Education and Skills - Fifth Report

The Education and Skills Committee

The Education and Skills Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department for Education and Skills and its associated public bodies.

This report marks the conclusion of a two year inquiry into secondary education conducted by the Education and Skills Committee. During this time, we have investigated what we consider to be central elements of secondary education, publishing reports on Diversity of Provision, Pupil Achievement, School Admissions and Teacher Retention and Recruitment. This report brings together what we have learnt from these inquiries.

Our in depth inquiry into secondary education has given us a unique insight into the sector. We have scrutinised the Government's evidence base, the implementation of its policy and its future plans.

We acknowledge and welcome the improvements that have been brought about as a result of this Government's policies. We consider that the recent and planned increases in public expenditure on education are proving broadly effective. Some of its proposals for change are also welcome, such as the introduction of three-year budgets for schools, which will allow schools to plan and deploy their resources more efficiently.

In contrast, we are concerned that some of the Government's flagship policies are based on unexamined assumptions and are not accompanied by measures to test the relationship between cost and effectiveness. The Government hopes that its commitment to diversity and choice will raise standards in secondary education. This cannot be achieved without a rigorous assessment of what works and what does not. Many of these initiatives are expensive (for example, the projected £5 billion that will be spent on 200 Academy schools), yet the evidence that emerges from these programmes is not always properly evaluated and lessons learned before further public funds are committed.

Diversity of Provision: The Specialist Schools programme, and more recently the City Academy initiative, have added new school types to an already diverse system of secondary education. The Government asserts that this policy will lead to a rise in standards, but it has failed to produce the evidence to support the expansion of its diversity initiatives. We acknowledge and welcome the rise in standards achieved by many specialist schools and some Academies, but we caution that the reasons for success must be fully understood in order to be replicated elsewhere. Despite the Government's attachment to evidence-based policy, expensive schemes are rolled out before being adequately tested and evaluated compared to other less expensive alternatives.

Pupil Achievement: We welcome the more widespread use of value-added performance measures, but we continue to be concerned about the Government's focus on national targets as a school improvement tool. National targets have their place, but do not of themselves produce improvements. Practical measures are needed to generate the rise in standards that the Government desires. It should therefore be wary of imposing blanket "one size fits all" targets that some schools find harder to achieve due to the nature of their intake.

School Admissions: We are concerned that the Government seems complacent about the implementation of its objectives for the admissions system. The evidence we took during our inquiry indicates a troubling slide away from parents choosing schools for their children and towards schools choosing the pupils they wish to admit. The Government refuses to acknowledge this trend, let alone to take action to reverse it. Indeed, its proposals for the future of secondary education look likely to compound the situation. In this context, it is doubtful whether Ministers' claims that the admissions system serves to extend parental choice can be justified. We reiterate our recommendations, first expressed in our report on School Admissions, that the main elements of the Admissions Code of Practice should be given statutory force and that the Schools Adjudicator be given powers to investigate. We further recommend that the Government fundamentally reconsider the current arrangements for local ballots to end selection.

Teacher Retention and Recruitment: Further work is necessary to address challenging behaviour in schools. Poor behaviour holds down standards, causes some parents to choose schools outside their locality and causes good teachers to leave the profession. The present Secretary of State for Education has stated publicly that this issue is now a high priority for the DfES. We look forward to seeing actual improvements resulting from these words. In some cases, teachers can be helped to cope with challenging behaviour by means of specialised training programmes, similar to those we have seen in operation on Committee visits, and we urge the DfES to learn from models abroad. In other cases, poor behaviour is so acute that teachers face an impossible task and a more fundamental solution is needed. The Government's proposal that schools should share hard-to-teach pupils more evenly is one possibility, but we are not convinced that it intends to establish robust systems to encourage or ensure this form of collaboration.

The Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners: The Five Year Strategy sets out the Government's proposals for education over the next Parliament. Whilst some of the measures in this document are welcome, such as guaranteed three-year budgets for schools, others give rise to serious reservations. We detect a tension between the proposed structure of independent specialist schools and the Government's desire for schools to work more co-operatively in 'partnerships'. The idea of schools working together to share expertise and disruptive pupils is appealing, but we consider that the Secretary of State may be underestimating the challenges involved in realising this vision. Partnerships may not appear equally attractive to all schools and it is hard to see what pressures will be brought to bear in order to persuade all schools of the value of collaboration.

The reshaping of local government's role also gives rise to questions. The Five Year Strategy proposes that Local Authorities should provide strategic leadership. In a system where all schools are functioning independently, what levers will be available to Local Authorities to persuade schools to act differently? Additionally, the Government wishes to establish a "strong presumption" that popular schools will be able to create sixth forms and to expand. It is unclear where this leaves existing local planning system, and, indeed the new 'strategic' Local Authorities. It appears that local bodies will only be able to perform their function effectively for as long as their actions accord with the Government's wishes.
 

Academies

20. The Government's Academy programme is much more limited in its numbers than the Specialist Schools programme, but is much more expensive in its capital costs. Academies emerged from the Fresh Start initiative, in which schools which for three consecutive years failed to achieve five A* to C grades at GCSE for at least 15% of pupils would be considered for closure and replacement with a new school. The DfES describes Academies as "publicly funded independent schools" outside LEA control. They must teach the National Curriculum core subjects and carry out Key Stage 3 assessment tests. Aside from those requirements, they "are free to adopt innovative approaches to the content and delivery of the curriculum", which may be affected by the interests of their sponsor.

21. Academies do not benefit from any extra revenue funding, but they do receive considerable capital funding from the DfES, ranging so far from £13 million to £38 million [House of Lords written answer, HL 3766, 19 July 2004]. In addition, independent sponsors pay up to 10% of the capital costs, capped at a contribution of £2 million. This represents an average of just over £23 million per Academy in public funds, or almost £25 million when the contribution of sponsors is included. Seventeen Academies are so far operating, with another 34 in development. The Government has announced plans for a total of 200 Academies. If future Academies attract a similar level of funding to those so far agreed (and we see no reason why this should not be the case) the total capital cost of the programme would be nearly £5 billion - a significant sum.

22. The capital cost of Academies is significantly beyond that of other new schools. The Academies currently in operation generally provide places for around 1,200 students in each school. At an average cost of £25 million per school, this represents a cost of almost £21,000 per place. In contrast, the Government's basic need cost multipliers for building new secondary school accommodation is just under £14,000 per place [Department for Education and Skills, Education Projects Cost and Performance Data, April 2003]. It is equally important to note that although Academies are planned to take large numbers of pupils eventually, they often begin with small rolls and some build up from a year 7 only intake in their first year of operation. This increases the cost per pupil far beyond the cost per place.

23. These figures are not included in the Five Year Strategy. Indeed, none of the proposals are costed in that document. Nevertheless, the City Academy programme represents a significant investment of public funds, which deserves proper scrutiny. We recognise that secondary education has failed in some inner city areas and we understand the temptation to believe that Academies are the solution. Yet £5 billion is a lot of money to commit to one programme. The Government could have limited the number of Academies to 30 or 50 and carried out an assessment of their effectiveness before expanding the programme so significantly [ It may be useful to compare Academies with CTCs, which are in some respects similar schools and about which much more information is available]. Whilst we welcome the Government's desire to invest resources in areas of educational underachievement, we consider that the rapid expansion of the Academy policy comes at the expense of rigorous evaluation.

24. We have a number of specific concerns regarding the Academy programme. Our first is that the programme has been expanded without proper evidence to show that the current Academies are working well. We asked Mr Clarke, the then Secretary of State, to describe the evidence base for the DfES Academy programme and what evaluation of existing Academy schools had taken place. He answered:

"[B]ecause we only have a very small number of academies at this moment, by definition you cannot have had a research programme to look at that relatively small number of academies before moving forward […] I would say that a proper scientific assessment of the impact of academies could not meaningfully take place for two or three years at least, probably six or seven years of a school cohort going through, to assess what happened."

25. The Secretary of State went on to say that "the reason why academies are in a sense a diversion from the whole debate is that it is a very small number of schools out of all the secondary schools in Britain" Although few in number, at an average cost of £25 million per school, Academies represent a significant investment of resources. The communities that will be served by Academies are particularly vulnerable and have suffered from many years of inadequate education provision. We welcome the Government's desire to invest in the schools serving these communities. But the Government should ensure that the current programme of Academies is thoroughly evaluated, both in respect of the performance of individual academies and the impact on neighbouring schools, before embarking on a major expansion of an untested model.

26. In later written evidence, the DfES described the system being used to monitor the performance of Academies:

"The evaluation of the Academies programme is a five year longitudinal study. Price Waterhouse Coopers produced an annual report for DfES in November 2003. The second annual report is due to be delivered in December. The study will be looking at the impact of Academies on children from disadvantaged areas and their families and communities and the extent to which Academies raise educational standards. We did not publish the first year's report, because it was based on a small number of open Academies, but we will consider publishing the second. We cannot wait five years for the study. These children only get one chance in life and we can't afford to wait that long before we make the radical break with the past, which Academies represent."

The first of these annual reports has been obtained and disseminated by the press through a request under the Freedom of Information Act. We understand that the second annual report is still in the drafting process.

27. We understand that it is difficult to conduct sound research based on a very small sample of schools, particularly when those schools may vary significantly in their profile (some Academies are brand new schools, others are built on the site of a failing school and some have a significant transient population from year to year). We fail to understand why the DfES is putting such substantial resources into Academies when it has not produced the evidence on which to base the expansion of this programme. We recommend that the Department publish its evaluations of Academies, making clear the limitations of the research due to the small number of schools involved.

28. Mr Clarke described to the Committee the good results attained by some Academies in comparison with predecessor schools on the same site. He cited the achievements of Bexley Academy, the City Academy, Bristol and King's Academy, Middlesbrough, which have all significantly raised the percentage of pupils attaining 5 A*-C grades at GCSE. We welcome the success of Academies which have raised educational standards in areas of historical underachievement. However, we observe that other Academy schools seem not to have produced improved results compared to the school that was previously on their site. Figures published in January 2005 for 11 Academies showed that five have not improved performance at GCSE and that in some cases, the percentage achieving 5 A*-C grades has actually declined.

29. We are also concerned that the good results achieved by some Academies may have come at the price of excluding those children that are harder to teach and reducing the proportion of children in the school from deprived backgrounds (whom they were originally intended to serve). In late 2004, the King's and Unity Academies in Middlesbrough were challenged by Professor Stephen Gorard of York University about their higher than average number of permanent exclusions.[BBC File On 4: City Academies: Tuesday, 23 November, 2004. Transcript available here] The two schools had expelled 61 pupils between them since the start of the school year in 2002 , compared to just 15 from all other secondary schools in the borough. Professor Gorard also found that the number of students entitled to free school meals at Unity was 47%, compared with nearly 60% at its predecessor school.

30. When we raised this issue with the then Secretary of State, he said:

"the steps which I have announced and which will be carried through which say every school, including academies, has to play its full part in working together, dealing with everybody who is excluded in a particular community, on a fair basis, so you do not get some schools taking an over large proportion and other schools taking very few… I think that is the right policy and collaboration will enable this to happen this way and including academies. The idea that people make academies succeed or specialist schools succeed just by saying 'Okay, come in and let's get rid of X number of pupils and that solves it' is simply wrong. It is not based on what actually happens in any respect whatsoever."

Subsequent written evidence from the DfES claimed that "the percentage of pupils at Unity eligible for free school meals is 49.1% which is practically the same as in the predecessor schools [i.e. 60%] and is well above the LEA average (32.3%) and the national average (14.5%)."

31. As the Government continually repeats, the development of the Academies programme is still in its early stages. As yet, the evidence for and against the initiative is primarily anecdotal. What evidence there is paints a mixed picture. Despite the paucity of evidence, the Government is enthusiastically pushing forward with the programme and with new Academies. We caution against this approach and urge the DfES to monitor carefully the performance of academies and adjust its policies accordingly. In particular, the Department should consistently measure the proportion of pupils entitled to Free School Meals and the number of exclusions in Academies.

32. As with specialist schools, we are concerned that the effect of Academies on nearby schools should be monitored. Where new Academies are established, the local school place planning process needs to be carefully managed in order to prevent any adverse effects on existing schools. For example, if a new academy draws pupils away from existing schools, those schools will suffer a reduction in funding and may have to reduce staffing levels as a result. In addition, it is intended that all Academies will have sixth forms. This may result in well-qualified teachers from nearby schools without sixth forms moving to Academies, creating recruitment problems in those schools. The Government should monitor the effect of Academies on neighbouring schools, in terms of funding (including by the creation of surplus places at neighbouring schools) and staffing (e.g. the loss of well-qualified teachers at one school to a nearby Academy with a sixth form).

33. The Academy programme has raised controversy in many areas, particularly due to the nature of the sponsors involved in schools. A number of the existing Academies are sponsored by evangelical Christian groups and this has led to allegations that sponsors could have undue influence over the curriculum (for example, giving greater weight to creationism than the theory of evolution). This involvement can be bought relatively cheaply. For less than £1 million, as compared to an average of £25 million in public funds, sponsors can gain considerable influence or control over a school. Whilst we would not wish to suggest that this influence is being used maliciously, this seems a small price to pay, particularly for corporate sponsors.

34. There is a fundamental question mark over the role and function of an Academy's sponsor. What does a sponsor add to a school? Do they stimulate improvement above and beyond that of a school which is not sponsored? When we asked the then Secretary of State what benefits sponsorship brings to an Academy, he responded:

"If you go through most of the academies so far, you will see a significant education improvement, even by comparison with the predecessor school, in each of those areas. The education benefit is the engagement of the sponsor who is really trying to take it forward […] I would argue—and this goes back to research conducted literally decades ago—that it is the leadership ethos structure of the school which determines its results. […] I think the academies are working to that end and the involvement of the external sponsor has helped that to happen in quite significant ways."

35. The Secretary of State's response implies that good sponsors would be closely involved in "the leadership ethos structure of the school". This raises further questions. Most sponsors do not have a background in education. Should they be involved in day-to-day management of the school, which is normally a matter for the head teacher? Does the sponsor bear any accountability if the school fails? If so, to whom is he or she accountable and how?

Academies

8.  We recognise that secondary education has failed in some inner city areas and we understand the temptation to believe that Academies are the solution. Yet £5 billion is a lot of money to commit to one programme. The Government could have limited the number of Academies to 30 or 50 and carried out an assessment of their effectiveness before expanding the programme so significantly. Whilst we welcome the Government's desire to invest resources in areas of educational underachievement, we consider that the rapid expansion of the Academy policy comes at the expense of rigorous evaluation. (Paragraph 23)

9.  The communities that will be served by Academies are particularly vulnerable and have suffered from many years of inadequate education provision. We welcome the Government's desire to invest in the schools serving these communities. But the Government should ensure that the current programme of Academies is thoroughly evaluated, both in respect of the performance of individual academies and the impact on neighbouring schools, before embarking on a major expansion of an untested model. (Paragraph 25)

10.  We fail to understand why the DfES is putting such substantial resources into Academies when it has not produced the evidence on which to base the expansion of this programme. We recommend that the Department publish its existing evaluations of Academies, making clear the limitations of the research due to the small number of schools involved. (Paragraph 27)

11.  We welcome the success of Academies which have raised educational standards in areas of historical underachievement. However, we observe that other Academy schools seem not to have produced improved results compared to the school that was previously on their site. (Paragraph 28)

12.  As the Government continually repeats, the development of the Academies programme is still in its early stages. As yet, the evidence for and against the initiative is primarily anecdotal. What evidence there is paints a mixed picture. Despite the paucity of evidence, the Government is enthusiastically pushing forward with the programme and with new Academies. We caution against this approach and urge the DfES to monitor carefully the performance of academies and adjust its policies accordingly. In particular, the Department should consistently measure the proportion of pupils entitled to Free School Meals and the number of exclusions in Academies. (Paragraph 31)

13.  The Government should monitor the effect of Academies on neighbouring schools, in terms of funding (including by the creation of surplus places at neighbouring schools) and staffing (e.g. the loss of well-qualified teachers at one school to a nearby Academy with a sixth form). (Paragraph 32)

14.  We agree that the participation of an enthusiastic and committed private sponsor might benefit a school. But once again, the DfES does not seem to have set up a rigorous enough structure to evaluate the effects of sponsorship. It might be prudent to establish a number of Academies without sponsors so that the effect of sponsorship can be properly monitored and tested, or to examine the role of sponsorship of different characters in CTCs. The Department should also consider allowing donors to sponsor schools which are not Academies on the same basis, in order to measure the effectiveness of sponsorship even more accurately. (Paragraph 36)