Memorandum submitted by Edexcel Ltd
SUMMARY POINTS
— Edexcel believes that publicly funded
schools should be publicly accountable for their contribution
to the wellbeing, progress and achievements of all their young
people. — The overriding purpose of all accountability processes
should be the enhancement of all young people's wellbeing, progress
and achievement. — Accountability should be according to
standards and criteria which accord schools a level playing field,
enabling fair comparison of like with like.
— The proposed School Report Card offers
the opportunity for real progress in consolidating the reporting
of differentiated school performance to communities, both national
and local.
— Edexcel looks forward to supporting government
initiatives in developing accountability mechanisms.
INTRODUCTION: EDEXCEL
LTD
Edexcel, a Pearson company, is the UK's largest
awarding body offering academic and vocational qualifications
and testing to schools, colleges, employers and other places of
learning in the UK and internationally. In 2008 Edexcel marked
8.2 million exam scripts in over 85 countries, with
4.3 million marked onscreen using the groundbreaking "ePen"
technology. Edexcel's general qualifications taken internationally
include GCSEs, GCE AS and A Levels, IGCSEs and O Levels. Edexcel's
vocational qualifications include NVQs and BTECs from Entry Level
to Higher National Diplomas. Edexcel's entire vocational portfolio
received over one million registrations across 45 countries
in 2008. www.edexcel.com.
Accountability
Is it right in principle that schools should be
held publicly accountable for their performance?
1.1 Absolutely.
What should be the fundamental purposes of an
accountability system for schools and, in particular:
To whom should schools be accountable?
1.2 Publicly funded schools should be accountable
to the young people who are their immediate client group, parents/carers,
governors, taxpayers, employers, local and central government.
For what should they be held accountable?
1.3 Schools should be held accountable for the
wellbeing, progress and achievement of all their young people,
as elaborated below.
How should they be held to account?
1.4 Schools should be held accountable for the
wellbeing, progress and achievement of all their young people,
to standards comparable with those of our major competitor nations
through accessible public reporting. "Wellbeing, progress
and achievement" should be defined according to standards
upon which there is a social consensus, which are stable, long-term,
differentiated and internally consistent. The use of undifferentiated
standards like the 30% GCSE grade A*-C criterion of the "National
Challenge", has had damaging consequences for pupil intake,
parental engagement, staff recruitment/retention, governor authority/accountability
and local authority joint area review action plans. (This is because
the benchmark does not take account of the value added by schools,
contradicts published Ofsted judgments and results in a focus
of resources on sub-threshold achievers to the detriment of other
learners). Public accountability should therefore be according
to performance indicators which take due account of selection,
per capita funding and socio-economic advantage/disadvantage,
so that schools may be compared with one another on a "level
playing field".
1.5 Schools should be accountable for the wellbeing,
progress and achievement of all their young people as reflected
by an appropriate blend of quantitative data, pupil and parent
satisfaction surveys and professional assessment of the quality
of their services, taking account of locally specific circumstances,
all gathered into a single easily-understandable and available
report. This is preferable to the disparate range of reporting
information presently available, which is also inaccessible to
certain sections of the community. The School Report Card has
the potential to meet these requirements.
What should be the consequences?
1.6 The consequences of the accountability
process should be sustained and evidenced improvements in the
provision of education and care for all young people, according
to criteria which meet the above standards, within a "reasonable"
time-frame such as one year. The consequences should not be a
flight from allegedly "underperforming" schools of able
learners, affluent parents, skilled and experienced practitioners,
committed governors, and engaged employers. (These have all been
unintended consequences of present accountability arrangements,
arising from negative publicity). A responsibly managed accountability
process impacts young people's experiences beneficially, eg by
developing rather than undermining the recruitment and retention,
confidence and expertise of the practitioners central to young
people's lives in school.
How do other countries hold their schools accountable
for their performance and against what criteria?
1.7 No comment.
Is the current accountability system of inspection
and performance reporting for schools broadly fit for purpose?
1.8 No. The current system is fragmented with
schools accountable to Ofsted, local authorities and central government,
local communities and public opinion. Ofsted reports may not consistently
feature CVA so that raw achievement data fails to take account
of disadvantage, funding differences and the incidence of selection
among neighbouring schools. Light touch attention for high-performing
schools can reinforce funding advantage and encourage "coasting"
while close scrutiny of low-achieving schools can reinforce funding
disadvantage and undermine professional confidence, leading to
a counter-productive flight of skilled and experienced practitioners.
1.9 Moreover "league tables" reflecting
achievement and attainment scores fail to differentiate between
schools according to their intake, resourcing and value added.
These tend to increase the demand for places at schools which
are thought to be "high-performing" and away from those
which are perceived as "low-performing", in raw terms
only, with damaging consequences for learners, communities and
social cohesion.
1.10 Furthermore the application nationwide
of arbitrary benchmarks such as "National Challenge"
has led to the reporting of performance at variance with judgments
made by Ofsted and local authorities and raises questions as to
whether there exists, in fact, a coherent accountability "system".
How should schools be held accountable for their
performance in the context of increasing collaboration in education
provision?
1.11 The encouragement of open competition
between schools over many years has impeded the growth of trust
and collaboration at a local level. Collaboration in provision
is yet to be translated into collaboration over outcomes, not
least because colleges are central to such partnerships for learners
aged 16 and under, but are not included in current proposals.
A workable model illustrating the contribution of collaborative
providers towards the shared achievements of learners has yet
to be published for consultation. There is no easy answer to this
question given the climate of competition between schools which
has arisen.
1.12 Moreover the integrated nature of 14-19 learning
is not reflected in the proposal to apply the Card only to schools
and across the 11-16 secondary phase. There is broad agreement
in the learning community that 14-19 is an integrated phase
and that colleges (both GFE and Sixth Form) play a central role
in local 14-19 partnerships. A unified 14-19 reporting
mechanism is therefore required which is fully inclusive.
School report card
What might a school report card usefully provide
that is not covered by the current performance reporting system?
2.1 The School Report Card may usefully
consolidate into one easily understandable compilation, a wide
variety of information relating to children's attainment, welfare
and progress which is currently found in many different contexts.
The US model illustrates the application of value added data as
an approach to "narrowing the gap".
Are there any issues which the school report card
should avoid or seek to inhibit?
2.2 The Card is likely to reflect a blend of
both quantitative and qualitative information; eg assessment metrics
alongside parent satisfaction ratings. The allocation of weightings
to these various components will require detailed consultation
as there are likely to be highly contrasting stakeholder perspectives
at both national and local levels. The challenge facing those
who populate the Card template will be to weave together both
objective and subjective information into a single coherent narrative
in order to provide a final grade which commands credibility and
is seen to be just. This will need to be underpinned by appropriate
and responsible explanatory comment. The process of consolidation
and distillation to four sides of A4 carries the danger of
some simplification and could easily provoke public and media
over-reaction to a single summative grade, as has been the case
in the US. It is likely to form the basis of substantial public
discussion and should encourage responsible ownership of outcomes.
Is the school report card potentially a sound
basis for:
informing parents;
2.3 Yes, providing the Card is made available
in a wide variety of community languages, and with appropriate
explanation.
providing a set of prioritised outcomes for schools;
2.4 Yes, but only as a contribution towards school
action plans.
providing a starting point for Ofsted inspection;
2.5 Yes, insofar as it will contain information
routinely collected through Ofsted desk-research. The Card may
play a useful role in contributing to Ofsted Risk Assessments.
providing a management tool for government?
2.6 No. The Card will however provide information
which managers may wish to take into account when planning strategically.
Could the school report card appropriately replace
some Ofsted reporting?
2.7 Yes. Consolidation of the current system
means the Card should contain key Ofsted report messages.
2.8 In summary, Edexcel believes the School Report
Card offers many opportunities to support the quality of all children's
learning and care if sensitively and carefully developed and applied.
Edexcel looks forward to working closely with Government in this
new phase of reporting publicly the results of the efforts of
all children, parents/carers, educators and local authorities
alike, in an inclusive and carefully considered long-term implementation
plan.
February 2009
| 
