Searching for answers

With the long-awaited proposals for the National Curriculum finally published in February, that and changes to qualifications dominated the discussion in the plenary sessions at February’s Council meeting.

Announcements

ASCL Council was pleased to bestow honorary membership on John Fairhurst, ASCL president in 2010-11, and Jane Lees, ASCL president in 2008-09. Before their respective retirements last year, Jane had served as a headteacher in the north-west for many years, and John in Essex. Both were recognised for their many years of outstanding service to ASCL Council and its members. Council also took the opportunity to congratulate Jane Lees on her CBE.

School Data Dashboard

Professional Committee
Following concerns raised by members about inconsistency and inaccuracy in Ofsted’s School Data Dashboard, the committee proposed the following position statement, which was accepted.

ASCL fully accepts the need to use data in order to ensure intelligent accountability. The data dashboard could make a helpful contribution to this process. However, we are concerned that the use of the ‘similar schools’ comparison within the data dashboard overly simplifies complex issues and brings with it a ‘misleading precision’. It cannot be sensible or desirable for governors to be given one message by the data dashboard and a completely contradictory one by their RAISEonline [Reporting and Analysis for Improvement through school Self-evaluation] report.

(Since Council, and following discussions with ASCL, Ofsted has revised and clarified some of the information in the dashboard.)

Performance management

Professional Committee
The committee raised concerns about recent guidance from Ofsted concerning inspection of performance management. The committee put forward the following position statement, which was accepted, and ASCL officers agreed to continue to raise the issue in meetings with Ofsted.

ASCL is concerned that recent Ofsted guidance on how schools should provide information on performance management to inspectors is confusing and potentially highly bureaucratic. Greater clarity and simplicity is required in order to ensure that school leaders do not spend excessive time on the process.

School sport funding

Public and Parliamentary Committee
In responding to the government’s consultation on school sport, the committee raised serious concerns about the dire state of PE and sport in schools and the ineffectiveness of proposals in the consultation to reverse this. The loss of School Sport Partnerships was particularly regrettable. The withdrawal of funding from ‘unfashionable’ sports has shifted the focus to elite sports. The committee wanted to see a greater emphasis on participation in sport more widely, rather than just competitive sport, in order to engage more young people, and wanted to see a greater involvement of the wider community. While some increase in funding levels and investment in infrastructure is needed to achieve this, changes could be made that are not expensive. For instance, in some cases planning regulations are hindering new sports facilities. These points will be incorporated into ASCL’s consultation response.

Teachers’ pay changes

Pay and Conditions Committee
The committee had a further discussion about the implications of the changes to teachers’ pay and conditions. From the draft of the new School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD):

• It appears that schools will need to determine their own pay period – 1 September to 31 August is no longer fixed.
• The Upper Pay Spine (UPS) will be determined from school to school rather than being fixed.
• There are potential implications for individuals moving schools, as salaries will not automatically be matched.
• Payments to Advanced Skills Teachers (ASTs) end on 31 August 2013 and yet the new pay range for leading professionals will not be available until September 2014. ASCL will challenge this.
• The change to Teaching and Learning Responsibility (TLR) 3 does not go far enough towards addressing inflexibility, as it does not allow payment for a fixed-term project.
• Leaving schools to write their own policies is not appropriate and, aside from the bureaucracy, could lead to confusing differences from school to school. Schools must have a new policy in place for September – this is a major undertaking that diverts time and resources from teaching and learning. Changing the pay policy is unlikely to improve outcomes for young people.
  

ASCL officers assured the committee that these issues are being brought to the attention of the School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB) and DfE.

Post-16 funding

Funding Committee
On the government’s proposals for 16-19 funding, the committee reiterated the need for more information about how the formula works in practice, and more clarity around the funding rate and how data collection/ audit (qualification and non-qualification information) will work. Discussions with officials are ongoing.

There is real concern that the level of funding is being reduced to the point that small sixth forms will struggle to remain viable, and even larger sixth forms will have to make tough choices about the breadth of courses on offer.

National Curriculum

Education Committee
Plenary debate

Discussion at Education Committee on the government’s long-awaited proposals for the National Curriculum formed the basis of the plenary debate on the same topic. While some welcomed the thinning down of the curriculum, allowing schools more flexibility to adapt it as appropriate, many raised concerns that the proposals would undermine existing good work in schools. The following points were made:

• Much of the content appears dry and less engaging than the current National Curriculum, showing a lack of understanding about the interventions that have proven to be successful in raising standards in schools.
• There are serious concerns about the impact on inclusion and students with special educational needs (SEN).
• Increasing divergence between England and the devolved jurisdictions could cause issues for students and teachers in border counties.
• Resource implications have not been thought through, especially with concurrent change to GCSE and A level.
• The proposals do not address what will happen to the successful two-year Key Stage 3/three-year Key Stage 4 model.

Changes to qualifications

Education Committe

Plenary debate

The conclusions from the committee’s discussion on GCSE and A level reform were also put to full Council for discussion. The following points were made:

• The lack of phased implementation will create challenges and will disadvantage less able students in particular.
• The emphasis on linear assessment shows a lack of understanding of effective assessment methodologies.
• A stand-alone, non-aligned, AS qualification that cannot be co-taught is unlikely to be successful and could lead to a reduction in progression to higher education (HE).
• If the link between AS and A2 is retained, a 40/60 per cent AS/A2 weighting would be an acceptable compromise.
• The lack of information is creating problems for Key Stage 4 and 5 options advice, especially regarding vocational pathways and SEN.
• It is not clear what will happen to vocational qualifications such as BTec. More coherence, continuity and clear communications is needed.
• Resource implications have not been thought through.
  

Through all of the discussions, it was emphasised that the lack of engagement with professionals when developing proposals is regrettable.

Accountability proposals

Plenary debate
In regards to the DfE consultation on school accountability, Council recognised the need to have accountability measures in place and were generally in favour of the move away from five A*-C to the 'best eight’ and inclusion of a value-added measure in the floor target, as long as there were not additional conditions that made the indicators too restrictive. The following points were made:

• Changes to the curriculum should be agreed before deciding on accountability measures. Accountability should not drive the curriculum.
• Some value-added measure is required for schools with very challenging students or those who cannot access GCSE.
• A mechanism is needed to take into account subjects such as drama and art and extra-curricular activities but with flexibility on how this is done based on what is relevant for the school. It should not become another tick box.
• Key Stage 2 performance measures need to be robust if this is to work.
• Too much data in performance tables is confusing for parents.
• The discounting rules need to be clear, published well in advanced, and need to not disadvantage some subject combinations.
• The proposals imply that the English Baccalaurete (EBacc) could in effect become compulsory. However, it is not a route suitable for all young people. Other pathways need to have the same validity.
• The proposals do not address the needs of students; instead, they introduce different perverse incentives into the system.
• There needs to be a method of capturing rates of progress and achievement of all students.

---

• The next ASCL Council meeting will take place on 20-21 June in Burton upon Trent..

Designed with IMPACT

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