What would happen if we had a few years without the league tables? I have been pondering this idea since reading the
letter Ofqual sent to schools in late June. In it the chief regulator, Glenys Stacey, warns of even more “variability” in this summer’s exam results than we have experienced in recent years
Actually that is probably a polite interpretation of what she was was saying. Having read the letter several times it is clear that no one really knows what is going to happen this summer, other than that ALL schools will be probably be affected and the overall results are unlikely, according to the regulator, to provide a valid comparison with previous years.
So much change is being forced through the system at the same time, in a rush and without proper piloting or modelling, that the impact is almost impossible to predict. Gove’s legacy if you like, from beyond the political grave.
HOW DID WE GET HERE?
We know the reasons why we ended up here, anxiously anticipating a set of results that may be meaningless in terms of reflecting real improvement. For too long heads and teachers have been given hoops to jump through and, however honourably, they have duly found every which way to maximise their own schools’ performance.
This is what they have been encouraged to do by successive government and we can’t blame them for following the incentives put before them. Unfortunately sometimes this has been at the expense of individual pupils’ needs and has even at times verged on the dishonest and fraudulent. See
here for my piece in the Guardian on cheating.
The result is a belief in government that qualifications have become degraded and that too many schools are “gaming the system” by manipulating the curriculum, using “easier" GCSE equivalent qualifications which may not all provide suitable pathways to further or higher education, by over generously marking coursework and even by
moving children off their rolls in advance of the GCSE years.
All these point to a deeper malaise in the accountability system, now over-reliant on broken statistical measures which paint a very limited picture of how “well educated” our children are in the widest sense. Even the
headteacher of Eton is now speaking out about this.
BUT WE KNOW LESS ABOUT WHAT THE CHANGES WILL MEAN
The switch from modular to linear exams, the demise of controlled assessments, the end of English speaking and listening tests being counted as part of the overall GCSE English grade, a dramatic drop in the number of early entries following the government's abrupt ruling that only the first exam entry will count in school league tables, not to mention the elimination of some vocational qualifications from the approved list; these factors are all converging on this August’s results day. Henry Stewart has already posted
here on the impact this latter change to approved qualifications would have had on last year’s results, according to the DFE’s own figures.
Exam entries in some qualifications (notably IGCSE English) have risen this year, in others they have dropped (see
here for the figures). No one knows what the net effect of this will be other than that the cohort of applicants this year is very different to last year’s.
Negotiations between Ofqual and exam boards are almost certainly underway already about this year’s grade boundaries. Who can forget what happened in 2012, when GCSE English grade boundaries were subtly shifted because the results didn’t tally with the predictions for that year’s cohort, based on their KS2 SATS results.
I wrote about that
here, pointing out that if the results are already “written” in this way it is hard to see how schools can demonstrate exceptional progress or encourage their pupils to excel. The distress to schools and individual students may well be repeated on an even greater scale in the next few years.
As Ms Stacey’s June 2014 letter explains :” If the cohort is similar in terms of ability to the previous year’s cohort then we would expect overall results to be similar. When the cohort is different, this approach means the prediction will reflect those differences. The exam boards then report to us if the actual results are significantly different from the predictions and explain why this may be. We will either accept the explanation or challenge those results if we don’t think the explanation is backed up by enough evidence”
A story in this week's
Sunday Times ( behind the paywall unfortunately) only adds to the sense of confusion. It claims some grade boundaries are now being lowered by the exam boards in order to compensate for the turmoil anticipated by Ofqual. Though this too may be part of a media strategy to justify what is to come if the exam boards are overruled.
It could be that Ofqual is simply covering it's back. The regulator didn't get an easy ride in 2012. Maybe Glenys Stacey has decided it is better to get her excuses in first this time?But if she is right and the results should be “ approached with caution” isn't it time to think seriously about whether to publish the league tables at all?
THE CURRENT ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES HAVE HAD THEIR DAY
The performance tables have always had a dual purpose. The first is to provide information to parents and the wider community about how their local schools are doing. The second is to give government and Ofsted school level data.
Schools, government, Ofsted and individual pupils could still be told their results and schools may well choose to share them with all local parents. If they are as unstable as Ms Stacey predicts, one would hope that Ofsted will take them with a pinch of salt and, in the course of an inspection, focus on the evidence of teaching and progress they see in schools, across all year groups, rather than just relying on one year’s possibly flawed data set. Or is that wishful thinking on my part?
But government could admit this is a period of flux, the dying days of what its own proposed reforms suggest is a discredited system, and mothball the performance tables in their current form. This would alleviate the confusion, and possible misery, that parents and pupils will inevitably experience presented with a set of results by one arm of offialdom (DFE) while the other arm (Ofqual) suggests those same results may not be reliable.
The introduction of the new
progress 8 accountability measure begins tentatively this year. Schools will be given “shadow data” for their 2014 results, showing how they would fare under a new metric which measures the progress from KS2 of each individual student across 8 subjects. The will replace the moribund 5 A*-C headline figure. In 2015 schools can opt in to a pilot for this new measure- it is a shame there wasn’t a similar considered approach taken to the changes in exams - and in 2016 the league tables as we know them should no longer exist.
This new and welcome approach is intended to encourage schools to value every child equally and not focus disproportionately on the C/D borderline pupils. It should also help counteract the impact of intake and prior attainment on a school’s rankings and limit the amount of “gaming” that goes on.
A PERIOD OF CALM AND SOUL SEARCHING
Earlier this year the Royal Society of the Arts published an excellent report
“Schools with Soul”. The report probes how schools can develop the broader human qualities of their pupils through social, moral, cultural and spiritual education (SMSC), something that often gets relegated to the sidelines once all the hoop jumping is exhausted.
The report suggests designating 2015 as a “year of reflection” in which no new education policies are announced, no Ofsted inspections take place unless schools are judged inadequate and no schools are forced to become academies. It proposes instead a year of detailed thinking about how to develop SMSC at national and local level.
I would add government performance tables to the list of banned activities. Heads, teachers and governors could then do some soul searching too about the real meaning of progress, about what good levels of achievement look like, how we measure improvement and which subjects and qualifications are best for their pupils, rather than for their schools, or indeed for the egos of individual politicians.
This would also send a strong signal from the new Education Secretary that she trusts schools to work through some of these pressing questions on their own, or collaboratively with other local schools, but without the heavy hand of the state hanging over them.
We are not going to get rid of school accountability altogether. Ofsted reports will still exist; parent word on the street does half the job with school choice anyway. But we know that the system of ranking schools by the headline five GCSEs measure has run its course, which is why we are in transition to something new.
Let schools embrace that change gradually, with a bit of breathing space and without being battered by crude rankings (now almost a quarter of a century old) that have lost credibility, may be demoralising for schools and pupils and, if there is another upset this year, will only gratify the enemies of state education in the media, who will seize on any turbulence to damn the whole system.
The world wouldn’t come to an end. In fact it may turn out to be a rather better place.
Comments
Neither do I hold with LSN being used as a vehicle for politicking in the form of attempting to change a government. On this I am with FJM. For me, and putting it bluntly, as important education by itself it is not a strong enough reason to start electioneering on an education based forum.
It is also true to say that voting at a general election has not been the only way to influence government policy or direction. The country has a long history of pressure groups and lobbying (and I don't mean major corporate companies) and more recently the advent of online people based lobby groups (e.g. 38 Degrees, Avaaz, Change.org). the latter groups have enjoyed significant successes and growing influence. Indeed, the latter has proven to be more effective than the vote at general elections in the first past the post system.
http://www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=12...
Additionally, the last Ofsted report (2009) produced straight grade ones across the board.
A key issue for me however is that the number of low ability pupils is recorded as "Supp" indicating that the number is too small to be statistically tangible. Perhaps their admissions policy and more importantly how it is operated merits investigation?
Thomas Telford sponsors the Walsall Academy with the Mercers' Company. In late 2013 the Schools Adjudicator censured Walsall Academy for appearing “to deliberately exclude inner catchment children”.
Thomas Telford does, as you say, have an intake heavily skewed to the top end. It's supposed to be comprehensive. How does it manage this? Perhaps its admission criteria are dodgy too.
The criteria don't make it clear that SEN pupils whose statement names the school have to be admitted. The criteria also asked for Year 5 reports which is forbidden by the Code. How does it get away with this? Because it's a City Technology College and they're not bound by the Code (!). I wrote about it here:
Of course education will not be the top priority for all voters and one's personal politics are a private matter that must be respected. However LSN is an educational forum so the implications of the likely educational policies of the next government are of profound significance to the issues that we debate here. I was just pointing that out.
Chapter XXX, 'Youth', first quotation: 'The world is yours as well as ours, but in the last analysis it is yours. You young people, full of vigour and vitality, are in the bloom of life, like the sun at eight or nine in the morning. Our hope is placed on you.' I might mischievously use that in one of my sixth form assemblies.
However regardless of its source, that is a fine quotation well worthy of a school assembly. I can just see the Daily Mail headline. "Teacher quotes from Chairman Mao in school assembly". You will get a visit from the anti-terrorism police and your school will be placed in Special Measures for failing to safeguard its pupils.
FJM - I meant, 'I bought mine in 1966'.
By the time I went to China, the official line was that Mao was '70% good, 30% bad'. Such a view in 1966 in Peking would no doubt have earned me a 'struggle' session and period of 're-education', not as scary, however, as the thought of bringing down the wrath of Melanie Phillips and the DM. Many years ago a colleague who taught history and had a degree in Egyptology gave a school assembly with what I thought was a particularly good prayer at the end. Later, he told me that it was taken from an ancient papyrus and had been originally addressed to the god Thoth.
More seriously, the GCSE and A-level tables which are produced by the quality press later in the month depend on schools submitting their results. I know of heads who cynically, and quite reasonably, choose the papers whose analysis (i.e. choice of what affects the ranking) is most favourable. Quite a few schools boycott the tables at this stage. Does it affect their (the schools' ) standing? I doubt it. When parents have visited my school for open evenings, they might ask about details of results for subjects, but never about league table rankings. Are we getting bothered about something that is not really that important? Am I just lucky in not having taught at table-fixated schools?
However, for schools at the bottom of the league tables, it's a different story. Despite all the efforts of the staff, even a positive Ofsted, wouldn't prevent a school being described as one of the 'worst' in the county, or in the bottom ten percent, or whatever. For example, Stamford Queen Eleanor School, which isn't even near the bottom of Lincolnshire league tables (it was 26th out of 56 Lincolnshire secondary schools in 2013) has a reputation locally of being a poor-performing school. This resulted in a bid to open a free school which said it would offer an 'academic' education. That was despite the fact that 100% of previously-high attaining pupils at SQES reached the benchmark in 2012 exceeding the results for previously-high attaining pupils at many Lincolnshire grammar schools.
Stamford free school bid was rejected but Cambridge Meridian Academies Trust which would have been the free school's sponsor is to take of SQES in September.
To borrow from an old Simon and Garfunkel hit 'Sparrow', my response is 'Not I' :-)
http://www.ascl.org.uk/news-and-views/embargo/education-profession-unite...
For me it also begs the question: where were the so called big teaching unions in this and why didn't they contribute? Calling strikes is easy but working constructively with what you've got to nurture change is clearly more complex and sophisticated. What does this say about the focus of the big unions? Oh, and while we're on that theme, where was TH and the Labour government in waiting?
The head's unions are no different. They are aware that the GCSE results of their schools may significantly differ from those of prior years, especially in much 'improved' schools, which are the most likely to see big drops because of the new measures that you rightly applaud. This is likely to result in media damage to their schools and consequently to them personally, possibly affecting PRP bonuses or even their jobs. This is clearly a classic trade union issue, so no surprise that there has been a response. For example, I understand that the head's unions versions of the league tables will allow the highest grades from multiple entries in the same subject to stand. Call me a cynic, but I suspect that the head's unions league tables will seek to mitigate the damage to schools whose previous gaming will now be revealed. If so then this will be nothing like the improving education-focussed initiative that you celebrate. We will see.
Your allegation of disengagement from educational reform by the main teacher unions could not be further from the truth. Unlike the head's unions they have consistently campaigned against damaging curriculum changes, Academies, Free Schools, unfair admissions practices and all manner of other government 'reforms' that have been attacked on this site. Most important of all, the NUT in particular has been a strong and unswerving supporter of universal comprehensive education, an issue that the head's unions are very quiet about. That was one of the reasons why I left the SHA (as was) and joined the NUT. I remain a retired member.
http://www.ttsonline.net/Uploads/documents/Rules%20of%20Admission%202014...
QUOTE
"The Headmaster will select students from within ability bands and in exercising his professional
judgement will take into account the following:
range of ability to be admitted – from 9 ability bands
geographic dispersal of intake – broadly representative of the Wolverhampton and Telford
catchment areas
competence in Technology, Science and Mathematics – attainment and effort will be given
a score in each of the subjects, extracted from the Year 5 report. Applicants with the
highest score in each band of ability will be given priority
those applicants most likely to benefit from the education on offer at the School and who
have the strongest motivation to succeed."
One wonders whether the pupils travelling from Wolverhampton qualify for free bus travel given there will be other schools much closer to pupils homes
Number in cohortPercentage of cohort
Low attainers2 no1%
Middle attainers58 no34%
High attainers109no 64%
Pupils for whom English is not their first language2 no1%
Pupils with statements or supported at school action 8 no 5%
It's apparent that the school actively selects by ability and is close to operating as a grammar school .
You are quiet wrong in what you say about the "head's unions" not campaigning against curriculum changes, admissions issues etc. They have and continue to do so. The difference is they do it in quiet manner avoiding the big bass drum and engaging in industrial action. Perhaps you might like to visit their respective websites and have a look around.
"I cannot agree with your interpretation of this development. The headteacher/SLT organisations that you praise are first and foremost the same animals as the NUT, NAS/UWT etc, that you criticise", again you read your agenda into and over the top of what I wrote. I did not and do not criticise any workers organisation for defending their members. What did allude to is that whereas ASCL and NAHT in particular engage with SoS Educ/DFE/HMCI in constructive and ultimately fruitful negotiations I have yet to see a similar approach from the others. What I have seen is grandstanding and strike calls/action based on less than convincing percentages of the total membership of each association involved.
I would hardly call my statement "This latest strategy could very [well] bring about welcome and much needed transparency and additionality to the tables", a 'celebration' as you put it.
In passing you may wish to not that when SHA restructured and rebranded itself into ASCL membership criteria expanded to all colleagues in leadership positions, yes, senior and middle leaders have been members of ASCL for some time now. It is then misleading to refer to it as one of "the head's unions".
The topic of resits is a complex and vexed one. On one hand, it is right that pupils who for whatever reason under perform should be allowed to retake the exam, and this is a sign of a pastorally sound and supportive school. On the other hand, it is questionable practice to enter pupils too early (e.g. simply to get the 'C' grade irrespective of their potential to attain a higher grade (i.e. 'C' hits the table criteria now lets move the pupils focus elsewhere) and then re-enter if the strategy doesn't produce. It is the latter that Mr Gove was aiming at not the former. It could be debated then that a schools performance should take account of the depth of its additionality of support for its pupils and the inspection process bowl out the gamers who play the system and can be a blight on a pupils self-esteem, value and worth.
Closing request, please do not read your agenda into my comments and in the process skew and change what I have actually written.
I fear your two statements are very different and the former is at somewhat odds with the latter.
I think you underestimate the power of what you call "pressure groups" that are "outside politics". They may well not be part of the mainstream party political groupings but that does not stop them from engaging in the daily political machinations and enjoying success; whether wholesale or through major influence and effecting a change of direction or watering down impacts (e.g. 38 Degrees stopped the closure of Lewisham Hospital and along with other lobby groups wrought changes to political party positions on zero hours contracts). If they were ineffective why did the coalition include them in the effects of the gagging clause in the latest Lobbying Act, and why has Mr Milliband promised to revoke this. No, he didn't do out of warm cuddly good-will. Rather he was lobbied hard by members of the groups and hence undertaken to include it in his forthcoming manifesto.
Andy - FJM asked, What is to be done? I gave him my answer which is to vote Labour and encourage as many others as possible to do so - in answer to FJM's question. I fully accept that FJM and others may decline to follow the advice. I do not accept that the advice is inappropriate in the context in which it was requested nor in terms of the function and general content of LSN.
Andy - SHA accepted Assistant Heads at the time I left. I know we disagree about early GCSE entry. You defended Ofsted reports of 'outstanding' schools that made significant use of early and multiple entries, whereas my view is that if the SoS has seen fit fit to fiddle with league tables so as to disincentivise this tactic, that suggests that Ofsted should also have been condemning it, along with lots of other 'gaming' tactics practiced by 'improved' schools with 'outstanding' ratings. I am just disagreeing with you. There is nothing personal or hostile about disagreeing. If I have unreasonably misinterpreted your posts then I am always happy to acknowledge and correct.
"You defended Ofsted reports of ‘outstanding’ schools that made significant use of early and multiple entries", I beg to differ. I have always been against gaming and my last post (10.28) reiterated just that. On previous threads I distinctly recall posting that I was opposed to entering pupils simply to hit the 'C' threshold at the expense of them achieving a higher grade (e.g. B-A*). I also remember explaining that I saw nothing inherently wrong with pupils with appropriate ability starting their GCSE courses earlier than Y10 (i.e. progress by merit not limited by the blanket one size fits all KS by age alone). Indeed, i also recall pointing out that it was under Labour in 2008 that KS3 SATs were withdrawn and creating even more capacity for schools to take advantage of the Labour condensed KS3 and expanded KS4 time allocations launched in 2005. There again I am getting used to you using selective memory recall that you then use to assert things I simply haven't said.
I am particularly taken with the fact that in your zeal to skew, change, misrepresent what I actually posted that you completely missed (or even deliberately ignored) my statement, "Happily I perceive that the expanded data sets will confound the media and undermine their crude attempts at rank ordering schools". An extension of this, which links back to my earlier statement 6/8/14 @ 5.39 "I would be extremely happy to see the league tables as we know love and hate them discontinued full stop. Yes, the focus on E&M was and remains relevant but I’d rather question the appropriateness of the blunt instrument of GCSE as the benchmark", is that I would wish league table to be scrapped. Now that would be conundrum for you regarding resits/multiple entries. With no league tables there can be no gaming and schools can publish their results.
While we have table though .an easier way to stop gaming would have been to require schools to declare how many (number and cohort percentage) of pupils were entered early and needed a resit.
I usually agree with most of what you post and am always genuinely surprised by the intensity of your responses on the relatively few issues on which we disagree.
"I know we disagree about early GCSE entry. You defended Ofsted reports of ‘outstanding’ schools that made significant use of early and multiple entries ..." 13/8/14 @ 1.28 pm
and
"I did not accuse you of defending early entry." 13/8/14 @ 7.33 pm
To me the first statement conveys the clear message that I both "disagree" with you about early entry and also that I "defended Ofsted reports" of schools gaining outstanding and that made significant use of "multiple and early entries". Thus the second statement is contradictory.
Firstly, I do not and have not supported multiple entries as a strategy to boost results and ergo league table standings. During the course of this thread I have revisited and confirmed my long held view on this practice and yet you pay no cognisence to this and make wholly inaccurate statements about what I do and don't support / what I have and haven't said. To top that off you try to portray yourself as the injured party.
I will always use my right to redress misrepresentations by others of what I have posted.
Indeed, there is another classic example relating to membership of ASCL. That is to say, you describe as one of the "head's unions". I highlight that since the change of structure from SHA to ASCL membership has been open to middle leaders (13/8/14 @ 10.28) but you persist in asserting that it only represents heads' and senior leaders:
"... the head’s and SLT team’s union ..." 13/8/14 @ 7.33
In the face of your, how shall I put this, obfuscation/ducking and diving/slippery eel approach I reserve the right to correct misrepresentations of my posts.
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2014/05/outstanding-schools/
'The issue of early GCSE entry aroused controversy because of the accusation of ‘gaming’ and assertion that it damaged a pupil’s chances of attaining their estimated grade/making the appropriate level of progression from KS2 (e.g. predicted A* and achieving a B or C and worse still predicted an B and getting a D or E): http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https://www.edu... Viewed though this lens the OFSTED quote you cite is saying that early entry does not harm/damage pupils progress and attainment i.e. they reach their predicted grades with the appropriate level of progress being made.'
It is a fact that I disagree with you, Ofsted and your references on this. Therefore 'I disagree with your support for these arguments in defence of early entry'. I did not accuse you of defending early entry for gaming purposes. I fully accept that you are opposed to gaming by any means.
In relation to the first point, a pupil in Y8 starting a KS4 maths course might well be predicted of getting a C or B grade by the end of Y9. If this pupil does indeed get a B when entered in Y9 then she will gave met her predicted grade target. You and Ofsted are happy with that. I am not, and presumably Michael Gove is with me on the issue given what he is on record as saying specifically about the practice of early entry and in the light of the changes that he has brought about. On this I believe him to be right.
The reason is that if the same pupil followed a cognitively developmental, exam-free KS3 curriculum in maths of the sort that I and others regularly advocate on LSN, on entering KS4 in Y10 the predicted grade for the Y11 GCSE exam would be likely to have been A* or A instead of B or C. If I am wrong on this then so is Piaget, Vygotsky, Shayer, Adey and all the other developmental learning theorists. If the same GCSE outcome can be obtained from starting a two-year course in Y8 or Y9 then why not start in Y7 or Y5 even, getting pupils to do their GCSEs in primary school leaving secondary school for A Levels and degrees?
When schools start GCSE maths in Y8 or Y9 it is for the purpose of having much more opportunity for repeated retakes so as to maximise the numbers getting a C by the end of Y11. Gove rightly deplored this tactic.
Of course you don't have to agree with me about that.
As for my reference to the 'heads' unions, that was just lazy shorthand on my part. I am fully aware of the membership of said unions.
You clearly find me difficult to debate with. You regularly take personal affront where absolutely none is intended. I find you difficult to debate with for exactly the same reason. However I am not going to stop disagreeing with your posts, although I will try harder to avoid unnecessarily infringing your sensitivities.
What I said on the earlier thread you cite is consistent with what I have said on this thread.
Additionally, when I assert my right to highlight and address deliberate misrepresentations of what I have said rather than face up to what you have done you adopt the undignified approach of accusing me of being "sensitive".
It is clear then that while I am open to debate you are like a one-way street.
My views and those of the current Conservative Party leadership are incompatible at a fundamental level. No amount of lobbying will alter that. My views and those of the Labour opposition diverge much less, such that arguing, lobbying, demonstrating etc. have the potential to bring about change. My view is that there is evidence that this is happening at an increasing pace, and that the discussions/arguments that take place on this site are affecting this process. Ed Miliband is open to argument and debate in relation to public services in ways that Cameron and his Cabinet are not. They choose and appoint their political advisors accordingly, many of whom have been suspected of trolling on this site. If you don't want their approach to prevail and be further extended, then you have to be in favour of them being voted out of office. That is how democracies work.
I don't recall asking for a lecture on politics or democracy let alone one dripping with patronisation and condescension.
Pages
Add new comment