MEMORANDUM
SUBMITTED BY
THE ASSOCIATION
OF TEACHERS
AND LECTURERS
(ATL)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ATL believes that:
— Accountability is a duty on all public
servants but especially those entrusted with the education of
future generations. — Accountability must be balanced against
professional autonomy.
— The current system gives undue weight to
central government, particularly through national test data and
Ofsted inspection.
— This leads to a narrowing of the curriculum
and mitigates against professional reflection, innovation and
creativity.
— Schools are also accountable to parents,
the governing body and the local community.
— The accountability system must rebalance
these interests.
— It is no longer appropriate to hold schools
to account purely on an individual basis for the achievement or
the well-being of their pupils.
Ofsted
— Ofsted should no longer carry out section
5 school inspections. — Self-evaluation should drive
school improvement, with the SEF validated locally.
— While there continues to Ofsted inspection
of individual schools, inspectors should have good knowledge and
understanding of the phases that they inspect, particularly in
the early years, preferably based on recent classroom experience
— No notice inspection does not support
schools to improve.
Performance reporting
— Checking the level of performance nationally
should be carried out by sample testing. — National testing
should be abolished prior to the end of compulsory education,
as part of a comprehensive review of the National Curriculum and
assessment systems.
— Test data at individual school level,
whether raw scores or contextual value added, lack reliability.
Their publication in performance tables influences school and
teacher behaviour negatively.
School report card
— the school report card will replicate
the problems of the current accountability system. Individual
grades will be allocated based on accumulation of flawed data,
but will be reported as if they offer meaningful information and
comparison. — Ofsted's publication of a "health-check"
is subject to the same concern.
— We do not believe that the proposal to
collect well-being indicators is sound.
ATL—the education union
1. ATL, as a leading education union, recognises
the link between education policy and our members' conditions
of employment. Our evidence-based policy making enables us to
campaign and negotiate from a position of strength. We champion
good practice and achieve better working lives for our members.
2. We help our members, as their careers develop,
through first-rate research, advice, information and legal support.
Our 160,000 members—teachers, lecturers, headteachers
and support staff—are empowered to get active locally and
nationally. We are affiliated to the TUC, and work with government
and employers by lobbying and through social partnership.
ATL policy
3. ATL believes that teachers as professionals
must be recognised for their knowledge, expertise and judgement,
at the level of the individual pupil and in articulating the role
of education in increasing social justice. Within light national
parameters, development of the education system should take place
at a local level: the curriculum should be developed in partnership
with local stakeholders; assessment should be carried out through
local professional networks. Schools are increasingly encouraged
to work collaboratively to offer excellent teaching and learning,
and to support pupils' well-being, across a local area. Accountability
mechanisms should be developed so that there is a proper balance
of accountability to national government and the local community,
which supports collaboration rather than competition.
Accountability
4. While we welcome the Select Committee's inquiry,
as part of the series of inquiries into the underpinnings of the
school education system, our response is tempered by our understanding
of the position of the Minister of State for Schools and Learners.
In conversation through social partnership, we understand that
he will not move from his position that there will be a single
grade for each school, published on the Report Card, and that
schools will continue to be held individually accountable. We
believe that if this decision has already been taken it closes
down any debate about the purposes and means of the accountability
system.
5. The current accountability system is based
on frequent high-stakes testing, including an ever-increasing
number of targets with league tables and a residual fear of Ofsted
adding heavy pressure to drive compliance with government initiatives
and the National Strategies.
6. This system encourages an insular approach,
ensuring that each individual school does what it can to climb
the league tables. Professional accountability implies commitment
to evaluate and improve, it does not require a juggernaut of data
collection and detailed comparison of schools.
7. We enclose with this submission ATL's
position statement, New accountability for schools, published
in 2007.[8]
In summary, ATL believes that:
— Accountability is a duty on all public
servants but especially those entrusted with the education of
future generations.
— Accountability must be balanced against
professional autonomy.
— The current system gives undue weight
to central government, through national test data, Ofsted inspection
and the GTC.
— Schools are also accountable to parents,
the governing body and the local community.
— The accountability system must rebalance
these interests, through:
— Ending national testing prior to the
end of compulsory education.
— Developing a system of sample-testing
in order to check levels of performance nationally.
— Placing a duty on local inspectors/advisers
to report to the local authority their evaluation of the School
Evaluation Form (SEF).
— Revising the duties of Ofsted, so that
Ofsted no longer carries out Section 5 inspections of schools,
but focuses instead on thematic inspections which are useful for
national system development, and possibly on monitoring national
achievement through the sample testing.
— Developing the role of the School Improvement
Partner (SIP).
— Supporting informal accountability to
parents through good parent/school relationships.
8. The accountability system must develop
in tandem with an increased focus on partnerships and collaborations,
whether between schools, between schools and other education providers
(particularly early years and 14-19), and between schools and
other children's services.
Ofsted
9. ATL believes that Ofsted should no longer
carry out section 5 school inspections. Self-evaluation should
drive school improvement, with the SEF validated locally. Local
authorities should deploy staff who can evaluate the SEF and validate
it against their own ongoing knowledge of the school. This would
combine both support and challenge into a single role, as well
as convey the accountability of the school to the local authority.
10. While we believe that Ofsted inspection has
improved since the introduction of the school self-evaluation
form (SEF) and shorter notice inspection, our members still report
huge workload implications from the perceived need to be "inspection-ready",
and from some inappropriate use of Ofsted gradings for lesson
observations by headteachers. Ofsted continues to have a reputation
for punitive rather than supportive inspection which limits the
capacity of many schools to innovate and be creative.
11. Our members continue to express concerns
about the training of Ofsted inspectors, their recent classroom
experience and their knowledge and understanding of the phases
that they inspect, particularly in the early years.
12. While there continues to be Ofsted inspection
of individual schools, we believe that no-notice inspection is
entirely inappropriate, and we have a number of concerns about
the publication of "health-checks" and other interim
non-inspection reports of schools, because of their reliance on
school-level data which we believe to be unreliable. This data
is already reported in different ways and used for too many different
purposes.
Performance reporting
13. National performance in particular
subjects or aspects of subjects, as deemed important, can be measured
and reported through sample testing.
14. Evidence shows that it is the reporting of
data at individual school level through the "performance
tables", rather than the existence of tests per se,
that limits the curriculum and puts pressure on children and teachers.
A school's performance in the tables, within a system which encourages
crude parent choice, and which can trigger major interventions
such as National Challenge, puts enormous pressure on schools
to focus on limited aspects of the curriculum, and test performance
rather than real learning.
15. It is often the case that only schools
with an already good standing in the tables feel it possible to
innovate and teach creatively, while those who are lower down
feel the need to focus more intensively on test outcomes. Doing
"more of the same" is unlikely to benefit many of these
pupils.
School report card
16. We believe that the school report card
will replicate the problems of the current accountability system.
From research on assessment for learning in the classroom, we
know that where grades are allocated individual comments on the
context are unlikely to be heeded. We are concerned that the grade
will be allocated based on the accumulation of already flawed
data. Although all the measures are problematic, we believe it
vital to avoid an overall score, particularly if readers are to
engage with deeper information about the school.
17. The intention to include measures of "attainment"
and "pupil progress" in the Report Card are contentious
because of doubts about the reliability and validity of reporting
test performance on a school-by-school basis. The data on the
second two areas, "wider outcomes" and "narrowing
gaps" is unlikely to be any more reliable. While we welcome
acknowledgement that schools are about more than academic performance,
we do not believe that the proposal to collect data on well-being
is sound. The intention for indicators to be outcome focused is
contentious as some of those outcomes will be beyond the sole
control of the school. We are concerned that the inclusion of
"parents' and pupils' views" emphasises the parent/carer
as the user of a service rather than as an active participant
in its delivery and chances of success.
18. Responsibility for children's well-being
cannot be placed on schools alone, but must instead be shared
across local areas and services. The Report Card which is based
at school-level may well recognise different aspects of pupil
achievement beyond the narrowly academic but it does not address
the issue of this shared responsibility, despite an emphasis in
the vision on partnerships, particularly on multi-agency working.
CONCLUSION
19. If we are to meet the needs of all children,
then we must move away from the assumption that accountability
should be measured school-by-individual-school.
February 2009
8 Not printed. Back
|
