Thought Piece from Lisa Forster , Children’s Services – Finance Advisor
Restructuring the Education System- Academic Attainment and the New
Curriculum
The Coalition vehemently
believe that the UK’s education system needs investment and a radical
restructure to meet the skill and qualifications demands of the economy, both
today and in the future. This restructure has taken shape in two forms,
autonomy and curriculum. Taking autonomy first, at the extreme end we see this
is in the Academy and Free schools programmes whose aim, in true Darwinism
style is to stimulate competition and ensure survival of the fittest. Those
weak and failing schools will see themselves taken over by a stronger and more
popular institution, their independence will diminish and unless they can once
again prove their academic mettle they are likely to be swallowed up by the
operations of its more successful adversary.
The second form is that of
restructuring the curriculum in terms of content, process and outcome measures.
The desire to improve the UK’s state schools is an admirable one, and the
governments rationale can be seen in our rankings in the PISA (Programme for
Internal Student Assessment) Studies which are undertaken every three years, which
show that Britain is slowly sliding down the world education league tables in
terms of the academic prowess of 15 year old students.
In the PISA survey of 2000
(looking at 15 year old students) we ranked ranked 8th for maths,
7th for literacy and 4th for science. By 2009 England’s students ranked only 28th
for maths, 25th for reading and 16th for science.
Although
there is some argument that the PISA tests do not reflect the whole truth, especially
when another major study, TIMSS (Trends in
International Maths and Science Study) shows that the maths scores of English
13 and 14-year-olds rose compared with other countries over the past decade –
they do prove a powerful incentive for the Coalition to hang their hat on and
declare that the Labour government system was not working and so radical
reforms need to be implemented.
The 2011/12 Ofsted Annual Report had mixed reviews on school
performance,. On a positive note it starts with ‘schools are improving considerably’ and ‘standards are rising steadily’, however it acknowledges that
performance needs to be higher if we are to keep pace with our competitors,
stating that “England is being significantly
outperformed in applied reading and mathematics by several other European and
Commonwealth countries and Asian economies”.
In 2012 the government
announced that from 2014 it intended to strip out a vast number of vocational
qualifications from the school league tables. This was partly in response to a
government review headed by Professor Alison Wolf which suggested that schools
had been lured into offering vocational qualifications that attracted more
points in the school league tables yet did little to help the students gain
work or get into higher education. Michael Gove’s response to the review was
that "For too long the system has been
devalued by attempts to pretend that all qualifications are intrinsically the
same. Young people have taken courses that have led nowhere."
As always opinion differs on the right
course of action, whether you believe that some courses artificially bumped up
league tables or not is really only one aspect of the issue. The other side, is
that for some pupils, who are at risk of being disengaged, certain vocational,
rather than the traditional academic courses may keep them in the system and
motivated. Not all vocational courses were deemed to be unworthy, in January
2013 the list of those that were judged to be high quality and rigorous enough to be included in the league tables alongside GCSE’s was
updated[1].
On the 7th of
February 2013 Michael Gove made a statement on the future of the curriculum,
exams and accountability reforms. It was already widely known that Gove wanted
to ‘slim down’ the curriculum and focus on ‘essential knowledge’ . It was
thought that he would end competition between the exam boards by having just
one wholly new board, however he admitted “this was a bridge too far” and would
not push ahead with this particular proposal. He is however committed however
to reform of GCSE’s and A levels with an end of course exam and minimum
internal assessment. The move to retain GCSE’s and scrap the move to bring in
English Baccalaureate Certificates in some subjects was welcomed by many
bodies.
The Association of School and
College Leaders (ASCL) stated “We have never believed that GCSE is beyond repair
and have been urging the government for many months not to abandon it. It is
encouraging that the secretary of state has listened to the voices from all
sides that have urged him to think again.”.
The National Union of Teachers echoed this stating ““This is really good news. Michael Gove has for once listened to sense.
The English Baccalaureate Certificates were universally condemned by everyone…”
The NASUWT response was that
the reforms still raised unanswered questions and “The only certainty from today’s announcement is that he is removing the
entitlement of children and young people to have access to a broad and balanced
National Curriculum. Today’s announcement puts the final nail into the coffin
of Margaret Thatcher’s legacy of National Curriculum entitlement.”
Gove’s reform of the national
curriculum included a move to ensure that LA schools have the same freedoms as
academies and Free schools, in that the whole curriculum should not be
determined by the national curriculum.
In respect of accountability
reform, a consultation will consider a new portal which would clearly set out
schools financial plans and illustrate the quality of the education they
provide. New performance indicators will also be established to guide this
process and aid understanding.
There is as all the unions
point out more work to be done in respect of process and as always the devil is
in the detail.
Many schools are so focused on
meeting attainment targets that the bigger picture can be overlooked. The
government saw the move towards vocational and ‘easier’ GCSE exams as part of
the problem, in that it wasn’t equipping students for jobs. However when results
are often paramount to a schools success you can see that ‘points make prizes’
and where those points are collected from is often irrelevant. It’s easy to
recognise how both virtuous and vicious circles can be self-propelling in the
world of education. With good results (as defined by the league tables) then
your school is in demand, you get more pupils through the door, and, as much of
the funding works under the principle of ‘bums on seats’ you get more money.
With more money you can employ extra staff, you can offer a wider breadth of
subjects at GCSE and A level, and you can afford to offer after schools clubs.
All of which generate more interest, and more students and more money! Poor
results however can mean (if parents have other school options) an exodus of
students and money, and under the new
education landscape-this can result in a take over bid – hostile or otherwise!
The government believe that
the way to deal with a failing school is to bring it under the wing of another
academy. There are polarised views as to whether this approach is a winning
solution, however a DfE announcement in January 2013 stated that “The secondary school performance tables
show that standards are rising in sponsored academies at a record rate – and
more than five times as quickly than in all state-funded schools”. [2]
Their focus on ‘closing the gap’ between disadvantaged
pupils and their more affluent peers in respect of academic attainment has
manifested itself in monetary investment. We have the pupil premium at £900 per
eligible pupil in 2013/14 and now also the year 7 ‘catch up’ premium (£500 per
pupil) for those who do not achieve the floor level in maths and literacy at
the end of key stage 2. There is nothing wrong with focusing investment on
reducing the effects that social and economic disadvantage have on pupils
attainment, the key element however is the outcome rather than the noise that
such a large scale investment makes.
A recent Ofsted report raised concerns over the use of
the premium, saying that research found that found many schools
did not separate the pupil premium from their main budget. Half of the schools
surveyed for the report said the cash made little or no difference to the way
they work while two-fifths, mainly primary schools, said they were spending it
on extra teaching assistants.
So, what is the education
landscape today? We have more autonomous institutions but less autonomy over
curriculum choices.
What really matters is not
whether the pupils are taught in an academy, a Free School or an LA controlled
school, but HOW they are taught. Will the new curriculum deliver us a
generation equipped to meet the demands of the economy, will it move us up the
international league tables or will it make no difference at all!
Lisa Forster
CIPFA Finance Advisor
