Ofsted chief: It is the substance of education that ultimately creates and changes life chances, not grade stickers from exams.

There was a change of tone in today's speech by the new Ofsted Chief Inspector Amanda Spielman  to the ASCL which I thought was well worth publishing in full for the information of local teachers and parents. Publication does not imply agreement but rather recognition that this is an opportunity to debate wider education issues.

 
I want to start by paying particular tribute to Malcolm Trobe and his stewardship of ASCL in recent months. And I’d also like to congratulate Geoff on his election as General Secretary.

And some other thank yous. One is to my predecessor Sir Michael Wilshaw who, we can all agree, has been a tireless and outspoken advocate for higher standards and improving young people’s life chances. And having seen the number of new challenges he has set himself since stepping down, we can be sure that that zeal will continue for many years to come.

I also want to thank the wider Ofsted team for all it has done in recent years to make an inspectorate so much improved from even just 5 years ago.

The Ofsted I have inherited is far more focused on what works, far more self-critical and reflective, and far more outward facing and engaged with the sectors it inspects, than at any point in its history. It is a privilege to work with this team to carry that forward.

It may be hackneyed, but it still merits repeating, that our education system is only ever be as good as the people who work in it. We know there are very real challenges: funding pressures, changing structures, curriculum and qualification reforms.

But we are lucky enough to have the most talented generation of school and college leaders in our history. Which, by the way, means that we can have, and should aim to have, the best outcomes for pupils in the world.

And I’m delighted that my first major speech as Chief Inspector is to ASCL. For me, ASCL embodies the very best in our education system – self-confident, engaged school leaders, representing a profession determined to control its own destiny. I am looking forward to working with Geoff and your council to continue the good work that ASCL and Ofsted have done together in recent years.

I would particularly like to commend your blueprint, which is a hugely impressive piece of work. It sets out an ambitious vision for the future of education, as well as a challenge for you as school leaders to step forward and take ownership. And I very much hope that vision remains for the foreseeable future.

Getting it right

When it comes to Ofsted, your blueprint highlights the important responsibility that school inspection has to parents and young people in determining the effectiveness of a school. That responsibility means that Ofsted inspections have immense power.

Spending the past 6 months, as I have done, travelling round the country, meeting inspectors, heads, teachers, pupils and parents, I have come to see what that power really means.One of the most gratifying moments was visiting Skinners’ Academy in Tunbridge Wells, led of course by your President Sian Carr.

By pure chance, I was in the school just as they received their outstanding judgement, and I saw first-hand the pride that all the staff felt in seeing their achievements for young people recognised.

 That experience brought home to me just how much our findings matter to those we inspect and how we must never lose sight of that when we make our judgements.

So Ofsted’s power is one that I will use responsibly and intelligently.

Inspection should not be making your job unnecessarily difficult or laborious. Or, worse still, actually diverting you from the real task at hand – our children’s education.

I have no interest in using this role to impose my personal prejudices about how you should run your schools, nor will Ofsted on my watch become a vehicle for promoting the latest educational fashion or fad. And I won’t be pushing you to jump through increasingly convoluted hoops, only to change direction a couple of years down the line.

My interest is solely in ensuring that every child receives what is their fundamental right: a good education. And not only a good education but the right education for that child.

Let me be absolutely clear. My commitment to responsible and intelligent inspection does not mean that I will hold back from exposing places where children are not receiving the proper standard of education or care.

Whether it is pupils struggling to learn in schools where behaviour just isn’t good enough, young people being exposed to extremist views in illegal schools or children left vulnerable in our care system, I will be frank about these failings and, what’s more, I will demand action to tackle them.

Anyone who assumes that the high value I place on evidence and data means that I am reluctant to speak truth to power will find themselves mistaken. In fact, it is the use of robust evidence and data that gives Ofsted the authority to challenge, on behalf of the minority of children who are being let down.

Inspection will never be painless, and a regulator will never be loved by those it regulates – nor should it be. We must, though, make sure we are respected and use evidence responsibly and intelligently in everything we do.

Improving inspection

But, much as we focus on rigour and evidence, inspection will always be to some degree an art as well as a science. It won’t ever be flawless.

At Ofsted, we are lucky to have a terrific team of inspectors: Her Majesty’s Inspectors and also many Ofsted Inspectors drawn from your own ranks.But that doesn’t mean that inspection is a perfect tool.

That is why we are doing more work to refine our processes, to get better, to use research and evidence so that our inspections are as valid and reliable as they can be.

The reliability study we published earlier this week is an encouraging start. As you may well have read, it found that inspectors, working independently but in parallel, agreed on the outcome of a short inspection in 22 cases out of 24.

This is about as good as we could have hoped for. It was pleasing to see this recognised by a number of influential figures, including Professor Rob Coe.

But it is only the first step, and I want to go further in exploring inspection reliability, what we should be aiming for, and how we can improve it.

At the same time, we will look at the validity of inspection. By that, I mean whether inspection is measuring what it is intended to measure, and coming to the right conclusions.

But I need to set expectations here: this is the basis of a continuing programme of work; not one quick hit.

Adding value

One of the most important questions for us is how we make sure we at Ofsted add value. We all know that we live in a world of almost limitless school data and extensive performance measures.

By and large, I think that data is a good thing, not just in providing information about a school’s performance, but also in helping us all to evaluate what works and what doesn’t – and, more broadly, to improve the practice of education.

But as powerful a tool as data is, it also has its limitations. And they are limitations that we do recognise. That is why our inspections are informed by data, but not driven by them.

It is dispiriting to see some commentators still insisting that data is all we care about.

Just a few weeks ago, one headteacher made that very claim in the Observer, despite the fact we recently judged his school to be outstanding when, as yet, it has no results at all!

I cannot stress enough that data is the starting point for our inspections, not the destination.
In fact, it is mostly by looking beyond the data that Ofsted can and should add value, providing a rounded picture of how well a school is doing.

It is that human and, dare I say it, subjective element of our inspections that makes them useful. And for that reason, I am pleased to say that our inspectors are, for now at least, one group who have nothing to fear from automation!

But on a more serious note, we are well aware that the challenge of interpreting data wisely, and placing it in context, is even more important when the main external exams are changing.

For example, we know that it is impossible for schools to predict this year’s student outcomes in the new English and maths GCSEs with any accuracy. That is why Sean Harford, our National Director of Education, has written to inspectors to ask that they do not request predictions from schools: in fact he described it as ‘a mug’s game’.

Instead, inspectors should be looking at whether schools know if pupils are making the progress they should, and taking action where they are not.

At the same time, we said that we would provide both general and school-specific guidance to inspectors from September, about what can and cannot be inferred from this summer’s results. I hope this will provide reassurance that your schools are being fairly judged in the context of a changing qualification system.

A quality curriculum

One of the areas where data can only tell us so much is in assessing the quality of a school’s curriculum.

I suspect no one here will disagree with the vital importance of a curriculum which is broad, rich and deep. It matters so much for children, and particularly for disadvantaged children, who are less likely to have the gaps filled in at home.

As recent research from Dr Cristina Iannelli has shown, differences in the secondary school curriculum contribute significantly more in reproducing social inequalities than does school type. Or, as she puts it:

In the British education systems subject choices were and are still crucial for gaining access to prestigious universities and for entering professional jobs… We should not overlook the importance of subject choices in secondary school for creating opportunities for social mobility.

And our inspectors understand this. Only this week I spoke to an HMI who explained how he’d recently come to judge outcomes in a school to be outstanding. Published progress data was broadly average. But he recognised that the leadership had stuck to its guns, continued to insist on modern foreign languages for all pupils, including in its sixth form, and provided an exceptional curriculum. Those ‘average progress points’ were hard won by a courageous leadership team, who, by the way, were also judged outstanding as a result.

Given the importance of the curriculum, it’s surprising just how little attention is paid by our accountability system to exactly what it is pupils are learning in schools, particularly as we have been through a period of significant curriculum upheaval.

Certainly, we have good measures of pupil attainment at 16 and 18. And new measures, such as Progress 8, go much further than their predecessors in painting a fuller picture of pupils’ learning. But even they take us only so far.

The same is true of Ofsted inspections. While assessment forms a large part of the teaching and learning judgement, the curriculum does not.

The taught curriculum is in fact just one among 18 matters for consideration in reaching the leadership and management judgement, making it somewhat of a needle in a haystack.

I believe that lack of focus has had very real consequences.

I have heard from many of you about the conflict between your desire to give children the right education and the pressure to maintain your league table position.

And we all know how the corrosive pattern can emerge. However much you want to resist narrowing your curriculum or teaching to the test, when you see the school down the road doing it, and getting the league table pay off, you may feel you have no choice but to follow suit.

One of the more dispiriting moments in my 15 years of visiting schools was a particular Year 11 history lesson. First, pupils did a practice exam question, then they had to compare their own work to the model answer for their target grade, to see what they should be adding in. So if you had a C grade target, you were actively discouraged from aiming any higher. For me, the whole lesson was a clear example of where the exam had come to replace the education, rather than merely measuring it.

More generally, there’s a telling contrast in the schools I visit. In some, people want to talk purely about the result numbers and how they achieve them, whereas in others, they want to talk about the actual substance of the education they are giving.

And we all know that the wrong kind of focus on results can be damaging.

As Sean wrote in his inspection update, we know that there are some schools that are narrowing the curriculum, using qualifications inappropriately, and moving out pupils who would drag down results. That is nothing short of a scandal where it happens. Childhood isn’t deferrable: young people get one opportunity to learn in school and we owe it to them make sure they all get an education that is broad, rich and deep.

As I have said many times before, there is more to a good education than league tables. Vitally important though a school’s examination results are, we must not allow curricula to be driven just by SATs, GCSEs and A levels. It is the substance of education that ultimately creates and changes life chances, not grade stickers from exams.

So I am determined to make sure that the curriculum receives the proper focus it deserves.
And that is why I’m announcing today that I have chosen the curriculum to be the focus of the first big thematic Ofsted review of my tenure. From early years, through to primary, secondary, sixth form and FE colleges, this will explore the real substance of education.

We will look at how schools are interpreting the national curriculum or using their academy freedoms to build new curricula of their own and what this means for children’s school experience. We will look at what makes a really good curriculum. And we will also look at the problems, such as curriculum narrowing, and what we can do to tackle them.

What we will not be doing is trying to unpick the national curriculum. Indeed, I suspect I would be jeered off the stage if I were to suggest yet more upheaval.

But I do want this review to provide key insights into some of the most important policy debates of the day. How do we best promote social mobility? How do we make sure that every child has the best possible start in life? And can the accountability system play a part in encouraging the development of a rich curriculum, rather than incentivising gaming?

I do hope that many of you will be able to play a part in this review and share your experiences so that others can learn from your example. You are the experts and you understand these issues better than anyone. Everything we know is informed by the work that you do, and that’s the way that it should be.

Tackling workload

And there is another thing I’d like to talk about today, and that’s workload. I spoke earlier about the importance of Ofsted acting responsibly. We are not naïve about the impact that our inspections have on workload. So we will do our bit to make sure your time is spent where it matters most.

Ofsted does have a track record of listening and acting on the feedback we receive from the profession. That’s why we have brought all school inspection in-house and ended the third-party contracts.

We’ve brought many more serving leaders – including people in this room – onto our inspection teams. Almost half of inspections include serving practitioners, and over a third of inspector days on the ground are from practitioners, not HMI. So we are already much closer to a peer review system than many people realise.

We’ve also introduced a more proportionate inspection model for good schools, so as to focus more sharply on schools that are struggling.

Just as importantly, we have worked hard, especially over the past 2 years, to dispel many of the common staffroom myths about what Ofsted requires or expects when it comes to things like teaching styles, lesson planning, and marking.

Although this is strictly anecdotal, we are seeing more school leaders on social media and elsewhere reflecting positively on their recent inspection experience and how it felt like a marked departure from the past.

Of course there is more to do: more myth-busting work, more inspector training and more critical self-evaluation.

But when it comes to workload, Ofsted can only go so far in mitigating the impact of inspection. As my predecessor pointed out, you as school leaders need to justify your policies on marking, lesson planning and teacher evaluation on their own merits, rather than erroneously citing Ofsted ‘expectations’.

This has to be a 2-way relationship. When we bust myths, we need you, as school leaders, to consign them to history.

Ofsted inspections should not be a performance that schools spend hours rehearsing. Our inspectors are getting better at evaluating whether what we see on inspection is a true reflection of the everyday life of a school.

And no matter what so-called ‘consultants’ are selling, when school finances are under pressure and workloads are high, running mocksteds is an unacceptable waste of staff time and scarce pupil funding.

All of us have a role to play in tackling that destructive cycle which means the teaching profession is bleeding talent, and losing the brightest and the best.

We know from a DfE study released last month that teachers are working unsustainable hours, and we also know from the international TALIS surveys that it isn’t because they’re spending more time teaching than their peers abroad.

At 20 hours a week, teaching time is close to the international average. Instead, teachers in England spend significantly more time on planning, marking and administration, where I know unnecessary preparation for inspection plays a major part.

So Ofsted is committed to supporting the DfE in its workload challenge, and I do hope that you will all be displaying the workload poster and pamphlet released last month. Among other things, this clarifies what Ofsted does and does not want to see.

I am not naïve enough to believe that a poster alone will solve the problem, but it should certainly help.

Another thing we know will help with workload is greater clarity between different actors in the system. As Malcolm Trobe put it in a letter to me earlier this week,

schools would benefit from greater clarity around the roles, responsibilities and relationships between Ofsted and RSCs in particular.

There is nothing inevitable about rising teacher workload, and working together we can tackle it.

Conclusion

So I’d like to leave you with these parting thoughts.

My ambition as Chief Inspector is to make sure Ofsted is regarded as a force for good. I want us to highlight outstanding practice, recognise where leadership and management is performing well in challenging circumstances, and provide the feedback that schools which are less than good need to improve.

But Ofsted judgements aren’t ends in themselves. Despite many years in education regulation, I still believe the old adage that weighing the pig isn’t what makes it fatter.

When I was at Ofqual, I consistently said that qualifications were the mirror of education, not the education itself. And exactly the same applies to Ofsted judgements: they are a reflection of school quality, but they should never become the definition of quality.

All too often Ofsted Chief Inspectors are portrayed as the champions of rigour, standards and quality in schools. But the truth is I’m not a medieval knight in armour, and nor do I aspire to be one.
That’s because it is you and your staff who are the real champions of standards. You are the ones who work tirelessly day in, day out, at evenings and weekends, so that your pupils get an excellent education. Yes, it’s my job to say how well schools are performing, but the far harder job of delivering for young people is yours.

And we need to attract even more talented people into the profession, grow them into successful leaders and support them to take on new challenges.

I want Ofsted to play its part in what your blueprint so perfectly describes as

a move away from prescription to a profession-led system that is evidence-informed, innovative and ethical.

Within such a system, inspection can have a powerful role as a force for improvement and a judge of education quality. Realising that potential is the challenge I have set myself, and I look forward to working with all of you to make it a reality.

Ofsted and Academy Trusts

I am grateful to 'Reclaiming Education' for this. CfBT took over Gladstone Park Primary School following forced academisation, despite a strong parent campaign to keep it as a local authority school. E-Act runs the Crest academies.

Chris Dunne's letter, "We will come to regret not having defended our education system",  in the Financial Times can be seen here

Henry Stewart's piece looking at the progress of academies against maintained schools can be read here.

And, in case you missed these pieces on where the money is being wasted and who benefits, there is this piece in localgov.uk and this piece in Schoolsweek

Ofsted condemns Academy Trusts:  The Government has announced that it plans to force all schools to become academies.  The major problem is going to be who will run these schools, given that Ofsted has some major criticisms of at least 8 of the large academy trusts.

Ofsted Inspections of Academy Trusts

Ofsted has carried out focused inspections of academies within 9 multi academy trusts.  Significantly, only one, the last and smallest one, is positive.  The full reports can be found on the Government website here.   A map of where the academies are can be found here.

CfBT:  11 primary/8 Secondary

“CfBT took on too many academies too quickly. The trust did not have a clear rationale for the selection of schools, a strategy for creating geographical clusters or a plan to meet academies’ different needs. As a result, standards are too low. The trust relied heavily on external consultants but did not ensure their accountability in securing rapid and secure improvement. Headteachers were unable to provide each other with the much needed mutual support or share available expertise. Current CST leaders openly acknowledge these errors.”  Full report

Academies Enterprise Trust:  32 primary/30 secondary/5 special

"After operating for nearly eight years, the Trust is failing too many pupils. Almost 40% of the pupils attend AET primary academies that do not provide a good standard of education. It is even worse in secondary, where 47% of pupils attend academies that are less than good......
"Children from poor backgrounds do particularly badly in this Trust. The attainment and progress of disadvantaged pupils, in both the primary and secondary academies, still lags behind that of other pupils, and gaps in performance are not narrowing quickly enough......
"The outcomes of the focused inspections failed to demonstrate that the Trust is consistently improving its academies.  Full report

Collaborative Academies Trust: 9 schools

“Collaborative Academies Trust was set up in 2012 by EdisonLearning ......
.........Too many academies have not improved since joining the trust. Of the five academies that have had a full inspection since joining the trust, only one has improved its inspection grade compared with its predecessor school. Two have remained the same and two have declined. This means that, at the time of the focused inspection, there were not yet any good or outstanding academies in the trust. “  Full report

E-Act (formerly Edutrust): 23 academies (was more)

“...Nevertheless, the quality of provision for too many pupils in E-ACT academies is not good enough.
......Standards in the secondary academies are too low. Previous interventions by the Trust to raise attainment and accelerate progress have not had enough impact and any improvements have been slow.
....Pupils from poor backgrounds do not do well enough. These pupils make less progress than other pupils nationally. This is an area of serious concern. “  Full report

Kemnal Academies Trust: 15 secondary/26 primary

“Less than half of your academies were good or better and there are no longer any outstanding academies in your chain. .........

.. an overwhelming proportion of pupils attending one of the academies inspected are not receiving a good education. “  Full report

Oasis Community Learning Trust: 50? Schools – DfE list and Oasis website appear to disagree.

The academy trust has grown rapidly, taking on 30 new academies in the last three years ...
Across the trust, some groups of pupils do not achieve well. Disadvantaged pupils, particularly boys, make significantly less progress than their peers nationally.......... there is no evidence of an overall strategy or plan that focuses on these particular issues.  Full report

School Partnership Trust:  41 schools

“The impact of the Trust’s work in bringing about improvement where it is most needed has been too slow. Where standards have been intractably low for some time, the Trust is not driving significant, sustained improvement. ...

......The standard of education provided by the Trust is not good enough in around 40% of its academies inspected so far. “ Full report

The Education Fellowship: 12 schools

“There is no clear record of improvement in the trust’s academies and standards across the trust are unacceptably variable. In around three quarters of the academies, standards are poor.
Standards declined in five of the eight primary academies in 2014. In the majority of the trust’s 12 academies, the gap in attainment between disadvantaged pupils and their better off peers, both within the academies and compared with pupils nationally, remains unacceptably wide.”  Full Report

Wakefield City Academies Trust – the only positive one!

“Two years into its development, WCAT is making a positive difference to the quality of provision and outcomes for pupils within its academies. “ Full report

Ofsted finds much to praise but concerned about disharmony at Sudbury Primary School Academy

-->

The Ofsted Report on Sudbury Primary Academy has now been published and is Good in all categories except Leadership and Management. There is clearly much to celebrate as you can see from the summary above.

The headteacher of the school was suspended by the then Chair of Governors last year to enable an investigation into allegations against her to take place.

The full report is HERE

Ofsted said:

The governance of the academy
 

There is disharmony both within the governing body and in relationships between governors and some members of the leadership team and staff. Governors disagree with one another about whether decisions on teachers’ pay have been determined effectively. Governors act promptly to fulfil their duties when responding to complex staff management and safeguarding matters. However, they are less resolute and consistent in their actions in following up these issues. As a result, some staff say they have lost confidence in governors’ ability to fulfil their duties.

In order to improve the academy must: 

Improve the effectiveness of leadership and management by ensuring that any recommendations of an urgent, independent review of the work of the governing body are promptly acted on. This review should be completed and the outcomes obtained no later than the first half of the spring term 2016.

UPDATE: Sudbury School situation raises wider issues

Unions at Sudbury Primary School report that there was standing room only when they held a meeting last week for parents to discuss the way forward for the school after the suspension of its headteacher. They say that Sudbury teachers attended despite the threat of disciplinary action if they did so.

The unions said:

Several staff made it clear that, through all of this, their priority was the education and care of the children. Parent and union speakers said that without the staff the children would not be doing as well as they are.

The meeting was reminded by an emotional parent that it was the children who were the reason there was a school and we had to get to the bottom of what was going on for them. It was pointed out that if the school had still been with the local authority instead of being an academy, Brent would have stepped in and taken prompt action to deal with the situation.

Parents were angry that it had to be down to the unions to call such a meeting and felt the governors had kept them in the dark. It was revealed that a new Chair of Governors Ian Phillips, had just been put in place. The Ofsted report is due imminently after the inspection which took place after the Headteacher was suspended. The section on management of the school should make interesting reading.

The headteacher remains suspended while an independent investigation takes place. As stated in earlier coverage suspension this a neutral act to allow the investigation of allegations to proceed. 

However, the unions say that a petition for parents calling on the headteacher to 'do the right thing and resign' has been started: 'Staff remain united and determined but if this does not happen they will be taking action in the Spring term.'

 The situation is complicated by the fact that the Sudbury Primary School Academy Trust is a company limited by guarantee under the Companies Act 2006.  A large school with a budget of £9m plus it comes under the Education Funding Agency/DfE rather than the local authority, Brent Council. The Regional Schools Commissioner acts for the Secretary of State regarding academies and free schools but he does not appear to have intervened in this case so far, although there are provisions for intervention in the funding agreement LINK and the powers of the RSC.

The headteacher of Sudbury Primary School is the company's Chief Executive Officer and it appears from the last company report that all the governors are also Trustees of the company. The company secretary is Irfan Khan. LINK

At the time of the last annual report that I can find (for the period ending August 2014) in addition to the headteacher, chair and vice chair, there were 8 parent governors, 4 community governors and 3 staff governors on the Board of Trustees.

The case clearly raises wider issues regarding academies (and free schools) of accountability, local democratic representation, powers of intervention and governance.

UPDATE


The Kilburn Times LINK is reporting that Ian Phillips, Chair of Govers at Finchley's Woodhouse College has been appointed to the Sudbury governors on the recoemmndation of the DfE.

Chair of Governors, Bob Wharton, a former Lead Member for Children and Schools when Lib Dems formed a coalition with Brent Tories to run Brent Council, welcomed the appointment and said Phillips had made a good impression on staff.

The DfE said, 'We take very seriously any allegationb that children's education is being put at risk. We are continuing to work with the academy trust to strengthem governance. We recommended they (the school)  request support from other experienced governors.'

Jean Roberts, NUT, pointed out that if Sudbury had been an LA school they would have come in and taken control of the situation. It had only got to ths stage because it was an academy and being dealt with by the DfE. She added that this was why the education unions are against academies.
 

Staff and parents press for secret ballot on Furness academisation

The audience at the academies meeting

 

 

Statement from ATL, GMB, NASUWT, NUT, UNISON

Parents and staff from Furness Primary School, Harlesden, London gathered[1] to voice their deep concerns as to why their school was proposed to be turned into an academy. The Governors of Furness and Oakington Manor, federated schools, have made an application to turn the two schools into a sponsored academy trust without having first consulted parents and staff.

The question asked by everyone at the meeting was why? Furness school received a good rating by Ofsted in June this year. Oakington is currently rated as outstanding. The two schools federated three years ago to prevent Furness (which was then in special measures) closing or being taken over by an academy chain such as ARK.

The audience listened to Bridget Chapman, Chair of the Anti Academies Alliance, explain what academisation was all about – privatisation of state education and ultimately schools to be run for profit. She spoke about the evidence from research that showed that 13% of sponsored academies were classed as failing yet on 3% of state schools were in this Ofsted category. Further, the data shows a higher rate of exclusion among black and minority ethnic children in academies and there are fewer children with special educational needs. 99 academies had received warnings from the DfE about their financial dealing and 11 academy chains had received multiple warnings. The percentage of primary schools that have become academies is still very small and many of those have been forced to by the DfE despite there being no evidence that academies improve education for children, in fact the opposite.  Analysis of primary school results indicates that academy conversion actually slows progress” (Local Schools Network research).

Jean Roberts spoke on behalf of the education unions and told the audience how the unions had been stopped from making any presentation to staff at the so called consultation meetings held at both schools the previous week, as to why the education unions are united against the proposal. Staff who wanted to hear them, were shushed and told to be quiet by Mr Jhally, Chair of Governors of the Federation, when they protested. A motion of support for a campaign against the academy which had been passed by the Kensal Green Labour Party group was read out to much applause.

Mrs Libson who is the Executive headteacher of the federated schools had told the staff consultation meetings it was because Brent had done “nothing for the schools”. Brent LA dispute this most strongly. Jean Roberts had been sent a copy of the Brent Audit Report for Oakington Manor in June 2015. Auditors were unable to say that its accounts and accounting procedures were fully in order[2]. The report stated, “The key areas of weaknesses related to high value expenditure, income administration, stock management and pension administration”. One of the criteria Ofsted inspects in schools is the Governors oversight of school finances.

Janice Long a local councillor, who sent a message of support for the campaign against an academy, asked if the imminent Ofsted may be a reason for this rushed application.

Euton Stewart from GMB explained that in his experience the support staff were the first to be made redundant in academies. Academies can employ unqualified teachers, another concern of the teaching staff there. Parents spoke about the good teachers and the education they provided for their children at Furness and how all this change was unnecessary now the school had been given a good by Ofsted.

There was a clear commitment to continue to seek a secret ballot for parents and staff so that the Governors would fully know their views. Parents will continue to collect signatures on the petition. Staff are looking to hold meetings to discuss what they will do in response.

---

[1] Meeting held on 12^th November at St Mark’s Church hall, Kensal Rise, London.

[2] Reporting Definition of Limited assurance: Weaknesses in the system of internal controls are such as to put the client’s objectives at risk.

The level of non-compliance puts the client’s objectives at risk.

Nick Gibb 'wrong' to attribute increase in children in 'good or outstanding schools' to academisation

By Henry Stuart republished from original article on Local Schools Network
This is another really useful article by Nick which shows how the government misleads on the basics.

 Government ministers have repeatedly claimed that one million more children are in "good" or "outstanding" schools, and that this is a direct result of their academies policy. For example Nick Gibb, speaking at the consideration of the Education and Adoption Bill on Friday 11th September, said "there are 1,100 sponsored academies that started life as under-performing schools, which is a colossal achievement that has led directly to over 1 million [more] children being taught in “good” or “outstanding” schools." (col 208)

Analysis of Ofsted Data View does indicate that it is true that one million more pupils are in schools rated "good" or "outstanding" and it is clearly the case that many schools have been converted to academies. But a basic analysis of the data suggests it was not academisation that caused any improvement.

Vast majority of improved primaries are not academies
78% of the increase has been in primary schools, where only a small minority of schools have become academies. Indeed the latest Ofsted dataset indicates that there are 167 sponsored academy primary schools that are currently rated "good" or "outstanding". Assuming these have the same average size as primaries overall (411 pupils), this gives a total of 68,537 children.

Extra pupils in "good" or "outstanding" primaries           996,604
Pupils in "good" or "outstanding" sponsored primaries    68,637
% in sponsored academies                                                  7%

So for every 100 extra pupils in "good" or "outstanding" primaries, 93 were in schools that were not sponsored academies. The percentage of primary schools that are "good" or "outstanding" has gone from 67% in 2010 to 82% in 2015 but the vast majority of this improvement has been due to improvements in maintained schools, not in sponsored academies. Nick Gibb is entirely wrong to say the improvement results "directly" from the performance of sponsored academies.

Ratings for primaries are improving but more secondaries are being rated "inadequate"
The Ofsted annual report of 2014 made note of the fact that primary schools were continuing to improve but that this was not the case for secondaries (where the majority of schools are not academies). Indeed there is a worrying increase in the number rated "inadequate":

“Children in primary schools have a better chance than ever of attending an effective school. Eighty-two per cent of primary schools are now good or outstanding, which means that 190,000 more pupils are attending good or outstanding primary schools than last year. However, the picture is not as positive for secondary schools: only 71% are good or outstanding, a figure that is no better than last year. Some 170,000 pupils are now in inadequate secondary schools compared with 100,000 two years ago.” (Ofsted annual report 2014 p8)

I have noted here that sponsored secondaries are far more likely to remain or become "inadequate" than similar maintained schools, and here that sponsored academies lead to slower school improvement. The concern is that the direct effect of sponsored academies has actually been this substantial increase in secondaries rated "inadequate".

The data indicates that the Education Bill, in forcing all "inadequate" or "coasting" schools to become sponsored academies, is likely to substantially increase the number of pupils in "inadequate" schools.

Data Notes

Data on pupil numbers come from DfE for 2010 and 2015.

Data on schools overall Ofsted ratings come from Ofsted Data View.

The Ofsted dataset on ratings for all schools (June 2015), from which the numbers of Sponsored academies that are "good" or "outstanding" were calculated can be found here.

My calculations indicate that there are 997,000 more children in "good" or "outstanding" primaries in 2015 than in 2010 and 274,000 in secondaries, giving a total of 1.27 million. However 275,000 of the extra primary pupils are due to the increase in pupil numbers. If we take these out, the total is 999,000 extra pupils in "good" or "outstanding" schools, effectively the one milliion that the government claims.

Brent Labour fail to grasp nettle of Davani pay-off

I missed last night's Brent Council meeting but checking the Twitter feed it is clear that Labour made no attempt to address the issue of a pay-off to Cara Davani, controversial head of Brent HR, who resigned recently:

Ahead of the meeting Philip Grant had writtent the following email to his ward councillors:

Dear Fryent Ward councillors,

You have probably heard that on Wednesday a Council spokesperson confirmed that Cara Davani, Brent’s Director of HR and Administration, is leaving the Council at the end of June, to take a career break. If you had not heard, you can read the announcement, and reaction to it, at:

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/cara-devani-leaving-brent-council-to.html

While the Council’s statement praises ‘the significant contribution that Cara has made over the last 3 years’, it does not mention Ms Davani’s misdeeds, such as her vicious actions against a Brent employee as shown by findings of fact in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case. That case has already cost Brent Council probably a six-figure sum in legal fees, and will land the Council with a further bill, quite possibly a seven-figure sum (i.e. more than £1 million) in compensation, damages and costs when the remedy hearing makes its decision (likely to be in about three months time).

Given this background, and the serious damage done to Brent’s reputation by the finding that the Council “racially discriminated” against Ms Clarke, I am seriously concerned (as are many others) about the financial terms on which Ms Davani may be leaving the Council’s employment. She is leaving at the end of June, and I would not seek to interfere with her salary entitlement up to that date (even though any decent person would have resigned when the judgment was published last September, and any other Chief Executive would have either insisted on that resignation or taken immediate action to dismiss her for gross misconduct). However, that last salary payment should be the only further financial reward that Cara Davani receives from Brent Council.

There should be no other “payoff” or leaving payment of whatever description made to her. If Ms Davani has been “persuaded” to leave now, there is talk of a possible “compromise package” - which, I understand, following changes made to HR procedures during Ms Davani’s reign, would normally be agreed on by either the Director of HR or the Chief Executive. As she is the Director of HR, the Chief Executive (Christine Gilbert) is her friend and former colleague from Tower Hamlets Council and Ofsted, who she helped to bring into Brent in 2012, the interim Director of HR is to be Mildred Phillips (another former colleague, first brought into Brent as an interim consultant, then given a permanent position and promoted by Ms Davani to be her deputy), it would not be possible for the amount of any payment, even if one were deserved (which it most certainly would not), to be arrived at on an arm’s length basis. It may be that she is leaving now, while she still has “friends in high places”.

[And please don’t suggest that the terms of any payment might be agreed instead by Brent’s Principal Employment Lawyer - Ms Davani’s personal and business partner, Andy Potts - or by its Chief Operating Officer, Lorraine Langham, another former colleague of Ms Davani and Ms Gilbert at Tower Hamlets and Ofsted. It is the extent of this “cronyism” at high levels in Brent Council that has previously allowed Ms Davani to get away with her actions against Rosemarie Clarke, and other now-former employees of the Council.]

The is another financial aspect of Cara Davani’s leaving Brent which councillors need to ensure is handled properly. The full title of the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case is Ms RC Clarke v. 1) The London Borough of Brent and 2) Ms Cara Davani. Ms Davani is a separately named respondent in the case, even though it appears that she did not have separate legal representation at the full Tribunal hearing, with Brent’s barrister (at Brent’s expense) effectively defending her as well. There should be no agreement made under which Brent agrees to pay, or indemnify Ms Davani in respect of, any award of compensation, damages or costs made against Cara Davani personally as the second respondent in the case. I also believe that Brent should make clear to Ms Davani that she will need to arrange and pay for her own legal representation in the case after she leaves the Council’s employment at the end of June. 

At first sight, this may sound vindictive, as the case relates to actions she took while Brent’s Head of HR (although she held this role up to 31 March 2013 as a self-employed interim consultant) and as interim, then formally appointed, Operational Director of HR. However, it is clear from the evidence and findings of fact in the Tribunal judgement that her actions against Ms Clarke were totally contrary to the Council’s HR policy and practices, and that her victimisation of Ms Clarke was done for reasons of personal spite, as a result of Ms Clarke complaining of being bullied and harassed by Ms Davani. Her actions were therefore not in the proper performance of her duties, particularly when those duties were of Brent’s most senior HR officer, who should have been leading by example.

I hope you will agree with the two propositions which I have highlighted, and that you will take early action to see that these are put in place. I would suggest that you could ask for “Departure from the Council of the Director of HR and Administration” as an item to be put on the agenda for the Full Council meeting on 22 June, with the current Chief Executive (or her representative, if Ms Gilbert is not available to attend) making a statement about Ms Davani’s departure, and then giving members the chance to comment or ask questions. The Chief Executive should give at least outline details of any planned payments, over and above her basic salary to 30 June 2015, which are proposed, and in particular, be asked to confirm that Ms Davani will be personally liable for any award made in respect of her as the second respondent in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case, and that Brent will not pay, or indemnify her in any way, in respect of such an award against Cara Davani personally. I am copying this email to the Chief Executive, for her information.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email, and let me have at least a brief response to my comments, which reflect the views of many people, even though I am the one articulating them to you. Please feel free to forward this email to any of your fellow councillors, if you wish to seek their views before deciding what action you should take in response to it. Thank you. Best wishes,

Philip Grant

The Education Bill: A solution that will harm schools

Henry Stewart published this useful background article on the Education and Adoption Bill yesterday before the House of Commons meeting on the Bill organised by the Anti academies Alliance. First published by Local schools Network.

Today is the second reading of Nicky Morgan’s Education and Adoption Bill. The main purpose is to speed up the conversion to academy status of “inadequate” and “coasting” schools, It will force local authorities and governing bodies to implement an academy order, whether or not they feel it is in the best interest of the children.

And the evidence increasingly suggests it is not in the best interest of those children. The education select committee, chaired by Graham Stuart of the Conservatives, carried out a thorough review of academies and free schools and found no such evidence. “Academisation is not always successful nor is it the only proven alternative for a struggling school,”

Announcing the bill, the Secretary of State claimed to have “education experts who know exactly what they have to do to make a failing school outstanding.” I have submitted a Freedom of Information request to ask how many schools rated “Inadequate” by Ofsted have been converted and how many of these have since become Outstanding. I await the response with interest. 

A study of the current Ofsted listing of the most recent inspections for all secondary schools suggests she is unlikely to find many. For secondaries the number of schools going from Inadequate last time to Outstanding this time is precisely zero. For primaries there are eight schools listed as making that remarkable transition but none are academies. All are local authority or voluntary aided schools (“maintained schools”).

The Ofsted list, which shows the current and previous inspection, shows that a secondary school is far more likely to improve its Ofsted rating if it is not a sponsored academy. With academies that have had two Ofsted inspections since conversion (as the report does not list a school’s rating pre-conversion) we find:

Sponsored academies twice as likely to stay Inadequate

For secondary schools previously rated as inadequate, sponsored academies are twice as likely (18% v 9%) to stay inadequate as maintained schools. Non-academies are over three times more likely (27% v 6%) to move from Inadequate to Good or Outstanding than sponsored academies.

Sponsored academies twice as likely to fall from RI to Inadequate

For those previously rated “Requires Improvement” they are more than twice as likely (20% v 8%) to fall to Inadequate if they are a Sponsored academy

Non-academies three times as likely to move from Good to Outstanding

For secondary schools previously rated Good, they are almost four times as likely (19% v 5%) to fall to Inadequate if they are Sponsored academies. At the same time they are more than three times as likely to become Outstanding from Good (16% v 5%) if they are a maintained school as opposed to a Sponsored academy

These dramatic differences are only true of sponsored academies, generally schools that were “underperforming” and sponsored as an academy by another school or by an academy chain. “Converter academies”, where a school is generally Good or Outstanding and chooses to convert, perform as well as maintained schools.

This analysis appears to show that conversion of a school that is rated Inadequate is likely to slow its improvement. Indeed, rather than helping it, becoming a sponsored academy is more likely to lead to a school falling back to being Inadequate and less likely to become Good or Outstanding.

There is no data to back up the Secretary of State’s claims. The Bill is very clearly based on ideology not evidence. As the Education Select committee also stated, “the government should stop exaggerating the success of academies”. It is advice that Nicky Morgan would do well to take.

Note: This analysis only includes secondary schools. The reason is that, to qualify, a sponsored academy must have had two Ofsted inspections since conversion. While this is true of 211 sponsored academy secondary schools, it is only true of 2 sponsored academy primary schools.