled "Schools leading schools: the power and potential of National Leaders of Education" highlights the following successes in relation to the National Leaders of Education (NLE) programme:
By July 2008, NLEs had supported 19 schools to be removed from special measures or have NTI withdrawn.
GCSE results in 2008 show marked improvement in schools in which NLEs have worked for one year or more.
Independent evaluation reports commissioned by NCSL over the two years the NLE programme has developed have found the NLE programme to be effective in selecting, appointing and deploying NLEs, in delivering improvements and in removing schools from Ofsted categories.
NCSL Schools Leading Schools report states that "there is a clear association between NLE intervention and improved results".
References:
Atkinson, M., Springate, I., Johnson, F. and Halsey, K. (2007). "Inter-school collaboration: A literature review". NFER.
National College of School Leadership (2008) "Schools leading schools: the power and potential of National Leaders of Education".
Social Workers
Dr. Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many full-time children's social workers there are in (a) Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency, (b) Teesside, (c) the North East and (d) England. [282904]
Dawn Primarolo: Detailed information on all staff, including children's social workers, directly employed by social services departments is collected by the Department of Health (DH) through the Personal Social Services staff of Social Services Departments return (SSDS001). Since 2004-05 the return has been the responsibility of the NHS Information Centre for health and social care. These data have been published on an annual basis with breakdown by local authority available in the supporting annexes published alongside each report.
Reports published from 2006 onwards are available on the NHS Information Centre website here:
Special Educational Needs: Pupil Exclusions
Mr. Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families when he expects to publish the findings of his research into local authority practice on exclusions for children with special educational needs. [286870]
Mr. Coaker: The Department is working with the National Strategies and local authorities to identify good practice among authorities with low rates of exclusion of children with SEN.
With National Strategies, the Department has conducted a series of visits to local authorities designed to identify the factors behind why some authorities are able to maintain low rates of SEN exclusions, while others have higher rates.
National Strategies will publish the outcomes of these visits in autumn 2009.
The Department has asked the National Strategies to support and challenge the highest excluding authorities (including authorities where SEN exclusions are disproportionately high) to reduce the need for exclusion, and to spread good practice from the lower excluding authorities from summer term 2009. The findings from the visits will inform this work.
Findings from the visits will also feedback in Ofsted SEN survey 2009-10 that will focus on the Every Child Matters outcomes achieved by children with special educational needs and disabled children.
Mr. Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families when he next expects to revise his Department's guidance to schools on pupil exclusions; and what his policy is on holding a case review before children with a special educational need or disability is excluded. [286871]
Mr. Coaker: Existing exclusions guidance already contains strong messages on special educational needs (SEN) exclusion issues. The existing version of this guidance, last revised in September 2008, states that schools should try every practicable means to maintain a pupil with SEN in school, seeking local authority and other professional advice as appropriate. It goes on to state that this might include seeking local authority and other professional advice at "School Action Plus", or where appropriate, asking a local authority to consider carrying out a statutory assessment.
In addition, the guidance sets an expectation that, following a permanent exclusion, the head teacher should use the period between his or her initial decision and the meeting of the governing body to review the exclusion and to work with the local authority to see whether more support can be made available or whether the statement can be changed to name a new school. If either of these options is possible, the head teacher should normally withdraw the exclusion.
We will also be reinforcing the focus of behaviour and attendance partnerships on a range of outcomes, including the need to reduce disproportionately high exclusions of pupils with SEN in a new guidance due to be published later this year.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |