Memorandum submitted by the Department
for Children, Schools and Families
1. The Department for Children, Schools
and Families is pleased to submit this written evidence to the
Select Committee for its inquiry into school accountability. As
the Select Committee is aware, in December 2008 DCSF launched
two consultation documents, on 21st Century Schools and on the
School Report Card. Both consultations will run until 3 March
2009, and both raise some important questions about the current
school accountability system.
2. We believe that accountability is a positive
good, not a necessary evil. We believe that it is fundamentally
important that everyone involved in public service, in the expenditure
of taxpayers' money and especially in the education of our children
and young people should be publicly accountable for the results
that they achieve. We believe that an accountability system can
be a crucial driver of improvement, both in strengthening incentives
on public servants and in providing information to enable them
to improve. It is central to any case for sustaining or increasing
public investment that the public should be able to see the results
of investment so far. We also believe it is vital that schools
should be accountable to parents, so that all parents can access
clear information in order to compare different schools, to choose
the right school for their child and then to track their child's
progress.
3. We believe that the current school accountability
system plays an effective role in raising standards, enabling
schools to drive their own improvement, identifying excellent
performance and underperformance, keeping parents informed and
ensuring resources are directed to where they are most needed.
However, the development of the new School Report Card also offers
us an opportunity to consider how we might further improve the
accountability framework as a whole. We are currently exploring
several aspects of school accountability on which we will offer
more detailed proposals in our 21st Century Schools White Paper
later this year. In particular, we want to ensure that the school
accountability framework gives a rounded picture of each school's
overall performance, including the progress of every child, the
effectiveness of the school in raising the achievement of the
least advantaged and the school's contribution to all five ECM
outcomes. We are also considering how to improve accountability
for partnership working and to recognise schools' support for
the wider community, for example their contribution to the outcomes
of children not on their own school roll.
4. As we consider these areas, we will be taking
into account the results of our written consultations and also
contributions from parents, school leaders, teachers, social partners
and a range of other stakeholders at a series of regional and
national consultation events we are holding both on 21st Century
Schools and on the School Report Card. We also look forward to
the Select Committee Inquiry which we will take very seriously
as we prepare for the publication of our White Paper later this
year.
SECTION 1
ACCOUNTABILITY
Is it right in principle that schools should be
held publicly accountable for their performance?
What should be the fundamental purposes of an
accountability system for schools and, in particular: to whom;
for what; how; and what should be the consequences?
5. It is vital that schools should be held publicly
accountable for their performance as providers of a public service.
Schools play an important role in determining children's future
life chances, and it is right that they should be accountable
to the public for the quality of the services delivered to children
and young people, and specifically that individual schools should
be accountable to those parents and pupils whom they directly
serve. Schools should also be accountable to taxpayers for the
significant public investment which is made annually in the school
system (over £35 billion in 2008-09). Well-designed
accountability systems are a key driver for improving the quality
of services, and in the schools system accountability measures
are used to identify individual schools' needs and to target resources
where they are most needed through the provision of school improvement
support eg via the National Strategies. At a system-wide level,
accountability structures facilitate the sharing of good practice
and shape policy development, for example through government responding
to Ofsted's findings relating to national trends.
To whom should schools be accountable?
6. Fundamentally, schools should be accountable
to parents, to pupils and to taxpayers. Public reporting of results
and inspection by Ofsted, the independent inspectorate, are central
elements of the accountability system and local government has
a key role as an agent of pupils, parents and taxpayers in performance
management and in intervening where necessary. School Improvement
Partners play an important role in setting targets and in performance
managing head teachers. This local process is then overseen by
central government. Academies are directly accountable to the
Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families through
contractual commitments in their Funding Agreement.
For what should schools be accountable?
7. Schools should be accountable for the academic
attainment of their pupils; their pupils' progression and participation;
narrowing gaps in achievement between different groups of pupils;
and for their contribution to pupils' wider outcomes. Recent proposals
for the School Report Card aim to ensure that schools, parents
and the public all have a shared understanding of what schools
are expected to deliver. Schools are also accountable for making
information available to all their pupils' parents about their
policies on behaviour, SEN and admissions. Each LA maintained
school is required to publish a prospectus containing information
on their policies in these areas, and DCSF is currently reviewing
the content and process around the school prospectus in order
to further encourage parental engagement with their children's
school.
8. In addition to being accountable to parents
for making this type of school-level information available, schools
are also accountable to individual pupils and parents for the
performance and outcomes of each pupil. This includes the statutory
requirements on LA maintained schools to report to parents at
the end of year. DCSF Ministers committed in January 2008 to
introduce more regular reporting online on pupils' attendance,
behaviour, SEN, achievement and attainment, and DCSF is also currently
reviewing school reporting regulations. Every LA maintained school
is also required to have a Home School Agreement, in which commitments
are made by the school to parents, and by parents to the school,
although parents are not required to sign this document. DCSF
is currently reviewing the process and content around home school
agreements.
9. In order for schools to be held accountable
to the public and to parents, it is important that performance
data is publicly available. It should be accessible to everyone,
and presented in an understandable format, both for the general
public to understand the quality of education provision in their
area and to assist parents in making school choices. One of the
aims of the School Report Card is to simplify the presentation
of performance data and make it more accessible.
How should schools be held to account?
10. The Government set out a framework for school
accountability in the New Relationship with Schools (NRwS), as
one of eight key school reforms in the Government's Five Year
Strategy for Children and Learners in 2004. The principles of
the NRwS included:
— A shorter and sharper Ofsted inspection
regime.
— Schools produce a single school plan,
informed by a smaller number of DCSF desired outcomes than previously.
— The introduction of a School Improvement
Partner for each school, who holds a "single conversation"
with the school about its development priorities, targets and
support needs.
— A new School Profile, capturing for parents
a balanced assessment of each school's ethos, characteristics,
performance and improvement priorities, to replace the Governors'
Annual Report.
11. The proposed School Report Card will sit
within this existing framework rather than replacing or competing
with it. However, we have proposed in our consultation that the
School Report Card should replace the School Profile; we will
await the outcome of the consultation before making this decision.
The 21st Century Schools White Paper will set out our plans for
how the various elements of the accountability framework will
complement one another.
12. The School Report Card will complement Ofsted
inspection reports by providing a more regular assessment of performance,
and forming the core of the automated element of inspection assessment
used by Ofsted to select schools for inspection. The School Improvement
Partner will use the School Report Card alongside self-evaluation
to identify and discuss areas of strength and development with
school. This discussion will inform the school improvement steps
required, which are then agreed and set out in a single School
Improvement Plan. Schools with post-16 provision will be
held to account for their post-16 provision through the Framework
for Excellence, an independent, quantitative assessment of performance
in the post-16 phase.
What should be the consequences of school accountability?
13. All schools should be constantly seeking
to improve further and taking their own action in response to
their own self-evaluation and through discussions with their School
Improvement Partner. Local authorities have a role to play in
supporting all their schools. Where LA maintained schools' outcomes
or inspection reports are not judged to be satisfactory, the LA
role includes supporting and challenging the schools, including
through the School Improvement Partner, and through other proportionate
intervention as appropriate. Where schools need more significant
support, it is sometimes appropriate for central government to
intervene more directly and work more closely with local authorities
to help them support and challenge their schools, for example
through the National Challenge programme.
How do other countries hold their schools accountable
for their performance and against what criteria?
14. The OECD's Education at a Glance 2008
(OECD, 2008) reports on evaluation and accountability arrangements
in the 30 OECD countries and in six partner countries. The
focus is on lower secondary state schools, ie the equivalent of
up to Year 9 in English schools.
15. In these countries, the main mechanisms for
school accountability are: student performance assessments (analogous
to our national curriculum tests); student examinations (analogous
to GCSEs); school self-evaluations; and external evaluations or
inspections of schools. About half of OECD countries require either
self-evaluations and/or inspections by an external body. About
two-thirds of OECD countries undertake student examinations and/or
assessments at the lower secondary level. In OECD countries, school
evaluation and student performance measures are mainly used to
provide performance feedback to schools. In general, they have
little influence on school financing, rewards or sanctions. The
PISA 2006 international report indicates a positive relationship
between attainment and public availability of performance data:
"Students in schools posting their results
publicly performed 14.7 score points better than students
in schools that did not, and this association remained positive
even after the demographic and socio-economic background of students
and schools is accounted for". (PISA 2006 international
report, p 243)
16. Further evidence on how other countries hold
their schools accountable for their performance is available from
a recent study on Accountability and children's outcomes in
high-performing education systems (C Husbands, A Shreeve &
N R Jones, EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute
of Education, University of London, 2008). The study confirms
the widespread use of outcome indicators for accountability purposes,
although the nature and purposes of these functions varied markedly
between systems.
Is the current accountability system of inspection
and performance reporting for schools broadly fit for purpose?
How should schools be held accountable for their
performance in the context of increasing collaboration in education
provision?
17. The principles of school self-evaluation,
light-touch Ofsted inspection and the School Improvement Partner,
established through the New Relationship with Schools, have been
widely welcomed and have supported schools in taking ownership
of their own improvement. The accountability system is flexible
in allowing central government to shift priorities and respond
both to individual school needs and to emerging national policy,
for example through the introduction of progression targets and
deprivation targets. The current accountability framework does
not only take account of hard data, but also of valuable qualitative
information through self-evaluation and Ofsted inspection.
18. However, we believe that there is scope to
strengthen and sharpen further the accountability system, and
we will be setting out our proposals on this in the 21st Century
Schools White Paper, including more detailed proposals for the
School Report Card. We want to ensure that the accountability
system reflects what we expect of the school system, drives ongoing
school improvement, and recognises all the achievements a school
makes.
19. In the 21st Century Schools consultation
document, we set out a number of areas where the accountability
framework needs to continue to evolve in order to keep pace with
current practice and priorities. We want to enhance accountability
where schools are increasingly working in partnership. In the
White Paper we will give a clear account of to whom schools are
accountable, what they will and will not be held accountable for,
how they will be held to account and the consequences of both
excellent and poor performance. We want to look at how school
are recognised for supporting the wider community, for example
their contribution to the outcomes of children not on their own
school roll. We are also exploring further the implications of
raising the participation age and ensuring schools are held to
account for the participation and attainment of all their students,
and ensuring there is a coherent and consistent accountability
framework.
SECTION 2
INSPECTION AND
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT
Is an independent inspectorate an appropriate
mechanism for holding schools to account?
20. Yes, it is an important mechanism. As an
independent inspectorate, Ofsted is not the only mechanism for
holding schools to account, but it is an important part of the
school accountability framework. The introduction of Ofsted in
1992 signalled the replacement of the previous inspection
arrangements, which were perceived as too cosy, with a level of
independence and objectivity which is valued by schools, parents
and others. Ofsted inspection provides external validation and
challenge, the value of which is derived from the inspectors'
independence. As inspectors work to national frameworks and standards
which are publicly available, schools know how they will be judged.
Inspection is also an important mechanism for identifying any
issues faced by vulnerable or small groups of children, which
tend to be lost in aggregate school level data.
What is the impact of the inspection process on
school performance, including confidence, creativity and innovation?
21. The impact of inspection is regularly subject
to evaluation not just by Ofsted but also externally, for example
by the National Foundation for Educational Research and MORI.
96% of headteacher respondents believed that inspection would
move the school forward. 81% believe the positives outweigh the
negative aspects. This evidence is based on 2,000 responses
to the Ofsted School Inspection Survey received in the first half
of 2008; these are surveys which every school is invited to complete
following inspection.
22. In 2007, an independent external evaluation
of the impact of Section 5 inspections, as perceived by schools,
was commissioned by Ofsted and carried out by a team at the National
Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) (Evaluation of the
Impact of Section 5 Inspections, McCrone, T, Rudd, P,
Blenkinsop, S, Wade, P, Rutt, S & Yeshanew, T. NfER, 2007).
In this evaluation, 84% of teacher respondents felt that inspections
made a positive difference to the school, whilst 88% thought that
inspections helped set new priorities for their school.
23. In an Ipsos/MORI poll carried out in September
2008, 92% of parents said they were in favour of school inspection.
In HMCI's Annual Report for 2007-08, Ofsted tells us that the
schools judged outstanding by Ofsted embrace innovative and creative
approaches to teaching, learning and wider pupil development.
Are inspectors appropriately qualified and trained
to carry out inspections, particularly in the light of the need
to report against Every Child Matters outcomes?
24. The law requires the Chief Inspector to ensure
that inspectors have such qualifications, experience and skills
as are necessary to secure that she can perform her functions
in an effective manner. Those functions include reporting the
contribution made by schools to pupil well-being ie the five ECM
outcomes. This has been a more challenging area for inspectors,
because schools may have less control over some key measures,
so that inspectors must make fine judgements as to the contribution
of schools. Plans for new school level indicators for well-being
should help to address this, and Ofsted will ensure that inspectors
have the necessary skills to assess these. The combining of early
years inspection with the rest of the school inspection system
has also led to the need for additional training for school inspectors,
because of the different approach to learning and development
and its integration with children's welfare in the Early Years
Foundation Stage.
25. The Chief Inspector is required to publish
details of the qualifications or experience or both that are to
be required of non-HMI inspectors, the standards that these inspectors
are to be required to meet and the skills that they are required
to demonstrate. All non-HMI inspectors have to be supervised by
HMI until they are deemed capable of inspecting to the required
standard.
Is it appropriate for inspection reports to be
placed in the public domain?
26. Yes. It is very important that there should
be full transparency. This builds confidence and ensures that
parents, pupils and taxpayers have the information they need.
One of the principles of inspection is the importance of gaining
a user perspective. This is set out in the 2003 Office of
Public Services Reform publication Inspecting for improvement:
developing a customer focused approach. Seeking the views
of pupils and parents but not sharing the findings with them would
signal a return to "cosy professionalism". The Ofsted
website is one of the most extensively used in the public sector
and parents are one of the key users. Ofsted reports inform choice,
provide assurance and trigger action or intervention where necessary.
How often should inspections be carried out and
how long and detailed should these inspections be?
Has the introduction of a light-touch inspection
regime for higher-performing schools been appropriate?
27. Government principles of inspection state
that inspection should: contribute to improvement; focus on outcomes;
encourage and build on rigorous self-assessment by service leaders,
and should be proportionate to risk. Over time inspectors should
modify the extent of future inspection according to the quality
of performance by the service providers. This principle is central
to planned developments for school inspection, which also conform
to the other principles.
28. The frequency of inspection should be based
in important part on the assessment of risk. Inspection should
be targeted more frequently on institutions where there appears
to be a risk of underperformance and where it can have most impact.
The accountability arrangements need to evolve to reflect the
maturity of the school system and the improvements that have been
made.
29. Inspections need to be sufficiently detailed
to provide secure judgements and to provide useful information
for parents, pupils and others, but should avoid placing undue
burdens on schools. Lighter-touch inspections have been piloted
over recent years, reflecting the principle of proportionality
and helping to develop Ofsted's new risk assessment mechanisms.
Should inspections be tailored to the current
performance levels of the specific school being inspected and,
if so, to what extent?
30. There needs to be some uniformity to enable
a national picture but within the system, inspection needs to
be flexible enough for inspectors to pursue particular trails
to seek out strengths and weaknesses.
How much notice, if any, should a school receive
of an upcoming inspection?
31. We have consistently reduced the notice period
in order to avoid the build-up of pressure on staff and unnecessary
pre-inspection planning, and to enable inspectors to see more
easily the normal day-to-day operation of the school. There can
be benefits to a short period of notice: it enables parents and
other stakeholders to contribute to the inspection event (eg through
parental questionnaires and opportunities to speak to inspectors),
and also enables schools to give a proper account of themselves.
The law is designed for a system based on a period of notice,
but it recognises that there is also a place for no-notice inspection
within the system, for example where there are serious concerns
about a school.
In the context of an inspection, what is the value
of:
and how much weight should be attached to these elements
in the inspection report?
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?
32. Self-evaluation empowers schools to assess
their strengths and weakness and identify priorities for improvement.
Self-evaluation evidence is a key indicator for judging provision
and leadership. Performance data inform inspection judgements
but do not determine judgements in a simplistic way. However,
pupils' life chances are to a great extent determined by their
attainment in school, so it is important that inspection takes
account of this information. Value added data enable account to
be taken of the progress of pupils in relation to their starting
point, which is important for considering the impact that the
school is having.
33. A school's distinctive contribution is in
excellent teaching and learning, ensuring that all children achieve.
However, it also has a clear role in actively contributing to
all aspects of a child's life—health and wellbeing, safety,
and developing the wider experiences and skills that characterise
a good childhood and set a young person up for success as an adult.
This is not just because these outcomes are vital for a good childhood
but also because educational attainment and other outcomes are
mutually reinforcing and there is evidence to show that this is
particularly relevant in the early years. For example, children
and young people learn and thrive when they are healthy, safe
and engaged; in turn, the evidence shows clearly that educational
achievement is the most effective route out of poverty. It is
therefore crucial that while maintaining a focus on educational
attainment the inspection regime also holds schools accountable
for its contribution to pupils' wider outcomes. The Early Years
Foundation Stage Profile reflects some of these elements (such
as social and emotional development) and the well-being indicators
which DCSF and Ofsted are developing will also enable schools'
contribution to wider outcomes to be better reflected.
What are the mechanisms for identifying schools
that are underperforming and are those mechanisms adequate?
34. Ofsted currently inspects maintained schools
every three years. Inspectors review previous inspection reports,
attainment and progression data and schools' self evaluation forms.
In addition, they assess the quality of leadership and management
(including governance), teaching and learning, behaviour, pupil
development and the curriculum. They seek the views of parents
and pupils as part of the inspection.
35. The present Ofsted inspection framework is
a key element in the school improvement process and plays an important
role in the accountability of schools and local authorities. The
shorter, sharper and more frequent inspections introduced in September
2005 have raised the bar on standards and the expectations
on schools.
36. The current inspection cycle comes to an
end in August 2009 and Ofsted have consulted on proposals
to further improve the process (A Focus on Improvement: Proposals
for maintained school inspections from September 2009 (May
2008)). The main proposal is a move to a more flexible cycle in
which schools judged "good" and "outstanding"
in their previous inspection schools will be inspected at intervals
of up to five or six years, with other schools continuing to be
inspected at least every three years. However, every school will
undergo an annual risk assessment to check on progress made which
will determine the timing of the inspection. Those that are coasting,
have inconsistent performance or are slipping will be identified
quickly and inspected more frequently.
37. DCSF monitors school and local authority
performance. It looks at a variety of factors—Ofsted reports,
pupil attainment and progression data, school and local authority
targets, predictive pupil data and soft intelligence from, for
example, colleagues in the National Strategies. This gives us
the evidence base to monitor individual schools and authorities
and develop new policy programmes eg National Challenge and the
Coasting Schools strategy.
38. Local Authorities have a role to play in
supporting and challenging all of their schools. The new legal
framework introduced in the Education and Inspections Act 2006 requires
local authorities to be more proactive in preventing underperformance
and to act more decisively when it occurs. We are challenging
and supporting those local authorities with rising numbers of
schools causing concern to use more sophisticated risk analysis
to identify potential challenges and to prevent these by earlier
use of warning notices and their own intervention powers eg applying
to the Secretary of State for permission to replace a governing
body with an Interim Executive Board.
39. In addition, all Academies are directly supported
and challenged by DCSF. This support and challenge is being intensified
as part of the National Challenge for the relevant Academies,
with the principles and key elements of the National Challenge
programme applying to Academies in the same way as to other schools.
The majority of Academies are making very good progress, despite
starting from a much lower base than other schools.
40. DCSF is also proposing to take a new legislative
power to enable the Secretary of State to direct a local authority
to consider the use of a formal warning notice when this would
be clearly justified by the school's performance. This proposed
power is included in the Fourth Session Bill which is currently
before Parliament.
41. The system as a whole is stronger at identifying
underperformance in the area of standards than in wider well-being,
but the development of new well-being indicators should help to
address this. The annual Ofsted risk assessment will seek to spot
deterioration, and in future there will be more emphasis on the
performance of schools in the "satisfactory" category,
and inspectors will spend more time in classrooms, assessing the
quality of teaching and learning.
How effective has the classification of "schools
causing concern" (special measures or improvement notice)
been in supporting improved performance in the schools concerned?
42. The Government does not want any school to
fail which is why we expect local authorities to take preventative
action in relation to such schools. However, when a school is
placed in special measures or is required to make significant
improvement (by being given "notice to improve"), that
judgement is often a catalyst for making the changes that are
required to improve the standard of education for the pupils.
The quality of the leadership and management and teaching and
learning are often key areas. In some instances a school may need
to be closed or federated with another school. Others may be replaced
by an Academy.
43. Schools are now spending less time in special
measures than previously. During the 2007-08 academic year,
the average length of time which an individual school spent in
the category was 18 months for primary schools and 20 months
for secondaries. In 1997-98, the equivalent figures were 23 months
for primary and 28 months for secondaries.
44. In addition, Ofsted have published figures
which confirm that, of the 1,694 schools placed in special
measures between 1 April 1998 and 1 April 2008,
only 42 (2.5%) have been placed into the category for a second
time. The significant improvement (notice to improve) category
has been successful in that over 90% of schools reinspected after
12-15 months have been removed from the category because
they were once again providing a standard of education deemed
to be at least satisfactory.
Have School Improvement Partners been of benefit
to schools?
45. The School Improvement Partner (SIP) was
introduced as part of the New Relationship with Schools (NRwS)
framework in January 2004, in order to streamline and improve
the relationship between the Department, local authorities and
schools. As part of the NRwS, a SIP was assigned to each school,
to act as a "critical friend"; to conduct a "single
conversation" with the school about its development priorities,
targets and support needs; and to act as the conduit between central
government, the LA and the school.
46. Surveys of head teachers by the National
Strategies indicate that 80-90% of heads think that their schools
benefit from having SIPs. The same surveys indicate that around
90% of heads feel that SIPs have had a positive effect on their
performance management and have resulted in them having sharper
and more focused objectives than previously. A similar proportion
feel the SIP process is more effective in challenge and support
to schools than the previous system.
47. The two-year independent evaluation of the
New Relationship with Schools, which reported in summer 2008,
concluded that the challenge and support provided through SIPs
had supported the development of more evaluative and accountable
school structures and culture, as well as the development of challenging
but realistic targets.
48. The same report found that 80% of secondary
head teachers and 70% of primary head teachers agreed their SIP
had been able to provide informed challenge to the school. Most
head teachers agreed that reports produced by SIPs were of significant
value to their schools. 60% of secondary heads agreed or strongly
agreed that their SIP had supported them to raise standards of
achievement.
49. Most head teachers also agreed that SIPs
had effectively identified their support needs. However, head
teachers were less convinced that SIPs had effectively brokered
the support to meet these needs. The National Strategies are currently
working to make guidance clearer for SIPs so that they are more
aware of the practical steps they can take to broker effective
support. DCSF will also be exploring further the role of the SIP
in the forthcoming White Paper on 21st Century Schools.
Is the current procedure for complaints about
inspections adequate?
50. DCSF believes that the current procedure
for complaints about inspections is adequate. The proportion of
inspections triggering complaints which lead to external adjudication
is less than 0.1%. A new adjudication service provider has recently
been appointed for Ofsted. Most complaints are raised by schools
seeking to overturn judgements made about their own school. Any
system which allowed a third party to overturn judgements would
undermine the independence of the Chief Inspector.
How are local authority areas assessed and inspected?
51. Arrangements for area level assessment and
inspection are on the point of change. From April 2009, local
authorities will be assessed and reported on through the new Comprehensive
Area Assessment (CAA), undertaken by six inspectorates including
Ofsted. The inspectorates published their framework for CAA on
10 February. CAA will report each November. It will set out
outcomes in the area, including for statutory early years and
attainment targets and national indicators. It will assess councils
as organisations. It will also assess how the council and its
partners together contribute to improvements on priorities in
the area, including assessing partnership working for example
through Children's Trusts. The CAA report will comment on each
ECM outcome.
52. Ofsted will lead on the assessment of outcomes
for children at area level, and the performance of the local authority
on children's services. Ofsted published a document, on 10 February
alongside the CAA framework, outlining how they will do this.
Ofsted will produce a quarterly performance profile. This will
summarise evidence from institutional inspections, including of
schools, and from the National Indicator Set. Ofsted will also
carry out annual unannounced visits of child protection services.
This evidence, alongside other available material such as the
Children and Young People's Plan, will be used to determine an
annual performance rating of children's services, which will be
reported in the CAA in November.
53. A CAA report may include either red flags,
signalling that particular key services or outcomes are not good
enough and there is insufficient local capacity for improvement;
or green flags, signalling outstanding performance. Inspectorates
may decide to trigger an inspection where there is a red flag.
So, where appropriate, there may for example be inspection of
a local area's education services. There will be a programme of
inspecting safeguarding and services—including education
services—for looked after children, on a three yearly frequency.
Evidence from inspections will be taken into account in the next
annual CAA report.
SECTION 3
PERFORMANCE REPORTING
(OTHER THAN
THE OFSTED INSPECTION
REPORT), INCLUDING
ACHIEVEMENT AND
ATTAINMENT TABLES
AND THE
SCHOOL REPORT
CARD
54. In December 2008, DCSF and Ofsted launched
a joint consultation to start an ongoing discussion about the
content, design and use of the School Report Card. At this early
stage, we are consulting about the general principles that should
govern the School Report Card. The consultation will run until
3 March 2009 and seeks the views of parents, carers
and pupils; the wider community; headteachers, teachers, other
school staff and their representatives; governing bodies; local
authorities and other children's services; and other stakeholders.
55. We believe there exists the opportunity to
make the school accountability system stronger, sharper and better
able to recognise the full range of each school's achievements.
To make this possible each school's performance should be reported
in a way which is clear, powerful, easily understood and easily
used by school governors, parents and the public.
56. Our intention is that the new School Report
Card should be the means by which we achieve this. The School
Report Card will set out the range of outcomes for which schools
will be held to account, show the relative priority given to each
outcome, and provide an indication of the degree of challenge
faced by each school.
What aspects of a school's performance should
be measured and how?
57. The School Report Card consultation document
recognises that a range of information on schools' performance
is currently available, including the Achievement and Attainment
Tables (AATs), Ofsted inspection reports, School Profiles and
school prospectuses. However, these information sources do not
always give a complete picture of a school's performance. The
proposals in the consultation suggest that the current information
should be retained but also supplemented to give a broader picture
of a school's performance and development, and that there should
be a transparent means of showing the relative weight of different
measures.
58. The document proposes the following categories
(without prejudice) for consultation: attainment; pupil progress;
wider outcomes; narrowing the gaps; parents' and pupils' views.
In the coming months we will consider which indicators should
contribute to the overall categories. These may include existing
ones, eg academic outcomes currently included in the AATs, and
others which do not currently contribute to AAT categories eg
the progress of pupils over the course of each key stage, or the
school's degree of success in raising the attainment of students
from disadvantaged backgrounds. Our intention is that schools
with early years provision will be held to account through reflection
of Early Years Foundation Stage Profile results in the School
Report Card, and that schools with sixth-form provision will be
held to account for that provision through the Framework for Excellence.
How should these performance measurements be reported
and by whom?
To whom should this information be made available?
59. It is expected that performance measurements
will be reported in the School Report Card, which will be jointly
owned by the DCSF and Ofsted. The consultation document states
that an annual update of the School Report Card, in line with
current annual publication of the Achievement and Attainment Tables,
would be a viable option. However, it will also be necessary to
ensure that the most recent Ofsted results are prominently reflected.
The system will be web-based and the information will be publicly
available at all times.
What is the effect of the current system of public
performance reporting (Achievement and Attainment Tables www.dcsf.gov.uk/performancetables/,
and the online School Profile schoolsfinder.direct.gov.uk) on
a school's performance, including confidence, creativity and innovation?
60. We believe that the current Achievement and
Attainment Tables help to focus the debate on standards through
the provision of hard information on achievements, thus strengthening
the accountability of schools, colleges and local authorities.
As described above in paragraph 15, international research (PISA
2006, OECD) showed there was a significant positive association
between schools where achievement data were public and stronger
results.
61. Recent Ofsted Annual Reports have stated
that, across schools in England, "in the overwhelming majority
of schools, pupils' personal development and well being are at
least satisfactory and in most they are good or outstanding";
and that "most schools are responding well to the ECM agenda.
Schools ensure that most pupils enjoy their education. There are
good opportunities to make a positive contribution to the life
of the school and the wider community".
62. However, we also believe that the current
arrangements for reporting school performance and holding them
to account could be improved. For example, while we do not believe
that the existing AAT arrangements inhibit collaboration, they
also do not incentivise it. And there is not a full focus on the
progress of every child or on tackling disadvantage. The current
consultation sets out the range and purpose of the current accountability
regimes eg Achievement and Attainment Tables, Ofsted and the School
Profile. We believe that there is an opportunity to make the school
accountability system stronger, sharper and better able to recognise
the full range of each school's achievements. This will only be
possible if each school's performance is reported in a way which
is clear, powerful, easily understood and easily used by school
governors, parents and the public.
What is the impact on schools of league tables
published by the press? How useful is this information to stakeholders,
particularly parents?
63. Tables published by the press provide a reliable
and easily accessible source of comparative information, drawing
on data published by government. The Government believes that
it is vital to make this data on schools' performance publicly
available. If the Government did not publish the data, it would
be open to accusations of having something to hide. Under Freedom
of Information legislation, the data currently published by the
Government would in any case need to be provided to anyone requesting
it, and in such circumstances and the press would be likely to
publish and interpret the data as they saw fit.
64. Research evidence indicates that parents
find the tables useful, but that they use them sensibly and do
not view them in isolation as the only measure of a school's performance.
A study on Secondary School Admissions (Sheffield Hallam
University and the National Centre for Social Research; Research
Report No. DCSF—RR020, Jan 2008) indicates that tables were
not the most influential factor in parents' choices. Parents can,
and do, consider a range of information including inspection outcomes,
seeking information from other parents, and making use of local
intelligence.
65. However, DCSF regularly reviews how we present
and explain data, and we continue to explore alternatives. The
data currently available is heavily weighted towards academic
attainment and while data which places pupil and student attainment
and progress into context—in particular, Contextualised
Value Added—is published by the Government, it is typically
not reported by the press, or given much lower prominence than
"raw" attainment scores. In developing School Report
Cards, the Government hopes to make sure that accountability arrangements
are made sharper and more comprehensive.
What might a school report card usefully provide
that is not covered by the current performance reporting system?
66. It is intended that there should be
a simple, clear and accessible single source of performance information
for all aspects of accountability. The consultation proposes that
the School Report Card, with an overall score, should be the means
by which we achieve this. It seeks to explore how the report card
will complement rather than compete with Ofsted inspection reports
and form the core of the process by which Ofsted selects schools
for inspection. The School Report Card will underpin a school's
dialogue with its School Improvement Partner and its governors.
At the same time, the School Report Card will incorporate information
currently presented in the Achievement and Attainment Tables,
supplement it with other available information to provide a broader
picture of each school's performance, and present it in a way
that is fair, balanced, comprehensive and easily understood by
parents and the general public. The School Report Card will also
set out the range of outcomes for which schools will be held to
account, show the relative priority given to each outcome, and
provide an indication of the degree of challenge faced by each
school.
67. To achieve this, in addition to the categories
proposed above (attainment; pupil progress; wider outcomes; narrowing
the gaps; parents and pupils views) the consultation is proposing
the inclusion in the School Report Card of the school's most recent
Ofsted report outcomes; direction of travel; involvement in partnership
working; and the quality of Early Years Foundation Stage and sixth
form provision, as appropriate.
Are there any issues which the school report card
should avoid or seek to inhibit?
68. One of the key underlying principles
of using a range of indicators for each of a number of categories
on the School Report Card is that it should avoid excessive focus
on a single performance indicator, eg the 5 A*-C GCSE measure.
In addition, we believe that all schools should have the same
opportunity to achieve a top "rating" regardless of
their individual circumstances. The detailed design work on the
School Report Card will take place over a phased pilot period
from September 2009 onwards, and careful attention will be
paid during this phase to ensuring that the design minimises the
possibility of creating perverse incentives.
Is the school report card potentially a sound
basis for:
— providing a management tool for government?
69. The consultation document on the School
Report Card sets out the aims and advantages we envisage for it.
Our aims are that:
For parents, it will:
— provide a clearer, more balanced and
comprehensive account of each school's performance, which complements
Ofsted's inspection reports;
— inform parents' choice of school and
improve schools' accountability to parents; and
— provide information in a more easily
understandable format, which is accessible to a wider audience.
For schools it will:
— provide a single, clear and prioritised
set of outcomes against which schools will be judged by all parts
of the system, with predictable consequences for both excellent
or poor performance;
— recognise the value of schools' work
for all children and across all outcomes (but only hold schools
to account for those outcomes they can influence); and
— provide a balanced account of outcomes
achieved and the degree of challenge faced by each school.
For Ofsted:
— Ofsted reports and the School Report
Card will be complementary;
— the School Report Card will support the
school inspection process; and
— School Report Card indicators may form
the core of Ofsted's new risk assessment.
For government it will:
— provide a means of achieving the vision
for 21st century schools; and
— help to hold schools predictably and
consistently to account for what is most important; and incentivise
schools in the right way, and remove perverse incentives.
Could the school report card appropriately replace
some Ofsted reporting?
70. We believe that the School Report Card
should complement rather than compete with Ofsted inspection reports.
Ofsted inspections include rich and detailed information which
could not adequately be captured through the School Report Card.
However, it is proposed that the School Report Card will form
the core of the process by which Ofsted selects schools for inspection.
As part of the new inspection arrangements to be introduced in
September 2009, Ofsted intends to introduce an annual "risk
assessment" for every school. Its purpose is to inform (but
not determine) the selection of schools for inspection, by assessing
the probability that a school, if inspected, would be judged good
or outstanding.
71. The consultation explores in principle whether
and how the proposed indicators that will underpin the School
Report Card should form the core of Ofsted's risk assessment.
This would help to ensure that schools whose performance, as shown
on their School Report Cards, was excellent might have their inspections
deferred; while those whose performance caused concern would be
likely to receive an early inspection. As well as performance
data, however, Ofsted's risk assessment will also need to take
account of further, qualitative information that it would not
be appropriate or relevant to include in the School Report Card.
February 2009
| 
