Originally posted on emmaannhardy:
Tristram Hunt, like a high quality appertizer, gave us just enough without fully satisfying and left us with the nagging empty feeling of wanting more. Although the question of me ‘dining’ anywhere other than with Labour is indisputable I sometimes find myself enviously looking over at the Green’s and wishing I had what they’d ordered…
But never forget…
The argument presented by Tristram was that the aims of the Butler education act were never fully realised:
The government’s three purposes were ‘to secure for children a happier childhood and a better start in life; to ensure a fuller measure of education and opportunity for young people and to provide a means for all of developing the various talents with which they are endowed and so enriching the inheritance of the country whose citizens they are.’ Tristram Hunt 18.8.14
Reformers have not learnt the lessons from this failure – these being…
View original 1,202 more words
A level results day always throws up a wide range of stories. There’s plenty of human interest stuff but also plenty of opportunities for organisations to spin their results to their advantage and for journalists to demonstrate their lamentable failure to deal with basic statistics.
One of the features this year was the very determined attempt, spearheaded by Policy Exchange, to try and claim the results as a triumph for free schools. On August 14th, Jonathan Simons tweeted “40% of all free school students get AAB. Much better than maintained schools. Free schools for the win. End of debate”. Sadly just a few hours later the figure had fallen to 35% as apparently not all schools were included the first time. The commitment to high quality analysis is as ever impressive!
There aren’t of course that many free schools taking A level – new secondaries have yet to grow through to that stage because they’ve not been open long enough. So mostly this is the handful of 16 to 19 free schools – there are actually 6 open but 5 have only been open for one year so won’t have any A level results yet! And the odd failing private school that chose to join the state sector.
So we’re left with the self-styled London Academy of Excellence. This is the super-selective school in Newham promoted by a group of public schools headed by Eton and Brighton College. Their spin really went into overdrive, trumpeting the fact that 40% of students got AAB in traditional subjects. Journalists fell over themselves in amazement and pronounced that the key to social mobility has been discovered.
In his comments the head of the school displayed all the patronising ignorance that so often characterises products of the private sector. He told the Guardian:
“In Newham there were hundreds and thousands of young people who wanted to do traditional A levels. In the past they couldn’t do them because there was no one to provide them. Either they were having to go to schools outside the borough or they were having to take places at colleges here that didn’t provide biology, maths and history. They were having to take BTECs, GNVQs and that type of thing.”
Thousands … really, in one London borough? And need we wonder any further about why we can’t get vocational education right when we see this kind of contempt oozing out of people like this headteacher.
The real lie though is the assertion that no one else is making provision for Newham students. In fact there is an established sixth form college in Newham. It’s a comprehensive institution not a selective one. It offers just about every A level you can name, including of course biology, maths and history. Last year it sent 60 students to Russell Group universities and this year 162 students have Russell Group offers.
To understand what the London School of Excellence is really achieving needs just a bit of simple research. The basic entry qualification for this school is 5 GCSEs at A or A* – far higher than any normal sixth form or college. And of course they achieved these grades at the comprehensive schools in Newham and surrounding boroughs , so maybe we should look for the secret of social mobility there – after all turning the highest achieving GCSE students into high achieving A level ones is not really the hard part.
Analysing what students with 5 A grades at GCSE usually achieve at A level isn’t simple. But for example:
In maths A level, half of all candidates with an average grade A at GCSE got A or A* at A level and 87% of those with average GCSE at A* got A or A* at A level. In English A level the comparable figures are 40% and 88%.
So there is really nothing very surprising in 40% of this highly selective cohort getting top A level grades. It’s what happens pretty much everywhere.
The magic bullet then isn’t stardust from public schools. It’s nothing more complicated that cherry picking the best from comprehensive schools for miles around. For the real answers to social mobility we need to look somewhere else. And we need also to ask ourselves what this kind of super-selection is doing to our supposed commitment to social cohesion.
Originally posted on Headteachers' Roundtable:
On July 15th, five members of the Headteachers’ Roundtable met Tristram Hunt at the House of Commons to discuss our Education Manifesto. Our original meeting had had to be re-scheduled when it clashed with maximum media fall-out from the Birmingham ‘Trojan Horse’ situation. Hearing the news that Michael Gove had been replaced at the DFE on the day of our meeting, we fully anticipated another push-back but we were in luck. In between division bells sounding for TH to rush out to vote and a Radio5 Live interview to comment on the end of the Gove era, we had a good hour of discussion.
Having read our manifesto, the Shadow Secretary said that he agreed with most of it and certainly the general thrust. We acknowledged that we’re delighted to see that…
View original 1,246 more words
Just on cue, the institute of Education has released the first findings from research into the intakes of free schools. The full details haven’t yet been published but the outcomes of the research seem unambiguous. It finds that “Free schools are failing to serve the neediest children in their areas. Schools in this flagship Government programme are opening in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, but are taking fewer poor children (those receiving free meals) than the other local schools.”
In more detail, the research says that:
The government’s anticipation that free schools would emerge in disadvantaged neighbourhoods is, on average, vindicated. On average they are in areas where the proportion of pupils on free meals is above average.
However, critics’ concerns that the schools might become socially selective are also supported. Fewer pupils actually attending the free schools were eligible for FSM than was the average for their neighbourhoods.
In terms of prior achievement, there is a marked difference at primary level: the free schools children have a distinctly higher Foundation Stage Profile mean score (0.33) than elsewhere in their neighbourhoods and in the rest of England where it is close to zero.
It also found that the proportion of ethnic minority pupils in primary free schools was well above their proportion in either the neighbourhoods of the school or in the country as a whole.
Why this should be so is of course the key question. The “I” paper led on the story and put on it the spin that free schools were “cherry picking” better off pupils. An fact checking organisation called “Full Fact”, has disputed this saying that “schools don’t have to actively “pick” children from certain backgrounds in order to end up with more of them in their classrooms. It might be that parents of children eligible for free school meals are less likely to put in applications.”
This has been seized on by the usual suspects like the New Schools Network and Policy Exchange as a way of downplaying the actual findings of the research.
It is true that at present the researchers aren’t saying why free school intakes are as they are. In some cases I’ve little doubt that schools are manipulating their admission criteria to cherry pick the students that they want … like the Bristol school that wasn’t actually located in its own catchment area.
But most have more subtle ways. There is always religion of course which always serves as a good proxy for middle class or at least for the keen and aspirant. Then there’s the expensive uniform. Or the “aptitude for music” scam. But just as common is the marketing pitch adopted by too many schools:
“The school aims to offer an academically rigorous education. We strongly believe that central London, and Marylebone in particular, is crying out for a high quality state secondary school that offers a traditional education for boys. We see parents despairing of finding such a school, and many of them leaving the area to live near the grammar schools.” (Marylebone Boys School)
“MCS will bring the values and advantages of a private school education to young people by providing a highly academic curriculum.” (Michaela School)
“Objectives: 100 per cent of pupils pass at least 8 GCSEs at grade C or above, including Maths, English, English Literature, at least two Sciences and a Foreign Language and persuade every pupil to stay on in the Sixth Form and do a sufficiently demanding course of Sixth Form study to progress to a good university”. (West London Free School)
“Like the West London Free School Secondary, the primary provides children with a classical liberal education, focusing on a core of academic subjects complemented by art, music, drama and competitive sport. It offers children the kind of experience they would get at an old-fashioned prep school.”
How surprising is it that schools like these don’t attract intakes that are typical of their area? Cherry picking comes in many forms.
And here is Part 3:
Claim: Free Schools are using their freedoms to innovate and raise standards.
This is justified by quoting an NSN survey of free schools which asked schools whether they were planning a longer school day, a longer school year or variations to teachers’ pay and conditions. It showed that a significant proportion of those responding (arguably a self selecting group) were planning to do one or more of these. However there is no evidence offered to justify a claim that any of these changes have any effect on standards.
There is then a vague and unreferenced set of assertions about curriculum innovation. It is true that there are positive examples of real innovation amongst free schools. Peter Hyman’s School 21 is an example. Greenwich Free School was also regarded as a beacon until Ofsted found it needed improvement. Other kinds of innovation that may be less palatable are Steiner schools and schools built around transcendental meditation.
NAO concluded that “the Department has not made full use of a growing evidence base to enhance its programme management…. The Department does not routinely capture data on schools’ use of freedoms or the pattern of local demand. It has yet to fully consider which factors have most impact on school performance, for example, occupancy trends or the departure of head teachers. It has also yet to determine a full set of indicators to assess the impact of open Free Schools on other education provision in an area, or value for money
In other words, no one really knows what is going on and what works and what doesn’t.
Claim: it is misleading to say that free schools employ unqualified teachers.
The number of unqualified teachers in schools was relatively high before 2005. This was largely teachers with overseas qualifications working in English schools at a time of significant teacher shortage. They were technically unqualified because they lacked UK qualifications but many were qualified in their own country. The teacher shortage was successfully addressed by the Labour government and the number of unqualified teachers decreased steadily between 2005 and 2010. Since 2011 it has increased. In all state funded schools, according to the 2013 workforce survey, 3.8% of teachers were unqualified. In academies nearly 6% of teachers were unqualified. In free schools 13% of teachers were unqualified.
It is not easy therefore to see how it is “misleading” to say that free schools employ unqualified teachers. They clearly do so in greater numbers than other schools.
This is justified by the assertion that schools are employing people who are experts “with a real passion for their subject”. There is no evidence that this is so. Nor is it a reasonable assumption that people with subject expertise do not need a teaching qualification. Teachers need to understand how children learn and develop, how to organise classrooms, how to manage challenging behaviour and how to assess and respond to pupils’ work. This is what being qualified provides.
Claim: The independence that free schools have over their budgets comes hand in hand with a very high standard of accountability. Their financial reporting responsibilities are significantly more rigorous than maintained schools.
The point made by NSN that free schools publish externally audited accounts while maintained schools do not, is basically an irrelevant technicality. All schools are audited – for maintained schools some parts of the process happen at local authority level but that doesn’t mean there is no checking and monitoring
The recent report of the Public Accounts Committee made it clear how poor the financial oversight of both academies and free schools is. See:
Issues raised by the PAC include:
- A large number of breaches of financial regulations, especially around failure to submit financial reports.
– The Education Funding Agency lacks the capacity to be proactive in monitoring academy and free school finances. It relies heavily on whistle blowers.
– The EFA is not doing enough to address conflicts of interest : “We were concerned that individuals with connections to both academy trusts and private companies may have benefitted from their position when providing trusts with goods and services.”
It is also the case that academy and free school financial data is not shown in the DfE Performance Tables. Maintained school data is provided in a very accessible format but there is nothing for academies or free schools. The issues around this have been spelt out by Henry Stewart at http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2014/01/academy-finances-neither-transparent-nor-accountable-2/. While this article is mainly about academies, it applies equally to free schools. Henry points out that this situation directly contravenes a commitment given by the Prime Minister to the Liaison Committee in March 2012.
Nor has the DfE responded to the PAC’s requirement in 2013 that “the Department must insist that every Academy Trust provides it with data showing school level expenditure, including per-pupil costs, and with a level of detail comparable to that available for maintained schools. The Department must then publish this data so that proper judgements and comparisons can be made by Parliament and the public.”
As a consequence of all these failings, the National Audit Office has refused to approve the DfE’s accounts.
Serving Deprived Areas/ Pupils
Claim: 50% of free schools have the same or more FSM students than their LA average.
The first wave of free schools came out very badly in terms of their provision for deprived pupils and areas. This has improved. Nevertheless the assertion that 50% of free schools have the same or more FSM students than their LA average means that 50% have less. That is not a normal distribution.
It is true that mainstream free schools have to follow the admissions code. However it is not uncommon for free schools to market themselves in various ways as appropriate mainly for abler and more middle class families … eg compulsory Latin, lack of vocational provision, focus exclusively on Russell Group as a destination, expensive uniform, religious tests and so on. We do not yet know what kinds of intake have been attracted by free schools, but one snippet (now fairly old) may or may not be typical:
A Freedom of Information enquiry to Hammersmith and Fulham Council by Ian McCauley has revealed the proportion of the Year 7 entry to the West London Free School that have attained level 4 or better in English and Maths for the 108 of the 120 students who live in that borough:
95.4% have level 4 in English, compared to 62.5% for the borough as a whole
89.9% have level 4 in Maths, compared to 59.7% for the borough as a whole.
And, entirely at random so not necessarily in any way typical, here is a contribution to Mumsnet:
“We have a Free School in our area. It’s generally felt to be successful, has a waiting list, and plans to expand at some point. BUT while it was founded “to create extra spaces”, its intake seems to mostly to consist of children poached from the surrounding schools (the remainder are bussed in by parents from miles away). The uniform is entirely bespoke from a private school supplier, so no Tesco items, it’s about £300 plus for a full set.”
Addressing shortage of places/ good places
Claim: Free schools are tackling the shortage of places in England
The distribution of free schools is essentially random – they appear where there is some group promoting a free school. The Department has received no applications to open primary Free Schools in half of all districts with high or severe forecast need for school places.
38% of approved free schools are primary and 42% are secondary. Given that secondary schools are at least twice the size of primaries, that means that many more secondary places are being created than primary. This is at a time of acute crisis in primary provision.
In 2013 NAO found that:
• around 70 per cent of the estimated 114,000 primary and secondary places from open or approved Schools are in districts forecasting some need;
• 87 per cent (27,000) of projected primary places in Free Schools opened by September 2013 are in districts forecasting high or severe need, 8 per cent (2,000) are in districts forecasting moderate need;
• 19 per cent (7,000) of projected secondary places in Free Schools opened by September 2013 are in districts forecasting high or severe need, 22 per cent (8,000) are in districts forecasting moderate need; and
• 42 schools have opened in districts with no forecast need, with estimated total capital costs of at least £241 million out of a projected total of £950 million for mainstream Schools
Claim: Just as importantly free schools are also tackling the shortage of good places in areas where existing standards are low
NSN justifies this claim by saying that 83% of primary free schools are in the two thirds of the country where results are lowest as are 70% of secondary free schools.
These immediately have the air of being statistics very carefully chosen to justify a particular conclusion. The “two thirds of the country where results are lowest” clearly contains significant areas where results are above average and is in no sense a meaningful grouping.
This data actually tells us almost nothing. Free schools could be in the lowest performing areas. Equally they could be in average areas or even in above average areas. And, for secondaries, even these figures show that a free school is just as likely to be in a high attaining area as in a low attaining one.
The New Schools Network is putting round a document entitled “Free Schools Facts and Figures”. It tries, rather desperately, to make the case that free schools are something special and that all the criticisms of them are wrong.
Actually, you could hardly believe the number of holes in what they are claiming. So many that it’s going to take more than one blog post to cover it all. If you want to read the original alongside these comments you can find it at http://www.newschoolsnetwork.org/sites/default/files/Free%20School%20Facts%20and%20Figures%20briefing%207th%20July%20FINAL.pdf
Anyway, here is the first instalment of the commentary:
Who sets up Free Schools?
Claim: 63% of free schools have been set up by teachers, existing successful schools, academy chains or existing providers.
This fails to distinguish between genuine grass roots initiatives and large organisations without local links simply moving in on an area.
For example the 2014 openers list contains 9 Harris schools, 5 Ark schools and about 20 others clearly identifiable as promoted by existing academy chains. This is 20% of the planned schools.
In fact the number of free schools promoted by local parents groups is small. The list includes:
– Schools in reality promoted by local authorities to meet local needs
– Schools promoted by parents seeking a pseudo-grammar school as an alternative to often perfectly good local comprehensive provision.
– Schools promoted by particular religious groups – not always identified as Faith Schools.
– Schools promoted by other schools, colleges or universities – for a range of reasons ranging from altruism to empire building.
Successful parent groups, where they exist, are usually professional, middle class groups, sometimes with political connections. Amongst religious schools, Muslim applications are markedly less successful that those from other faiths.
It would seem likely that there is a significant social class bias in the process. There is also a clear trend in London for the introduction of highly selective post 16 institutions which will be at the expense of other sixth form and college provision and of the students in them.
Claim: Free schools have to prove that they are wanted by parents and students before they are allowed to be set up.
Proposed schools collect “expressions of interest” from parents. This may or may not translate into actual applications. There have been a number of cases where very few actual applicants have emerged and others where the impact on other good schools in the area has been ignored.
There is no transparency about the process of opening free schools. DfE has been forced by FoI requests to publish information and has resisted in the strongest terms. For example:
- DfE were forced to publish impact assessments on other schools by an NUT FoI in spring 2013
– DfE were forced to publish names, locations and faith affiliation of free school proposals by Humanist Association FoI. But even after this ruling in 2013, the DfE continued to refuse publication in relation to future waves of applications
– Laura McInerney put in an FoI for free school application forms and the government responses saying whether they were accepted or not. This too was resisted and was finally lost at Tribunal because the DfE argued that removing personal and sensitive information from so many was an excessive demand that the DfE was not resourced to cope with.).
For commentary on this see http://www.naht.org.uk/welcome/news-and-media/blogs/susan-young/free-schools-and-freedom-of-information/ and http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jul/15/how-i-lost-my-free-school-secrecy-court-battle
Claim: Free schools are popular with parents. On average free schools received 3 applications per place and 9 out of 10 primary free schools were over-subscribed.
This ignores the fact that applications systems enable parents to apply to up to 6 different schools for each child – different maxima in different places but never just 1. The real question therefore is how many chose a free school as first choice. This is not provided. The information given by NSN is not proof of being over-subscribed.
The application process requires proposed schools to gather “expressions of interest”. This is very different from actual applications. The reality is:
– Some schools are popular and fill easily
– Some fill because they’re meeting a local need for places
– Some don’t fill.
No one has demonstrated a “free school effect”. It depends on the school and the local situation. As noted above, the DfE has consistently resisted providing any evidence about applications to open free schools, why they succeeded or failed and what the impact on other schools might be.
Claim: Free Schools are outperforming other state schools. They are more than twice as likely to be judged outstanding than their other state education counterparts.
The Ofsted data makes comparisons which are clearly invalid. It compares free school inspections between Sept 2012 and July 2014 with other inspections carried out in that period. This ignores the fact that good and outstanding schools are inspected much less frequently than others. So the sample of schools inspected in this 2 year period will not be a cross section of all schools – it will be heavily skewed to the less successful.
A more appropriate comparison is with the last inspection outcome for all schools. This shows (at March 2014) that 20% of all schools were outstanding, 60% good, 18% required improvement and 2% were inadequate. Amongst free schools, 24% were outstanding, 45% good, 25% require improvement and 6% are inadequate.:
It is claimed that free schools were inspected under the new “more rigorous” framework. In fact the inspection outcomes under the new framework were better than under the previous framework with the same proportion of outstanding schools and 10% more good ones. This suggests that the new framework is actually less rigorous and certainly means that the comparison in the table is a fair one.