The ASCL Council meeting in Reading on 11-12 October was dominated by curriculum and qualifications – not just the GCSE English legal challenge, but also proposed changes to GCSE exams and the introduction of the English Baccalaureate Certificates (EBCs).

Cause for grade concerns

Pensions

Pay and Conditions Committee     
Pensions Specialist David Binnie told the committee that discussions are ongoing regarding tiered contribution levels for 2013-14 and 2014-15. It was clear that despite the consultation process the DfE would impose a model for the next two years. It is proposing a maximum of seven tiers.

Chair David Trace reiterated that ASCL has agreed to a two-tier scheme in order to ease the burden of contributions on new entrants, taking into account the repayment of student loans enabling them to join the scheme.

However, ASCL has opposed further tiering of contributions and the committee reaffirmed this stance. Deputy General Secretary Malcolm Trobe emphasised that there is no rationale for a tiered system within a CARE (career average) scheme, unlike in a final salary scheme.

The ASCL view is that the current DfE proposals should not automatically constitute the 2015 model and the government should start with a new structure. Currently the DfE is unwilling to discuss the post 2015 contributions. The view of the committee was that if the DfE rebuts this proposal we should adopt a robust approach in defending our position.

Inspection

Professional Committee
The committee heard an update on aspects of the new Ofsted frameworks from Inspection Specialist Jan Webber. Following concerns raised, Chair Peter Kent put forward the following position statement, which was approved by Council.

Whilst welcoming the move to recruit serving school leaders as inspectors, we feel that the accuracy of inspections is being undermined by inconsistency and a lack of time spent engaging with schools, leading to an inadequate evidence base. We are also concerned that HMIs should take a clearer role in ensuring the consistency of the inspection process. In our view the current arrangements require improvement.

Teachers’ Standards

Professional Committee
Following a discussion on practical issues related to the Teachers’ Standards, the committee put forward the following position statement, which was approved.

ASCL is concerned by the way that the new Teachers’ Standards and appraisal regulations have been introduced. The fragmented implementation of these new structures and ambiguity of language has caused significant local issues for members of school leadership teams. The resulting potential for different interpretation places ASCL members at risk.

ASCL Manifesto

Public and Parliamentary Committee
Chair Peter Campling led the committee in a review of ASCL’s Manifesto, published for the 2010 election. It was agreed that it should be revised and republished as a document of general principles. These would underpin the public policy agenda and further policy papers. The coalition government’s principles of freedom, fairness and responsibility could be emphasised.

Under specific headings, proposals included the following. Curriculum and assessment could be merged to cover all key stages and should address both national and regional needs. Accountability and autonomy should take into account broad criteria for success, rather than simply league tables.

There should be fairness of funding distribution and a commitment to meeting the need for investment despite the recognition of economic issues. Conditions of service, rewards, and job security should be emphasised.

A further draft will be discussed at the next committee meeting.

Funding for rural schools

Funding Committee
The committee heard evidence that small schools in rural areas are facing potential financial failure as a result of the imposition of a single block sum in the local formula. Following discussion, Acting Chair Jonathan Fawcett put forward the following position statement, which was approved by Council.

ASCL is gravely concerned about the likely unintended consequences of funding formula reform in sparsely populated rural areas. Many small schools are facing destabilising uncertainty about their future and we request that urgent consideration be given to ensuring a fast resolution of the issue.

Funding Specialist Sam Ellis will continue to raise the issue with the Education Funding Agency (EFA) and DfE.

Pupil Premium

Funding Committee
Following discussion of Ofsted’s The Pupil Premium report, which drew conclusions about how schools are using Pupil Premium funding, the committee put forward the following position statement, which was approved.

ASCL notes with concern the recent Ofsted report on the Pupil Premium. Whilst the findings present school leaders with significant challenges, we are concerned that the relatively small number of respondents and the early point of implementation at which the survey was conducted mean the conclusions need to be treated with caution. We expect that the government will continue to trust school leaders to deploy these resources using evidence-based strategies to raise standards.

School building rules

Funding Committee
The committee discussed its concerns about the DfE’s baseline designs for new school buildings. Acting Chair Jonathan Fawcett put forward the following position statement, which was approved.

ASCL is gravely concerned about the possible unintended consequences of the changes in the school building regulations. Smaller classrooms and narrower corridors could pose significant problems for wheelchair users and other high need student, thus limiting parental choice, impacting negatively on standards of behaviour and compromising health and safety.

Future of the curriculum

Education Committee
The committee, led by Chair Andy Yarrow, held a discussion about what a future secondary school curriculum should look like. It was stressed that in addition to knowledge and skills, education should inculcate a love of learning. There should be:

• a coherent, balanced curriculum from early years to 19 ? h
• High value placed on every subject
  
• focus upon skills at Key Stage 3
  
• focus upon life-long learning, resilience and understanding
  
• a broad range of assessments, tailored to meet the needs of individual subjects and enabling students to demonstrate knowledge, understanding and skills
  

Apart from English and maths, and possibly science, schools should be able to decide the curriculum that most inspires their students.

For post-16, it was agreed that there should be clear, differentiated progression routes, including v vocational options. There should be a fully inclusive, all-round offer to suit all students, including those who achieve a D-G grade at GCSE. A levels should not be seen as simply a route to university.

Following the discussion, it was agreed that the next step is to review and update ASCL’s curriculum and assessment policies.

Future of Key Stage 4 qualifications

Plenary debate
Full Council held a debate on the government’s proposals for reform of Key Stage 4 qualification and particularly the English Baccalaureate Certificates (EBCs), informed by the outcome of debate in the Education Committee.

Views on EBCs were mixed. Some felt proposals would help disadvantaged students by raising expectations and that the aim should be for all to achieve the current B level – although this would be a huge challenge.

However, most expressed strong views against EBCs, on grounds that they will not have sufficient breadth, do not address skills for employment, only validate one type of learning, and would not engage a significant proportion of the cohort. For the least able students, it could increase disaffection, truancy, and behaviour issues.

It was agreed that the cycle of constant change to qualifications is damaging, and all parties should desist from using curriculum change as a political platform.

ASCL should use the opportunity to campaign for practitioners to have a greater say in design and to set out the profession’s view of what Key Stage 4 curriculum and qualifications should look like.

It was agreed that an outright rejection of the proposals would not be helpful and that ASCL should produce a well-argued paper with a persuasive vision about what matters in education and propose a qualification framework that is fit for purpose. Raising the bar and high aspirations was something that ASCL fully supported.

The General Secretary Brian Lightman thanked Council for a very useful debate that would form the basis of ASCL’s response to the DfE consultation, which closes on 10 December. Proposals could have major implications for the long-term future, therefore all schools are strongly encouraged to submit a response. The government is required to report on how many responses it gets and the overall views.

• The next council meeting is on 6-7 December in Coventry
  

Designed with IMPACT

© 2024 Association of School and College Leaders | Valid XHTML | Contact us