Examination of Witnesses (Question 220-239)
ANNA FAZACKERLEY,
PROFESSOR JOHN
MACBEATH
AND ANASTASIA
DE WAAL
29 APRIL 2009
Q220 Chairman: I see that
Anna is nodding, but when we went to Ontario, we saw that one
of their problems is that they can't get rid of anyone. You seemed
to see that as an exemplar, with 100% one-union control.
Anna Fazackerley: No, I don't
think that I am on record saying that Ontario is perfection. I
was simply saying that there are good and bad things that we can
learn from all systems. They have at least sorted out the report
card—
Chairman: Okay. We have recently been
to Ontario, and so we learned some interesting things.
Q221 Mr Stuart: Do we need
an accountability system that leads to the dismissal and removal
entirely from the education system of more teachers who are not
up to scratch? I am the chairman of governors of a failing school,
and we turned it around. We got those individuals into the departure
lounge and got them out, but they were not removed from the profession;
they went somewhere else to ruin the educational opportunities
of another bunch of kids. We have a system of accountability that
does not have the courage to identify someone who is probably
a fantastic human being but is just not very good at teaching
and inspiring kids. It seems to me that we do not have a system
that gets rid of them. Am I wrong?
Anna Fazackerley: I think that
you are right. I don't think that we have a system that gets rid
of them, and I am not sure whether we have a system that spots
them either. That is a big problem, and it is something that we
have already highlighted today. It is very important.
Q222 Mr Stuart: How is that
possible, when we spend so much money? There are all these people
crawling all over schools, coming in from every angle and appearing
from every new acronym. In that school that was failing—a
little primary school with eight classrooms—you could not
believe the panoply of people who piled in to advise, help and
consult us. All we needed to do was to remove the teachers who
were rubbish, help the ones who were not doing well enough but
could, and congratulate and support the ones who were doing a
good job. Once we had done that, the school turned around.
Chairman: Graham, perhaps you could marry
that to the question that came up on Monday. You couldn't come
on Monday, I know, but we were talking about licence to practise:
should there be for teachers a licence to practise that is renewable?
Fiona was pushing the witnesses on Monday about that. I don't
know if you see a problem. Do you want to come back to that, Graham?
Mr Stuart: Anna answered; do Anastasia
and John agree that despite this huge system we are not identifying
poor practice and removing it from the system altogether, or doing
enough to support people who need to be supported to come up to
the levels that they can achieve?
Anastasia de Waal: Personally
I think that there is a staggering lack of emphasis on actual
teaching and teachers, and partly that is because of results,
because we know that you can produce pretty good results without
being a good teacher, but partly there is not nearly enough—this
is just on an inspection level—emphasis on classroom observation.
Now, thankfully, that is coming back a bit more, but the mere
idea that it was going to be completely sidelined is extraordinary,
when clearly that is the big impact. In a climate with so much
about management-speak and management style, it has almost come
to the point where we see teachers as technicians; we do not see
them as professionals or as having a big impact themselves. It
is all about the leadership and management structure. Clearly
that is not the case, and it is one of the big reasons why the
status of teaching suffers enormously. The criteria for entry
into teaching are very low, and I think that also has a detrimental
effect. So I think we are not identifying poor teaching because
we are not particularly interested in teaching at the moment,
which is very worrying and a huge problem.
Chairman: John, do you agree with that?
Professor MacBeath: I do. I am
kind of attracted to the renewable licence, actually. Certainly
in some countries—Germany, for example—head teachers
get voted on for a couple of years and if they don't like them
after that they have to move on or return to the classroom, or
whatever. There is something in that. Of course, we have a probation
system at the moment, but maybe the probation system is not good
enough for that. We are addressing a really knotty and very critical
problem here in terms of ineffective or incompetent teachers and
how a system deals with them—how it gets the knowledge.
I would say that to some extent Ofsted does that already. Certainly
a former chief inspector was very good about talking about the
numbers and saying that we had 25,000 incompetent teachers in
this country; there was all that sabre-rattling, and unfortunately
that had a big backlash from unions and everyone else. I think
that the NUT—I know you have taken evidence already from
the NUT—would be supportive of this if they could address
that history of the way we have dealt with teachers who are not
up to scratch. I don't have an easy answer to that one, but I
do recognise that it is a big problem.
Q223 Mr Stuart: Yes, a former
chief inspector did come out with that quite a lot, and, as you
said, it led to a bit of a backlash. Perhaps it was overstated—I
don't think that the facts were overstated, but perhaps the style
wasn't right. Do you have any data on how many people are removed
from the system each year as a result of being found to be incapable
of being improved through capability, or whatever it is?
Anna Fazackerley: I am sure that
something came out quite recently from the DCSF; I can find out.
Q224 Mr Stuart: Listening
to Anna and John's evidence it seems that both the main party
Front Benches are in pursuit of what John says would be great
in a perfect world, where you have informed parents taking a close
interest and able to exercise choice, and a true demand-led education
system; but John was suggesting that it was simply impractical.
I just wanted to ask you, Anna, really, why you are so convinced
that choice and parental information can take us to that nirvana.
The more you talked about the report card, the more I just thought,
"This isn't going to work." We want it to be simple,
yet it must be comprehensive. It must be both in-depth and yet
easy for a parent, even one who is not that keen or that educated
themselves, to follow. All we would be doing is altering it every
six months or every year to make it longer or shorter.
Anna Fazackerley: I disagree that
introducing different, new indicators—information either
that parents want or that we think they should want—has
to be complicated.
Q225 Mr Stuart: You use phrases
such as, "ought to want to see performance indicators",
which perfectly illustrates how you are straining to create a
world which doesn't exist and isn't going to exist. However, you
have this concept and you think it ought to exist. John agrees
that it ought to exist, but I am not convinced that you can make
it happen.
Chairman: Give Anna the chance to answer.
Anna Fazackerley: As a Committee,
you have identified that the national assessment testing is not
working; you are very worried about it. That is pretty much the
only information that is available to parents at the moment, unless
they want to look up an Ofsted report. I am just saying, from
a very simple starting point, that I don't think that is very
fair. I don't think that is satisfactory. You are probably right
that not every parent is going to want to look up information
about a school, but that does not mean that we should not bother
to provide accurate information. If you make it very clear to
schools, teachers and parents exactly what schools will be judged
on, then surely that will drive performance. I add that I do not
actually think that the report card is going to be complicated.
Some aspects of the system at the moment, such as CVA measurements,
are confusing. That is a bit jargony and I don't think many people
would know what that means, but a report card done properly does
not need to be at all difficult. It just brings in some things
that parents are likely to care about, as well as some of the
issues that we are looking at, at the moment. As I have said,
I will send you a list of all of the things that we want to look
at. I could read them out to you now.
Q226 Mr Stuart: Have you created
and market-tested the perfect report card? When you have, and
shown it to 20 schools and all the parents and they say it is
great, perfect and exactly what they want, then I will back down
a lot of the time.
Anna Fazackerley: I doubt very
much that you will back down and I am very much enjoying your
robust questioning. What we have done is look at two existing
report cards: one in Alberta, which was introduced in 2004 and
is working very well, and one in New York. They are quite different;
they look at different criteria. We have looked at bits that are
working and evidence that they are working, so we have got a serious
evidence base behind this. Just to take one small example, one
thing that is quite nice about the New York system is that they
have extra credit for schools that are improving the very weakest
students. That is a pretty good idea. I doubt very much, even
with your professed allergy to report cards, that you would think
that that was a bad or a nasty idea. This is not about making
things more complicated, it is about trying to make things simpler,
actually, and about providing more information for parents.
Chairman: We have got to end it there.
David, over to you.
Q227 Mr Chaytor: I want to
ask John a question about self-evaluation. You are very critical
about the tick-box approach, because you say that it should be
a continuing process of reflection. How does anyone know that
this continuing process of reflection is taking place without
some written record? Do you see my point? We need some evidence.
What form should that evidence be presented in?
Professor MacBeath: We currently
have the evidence reported in the SEF, the self-evaluation form.
That is one way of telling the school's story, the narrative;
it is their version of a report card, if you like. But it has
been made very clear in Ofsted guidance and reiterated by Christine
Gilbert, chief of Ofsted, that we do not require schools to use
the SEF. In fact, David Bell used to say that we would much rather
that schools were telling their story in a much richer way and
not relying on a SEF form, because it actually constrains the
way schools report. A school in Sheffield, a primary school, has
made a wonderful DVD with the children and the secondary school—people
working together to produce a DVD that brilliantly tells the story
of the quality of learning, the school culture and leadership.
I have shown it at a number of conferences. It is a brilliant
example that goes so much further than a SEF can with tick boxes
and so on. When the school has genuine ownership of self-evaluation,
it thinks much more creatively and visually, with photographs,
video and written accounts from children, which give a rich profile
of what the school is about.
Q228 Mr Chaytor: So if a school
ditches the SEF form and produces a DVD, a report or a portfolio,
it is not going to be in any way—
Professor MacBeath: No, and Ofsted
are very happy.
Q229 Mr Chaytor: A question
to Anastasia and Anna: on the broader issue of school improvement,
is that the right focus or should we be more concerned with system
improvement?
Anastasia de Waal: I think that
it is about addressing the weaknesses in the current system, rather
than shaking up the system and coming up with a new one. We know
where there are clear problems. One of the key issues, and why
school choice is appealing for many, is the lack of autonomy that
teachers and schools have. They have a lot of financial autonomy,
which in a way is the worst of both worlds, but not enough pedagogical
autonomy. One of the big issues that we are seeing now and, I
feel, one big reason why the achievement gap has not been impacted
on as it might have been is that teachers cannot respond sufficiently
to the needs of the pupils in front of them because the approach
is much too standardised. I think that that is the key issue.
Another issue is the one that I mentioned of teacher quality.
That has a lot to do with entry requirements into teaching. Obviously
testing is another big one. In other words, they are issues that,
at the moment, are really crippling the system, but that does
not mean that the system has to change; it means addressing those
inherent distortions.
Anna Fazackerley: I would agree
wholeheartedly and simply say that we are always trying to change
the system and to do everything with the system as a whole, rather
than looking at things on an individual school basis. It has to
be about improving schools, but implicit within that is improvement
of the system.
Q230 Mr Chaytor: And what
should be the key criterion for deciding that a school needs a
school improvement programme?
Anna Fazackerley: I would say
a poor performance on the report card. If you got low scores in
the different areas, you would need an inspection. There should
be an additional criterion that if parents complained, as is the
case now, you would be inspected. Finally, both of us would like
a system of randomised inspections as well—inspectors coming
in and performing spot checks on schools. The inspected school
should not have any nasty follow-up from that inspection; it is
simply a useful way of getting a glimpse of how the system as
a whole is working. I would like to see that.
Anastasia de Waal: And I would
say issues identified by holistic inspections—not within
the current process, but when inspections were carried out in
schools and things like teacher turnover or performance in relation
to a much bigger picture were identified. This is not necessarily
about test performance but about whether pupils are progressing
and achieving. It could also be about things such as facilities.
I think that it is very narrowly based on the curriculum at the
moment. We also need to look at whether there is enough playground
space and that kind of thing. That could well be impinging on
the quality of school provision, so it needs to be holistic.
Chairman: I have to call a halt here,
but only because we have another session. I implore you to keep
in touch with us. We are only as good as the information that
we get in the Committee. Will you go away, think about what we
asked you, and whether we asked you the wrong questions and should
have given you more stimulating ones? Come back to us and say,
"You should have asked this because we believe this."
Please help us to make this a good report. We are very open to
all of your views. Thank you. I have delayed a little because
that was a very interesting session and I also knew that one of
our witnesses for the second session was delayed.
Memorandum submitted by the National Confederation
of Parent Teacher Associations
1. THE NATIONAL
CONFEDERATION OF
PARENT TEACHER
ASSOCIATIONS
1.1 The National Confederation of Parent
Teacher Associations (NCPTA), a registered charity, advances education
by promoting partnerships between home and school through support
for Parent, Parent Teacher, Friends and other Home-School Associations.
The organisation has more than 13,000 individual associations
currently in membership across England, Wales and Northern Ireland
which corresponds to the involvement of more than seven million
parents and teachers.
2. PARENTAL VIEWS
2.1 The views of parents included in this
submission are taken from a survey of more than 2,000 parents
conducted by NCPTA in April 2009. Full details of the survey and
how it was conducted are attached in Annex 1.
3. SUMMARY
3.1 Parents do want schools to be held accountable
for their performance. This is demonstrated by parents wanting
to know how well each school performs (96%) and the number that
place a value on Ofsted Inspections (78%). However, parents feel
that how schools are held accountable needs to change: there is
clear demand for a wider range of measures to be used (96%) and
for no-notice inspections (61%). Given the school report card
seeks to provide information about school performance based on
a wider range of measures this appears to be a good fit with parental
preferences. However, there is a need to remember that parents
do place a value on test and exam results as an important measure
of a school's performance (78%) and there is a clear preference
for these to published or made publicly available (76%). This
should not be lost in this wider discussion of school accountability.
4. ACCOUNTABILITY
4.1 Is it right in principle that schools
should be held publicly accountable for their performance?
Yes—the overwhelming majority of parents
(96%) agree that it is important for them to know how well each
school performs.
4.2 What should be the fundamental purposes
of an accountability system for schools and, in particular:
— to whom should schools be accountable;
Obviously, schools need to be accountable to parents.
However, parents are very aware that they usually act as individuals
within the education sector and therefore have little authority
or power to affect change within schools. Parents therefore look
to other agencies with greater authority to hold schools accountable
whether this be the local authority, Ofsted or central government.
— for what should they be held accountable;
Typically, parents will have a balanced view of what
schools should be held accountable for. Many will very eloquently
express their desire that their children do well academically
but know that this is often predicated on the child's wellbeing.
The majority of parents (76%) do agree that the performance of
each school in tests and exams should be published or made publicly
available but there is even greater demand (96%) for schools to
be assessed on a wider range of measures. The Every Child Matters
outcomes appear well supported and therefore could provide the
basis for a wider set of measures with which parents may be happy
to hold schools accountable.
— how should they be held to account;
and
Anecdotally, parents typically favour a system of
accountability which is independent and not purely based on self
assessment.
— what should be the consequences?
We would expect that parents would want schools where
standards have been shown to be inadequate to receive assistance
and intervention to improve. Whilst potentially problematic, parents
are likely to favour the use of sanctions where this is necessary
and even appropriate changes in personnel.
4.3 How do other countries hold their schools
accountable for their performance and against what criteria?
This is outside NCPTA's remit.
4.4 Is the current accountability system of
inspection and performance reporting for schools broadly fit for
purpose?
Parents do appear broadly supportive of the current
accountability system of inspection and performance reporting.
There is clear demand for test and exam results to be published
or made publicly available (76%) and Ofsted inspections are valued
by the majority of parents (78%). However, as seen in our parent
survey there is demand from parents to further improve the system
through the use of a wider range of measures by which to assess
performance and the introduction of no-notice inspections.
4.5 How should schools be held accountable
for their performance in the context of increasing collaboration
in education provision?
Whilst complex, parents are likely to expect that
all parties to any collaboration be held accountable for the resulting
performance and that this would need to be clearly established
in any agreement underpinning the formation of the partnership.
5. INSPECTION
5.1 Is an independent inspectorate an appropriate
mechanism for holding schools to account?
Yes—Ofsted inspections are clearly valued
by the majority of parents (78%).
5.2 What is the impact of inspections on school
performance, including confidence, creativity and innovation?
This will be completely dependent upon the experience
of individual schools. Whilst some may have found this a negative
experience there will be those that will have gained from the
inspections process leading to improved performance.
5.3 Are inspectors appropriately qualified
and trained to carry out inspections, particularly in the light
of the need to report against Every Child Matters outcomes?
Parents would rightly expect that inspectors are
qualified and trained to carry out inspections including against
the Every Child Matters outcomes. Where this isn't the case parents
would expect that this would be addressed appropriately through
training and continuing professional development.
5.4 Is it appropriate for inspection reports
to be placed in the public domainn?
Yes: the majority of parents (78%) agree that they
value Ofsted inspections.
5.5 How often should inspections be carried
out and how long and detailed should these inspections be?
Parents are likely to understand the need to make
best use of Ofsted's finite resources and therefore will at least
be supportive of changes to the inspections' framework which enable
a focus on improvement.
However, this is likely to be countered by concern
at the length of time between formal inspections for schools judged
good or outstanding: for some children this six year period will
represent the entire time they spend at either a primary or secondary
school.
Parents will want to be assured that there are sufficient
safeguards in place to trigger an appropriate and timely response
by Ofsted if a school's performance begins to weaken. Parents
will expect Ofsted to be unceasing in its efforts to militate
against any school judged outstanding or good becoming complacent
during the intervening six years.
NCPTA has noted the list of key indicators and
the discussion of other factors which will be used to determine
inspection dates. It will be important for Ofsted to explain to
parents how it is envisaged the process of triggering an inspection
during the six year interval will work. Parents will expect that
Ofsted will continue to improve its practice to decrease the number
of situations where a previously outstanding or good school's
performance weakens within an appropriate period of time.
NCPTA welcomes the opportunity for parents themselves
to express their concerns. It is right that parents are one of
the means by which those schools that will not have an inspection
for six years can be monitored.
5.6 How much notice, if any, should a school
receive of an upcoming inspection?
Parents have clearly expressed the view that
schools should receive no notice of upcoming inspections (61%).
5.7 In the context of an inspection, what
is the value of:
— the school's self-assessment;
With the length of time between Ofsted inspections
increasing, the ability of schools to be self-critical becomes
of greater importance. Inspections need to judge the degree to
which the self-assessment form is accurate and a good basis for
self-improvement between formal inspections.
— the results of national tests;
Parents value national test results: 78% agree that
they are one important measure of a school's performance. Parents
are increasingly aware that national test results have real meaning
for their children: not obtaining Level 4 in the Key Stage 2 SATs
makes it difficult for any child to function independently at
secondary school, whilst public examinations in year 11 are the
stepping stones to employment or further education.
— the school's contextual value added
score; and
Parents clearly value being able to contextualise
school performance and compare like schools (valued by 90% of
parents). Whether or not the current contextual value added score
is the best way to make this information available to parents
is open to debate: we would assume that there is some concern
about the complexity of how this is calculated and reported.
— how much weight should be attached
to these elements in the inspection report?
There is obviously value attached to test and exam
results with many parents wanting to know that whatever the context
of the school their children will be able to achieve. However,
given the even higher value placed by parents on a wider range
of measures to be used for school performance (96% agree the need
for a wider range of measures as opposed to 78% agreeing test
and exam results are an important measure of a schools' performance),
it appears that the weight attached to test and exam results needs
to be balanced against other measures. Parents are likely to hold
the view that, unless a school is able to support all a child's
needs, then they are unlikely to be able to excel in their educational
attainment.
5.8 In an inspection, how should emphasis
be balanced between educational attainment and other aspects of
a school's provision, such as the Every Child Matters outcomes?
As already noted, parents seem to be expressing a
clear demand for school performance to be assessed based on a
balance between educational attainment and other aspects of a
school's provision, such as the Every Child Matters outcomes.
Parents are likely to hold the view that, unless a school is able
to support all a child's needs then, they are unlikely to be able
to excel in their education attainment.
5.9 Should inspections be tailored to the
current performance levels of the specific school being inspected
and, if so, to what extent?
Whatever the context of the school, parents will
want their children to be able to achieve. Therefore, great care
needs to be taken in tailoring inspections to the current performance
levels of the specific school and cannot in any way prevent the
push for school improvement over time. However, this may be beneficial
as part of a more frequent inspections regime for those classified
as "causing concern" where this is being used to actively
support improvement.
5.10 Has the introduction of a light-touch
inspection regime for higher-performing schools been appropriate?
Obviously, this may cause some concern at the length
of time between formal inspections for schools judged good or
outstanding. Parents will want to be assured that there are sufficient
safeguards in place to trigger an appropriate and timely response
by Ofsted if a schools' performance begins to weaken. Parents
will expect Ofsted to be unceasing in its efforts to militate
against any school judged outstanding or good becoming complacent
between inspections.
5.11 What are the mechanisms for identifying
schools which are underperforming and are those mechanisms adequate?
It is important that parents retain the ability to
complain to Ofsted where there are concerns that a school is not
providing good enough education, where pupils are not achieving
as much as they should or their different needs are not being
addressed. In this way parents themselves will have an important
role to play in helping to identify schools that are underperforming.
However, we would suggest that parents still aren't sufficiently
aware that they can complain to Ofsted. In part we feel that this
is because there is fear about the level of vexatious complaints
that may be forthcoming from parents. NCPTA would be concerned
if this were to continue to limit awareness amongst parents of
their ability to actively monitor school performance.
5.12 How effective has the classification
of "school causing concern" (special measures or improvement
notice) been in supporting improved performance in the schools
concerned?
Parents are likely to assume that the classification
of "school causing concern" has been beneficial in supporting
school improvement. Giving schools public notice of the need for
improvement would be assumed to be a catalyst for change as well
as the basis for leveraging additional support through Ofsted
and local authorities.
5.13 Have School Improvement Partners been
of benefit to schools?
Again, parents are likely to assume that leveraging
in additional expert support will be of benefit to schools.
5.14 Is the current procedure for complaints
about inspections adequate?
NCPTA would question whether there is general awareness
amongst parents that they can make complaints about inspections.
6. PERFORMANCE
REPORTING (OTHER
THAN THE
OFSTED INSPECTION
REPORT)
6.1 What aspects of a school's performance
should be measured and how?
Whilst parents do value test and exam results
as a measure of a school's performance (78%) there is demand from
parents for performance to be assessed using a wider range of
measures (96%). This seems to demonstrate the need for a more
balanced approach. The NCPTA would like to recommend the Every
Child Matters outcomes as offering one solution which is likely
to get the support of parents.
6.2 How should these performance measurements
be reported and by whom?
Parents show a marked preference for performance
to be assessed using a wider set of measures and for this information
to be publicly available. Having given this considerable thought
we feel that performance information needs to be published nationally.
If only made available locally or regionally, parents are likely
to face difficulties in obtaining information about relevant schools
especially where they live on the boundaries of different local
authority areas or are moving some distance. The NCPTA also believes
that parents will tend to favour performance information which
has been independently obtained and verified rather than being
based on self-assessment.
6.3 To whom should this information be made
available?
Parents have shown a clear preference for schools
being held publicly accountable. Performance information should
therefore be made available to the general public.
6.4 What is the effect of the current system
of public performance reporting on a school's performance, including
confidence, creativity and innovation?
It is evident that this can be demoralising. However,
parents are likely to feel that this should be the basis for schools
attracting additional help and support to achieve school improvement.
Given their preference for public accountability, parents are
likely to be alarmed if discomfort caused by the league tables
is used to justify not making this information publicly available.
Parents have also shown that they favour being able to compare
like schools. This tends towards needing to improve the quality
of contextual value added information made available through the
league tables.
6.5 What is the impact on schools of league
tables published by the press?
This is obviously a key means for parents to hold
schools publicly accountable.
6.6 How useful is this information to stakeholders,
particularly parents?
Parents have shown that they value knowing how well
each school performs (96%) and do agree that test and exam results
are an important measure of a school's performance (78%).
7. SCHOOL REPORT
CARD
7.1 What might a school report card usefully
provide that is not covered by the current performance reporting
system?
A school report card could report a school's
performance using a wider range of measures for which there is
a clear preference by parents. As already recommended parents
are likely to welcome reporting against the Every Child Matters
outcomes.
7.2 Are there any issues which the school
report card should avoid or seek to inhibit?
There has obviously been debate about whether or
not the school report card should feature an overall score. Parents
have shown a preference for having an overall score as well as
individual scores for each of the measures used to assess performance
(preferred by 56% of parents). Without an overall score parents
are likely to be prohibited from readily comparing schools with
each other for which they have again shown a preference.
7.3 Is the school report card potentially
a sound basis for:
— informing parents;
Yes, given parents have shown a marked preference
for school performance to be reported against a wider set for
measures.
— providing a set of prioritised outcomes
for schools;
It is hoped that the report card system would lend
itself to providing a set of prioritised outcomes for schools.
However, this will depend upon there being agreement that the
wider set of measures used are appropriate.
— providing a starting point for Ofsted
inspection; and
Whist the school report card might provide a starting
point, it is likely that parents will expect Ofsted to use a more
extensive and detailed range of information for assessing school
performance.
— providing a management tool for government?
Again, it is likely that parents would expect this
information to be useful as a management tool for government but
for this to be complemented by other sources of information about
the school including Ofsted reports.
7.4 Could the school report card appropriately
replace some Ofsted reporting?
NCPTA feels it unlikely that parents would support
the school report card replacing Ofsted reporting. Whilst the
report card can provide summative information against a range
of measures, it is unlikely that parents will feel that this is
an adequate substitute for an inspection of a school.
April 2009
Annex 1
SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY: PARENTAL VIEWS
SURVEY CONDUCTED BY THE NATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF
PARENT TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS
INTRODUCTION
In preparation for this submission and appearing
before the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee on
29 April 2009 the NCPTA conducted an online survey in order to
gain further insight into the current views of parents on school
accountability.
METHOD
An email was sent to 15,735 NCPTA members (all
those for whom a personal email address is held) inviting them
to participate and with an embedded link taking them directly
to the online survey conducted using a leading online software
tool (SurveyMonkey). All were prompted to respond in a personal
capacity in their role as parents and not as a PTA representative
or on behalf of their PTA.
No form of inducement was offered to gain responses.
Whether or not a response was received from a representative of
any member association will not be recorded.
Great care was taken to carefully construct
both the questions and available responses to the quantitative
questions to allow all views to be reflected and to in no way
lead the respondents. Both the questions and responses are provided
below.
Multiple responses were blocked by limiting
to one the number of responses that could be sent from any IP
address.
Whilst it might have been beneficial to have
asked a wider range of questions, it was deliberately decided
to keep the number of questions as low as possible in order to
extract the maximum number of responses in the time available
for the survey.
RESPONSES
The invitation email inviting participation
was emailed out on 3 April 2009 and the survey was closed to any
further responses on 20 April 2009, giving respondents just over
two weeks to participate. This period covered the school Easter
Holidays and therefore wasn't ideal in terms of increasing the
number of responses. However, a total of 2,226 responses were
received, giving a response rate of 15%.
SUMMARY
Overwhelmingly, the majority of parents agree
that it is important for parents to know how well each school
performs (96%). Parents are also keen to be able to compare one
school against another (87%) and specifically want to be able
to compare the performance of like schools (90%).
Parents also agree that test and exam results are
one important measure of a school's performance (78%) and that
these should be published or made publicly available (75%). However,
parents want test and exam results to be part of a wider range
of information used to assess school performance (96%). In terms
of how parents want this information made available to them they
show a preference for individual scores for each measure used
as well as an overall score summarising the school's performance
(56%).
The survey found that Ofsted inspections are
valued by the majority of parents (78%) but they would like to
move from schools being given two days notice of inspections as
currently happens to their having no notice (61%).
Parents were asked specifically if they agree
or disagree with plans by teachers and head teachers to boycott
the public exams held at the end of primary school (Key Stage
2 SATS) in order to get them withdrawn. Parents are almost equally
divided between those that support the boycott and those that
disagree with it. There is also a large number that neither agree
nor disagree. The NCPTA would therefore suggest that there is
no clear parental view and that none of the protagonists in the
dispute should claim to have the support of parents.
DETAIL OF
RESPONSES
| 1. How far do you agree or disagree that it is important parents should know how well each school performs?
|
| Response
Percent
| Response
Count |
Agree a lot | 79.0%
| 1,759 |
| Agree a little | 17.0% |
379 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 2.4%
| 53 |
| Disagree a little | 1.0% |
23 |
| Disagree a lot | 0.5% | 12
|
| | |
| 2. How far do you agree or disagree that parents should be able to compare one school's performance against another?
|
| Response
Percent
| Response
Count |
Agree a lot | 56.2%
| 1,252 |
| Agree a little | 31.0% |
691 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 6.2%
| 138 |
| Disagree a little | 4.0% |
89 |
| Disagree a lot | 2.5% | 56
|
| | |
| 3. How far do you agree or disagree that it would be useful for parents to be able to compare one school with another in like circumstances? For example, located in comparable areas and with children from similar circumstances?
|
| Response
Percent
| Response
Count |
Agree a lot | 65.2%
| 1,452 |
| Agree a little | 24.8% |
551 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 5.9%
| 132 |
| Disagree a little | 2.5% |
56 |
| Disagree a lot | 1.6% | 35
|
| | |
| 4. How far would you agree or disagree that test and exams results are one important measure of a school's performance?
|
| Response
Percent
| Response
Count |
Agree a lot | 32.7% |
727 |
| Agree a little | 44.9%
| 1,000 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 6.5%
| 145 |
| Disagree a little | 9.7% |
215 |
| Disagree a lot | 6.2% | 137
|
| | |
| 5. How far do you agree or disagree that the performance of each school in tests and exams should be published or made publicly available?
|
| Response
Percent
| Response
Count |
Agree a lot | 41.2%
| 916 |
| Agree a little | 34.8% |
774 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 10.2%
| 228 |
| Disagree a little | 8.4% |
186 |
| Disagree a lot | 5.5% | 122
|
| | |
| 6. How far do you agree or disagree that it would be beneficial to have a wider range of information than just exam results reported about the performance of each school? This might include information on behaviour at the school, the health of pupils, how many go onto employment or further education and parental satisfaction surveys.
|
| Response
Percent
| Response
Count |
Agree a lot | 84.3%
| 1,877 |
| Agree a little | 11.5% |
256 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 2.0%
| 45 |
| Disagree a little | 1.1% |
25 |
| Disagree a lot | 1.0% | 23
|
| 7. If a wider range of measures is used to assess school performance how should this information be summarised for your use?
|
| Response
Percent
| Response
Count |
| In one overall score | 1.6%
| 36 |
| Individual scores for each measure used to assess performance
| 38.5% | 856 |
| Both an overall score and individual scores for each measure used to assess performance
| 56.2% | 1,252
|
| Don't know | 3.7% | 82
|
| | |
| 8. How far do you agree or disagree that Ofsted Inspections are of value to parents?
|
| Response
Percent
| Response
Count |
Agree a lot | 36.7% |
818 |
| Agree a little | 40.9%
| 911 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 8.3%
| 185 |
| Disagree a little | 8.4% |
187 |
| Disagree a lot | 5.6% | 125
|
| | |
| 9. How much notice do you feel schools should be given of an Ofsted Inspection?
|
| Response
Percent
| Response
Count |
More than two days | 13.5%
| 300 |
| Two days | 22.6% | 503
|
| No notice | 61.6%
| 1,364 |
| Don't know | 2.7% | 59
|
| | |
| 10. How far do you agree or disagree that it is appropriate for teachers and head teachers to boycott the public exams held at the end of primary school (Key Stage 2) in order to get them withdrawn?
|
| Response
Percent
| Response
Count |
Agree a lot | 23.7%
| 527 |
| Agree a little | 17.1% |
381 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 22.8%
| 507 |
| Disagree a little | 14.7% |
327 |
| Disagree a lot | 21.7% |
484 |
| |
|
Memorandum submitted by the National Governors' Association
1. The National Governors' Association (NGA) is the national
membership body for school governors. NGA has several categories
of membership comprising individual governors, school governing
bodies and independent local associations of school governing
bodies. NGA seeks to represent the interests of all school governors
and governing bodies in all phases and types of school. The NGA
was formed in 2006 from the merger of the National Governors'
Council and the National Association of School Governors.
ACCOUNTABILITY
2. NGA is firmly of the view that schools should be held
publicly to account for their performance. School accountability
is fully devolved to school level, with schools being autonomous
institutions. Few other countries devolve school accountability
to individual school level.
3. The accountable body for schools is the governing body
(GB). The NGA and the two headteacher professional associations
are comfortable with this, as expressed in the joint document
agreed in 2008 which says:
"The governing body expects to be able to monitor the
work of the school and to hold the headteacher to account for
the performance of the school."
What Governing Bodies Should Expect From School Leaders
and What School Leaders Should Expect From Governing Bodies (ASCL,
NGA & NAHT, 2008)
4. The GB holds the school to account by setting the
vision, values and aims for the school. It sets the strategic
direction the school should take, agrees the policy framework
in which the school operates, and appoints and performance manages
the headteacher who is tasked with delivering the vision. The
performance management process is overseen by the School Improvement
Partner (SIP), who provides the detailed, professional consultancy
necessary as data is interrogated to ensure that the agreed progress
towards delivering the vision is being made. However, should the
GB wish to challenge the HT's performance, the Local Authority
(LA) has to be involved, as it is the LA that carries out any
investigation into capability or conduct.
5. However, in reality, schools feel that they are subject
to multiple accountabilities. These include:
(a) Ofsted—who deliver a judgement on school effectiveness
approximately every three years. It is not clear whether Ofsted
report their findings to GB, who is then tasked with ensuring
that findings are addressed, or whether Ofsted reports to the
school leadership team, and then the leadership team assure the
GB that the findings are being addressed. Either way, the involvement
of the GB needs to be clarified so that the GB can effectively
hold the school to account against the Ofsted judgment. Moreover,
Ofsted makes a judgement on the effectiveness of the GB, but this
is often based on minimal evidence. If the finding is unsatisfactory,
the LA is empowered to intervene, but often this does not happen.
(b) DCSF—through programmes such as National Challenge
and Gaining Ground where School Improvement Partners (SIPs) report
directly to the DCSF on progress.
(c) SIPs—who validate the school's self evaluation process.
NGA is aware of a great variety in SIP standards and practice,
and even wider variation on the SIP's interaction with the GB.
NGA is of the view that whenever the SIP has a concern about school
effectiveness, the SIP should report, in person, to the full GB.
Too often the SIP reports are withheld, edited, or dismissed by
the head who may try and influence the chair of governors view.
There is much anecdotal evidence that the relationship between
the head and the chair can become too mutually supportive, which
is why it is imperative that issues must be shared with the full
GB. Advice from LAs to SIPs about what information should be shared
with the GB is also inconsistent. The NGA would like to see clear
unequivocal advice from the DCSF to LAs, SIPs, heads and GBs about
what information must be shared with the GB.
(d) The Local Authority—who keep a check on standards
and, as the funding authority, monitor school finances. The NGA
has much anecdotal evidence that LAs have very different approaches
to the role of the GB when standards issues become apparent. In
some, they quickly decide that the head should leave, and they
more or less insist that the GB agrees with their assessment of
the situation, and comply by agreeing whatever deal is proposed.
In others, the HR department holds sway, and endemic risk aversion
leads to the head being overly supported, leaving the GB increasingly
frustrated at ever being able to move their school forward. Likewise,
the introduction of the Financial Management Standard in Schools
was designed to standardise school financial monitoring procedures,
but implementation varies considerably across LAs, with some LAs
introducing excessive monitoring procedures.
6. NGA is of the view that clarifying the accountability
framework would remove the ambiguity that has resulted in the
above. If Ofsted, DCSF, SIPs and the LA all recognised that the
GB is the accountable body, then:
(a) Ofsted would expect the GB to ensure that its judgements
are addressed, and that LA would take seriously their responsibility
to ensure good governance.
(b) The DCSF would expect the GB to ensure that progress is
being made against the national strategies imposed upon their
school.
(c) The SIP would report any slippage to the GB and advise
on strategies to get the school back on track. The SIP would also
advise the LA where the GB was losing focus and the LA could respond
accordingly.
(d) The LA would involve the GB at the beginning of any conversation
about school effectiveness, and listen to the GB's concerns. If
the GB is not hearing the message, the LA would address the strength
of the GB—not go beyond it. If the LA is not hearing the
message from the GB, the GB should have recourse to another body
that will progress its concerns.
7. Schools should be held accountable for their core
business which is learning and teaching. Schools are also accountable
for other matters such as wellbeing, but this is in the context
of raising the standard of learning and teaching.
8. Schools should be held to account as described in
paragraph 2.
9. The consequences of a school not raising standards
should be for the senior leadership team (both operational and
strategic) to be held properly to account. If they are incapable
of managing the school as agreed, they should be removed and new
leaders appointed.
10. The NGA is largely of the view that the inspection
framework is fit for purpose, though there is much anecdotal evidence
that the standard of inspection is variable, and that the current
framework is too paper and data based.
11. The NGA is concerned that the current inspection
framework does not easily translate across collaborative working
models; although we are hopeful that the new framework will address
these issues.
INSPECTION
12. The NGA believes that an independent inspectorate
is an appropriate mechanism for ensuring that schools are effective,
and a recent TES/NGA survey indicated that governors have considerable
trust in the process. However there have been some perverse inspection
outcomes which have damaged confidence and credibility. Less secure
heads appear to find the process limits creativity and innovation.
13. NGA has some anecdotal evidence of inspectors working
outside of their preferred phase and that some seem to struggle
with the ECM agenda. Members are happy with outcomes being made
public—indeed expect that they should be.
14. The current timescale for inspections is satisfactory,
although the originally proposed six years for high performing
schools seems a long time. We understand that following the Ofsted
consultation, this may be reduced to five to ensure that all schools
are inspected at least once during a pupil's progress through
the school. The NGA also understands that Ofsted will be risk
assessing the timescales for inspection on a regular basis. While
some members expressed some concern about the concept of no notice
inspections during the formal consultation, we understand that
these have been largely well-received during the on-going pilot
process.
15. School self evaluation is becoming more embedded
but there still seems to be issues with evidencing judgements,
and schools need to spend less time setting out what they have
done and more time evaluating impact. The role of the SIP is vital
to GBs who need the professional input for validating judgements.
GBs can also be less than realistic about the impact of unexpected
results and CVA (Contextual Value Added) scores which fail to
improve, offering reasons which stray into the realm of excuses.
In general, GBs understand the link between effective learning
and teaching and improving outcomes which more often happen in
the context of a curriculum tailored to the needs of the children
in the school. However, some can lack the confidence to insist
that regular updates on the quality of teaching are made available,
and to challenge the head on the appropriateness of the curriculum.
Most understand that the ECM outcomes should underpin the whole
of school life which, along with an appropriate curriculum and
sound teaching, are the recipe for successful learning.
16. The problem with tailoring inspections to the current
performance level of the school is that there needs to be room
for flexibility if the team discover all is not as expected. The
NGA is pleased that "light touch" inspections will be
discarded under the new framework as we are concerned that such
inspections do not give sufficient time to address issues such
as how much a high performing school has achieved success through
favourable location and admissions.
17. Underperformance is currently identified through
raw scores not being high enough, CVA being inadequate, progress
falling short of expectations, and other compliance issues not
being adhered to (eg safeguarding). NGA would prefer to see CVA
and progress being the key identifiers for underperformance. NGA
recognises the value of compliance but would be interested in
compliance being monitored by other means so that Ofsted could
spend more time on issues directly related to learning.
18. The classification of "schools causing concern"
(special measures or improvement notice) has been of increasing
success in supporting improved performance as schools, and LAs,
understand more about what it takes to improve performance. Unfortunately
achieving long term secure improvement can still be an issue.
The NGA has a concern that too often quick fixes are sought, and
that the introduction of robust learning and teaching policies,
behaviour management policies and, most importantly, performance
management processes which manage staff against these key policies,
are not seen as the starting point for turn around.
19. Where SIPs are operating effectively they have been
of great benefit and their independence is hugely valuable.
20. The current Ofsted complaints' procedure is slow,
cumbersome and defensive. This is of particular concern in an
inspection framework which seeks to publish early verdicts on
schools' performance.
PERFORMANCE REPORTING
(OTHER THAN
THE OFSTED
INSPECTION REPORT)
21. The reporting of school performance is a vexed issue.
Governors are largely against the current system of league tables
and to date are not supportive of any single measure that defines
a school's performance. However, there is recognition that it
is not possible to return to a place where there is no reporting,
and so there is support for a balanced report card—as long
as it measures more than attainment. Governors need to know how
the school's performance fits with local and national performance,
and accept that this information should be available to parents.
The School Profile has been a failure and parents do not use it
to judge school performance. As long as the league tables exist,
parents will use this measure alongside other published information
about the school—primarily the prospectus and, increasingly,
the school's website. Many parents seem to understand that a whole
range of issues need to be taken into account when looking at
school performance. Parents and governors who access the DCSF
site are usually surprised at how much information is published
about school performance.
22. Publication of league tables has, undoubtedly, focused
attention on school performance and most accept that this has
been an effective strategy. The move towards CVA as a measure
is largely welcomed as a more meaningful measure although some
say it is too complex for the whole range of parents to understand.
Others claim that CVA data is flawed. The NGA would like to see
progress measures being used.
SCHOOL REPORT
CARD
23. The school report card could provide a range of measures,
contextualised, and set against the most recent Ofsted judgement
and SIP judgements. Only issues which could lead to the identification
of specific staff or pupils should be avoided.
24. The school report card could be a sound basis for informing
parents about a range of issues alongside the easily measurable
outcomes, as well as describing the school's priorities which
would provide a new openness of purpose. It could also contribute
to Ofsted's risk assessment process.
25. If the school report card also acted as a compliance
document then government could use it as a policy driver.
26. If the school report card was used to report compliance,
then this would remove this aspect of the Ofsted process—except
that the compliance would need to be checked from time to time.
The other problem with using the school report card to replace
some of the Ofsted reporting would be the danger of over complicating,
and therefore lengthening, the report card which would defeat
its purpose.
March 2009
Memorandum submitted by the Advisory Centre for Education
SUMMARY
Accountability: ACE believes that all schools
need to be more broadly, publicly accountable for the service
they provide and answerable not only for educational attainment,
but also for the way in which they deal with broader issues such
as poor behaviour, bullying, discrimination and special educational
needs, as well as for the level of communication that exists with
parents; how they deal with parental concerns and complaints and
their level of regulatory compliance. By all schools we
include Academies and City Technology Colleges. ACE strongly believes
that no real accountability can be claimed to exist until these
schools have been brought fully within the ambit of national education
law.
Inspection: ACE is of the view that regular independent,
physical inspections of schools are vital for providing accountability
and improving standards. We believe that Ofsted inspections should
not be reduced, either because of previous good Ofsted reports
or because any new system (such as the Report Card system recently
consulted on by the DCSF) purports to provide a similar service,
as in our view, no system which relies on reported data can match
physical inspection. However, we believe that Ofsted's inspection
system would be improved if no prior notice were given
of inspections.
Report Cards: ACE broadly welcomes the new Report Card
initiative, but is of the view that it will only work well if
(i) the right categories of performance are used and (ii) the
full data on which the statistics are based are made available
to parents on the same website. In terms of (i), ACE advocates
two additional categories: "parental complaints" and
"regulatory compliance". Further, ACE is not in favour
of schools being given one overarching score on the Report Cards,
as we believe this could be misleading.
ABOUT ACE
The Advisory Centre for Education (ACE) is a national charity
which advises parents, carers, governors, local authorities and
others on education law and practice in the state sector for children
of compulsory school age. We run a free telephone advice service
and a free texting service and are thus in daily contact with
people experiencing a variety of educational issues.
ACE also delivers training on education law issues (eg school
admissions, exclusions, special educational needs, disability
and attendance issues) to local authority officers, school head
teachers, governors and staff, voluntary sector advisers, admission
and exclusion appeal panel members and clerks, and lawyers.
We regularly respond to DCSF consultations (both formal and
informal), and have meetings with DCSF civil servants and ministers
to discuss policy and legal issues. The statutory exclusions guidance
(Improving Behaviour and Attendance: Guidance on Exclusion
from Schools and Pupil Referral Units, Sept 08 (00573-2008DOM-EN))
states in paragraph 89f that schools/PRUs should advise parents/carers
of ACE's contact details when their child is excluded if they
wish to receive independent advice. We have recently contributed
both written and oral evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee
on the Merits of Statutory Instruments for their investigation
into the effectiveness of statutory instruments in education law.
We also recently made a written submission to the DCSF in response
to a consultation paper (A New Way of Handling Parents' Complaints
about school issues) which covered issues of school accountability.
RESPONSE TO
CONSULTATION QUESTIONS
We have based what follows on some of the questions listed
by the Committee on its website.
1. ACCOUNTABILITY
1.1 Broadening accountability
Certain key areas of concern to parents come up on our telephone
advice service time and time again and we believe schools should
be held accountable for all of them. School accountability should
not just cover educational attainment, but the way in which schools
deliver their services and the overall experience had by children
who attend them. The areas of concern that we have identified
by talking to parents are:
(a) Child-focused issues
Schools should be held to account about how they view
the following issues (in terms of the policies they adopt)
and what they do about them (ie how their policies on these
issues are implemented and how effective they are), by making
it obligatory for schools to publish the following kinds of data
about the issues and to keep it updated:
(i) Behavioural issues— the school discipline
policy and its implementation (reasons for detentions, rewards
and sanctions etc);
— numbers and types of exclusions, including repeat exclusions
and exclusion among vulnerable groups in the school, such as children
with SEN and looked after children;
— number of permanent exclusions challenged before an
Independent Appeal Panel; and
— whether Day 6 provision was made in relevant
cases.
— the school anti-bullying policy and what steps they
take to integrate the policy into school life (anti-bullying discussions
with pupils etc); and
— numbers of incidents reported, how swiftly and well
they were resolved and whether resolution has been permanent.
— how they meet their various equality duties;
— details of any steps taken to prevent pupils with
disabilities being treated less favourably; and
— any racist incidents and what was done about them
etc.
— data on authorised and unauthorised absences and the
school's response to these.
(v) Special Educational needs
— the school SEN policy, its implementation and effectiveness;
— how many children are on the SEN register;
— how delegated funding is distributed;
— whether the needs of children with Statements are
being met (with personal details anonymised); and
— outcomes of any consultation with LAs on SEN provision.
(vi) Pastoral support and support for vulnerable children
— the availability of pastoral support schemes such
as mentors, counselling, buddy schemes and their effectiveness;
— the school's child protection policy, its implementation
and effectiveness;
— whether vulnerable groups are integrated well (eg
Looked After Children, Traveller children); and
— whether the school ensures that any children with
special entitlements (eg to free school meals) are receiving them.
(b) Communication, compliance and management
Schools should also be held accountable for how well they:
— including any steps taken to develop or strengthen
community links.
(ii) Deal with complaints
— ie made to the school and governors and their nature,
including surveys of parental satisfaction with the process (though
not outcome).
— their budgets, including a full financial statement;
— compliance with financial best practice;
— make staffing arrangements; and
— ensure fair charging policies.
— with the whole range of their legal obligations (see
3.1(b) below); and
— and ensure the 5 Every Child Matters outcomes
are reflected in each possible aspect of the school's policies
and procedures.
1.2 Academies
There is a worrying deficit of public accountability at the
moment in certain types of schools, namely Academies and City
Technology Colleges. We believe that remedying that by bringing
these institutions under the ambit of all aspects of education
law as it applies to the state system should be the first priority
of government in any serious attempt to improve the accountability
of schools.
2. INSPECTION
2.1 General
It is vital that there should continue to be an independent
inspectorate which inspects regularly and thoroughly and that
all inspections should continue to be made public. The kind of
information contained in Ofsted reports is very important for
parents, for example, in identifying schools that are appropriate
for their children.
2.2 No reduction in inspections
ACE has concerns about the practice of reducing the number of
inspections based on past performance, as schools can change very
quickly, as a result, for example, of turnover of staff. Neither
are we in favour of reducing physical inspections on the basis
that the Report Card data indicates a school is doing well. We
believe that Ofsted inspections should be carried out with the
same regularity for all schools within the state system and should
be made in the same depth in all cases. The value of independent
physical inspection cannot be under-estimated.
2.3 No advance notice
The current system makes it far too easy for schools to give a
good impression on the day of an inspection. ACE believes this
could be remedied if schools were given no warning at all of inspections.
It is very easy for schools to prepare for inspections if they
know the date of them. Parents tell us of schools which prepare
the lessons with the children and simply repeat them when Ofsted
are there and ones which ask parents of children with special
educational needs, particularly those with ASD or ADHD, to keep
their children at home during an inspection. This can give a false
impression and undermine the inspection process. These problems
would be avoided if Ofsted arrived unannounced.
3. SCHOOL REPORT
CARD
We are concerned that although the Report Card system, as
envisaged in the recent Report Card Consultation, may seem to
provide wider accountability, in practice there are certain difficulties
with it that may impede its functioning. These are:
3.1 Additional performance categories
The proposed Report Card does not cover two essential areas. We
believe there should be performance categories for:
(a) Parental complaints
ACE is of the view that the number of complaints made to
a school or about one is crucial to ascertaining a school's overall
performance. Statistics relating to the number and broad substance
of complaints would highlight any areas where parents have felt
aggrieved. This feeds into another of the Government's stated
desires—to improve the complaints system by making it mandatory
to have a complaints procedure and to improve and open the channels
of communication between parents and schools. (See DCSF Consultation
on: A New Way of Handling Parents' Complaints about school
issues, 2008) Parents should be asked about how the complaint
was handled and whether the process was fair (though not its factual
detail or its outcome).
(b) Regulatory compliance
ACE believes that a key factor in improving the accountability
of schools is to evaluate to what extent schools are in compliance
with their legal obligations in all areas that impact on schools.
Crucially, their compliance with, for example (but without limitation):
(i) the law on exclusions (notably, as contained in the Guidance
on Improving Behaviour and Attendance);
(ii) attendance (inter alia, as contained in the Keeping
Pupil Registers and the Absence and Attendance Codes);
(iii) special educational needs (in particular, the SEN
Code of Practice);
(iv) data protection and freedom of information law as it
applies to schools (in particular the Education (Pupil Information)
Regulations);
(v) law and good practice surrounding tackling bullying;
(vi) anti-discrimination law (for example, the Disability
Discrimination Act 2005);
(vii) health and safety law; and
(viii) "safeguarding" obligations (notably under
the Children Act 2004) and their obligations and good practice
in relation to the Every Child Matters agenda.
Much of ACE's day-to-day work centres around compliance issues
and we regard this as an essential factor in school accountability
and one that is currently given far less emphasis than we believe
is necessary.
3.2 Depth of data
As we understand it, the proposed Report Card will simply
be a one-page online document. We are concerned that such a "flat"
document will not provide sufficient information to parents and
we propose that all the data upon which the front page is based
should be available to parents by clicking through to underlying
pages. In this way, parents will have the facility to drill down
to a greater depth and find out about particular areas of interest
to them.
For example, a parent may have a particularly sensitive child
and may be looking for a school that has a good anti-bullying
policy and takes positive steps to tackle bullying. The proposed
one-page document would not give the parent any indication at
all about this, but if the data on which, for example the performance
category of "wider outcomes", was based could be accessed
by clicking on that category, that parent could find out exactly
what he or she needs to know.
This depth of data would, we believe, provide real
value for parents, many of whom could not possibly be satisfied
by the headline figure(s) provided on the front page alone. This
is particularly important now that school governors are no longer
required to produce an annual report for parents and that the
Report Card consultation has suggested the phasing out of the
School Profile.
3.3 One overall score
We do not agree that schools should be given one overall
score on the Report Card, as amalgamating unrelated types of evaluation
may give a misleading impression. One overall score seems to us
to be too blunt an instrument to describe the complexity of any
school.
March 2009
| 
