A closer look at the school league tables reveals the govt. is being insufficiently ambitious about turning round under-performing schools, writes Rick Muir.
Rick Muir is Associate Director for Public Service Reform at the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr)
Much of the discussion of the publication this week of the school league tables has focused on the introduction of the new English Baccalaureate which has been retrospectively applied to this year’s GCSE results and which ippr has criticised elsewhere.
However, a closer look at the league tables reveals the government is being insufficiently ambitious about turning round under-performing schools. The last Labour government set a target that every school should have more than 30 per cent of its pupils gaining 5 A*-C GCSEs in English and Maths.
Labour was successful at meeting this target with the number of schools below the floor falling from 912 in 2004/05 to just 82 in 2009/10, according to the figures; see Table 1 below:
|
Number of schools reaching the previous (30%) minimum standard 2004/05–2009/10: |
|
Year |
Number of schools where fewer than 30% of pupils achieved 5+ A*–C GCSEs including English and maths |
Reduction in schools where fewer than 30% of pupils achieved 5+ A*–C GCSEs including English and maths |
|
2004/5 |
912 |
|
| 2005/6 | 783 | 129 |
| 2006/7 | 631 | 152 |
| 2007/8 | 440 | 191 |
| 2008/9 | 247 | 193 |
| 2009/10 | 82 | 165 |
Michael Gove was right to retain Labour’s approach of a floor target for schools at the bottom end of the league tables and he was also right to raise the target – although he didn’t go far enough. The government’s new target is that at least 35% of pupils in every school should get five A*-C GCSEs including English and Maths; although no date has been set for when that level should be met.
Today’s league tables show that just 216 schools failed to reach the new target this year. Given that in its last year in office alone Labour managed to get 165 schools over their floor, this target looks under-ambitious.
We should ensure that schools are continuously improving – not least if we are to raise England’s schools up to the standards of the best in the world. Each parliament should set itself a higher standard in terms of school improvement. Given that around 700 schools were lifted above the floor in the last parliament, this government should set itself a similarly ambitious target.
Our aim should be that by the end of this parliament at least 40% of pupils in every school should get 5 good GCSEs, including English and Maths. At present around 500 schools fall below this level. This should sit alongside a new Pupil Premium Entitlement for all low income pupils, wherever they learn, which ensures that extra resources reach the children for whom they are intended.
So far improvement towards the floor target has come about through a mixture of dedicated schools advisors to support school leadership and targeted extra support for teaching and learning. Schools that did not succeed were re-launched as academies.
As school standards rise, a different appraoch may be required:
• One that focuses on ensuring the best teachers are recruited and retained in the most challenging schools;
• In which more schools come under the leadership of federations and chains of high performing schools;
• And where innovation is spread more widely through peer-to-peer networks.
The biggest problem in England’s school system remains the class divide: the fact that pupils from poorer backgrounds continue to lag behind their wealthier peers. If we are to seriously tackle the attainment gap, the government needs to raise its game.
13 Responses to “League tables show Gove’s lack of ambition on underperforming schools”
James Purnell
Rick Muir on why govt not ambitious enough on struggling schools. https://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/01/michael-gove-school-league-tables/
Éoin Clarke
There is so much wrong with this approach to publishing league tables, that one does not know where to begin…
At its most basic, the government if they must publish tme, should publish them in the summer, when the children are off school and thus escape most of the hype, disappointment etc around them…
The government could also set up an intranet system for parents and authorities to log in an access the data if they wish, wuite why it needs to be published in ful full fan fare when children are fretting about Janaury exams, May exams or indeed their future career prospects is beyond me….
Headmasters should be prvented from using the tables as a stick to morally beat their pupils with.. it is not the students fault if the ranking is not as the headmaster or board of governors would wish..
That for me is the biggest danger, that class intake “Y” have a miserable year because the year previous year “V” underperformed..
Mr. Sensible
Éoin I don’t necesarily agree with you.
I am less than impressed with the media coverage of whenever our students succeed, but we do need to have public accountability.
Darren Tracey
As a supporter of our cause of a good, fair and equal society, I find this article rather ignorant. I teach in a Secondary Modern school in the south east of England (Not a Comprehensive). By the new descriptors set out by Mr Gove, we will be classed as a failing school, even though the previous progress of our students would place us in the top 2% of similar schools in the country. The education offered by the dedicated staff of our school attempts to engage young people from areas of high deprivation.
My problem with Mr Ball’s and now Mr Gove’s approach is this: The top 25% (Using the academic descriptors of our system) of the year 7 students every year go straight to the local Grammar schools, leaving the remaining 75% to be spread between the other schools in the area. If we take 35% as the national bench mark, if evenly distributed, the non grammar schools would expect to see 13% of their students reach this level. However this is not the case and schools like ours are still expected to make the 35% grade and placed in a league table alongside the grammar schools. You would expect the grammar schools to achieve 100%, however they do not and are still regarded as successful. Our students work hard and to be told that they are failing is a disgrace. The Staff work hard and get higher than expected grades and to be told that they are failing is an insult.
Our school last year made the 30% grade, significantly higher than the grades the students would be predicated to make, based on their end of primary school tests. Because of a fall in the local population the local grammar schools are set to take a percentage closer to 30% of the demographic, making our chance of achieving 35% (and rising) impossible. I appreciate I am actually subscribing to determinism here by talking about ‘predictions’ but that is unfortunately the basis of the Grammar school system in which our school exists.
These bench mark figures are one dimensional and show more about young people getting exams than they do about young people receiving an education. I would dearly love for 100% of students to get all A*s, but then what would that mean? If Left Foot Forward thinks that this system is fair and equal, then you clearly subscribe to Cyril Burt and probably also agree that those with more money or supportive parents deserve a better education than those without.
To say that I’m disappointed with this site would be an understatement.
Daniel Pitt
RT @leftfootfwd: League tables show Gove's lack of ambition on underperforming schools: http://bit.ly/i5gGzD writes @RickMuir1