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.

'Significant risks' attached to academy accounts warns National Audit Office

From the Local Schools Network LINK by Janet Downs

The National Audit Office has warned of ‘significant’ risks attached to academy accounts in a letter to auditors LINK. These include:

CAPITAL RISKS

1    The expansion of the capital programme in 2014/15 involves different ways of acquiring land such as buying freeholds or leasing.

2    There’s a risk these ‘ownership arrangements’ aren’t identified correctly and are included in the wrong accounts.

OTHER MATTERS

There is an ‘inherent risk’ of ‘material or systematic irregularity’ across the whole academies sector because of the ‘number and variety of providers’. The NAO is particularly concerned that:

1    Academy trusts don’t always seek approval from the Education Secretary for transactions which trusts aren’t delegated to make.

2    Related-party transactions might not be ‘arms-length’ or ‘at cost’.

3    Fraud or misuse of funds, especially at ‘trust level’ in Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs), could take place.

4    Academies with long-standing deficits could become insolvent.

The NAO has listed factors which it wants academy auditors to consider when identifying whether there is a ‘risk of irregularity’. These include:

1    Heads ‘using academy funds for personal gain’.

2    ‘Inappropriate expense claims’ for staff or trustees.

3    ‘Unjustified salary increases’.

4    Weak controls at trust level over activities of individual academies within MATs.

5    Transactions which breach the Academies Financial Handbook.

6    Weaknesses in procurement (including employment or related-party transactions).

The letter to auditors asks them to notify the NAO if they identify ‘significant risks of material misstatement’ in academy accounts.

AUTHOR’S COMMENTS

The number of academy trusts, MATs and sponsors is continues to rise. And Education Secretary Nicky Morgan has pleaded with businesses to run academies. But the NAO already has significant concerns about risks linked to the present ‘number and variety’ of providers.

It appears these serious misgivings are not enough to prompt a rethink. On the contrary, the Education and Adoption Bill will make it easier for the Government to push forward academy conversion. This is despite an earlier NAO report finding formal methods such as academy conversion were less effective in improving struggling schools than informal methods such as local support. And an even earlier NAO report (2010) which warned about potential conflicts of interests between sponsors and their academies.

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.

Barry Gardiner vows to defy Brent Labour Council on Byron Court expansion

Asked by parents at last night's Sudbiry Hustings about the proposed  Byron Court Primary School expansion, Barry Gardiner, Labour candidate for Brent North, reiterated his opposition.  He said that a primary school of more than 1,000 pupils was unacceptable and said that if Brent Council granted planning permission, he would appeal against it to the Labour Secretary of State (if Labour won the election).

The other candidates at the hustings Scott Bartle (Green), Paul Lorber (Liberal Democrat) and Luke Parker (Conservative) also opposed the expansion on varying grounds.

Scott Bartle emphasised the Green's commitment to human sized schools and support for local authorities to be given back the power to plan and build new schools. The Green Party would bring academies and free schools back into the local autoirty family of schools to bring order back to the system. He said that the way Gladstone Free School had failed to open leaving pupils adrift was a scandal.

Barry Gardiner also referred to the 'free school' disaster and criticised the Tory approach to academies which had turned on its head Labour's original concept of a fresh start for failing schools.

Paul Lorber opposed the expansion on grounds of size but said that the real issue was the lack of any land for new schools of any kind in the borough. He mentioned the three form entry primary that Quintain were due to build near the stadium but said that he had no idea when that woudl be built.

Luke Parker wanted more free schools in the borough and claimed that Brent Council were opposed to them on ideological grounds and because they were under pressure from teaching unions.

Green Party: Holistic approach to education and poverty will redress the balance for children

Responding to Tristram Hunt's article on Green Party education policy, Green Party schools spokeperson Samantha Pancheri said:

Tristram Hunt’s attack on our education policies demonstrate how out of touch Labour are with ordinary people and suggest that schools should take on the responsibility of mopping up the damage caused by soaring inequality.

When we have teachers taking food into class to feed hungry children , or consoling sobbing pupils at the end of the day because they don’t want to go home to a cold, dark house, it is startlingly obvious that there is a much larger problem in today’s society. Teachers are not social workers, and we should not be placing these demands on them. It is only by looking at the problem holistically, and by taking bold steps to eliminate poverty that we can begin to redress the balance for children.

Our education policies work in tandem with those designed to lift families out of poverty and close the wealth inequality gap. By taking that strain off schools and teachers, we can begin to support all children in accessing the same high quality education that teachers strive to deliver.

Teachers have welcomed our policies and recognise that the focus is on providing a child-focused school system, relieving the workload on teachers, and reducing bureaucracy to put accountability into local hands. The academy system, introduced by Labour and furthered by the coalition government, has failed to improve standards for schools and outcomes for children.

With 40% of newly qualified teachers leaving the profession within 5 years, and 25,000 unqualified teachers working in state schools and academies, our education system is floundering and is in urgent need of sensible reform.

Samantha will be answering questions on Green Party policy for the Education Guardian. Here are the details:

In the run-up to the election, Education Guardian has arranged for readers to interview education spokespeople of the political parties. Is there a key question they seem to be avoiding so far? Do you feel they need to provide some evidence for their views? Ask whatever you like. First up is Samantha Pancheri of the Greens. Coming soon: other parties. Tweet us your questions using the hashtag #guardianeduGreens, or email alice.woolley@guardian.co.uk with GREENS in the subject field.
We can’t wait to see what you come up with … Questions by noon on Friday 30 January please. Over to you.

Hunt's neo-liberalism distorts his understanding of education policy

Tristram Hunt's Guardian attack on the Green party's education policy LINK , characteristising it as 'total madness', seems to have spectacularly misfired today. Guardian readers looking up the detail have come back to comment favourably on the policy.

Our policy does of course mark a clear break with the neo-liberal policies of the three main parties which support competition and marketisation of schools based on what Chomsky recently called the 'grading of students and teachers'.

Labour of course began the marketisation of schools with their sponsored academies and this, along with the privatisation of the NHS, was a key element in Blair's New Labour strategy.  Hunt, along with Lord Adonis, is essentially a Blairite and we cannot expect him to offer a fundamental critique of what the system, instigated by them,  has become.

So what is this 'madness' Hunt has found:

Delaying the start of formal education until the age of six

There are many countries in the world where children start later than in England and Wales and achieve just as well, if not better, with less anxiety. The Green Party takes account of such evidence and understands the importance of play and exploration in early childhood rather than the testing and ranking at ever earlier ages supported by the neo-liberal parties.

Ending SAT tests in Primary Schools

SATS are essentially a way of grading teachers and schools putting them and their students under intense pressure. This has had the effect of narrowing the curriculum, deskilling teachers who are under pressure to 'teach to the test' and removes much of the joy from teaching and learning. Greens have a much broader view of what constitutes education.

Hunt suggests that children's progress would no longer be monitored, but of course SATs are not the only way to monitor and evaluate progress and tell us little about the individual child compared with other systems.

Abolition of Ofsted will end accountability

The  Green Party would replace Ofsted with a collaborative system ending much of the stress, illness and rushed judgements associated with Ofsted:

The Green Party will instate a system of local accountability using continuous, collaborative assessment of schools. We would replace OFSTED with an independent National Council of Educational Excellence which would have regional officers tasked to work closely with Local Authorities. The National Council would be closely affiliated with the National Federation for Educational Research (NFER).

Where pupils’ attainment and progress is reported as part of a school’s holistic report to parents and the wider community it will include assessments, including value-added, moderated by the National Council of Education Excellence and the Local Authority’s School Improvement Service as well as the school’s own self evaluation.

Education cannot compensate for society
 
In a variation of Michael Gove's 'enemies of promise' labelling of his opponents, Hunt suggests that Natalie Bennett speaks the language of 'low aspiration and defeatism' because she recognises that schools cannot compensate for all the ills of an unequal society.

This is what Natalie actually said:

I am gravely concerned about low exam results and high dropout rates from children from disadvantaged backgrounds. But I understand that even wonderful schools can’t fully compensate for severe poverty and stress at home - which is why making the minimum wage a living wage, affordable and warm homes, and ensuring decent benefits are available to all who needs them, are education issues as well as social justice issues

More than 40 years in teaching and school governance has certainly taught me the importance of material conditions, and I would add a daily hot meal and a place to study to the list. These make an impact on levels of energy, motivation and self-worth. We have to work on both improving education and improving living conditions and increasing equality.

The focus on individual progression in education with its blame for failure on pupils, parents, teachers and schools, serves to let politicians off the hook over increased inequality, child poverty and inadequate housing.

What Hunt didn't say

Hunt failed to attack the Green Party's policy to end academies and free schools, integrate existing ones back into the Local Authority system, strengthen LAs through better funding and increased democratic accountability,  restore LA's ability to build new schools where they are needed and end Performance Related Pay for teachers.

Perhaps they were too popular for him to advertise?

Green Party Education policy is HERE

Why the Green Party should endorse the NUT's Manifesto

The Green Party is the only one of the mainstream parties that challenge the Global Education Reform Movement (GERM). The GERM seeks to move both the structure and content of education in a neo-liberal direction. It reduces the role of education to competition in an ever expanding global market and opens the system to private profit.

I have written about this in an article on the Open Democracy website LINK

The National Union of Teachers and the Green Party both recognise the need to challenge this threat and so there is underlying agreement on principles between the NUT Manifesto for the 2015 General Election and Green Party education policy.

I have published a paper on the Green Party members' site giving a detailed comparison of the two documents and here publish the main findings. I think there is sufficient overlap for the Green Party to broadly endorse the NUT Manifesto with some more discussion needed on particular aspects.

Here are some major areas of agreement:

VISION AND CURRICULUM

• Both want to develop an exciting new vision for education and move away from a narrow prescriptive curriculum. Greens reject market driven models of education that see  its role only in terms of international economic competitiveness  and preparation for work. they advocate a system that enable people to participate fully in society and lead a fulfilled life.
• Both want a broad, balanced and enriching entitlement curriculum with the Greens emphasising that learners and teachers should be able to develop their own content within this context.
•  The NUT and Greens agree on the need for 14-19 qualifications framework which give equal value to academic, vocational, creative and practical subjects.

ACCOUNTABILITY

• There is agreement on the need for a new approach to evaluating schools include much wider involvement of parents, teachers and community. The Greens would replace Ofsted with an independent National Council for Academic Excellence, linked with the NfER. This would work collaboratively with schools and local authorities on school improvement.
• The Greens want to abolish league tables and the NUT wants to replace them with national sampling. More discussion is needed on how the latter would work.

TEACHERS

• Both want to reclaim teachers' professional respect, responsibility and autonomy with the NUT citing the successful London Challenge.
• Greens and the NUT agree that all children should be taught by qualified teachers or those in training towards qualification and the need for quality initial teacher education and in-service  education and training.
• The NUT wants a recruitment strategy that reflects the diverse nature of school communities while the Greens emphasise education on diversity issues for teachers and other school workers and the effective equality and diversity monitoring of recruitment and staff development.
• The NUT wants to reduce teachers' workload, restore a national pay structure and professional levels of pay, and opposes the extension of the retirement age to 68. The Green Party promises  to work with the teaching unions to reverse the process by which teachers have gradually been deskilled and their professional autonomy eroded and will review pension arrangements and retirement age with then. The Green Party opposes performance relation Pay for teachers.

CHILD POVERTY

•  This is a concern for both the NUT and the Green Party and there is agreement on the immediate need for the abolition of the Bedroom Tax, high quality nursery education , restoration of the Education Maintenance Allowance or a similar scheme. The Green's proposal on a Citizen's Income could replace the allowance in the long term and would begin to tackle child poverty.
• Both agree on the urgent need to tackle youth unemployment.

SCHOOL PLACES

•  There is agreement on the need to strengthen local authorities' role in educational provision and in particular the need for the restoration of the LA's power to provide new school places though building new LA schools.

PRIVATISATION

•  Both Greens and the NUT call for an end to the marketisation of education and oppose schools being run for profit. Greens see education as a right and an entitlement that should be free at the point of delivery to people of all ages.
• Greens oppose the creation of more academies and free schools and would integrate them into the local authority school system. The NUT call for the end of approval for new free schools and support the right of all schools to return to the status of local authority schools. The Greens support parents and communities fighting the forced academisation of their schools.
• Both agree on the need for the restoration of funding to local authorities and their role in overseeing the quality of education in their locality.

INVESTMENT IN EDUCATION

•  The NUT calls for the restoration of education funding to at least 2010 levels in real terms. There is nothing explicit in Green Party policy but it is certainly something we should explore.

Natalie Bennett explains Green Party policy on education

Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green party, spoke yesterday at a meeting of the Anti Academies Alliance on Green Party policy. My apologies for the jerkiness of the video at the beginning.

'The MDC is okay with me' says Pavey but others disagree

Brent's Cabinet met at Roundwood Youth Centre this afternoon, as part of a programme to move the meeting around the borough. It was followed by a walk-about in the area.  There was more discussion than usual with backbenchers and residents contributing but once again a Brent Council meeting was marred by the failure of councillors to project their voices and the lack of microphones.

Democracy must be HEARD to be done!

The Cabinet approved the action plan arising from the Brent Education Commission which includes partnership work between schools and support for the Brent Schools Partnership which has recently appointed a Strategic Director who will work a three day week.

One of the more controversial issues was  planning school places:

Objective: Ensure that the local authority is proactive in encouraging the best schools in Brent and free school providers  to set up new schools in areas where extra places are need.

Activities:

Work wuth the Education Funding Agency, DfE Free Schools team, the Regional Schools Commissioner and other partners to attract the best quality providers to Brent.

Promote the establishment of effective local chains/federations/partnerships to promote new schools and offer a local solution for schools at risk of failure.

A Labour Council supporting free schools and chains will stick  in the throats of many, particularly on the day the Michaela Free school opened in a building that remains a building site and when Gateway and Gladstone Free Schools failed to open on time.

Deputy Leader and former lead member for Children and Families, Cllr Michael Pavey, raised the possibility of the strategy changing if there is a change of government policy after the General Election.

Cabinet approved plans to make school expansion contracts more attractive to building companies by putting several into a package.

The London Mayor's plans for a Mayoral development Corporation in the Old Oak/Park Royal area provoked most discussion. As explained in an earlier blog Brent Council has not opposed the MDC in principle. Backbencher Cllr Dan Filson thought that was a mistake and said that Brent should start from the position that the MDC is undemocratic and limits the input of Brent council into the plans. He though that having the three council leaders (Brent, Hammersmith & Fulham, Ealing) sitting on the MDC would not solve the problem as they would not have time to get down to the nitty gritty. The focus of the MDC was on Old Oak rather than the important task of reinvigorating the Park Royal Industrial Estate and rescueing it from being mainly devoted to warehousing.

Resident John Cox said that in the Harlesden incinerator campaign there were 180 councillors they could lobby. With the MDC it would be just three.  He said much of the land was publicly-owned, which we purchased in 1948 when nationalising the railways. Instead of flogging off public assets for the maximum value to developers, and then being supplicants to try and get some (so-called) affordable housing, we should value some of the land as zero, in perpetuity, and the state should build social housing. We could even call it council housing if we wanted to. He said the area was more like the Docklands development rather than the Olympic site.

Cox said that there was no chance of Crossrail coming to Wembley Central station  but Cllr Butt said that the Council had not given up the battle to make Wembley Central a destination: 'We can't afford to not having trains stopping there'. It was essential for the housing planned for Wembley.

Cllr Claudia Hector, another Labour backbencher, said that housing in the new development must be 'genuinely affordable' not the London Mayor's 80% of affordable rent. Director of Regeneration and Major Projects, Andy Donald, said the council was aware of that and that there would be a mixture of housing.

Cllr Pavey said that he thought the MDC was the right structure, with the wrong Mayor.  He could not see a combination of the three local authorities (Ed: Ealing's suggestion) as working for such a large development.

Muhammed Butt said that the three councils were continuing to talk but he stressed that they must come up with a 'credible alternative': 'We will have to work with the MDC if we don't come up with anything else'.

The Cabinet approved a bid to the GLA to make Alperton and Wembley Housing Zones. 20 will be created across London at a cost of £400m to create 50,000 new homes and 100,000 associated homes over the next 10 years.

Margaret McLennan said that the Zones were essential, especially in Alperton, to provide much needed infrastructure including new schools, health centres, transport etc to kickstart the areas. Cllr Perrin, lead member for the environment was concerned that this was at the  cost of moving businesses out of the area and there were also issues over contaminated land near the canal at Alperton.

I was pleased to see that £6m has been set aside for the provision of school nurses but this is going to external procurement, rather than in-house and only one bidder has emerged. it was confirmed that the provision would be free to local authority, academies and free schools but not to private schools. There was no detail about how many hours per school would be involved.

There was a rushed discussion of the Borough Plan where the Council hope to engage young people in schools in discussions about the future of the borough and no discussion at all on the Quarter 1 Performance Report where council services are given a RAG (Red, Amber, Green) rating. Support to enable families to be independent, take up of 3 year olds nursery education grant and the number of in-year applications for primary places getting a place withion four weeks of applying were all given a red rating.

Parent survey of Local Authority role in education shows potential support for Green Party policies

I print below the full press release from London Councils on the YouGov poll they commissioned on parents' views of the role of local authorities in education.  Green Party policy adopted at our Spring Conference is for the restoration of LAs power to build new schools where they are needed and for the integration of academies and free schools into the LA system.  Labour Party policy, especially on academies and free schools, has not broken free from Coalition policies.

The survey shows that we have a potential audience amongst parents for these policies.

• Leadership: 41 per cent of parents would turn to their council first if they had governance and leadership concerns – only 28 per cent say Ofsted.
• Free schools: 68 per cent feel that local authorities should have powers to intervene in these schools, an increase of 6 percentage points from last year.
• School places:  81 per cent support council influence over school places, up from 76 per cent last year.

London parents would turn to their local authority first if they had concerns about their local schools, a new survey reveals.

In the first survey of London parents since the Birmingham ‘Trojan Horse’ scandal, the highest proportion, 41 per cent, of parents said their first point of contact if they were concerned about governance and leadership in their child’s school would be their local authority - 28 per cent said Ofsted, 4 per cent said central government.

The poll, carried out by YouGov on behalf of London Councils, which represents London’s 33 local authorities, also found rising support from parents for councils to have a role in underperforming free schools.  Of those polled, 68 per cent of parents considered that local authorities should have power of influence over free schools, up by 6 percentage points from last year.

Asked whether they support councils having influence over all schools in their area (including free schools and academies) to find more school places or expand, 81 per cent of parents agreed – up from 76 per cent last year.

Cllr Peter John, London Councils’ Executive member for children and young people, said: “If you’re a parent and you’re worried about leadership or staff issues at your local school, it’s only natural you’d turn to your local council where they know the local issues. But councils don’t have formal oversight over free schools and academies, which is evidently confusing for parents, as this survey reveals.

“What’s more, parents increasingly support a council role in influencing schools to expand, if there is clear local need to build more places. This isn’t surprising given the scale of the shortage in London.
“Of course head teachers should run schools day-to-day, but it’s clear from this survey that on the wider issues, parents want a council role. The government should listen to mums and dads and allow councils to act in parents’ interests.”

Pressure on school places continues to rise in London due to a recent baby boom. London needs to create 133,000 primary and secondary school places by 2018, according to recent London Councils’ analysis (1). Councils are responsible for providing a place for every child, but cannot open schools themselves or direct academies to expand in areas of need.

83 per cent said there is an important council role in ensuring education standards are high in schools, up slightly from 82 per cent who said this last year.

The poll also revealed that 51 per cent of parents thought the education system was more under central government control than they had previously assumed.

There was also a modest 3 per cent rise (from 29 per cent in 2013 to 32 per cent in 2014) in parents opposed to the idea of moving toward more academies and free schools.

Brent School Improvement Service sets out changes as interim head leaves

Rebecca Matthews, Interim Head of Brent School Improvement Service, is ending her contract and will be leaving tomorrow. Sara Williams is currently trying to find someone to cover the role. Clearly given the events at St Mary's RC in Kilburn and the concerns raised in the report of the Education Commission, a quality permanent appointment is essential.

Matthews today wrote to Brent headteachers announcing changes in the core offer made by Brent School Improvement Service: 

One of the main changes to the Core Offer reflects our determination to get the right level of support to schools as soon as possible.  To that end, link advisers and school improvement leads will be undertaking data analysis during July and August as soon as provisional data are available.  

If this early analysis raises concern, at the start of the autumn term, we shall write to you and visit your school as soon as can be arranged so that we can discuss the appropriate levels of support.  It may of course be the case that provisional data will change as there are always marginal changes when dis-applications are taken into consideration.  However, we agree that waiting for Raiseonline data in October/November means that we lose critical months.  Evidence shows that the sooner we can establish Rapid Improvement Groups, the better the progress within the school, and the greater the involvement of governors, the school improvement service and other relevant partners, including school to school support.

For some schools this will mean a change in their School Improvement Partner, an individual who monitors and supports the school.

The accompanying document sets out the role of the local authority: 

Brent is committed to working with schools to ensure that all are good or outstanding. The School Improvement Service recognises that much of the expertise to ensure this happens resides in schools.   It also recognises that the pressure on schools to secure or retain good and outstanding judgements requires focussed effort and the danger of stretching capacity too far can result in a fall in standards.  

It is therefore essential for the local authority to retain a leadership role; as the guardian of quality and standards for all schools; a coordination role in order to capitalise on expertise in schools and facilitate its use to ensure that standards are not diluted elsewhere; and a brokerage role to identify and sign post good practice.  

The partnership between the School Improvement Service, the Brent Schools Partnership (BSP) and the two local Teaching School Alliances offers an exciting and creative opportunity to develop new ways of working that will benefit all schools, leaders, teachers, children and young people.  Such partnerships are best developed over time, and this core offer is revised in July 2014 following the first full year of implementation, learning lessons from the past year and receiving feedback from schools and school improvement staff involved in the process.  During the course of the coming academic year, ways of working collaboratively will continue to develop.  

It is the LA's responsibility to maintain a full overview of the effectiveness of all schools including sponsored academies, converter academies, free schools, the local college and training providers.   This responsibility is fulfilled through desk top analysis as well as through visits to all schools.  All schools are allocated a link adviser who will respond to the statutory responsibilities through at least one visit per year to each school.  

For maintained schools, we will deliver a differentiated Core Offer which departs from the more universal offer previously in place. The purpose of this Core Offer is to provide an appropriately differentiated offer for the most effective and efficient use of public funding.  It will ensure that the best schools are able to define and develop their improvement journey as they see fit, purchasing support from the LA or elsewhere as required.  For those schools not yet good or outstanding, intensive, skilled and purposeful support and monitoring will challenge and encourage the school to improve at speed, and result in intervention if this is not successful.

Where academies, free schools, the college and training providers fail to provide the standards required, it is appropriate for the LA to hold these establishments to account.    This will be through robust discussion with the head teacher and sponsor or trust representative and for 16-19 institutions, with the principal or director.  For academies the LA may raise concerns about performance directly with the Department for Education. (Schools causing concern; Statutory guidance for local authorities; May 2014)

Brent has had several schools now which had been judged 'Good' by Ofsted previously now being down-graded to 'Requires Improvement' or 'Inadequate'. An early-warning system for such schools is essential and the document sets out what will be provided: 

For schools which are good or outstanding, and whose data shows improvement, the LA’s involvement will be light touch.  Once a year, maintained schools will be visited by the school’s link adviser.  Other institutions will be visited by a local authority officer.  The meeting will address a range of issues, depending on the context and situation of the school.  These could include:

·    Standards at the end of each key stage

·    Attainment and progress at the end of each year and for all groups

·    The impact of the pupil premium for low achievers and the more able

·    A review of Ofsted key issues

·    A review of previous recommendations from the School Improvement Service

·    The school’s key priorities

·    Moderation of the school’s self-evaluation

·    A learning walk to judge the quality of teaching and learning

·    The opportunity to identify good practice.

This visit will ensure that the LA can validate the school's own assessment of its strengths and areas for development.  It will also allow for an assessment of the school's capacity to sustain its position and bring about further improvement.  We will support and challenge good and outstanding schools where specific improvement is required and we will celebrate good practice and disseminate it across all schools. 

This will lead to a short report providing an annual ‘health check’ for the school with any recommendations that result from the meeting.  Support to implement the recommendations could be purchased by the school from the School Improvement Service or any other provider or brokered through the Brent School Partnership or with the Teaching School Alliances.  Opportunities for support still exist for these schools, but they will be provided through the traded offer.

It is noteworthy that Brent now recognises and claims a role in monitoring academies and free schools and it will be interesting to see how this develops and whether doors are opened to LA officers:

Academies and 16-19 institutions judged as requiring improvement, serious weaknesses or special measures will also be offered the RIG process without cost, but if they accept, they will be expected to source their own additional support which could be from the local authority or elsewhere.  If an academy or 16-19 institution chooses not to accept the RIG (Rapid Improvement Group), the local authority will ask for details of the actions that the trust, corporation or board will be putting in place to secure improvement, and would request a termly update on the impact.

 However action by the local authority if such interventions are unsuccessful is limited as academies and free schools are directly accountable to the Secretary of State and FE colleges have their own management boards.

Ironically, academisation, which reduces the LA's powers of intervention is listed as a possible solution for failing maintained schools:

The production of the action plan will be the responsibility of the school, working with the link adviser.   The content of the action plan will lead to the implementation of a support programme, with help from the School Improvement Service, the Brent Schools Partnership or the Teaching School Alliances as appropriate, which will be monitored and reviewed at each half termly meeting.  The plan should be specifically tailored to the needs of the school to include support for leadership and management, teaching, learning, inclusion and governance.

Improvement for schools in these circumstances must be swift and embedded in sustained good practice, recognised by Ofsted monitoring visits or LA reviews.   If improvement has not been demonstrated, the LA will use its powers of intervention to ensure improvement.

LA powers of intervention for maintained schools include:

·      Requiring a governing body to enter into arrangements to secure improvement

·      Appointing additional governors

·      Appointing an Interim Executive Board

·      Suspending the delegated budget

·      Considering academy status.

Michael Pavey, previously lead member for children and families in Brent, when first taking over the role had opposed academies and free schools but later acquiesced in the forced academisation of Gladstone Park Primary and actively supported Copland High School's take over by Ark Academy. Little is known of the new lead member, Cllr Ruth Moher's views, but a policy of forced academisation in a Labour authority is bound to be controversial.

Finally there will be efforts to ensure the quality of 'school improvement specialists' and the move to 'school to school support' will continue:

The local authority is well placed to have an overview of quality in the borough.   It will broker school to school support as required.  We recognise that we will not be the only agency involved in this work, but we can offer a broad overview of all schools when required to identify appropriate support.  We will work with the Brent Schools Partnership and Teaching School Alliances to secure leadership capacity and appropriate support to accelerate improvement.  We will work with partners to assure quality and review the impact of support, training and service delivery.  We will share our findings with head teachers and chairs of governors.

We will work with partners to increase leadership and governance development opportunities. Together, we will provide an enhanced range of support and training as required through a needs analysis.

We will provide support both from school improvement specialists and encourage school to school capacity.  We will ensure that school improvement specialists are highly qualified and experienced, most having recent and relevant headship or senior leadership experience, Ofsted training and wide experience of school improvement strategies from a variety of contexts.  We will involve schools in the appointment of these staff and look to secondment opportunities as appropriate.

Not mentioned sufficiently in the proposals is the funding implications of the proposals with the Brent Council budget expected to be under severe pressure next year.  The School Improvement Service has already suffered cuts, the financial compensation for schools engaged in 'school to school support', and the capacity of sufficient numbers of schools to buy into the Brent Schools Partnership are all issues to be addressed.

After all, Michael Pavey claimed that forced academisation of Copland was necessary because Brent Council did not have the capacity or resources to manage the school improvement process itself, and needed Ark to do the job

Education Commission honestly critiques Brent's record but does it have the answers?

Regular readers of Wembley Matters will be aware of concerns over the fragmentation of education in the borough as free schools are proposed and academy conversions take place. The provision of additional school places has been ad hoc and often last minute and led by the Regeneration  department of the Council rather than Children and Families.

An Education commission set up by Chief Executive Christine Gilbert, a former head of Ofsted, is reporting to the next Cabinet on Monday.  The report is to be welcomed but needs a much wider discussion. It is hard to see how how its far-reaching recommendations can be given proper consideration at a meeting with much else on the agenda and a lead member for Children and Families only a few weeks into her post.

The introduction starkly sets out the issues which in effect also constitutes a critique of the lack of leadership on education in the borough, a matter also raised on this blog.

Brent boasts impressive results in early years education and at key stage 1. Its GCSE results are close to the London average and its key stage 5 results are higher than the London average. But these achievements obscure less flattering statistics. 

Given the excellent education the youngest children in Brent receive, it would be reasonable to expect progress would be equally impressive by the time they reach key stage 2. Unfortunately, it is not. Brent lags the London average at key stage 2 and its position relative to the other 32 boroughs is getting worse: it slipped from 15th place in 2012 to 22nd last year. This trend cannot be allowed to continue. 

A few years ago, Brent outperformed most London authorities at GCSE, now it barely manages to be average. Although overall its youngsters perform creditably, disproportionately few of them get the highest grades. And even though a third of the authority’s secondary schools are classed as ‘Outstanding’ by Ofsted – compared to less than a quarter nationally – it has the highest proportion of ‘Inadequate’ schools in London. 

Unfortunately, these failings are magnified by a lack of shared vision and the absence of a strong, energetic relationship between the local authority and its schools. All want the best for the children in their care but too often good intentions are unsupported by good practice. And where good practice exists it is too rarely shared.

In short, education in Brent is muddling through; scrambling reactively to avoid immediate problems when it should be planning ahead, pulling together and setting its sights on becoming one of the highest performing boroughs in London so that children and young people thrive in all Brent Schools.

There are 34 recommendations in the report which I reproduce below.  The full report needs careful consideration but two things immediately strike me. One is the contradiction betweem the authority cutting back on its School Improvement Service whilst at the same time wanting to get to know its schools better and have early warning of any difficulties. Will handing over responsibility to the Brent Schools Partnership, an organisation at an early stage of development, be sufficient to address this problem. There is a worrying absence of any reference to the role of School Improvement Partners (SIPs), the 'inspectors' of old, in the school improvement process, and consideration of their effectiveness and quality control.

Secondly, given the fact that Crest Academy, City Academy and now Alperton Academy have received less than Good, and sometimes Inadequate Ofsted ratings, and the failure of two planned Free Schools to open, is the proposed cooperation with academy and free school providers a viable option?

The impact of cuts and staffing uncertainties is honestly assessed:

Feedback to the Commission indicated that the Council’s approach towards many issues is not sufficiently strategic or ambitious. It is described as often being too reactive and too late.

The Commission was given the example of the abolition of assessment levels, as announced by the Secretary of State. There seems little preparation for this and, consequently, a risk that each school will act separately, resulting in a lack of common language about assessment and learning across the borough.

Another example is the lack of forward planning for free schools meals capacity.

Head teachers believe that, to some extent, significant reductions in education staffing, particularly at managerial levels, have made this inevitable.

Another factor is the lack of continuity of staff within the Council. Lots of interim posts add to the challenges of long-term strategic planning and reduce the drive to implement agreed priorities.

Establishing a staffing structure, which has resilience and continuity, should be a priority for the new Director, Children and Young People

RECOMMENDATIONS

Education Strategy and Leadership 

1.     The local authority should set out a clear statement about its own role, within the changing education landscape, for discussion with the education community. This should be rooted in ambitious aspirations for and expectations of Brent Children and Brent Schools. The statement should underline the moral imperative for all schools in the borough to have shared ownership for the education of all children in every Brent school.

2.     The role of the governing body as an important force for support, challenge and improvement should be recognised and the local authority should invest in the development of governors.

3.     A strategic group involving the principal education partners should be established, chaired by the new Director of Children and Young People, to drive forward the education strategy in conjunction with key education partners.

4.     This new strategic group should develop and agree the vision for education in the borough. This must not be a protracted process. The resulting vision should lead to a strategy which contains a few key goals that are owned by all key participants and result in well-defined, agreed actions.

5.     The local authority, in collaboration with schools themselves, should set out challenging but achievable excellence targets demonstrating high expectations for children in the borough. The Commission believes that these excellence targets should include an expectation that all schools in the authority will be good or better within three years and that outcomes at key stages 2 and 4 will be at least 2% above the London average within three years.

6.     The Leader of the Council and the Lead Member for Education should establish a forum for meeting on a termly basis with a group of representative head teachers to ensure the education strategy is being taken forward and to reinforce the importance of education as part of the political agenda of the council. 
 

Planning School Places 

7.     The local authority should produce an agreed strategy for place planning. The quality of education and the potential for school improvement in any expansions should be the foremost priority when determining the programme of expansion.

8.     The Council should appoint one head of service to be responsible for drawing up and implementing all aspects of the place planning strategy across the two departments that currently have responsibilities for place planning.

9.     The new Director of Children and Young People should urgently review the authority’s arrangements for projecting the future school population and the geographical spread across the Borough to ensure they are rigorous and fit for purpose.

10. The local authority should be proactive in encouraging the best schools in Brent and free school providers to set up new schools in areas where extra places are needed. The Council should encourage open competition in order to establish new schools.

11. The place planning strategy, and future updates about its progress, should be kept under review and progress should be discussed with school leaders, chairs of governors, academies, and faith and community groups, on a regular basis. 


Knowing Brent Schools

 

12. To support school improvement, the local authority should put in place a system to provide each school with a picture of how they perform against both local and national indicators. These would be a range of quantitative and qualitative indicators. The process for designing this system, in particular the evidence used, should be co-produced with schools, both head teachers and governors.

13. To support their role as champions and guardians of the needs and interest of children, the local authority should produce an annual report that should be easily accessible to parents and the local community. This should set out achievements and progress in education in Brent, as well as highlighting challenges and areas for development. It should be sent to the governing bodies of all schools in Brent as well as academy trusts, Ofsted and the Secretary of State.

14. The local authority should urgently investigate, with schools, the introduction of a data tracking system that can be used to risk assess the progress and performance of schools within the school year as well as at the end of the year. This system should be co-produced with head teachers and school governors.

15. Through the new strategic group, an agreed programme of peer reviews should be established between schools, drawing on best practice in models elsewhere. The peer review model should influence Brent’s current Rapid Improvement Groups (RIG) process. Regular development opportunities should be provided for teachers to observe good practice in other schools.

16. The local authority and schools should devise a programme of activities to showcase excellence and interesting practice in education in Brent

17. The local authority, in conjunction with the Brent Schools Partnership and teaching schools, should publish case studies of good practice in local schools, before the end of 2014. This should give a clear picture of what good and outstanding schools look like in practice.

18. An annual schools awards scheme should be established in 2014/15 to recognise and celebrate practice in Brent schools. 
 

Promoting and supporting school - to - school networks 

19. As part of its changing role, the local authority should work together with all education partners to build the capacity and effectiveness of the Brent School Partnership. This should include its ability to commission teaching schools and other excellent providers in Brent.

20. The Brent School Partnership and the local authority should be encouraged to learn lessons for school partnerships from other authorities and from families of schools, such as chains, federations and trusts.

21. Mechanisms should be put in place across all schools in the borough for school-to- school challenge and support in order to improve practice and build shared ownership for the education of all children in Brent schools. The local authority should play a key role, encouraging schools to consider the benefits of cluster and other partnership arrangements and to break down any barriers that may prevent such collaboration.

22. The local authority should provide funding to the Brent School Partnership to appoint a full time Director, or coordinator, for two years with a formal review built into the end of year 1.

23. The new strategic group (see recommendation 2) should work with the Brent School Partnership steering group to agree a set of priorities and a costed programme for action in the school year, 2014-2015, for all schools. The local education authority should provide financial support to incentivise collaboration and work in clusters or networks. It should also agree a process for how the Brent School Partnership and teaching schools might be commissioned to provide and broker support for schools causing concern, including use of the Rapid Improvement Group process.

Providing challenge to address weaknesses

24. There should be more forensic examination of the schools that are assessed as being at risk or requiring improvement through investigation of teaching and its impact on learning in the classroom.

25. There is a need for more effective support for schools that are struggling, drawing on the wider capacity and expertise of other Brent schools.

26. The local authority should be bolder in deploying executive heads, NLEs, LLEs, teaching schools, federations and academy sponsors to ensure that schools judged inadequate or requiring improvement have the necessary leadership and governance expertise to drive improvement.

27. The local authority needs to identify underperformance at an early stage and to be prepared to be more robust in how it addresses concerns, including issues relating to underperformance in leadership. 


Improving school governance 

28. All schools in Brent should review their governance arrangements and consider reconstituting their governing body in line with the new regulations.

29. The local authority should complete and implement its review for nominating local authority governors with a view to speeding up the process, drawing in a wider pool of talent and making the skills and capacity of nominees the primary criteria for nomination.

30. The local authority should produce guidance for schools on conducting audits of governor skills.

31. The local authority should give greater priority within the governor development programme to understanding and using data and to supporting the role of governors in school improvement.

32. The local authority should broker collaborations between pairs of governing bodies to scrutinise each other’s performance data and to engender confidence and skill in providing constructive challenge.

33. The local authority should look at opportunities for governors to observe how each other works, perhaps on a cluster or network basis, and through developing contacts in other boroughs to observe and learn about good practice.

34. The best chairs of governors should be encouraged to seek accreditation as National Leaders of Governance and be deployed to support other chairs.

THE FULL REPORT IS AVAILABLE HERE