Get documents about "VESA DIGESTJuly2012 1083
Shared by: HC120915103524
-
Stats
- views:
- 1
- posted:
- 9/15/2012
- language:
- English
- pages:
- 17
Document Sample
VESA DIGEST
July 2012 Issue 8 Print
In This Issue Welcome
Headlines Welcome to the VESA Digest, Summer Term 2012
(Number 8).
Moving English Forwards
Some key aspects of Government education and training policy
Schools That Fail OFSTED More continue to evolve. Several of these are picked up by the
Likely To Improve articles in this edition, together with some information about
local developments and initiatives.
The Better Baccalaureate
Developments in Off-Site The Headlines, below, provide a quick insight into what makes
Provision up the Digest. Hopefully, there will be things of interest and
relevance that you can dip into and/or absorb. As always, feel
Quality Assurance and free to pass on the Digest to other colleagues.
Improvement of Off-Site Feedback is always welcome whether it is to flag up any
Provision interesting developments, suggest items you would like us to
address in future editions (or to point out errors!). Please
Apprenticeships for Young
email any thoughts and comments to Alex McManus
People
VESA Foundation Learning As the Summer Term draws to a close, may we take this
Conference Report opportunity to wish you a well-earned break. We look forward
with interest to the 2012/13 academic year…
Improving Alternative Provision
Receiving the VESA Digest – If you do not want to receive
They Never Give Up on You future copies of the Digest please email Sue Broughton, using
GCSEs – Is It A case of Even this link. If you experience problems reading this edition of the
Further Back to the Future Digest, or wish to have a printer friendly copy please download
the Word version.
Homework Important Despite
the Demise of Government
Guidelines
Headlines
As with previous editions of the VESA Digest, this Summer
Term edition focuses on a range of issues and events, a
combination of new things and some on-going, part of the
evolving educational policy landscape.
Emerging policy and practice - implications for schools
and colleges
A number of developments have either emerged, or moved
forward since Edition 7 was published in the Spring.
GCSEs continue to be subject to pressure and consequent
change, not all related to the Autumn term “reform”
consultation. Changes to A Levels have been less in the
spotlight this past term, being tied up in on-going
developments in the lap of the Awarding Bodies. Policy
Contact Us: announcements and Ministerial revelations seem to hit the
headlines on a regular basis! “Where did that one come from”
VESA 13-19 Education Support Agency seems to have become an all too frequent refrain. Sometimes,
what might be seen as “policy on-the hoof” relates to earlier
Knighton Fields Centre
expressed policy intentions which are simply being progressed
Herrick Road
to the next stage. Other revelations seem to fall more into the
Leicester LE2 6DH
category of “fishing expeditions”, seeking to solicit responses
via the media prior to forming policy, redefining possible press
Tel: 0116 2707942
misinterpretations or undertaking a partial retreat.
Fax: 0116 2709759
This edition of the VESA Digest comprises the following items:
Email: info@vesa.org.uk Moving English Forwards – is based on a report on
English standards and how they might be improved.
Schools That Fail OFSTED More Likely To Improve
Website:www.vesa.org.uk – draws on recent reports (evidence!) that support the
move by Sir Michael Wilshaw to erase the notion of the
Email format: “satisfactory” school from the OFSTED lexicon. The
FirstName.LastName@vesa.org.uk suggestion is that schools that fail subsequently tend to
improve more than schools judged satisfactory.
“The Better Baccalaureate” - draws attention to one
notable development, a response to the English
Baccalaureatte. The Better Bacc seeks to build on the
English Bacc, incorporating additional features, intended
to be more holistic and address the needs of a wider
range of learners.
Two connected items pertaining to VESA supported off-
site provision. First, Developments in Off-Site
Provision which provides an update on how the local
collaborative scheme continues to evolve in response to
changing pressures. The second article focuses on
Quality Assurance and Improvement of Off-Site
Provision. It explains how key support organisations
are working together to improve and align local systems
and procedures in order to underpin the quality of school
off-site provision.
Apprenticeships for Young People - is based on an
OFSTED Good Practice report. It contains messages for
KS4 Senior Leaders responsible for revising the
curriculum offer and ensuring its fitness for purpose.
The focus is not so much the list of “subjects” that
comprise the curriculum but on the positive role of good
quality, relevant work experience and, by implication,
effective Careers Education Information Advice and
Guidance.
VESA Foundation Learning Conference Report –
although the DfE seems to be paying little attention to
FL at present, this remains a very important area of
provision. The suggestion that there might be a return
to an O Level/CSE model does achieve one thing, if little
else - it refocuses minds on the 20% of the cohort that
the Government seems to accept are unlikely to benefit
(or achieve) top grade GCSEs. It is important not to
lose sight of this bigger picture for all learners!
Improving Alternative Provision and Improving
Attendance in Schools. Two reports from Charlie
Taylor (the DfE Behaviour Guru). Hot on the heels of his
earlier Behaviour Checklist come two reports, the
latter one no doubt, already well circulated in schools
They Never Give Up on You – a report from the Office
of the Children’s Commissioner into school exclusions
providing key messages to schools and a list of
recommendations.
GCSEs – Is It A case of Even Further Back to the
Future - Picks up on a number of GCSE related issues
that have recently manifested themselves that
complement the whole GCSE reform agenda.
Homework Important Despite the Demise of
Government Guidelines refers to the decision to drop
the homework guidelines. It should be no surprise that
the Government is not saying forget homework.
Research does indicate that homework, well thought out
and supported, does play a very significant role in
learning and achievement. Here is one example of the
DfE leaving things to local decision makers.
TOP
TOP
Moving English Forwards – Actions to Raise
Moving English Forwards Standards in English
OFSTED Report to explore how There is little doubt that learning and achievement in English
English attainment can be moved and Maths are crucially important, for schools and, most
forwards significantly, for the future of our young people. There are
strong links between achievement in these subjects and future
Highlights strengths and progress onto and into further and higher education and, at
weaknesses some later stage, into the world of work. All of this is
reinforced by the fact that English and Maths are a recurring
Identifies 10 main problems
theme in a number of settings, reflected in Government policy,
speeches from Michael Gove, reports from the like of Professor
Alison Wolf, the RSA (see - Solving the Maths Problem:
International perspectives on Mathematical Education)
…and last, but not least, OFSTED.
Moving English Forward (OFSTED March 2012) sets out to
explore the question of how English attainment can be raised in
order to move English forwards in schools. The report is based
on inspections of primary and secondary schools, including
subject survey inspection visits, undertaken during 2008-11. It
highlights strengths and weaknesses and recommends action to
improve practice. The report is not phase specific and carries
messages that apply across all education settings.
The report can be used in a number of contexts, to inform
whole school literacy developments and, more specifically, with
English Departments, where the primary responsibility naturally
tends to lie for developing literacy and English skills and
achieving positive examined outcomes. (Of course in writing
about this OFSTED report, we acknowledge that, to varying
degrees, local schools will already be successful in English, will
have responded to issues identified in the report and will also
be involved in local projects focusing on improving aspects of
learning pertaining to English, not least the highly successful
“Whatever it Takes” initiative in Leicester City).
That said, we thought it might be helpful to draw your attention
to the following paragraph which lists the main problems
identified by OFSTED. The full report goes beyond these
problems and, in each instance, points to examples of strength
and weakness observed in schools along with recommended
actions.
Problems - noted in part B of the Report. Although some of
the problems are phase specific, most apply across phases or
have implications for cross-phase working. The report
identified 10 main problems with associated actions to be
taken:
1) Teaching of writing needs to be more effective and
to include a stronger emphasis on spelling and
handwriting
2) Too few English coordinators in primary schools are
not subject specialists
3) Too few pupils read widely enough for pleasure
4) National tests and examinations have too much
impact on the range and content of the English
curriculum
5) Curriculum transition in English from KS2 to KS3 is
underdeveloped in many schools
6) Lesson plans are often insufficiently flexible and
lack clarity about what pupils are expected to learn
7) Many children have weak levels of language and
communication on entry to school
8) The KS3 English curriculum lacks a clear enough
sense of purpose or rationale for students
9) Too many pupils, especially older students, do not
see English as a subject that affects their daily lives
10) Too few schools have effective programmes for
developing literacy skills across the curriculum
Although some aspects of these problems may have been
addressed already, at least in part, through the review of the
National Curriculum, this still leaves considerable scope for
individual schools and groups of school (cross-phase families of
schools as well as partnerships of schools within a phase) to be
proactive in taking lessons from the report and moving things
forward.
TOP
TOP
Schools that Fail OFSTED More Likely to
OFSTED failing schools more
likely to improve
Improve!
As all school and college colleagues will be aware, the new
OFSTED Framework is now in operation. Indeed, many of our
The new ‘Requiring Improvement’ Leicester+shire schools have already been inspected under the
category new regime. Hot on the heels of the new framework came the
announcement from the Chief Inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, in
Why the change?
that he was to remove the satisfactory category replacing it
with “requiring improvement”. A consequence of the new
category is that failure to move to “good” (or better) in
subsequent inspections will result in such schools being placed
in special measures.
Where does the logic of Sir Michael’s decision to change
categorisation come from? Two sources are of note. The
decision to remove “satisfactory” from the OFSTED lexicon was
supported, as reported in the last edition of the VESA Digest, by
findings from the Royal Society of the Arts in their Report
(UN) Satisfactory Schools – Enhancing Life Chances By
Improving “Satisfactory” Schools (RSA December 2011).
Further research, from academics based at the University of
Bristol’s Institute of Public Affairs seems to support the “anti-
satisfactory” line being taken by OFSTED. In an engagingly
titled report “How Should We Treat Underperforming
Schools? A Regression Discontinuity Analysis of School
Inspections in England” (Allen and Burgess, Bristol Institute
of Public Affairs – March 2012) it is concluded that schools
that failed their OFSTED significantly improved their
performance over the next few years, relative to schools
that just passed.
Although this might be, with some justification, the eye-
catching headline, it does raise questions that go beyond the
crude (motivational) effect of having the “special measures/in a
category” gun pointed at a school. There may be little doubt
that a school “in a category” will be stung into action.
However, with this categorisation, it is claimed, comes
additional support (both provided and bought in) in addition to,
in some instances, managerial changes and refocusing. The
focus now goes beyond those that are “failing” to a wider range
of institutions which would now be termed as “requiring
improvement”. The key question now is to work out how the
school system should evolve in order to enable all schools to be
good or better.
TOP
TOP
What Price a “Better Baccalaureate”
Better Baccalaureate The ‘Better Baccalaureate’ is an initiative being proposed and
developed by Whole Education and the Curriculum Foundation,
Recognises wider range of subjects,
supported by the Institute of Education, EDEXCEL and other
skills and experiences
national bodies.
Need for a broad and rounded
curriculum The Better Bacc (a working title which is likely to change after
the pilot process) is similar to its cousin, the English Bacc, in
Recognition of all of a learner’s that it is an overarching framework, not a qualification in its
achievements own right. A key facet of the Better Bacc is that, although it
can incorporate all of the components (subjects) that comprise
Timeline for development and the English Bacc, it goes further in recognising a wider range of
implementation subjects, skills and experiences and is being developed at a
range of levels, unlike the English Bacc which only recognises
achievements at Level 2 (ie, GCSE A*-C).
The Better Bacc initiative is based on the following key
principles:
All young people in England should have access to a
broad educational experience that compares favourably
with the best on offer internationally
All young people should be able to leave full time
education with a single and comprehensible summary of
all of their achievements.
There is the need for a baccalaureate that is broad and
which offers a rounded curriculum framework that
encourages the development of the whole student,
improving their chances of being happy, confident and
successful citizens and employees who can make a
positive contribution to society.
There is the need for a baccalaureate that guarantees
rich and worthwhile learning experiences and will fully
prepare students for future learning, life and work.
Employers and universities need to know that young
people have a wide range of skills and experiences in
addition to their formal qualifications and this
baccalaureate (awarded when students leave full time
education) will provide them with that information.
The Better Bacc provides a curriculum framework which
recognises all of a learner’s achievements. The intention is to
develop the essential core skills of literacy and numeracy as
well as skills for employability, civic participation and
independent and out of school learning alongside traditional
qualifications.
The intention is for Better Bacc students to be more involved
and engaged in their own learning, supporting them to take a
more holistic view of their development rather than focusing on
a list of disparate qualifications. In this way, students will be
empowered, ensuring breadth, depth and balance in their
education.
The award students achieve will be greater than the sum of its
parts as it will provide employers, colleges and universities with
a rounded picture of the learner. It will include both
qualifications achieved and evidence of non‐accredited
experiences and will be awarded at age 18 or whenever the
student leaves full time education. The student will have access
during their time at school or college to a (growing) transcript
of their achievements, providing a platform for them to review
and plan next steps in their own learning and development. The
transcript will also provide essential information to other
institutions for students who transfer at age 16.
VESA supports the Better Bacc in principle. We have had
discussions with Whole Education regarding future
developments and have begun to explore how our local area
can keep in touch with this potentially exciting curriculum
initiative.
The time-line for development and implementation is a follows:
Consultation on the design model has already taken
place
Revision of the design model following consultation -
currently in process
Development of a Bacc model for piloting in schools -
October 2012
Piloting in schools - from September 2013
Development of a model for use in all schools from
September 2014
Whole Education and the Curriculum Foundation are very
interested in hearing from schools/colleges who would be willing
to consider piloting for September 2013.
If colleagues are interested, please contact Bill Leivers or
Tim Farthing at VESA for further information.
TOP
TOP
Leicester City Partnership - Developments
Developments in Offsite in Offsite Provision
Provision
Despite the pressure on collaborative schemes in the City
arising from recent curriculum and funding changes, it has been
Numbers holding firm on Future very encouraging to see the number of learners on the Future
Pathways programmes Pathways programme holding firm. This reflects positive
feedback from senior staff, who have noted that this
Year 8 information sharing programme still meets well the needs of this group of learners.
Providing students with the opportunity to experience 3 nine
Bridging courses for year 11
week half day taster courses in Year 10 and a whole day
students
leading to a qualification in Year 11, the programme will
Progression Day continue in 2012-13 with slightly higher numbers in the new
Years 10 and 11.
On the 2 Year programme we have 2 groups of Year 10 Motor
Vehicle and a Hairdressing group as well as a continuing Year
11 group in 2012-13 in both these curriculum areas.
Some schools have also requested support from Post 16
institutions to part deliver Engineering qualifications at Levels 1
and 2.
We are fully aware of the increasingly challenging situation
faced by schools. The VESA team will continue to work
energetically with both schools and providers to maximise
opportunities for learners to engage in a range of experiences
that will enable them to make wise and informed choices at the
point of transition. As part of our on-going development work,
we are currently engaged in planning the following:
Year 8 information sharing – Post 16 Opportunities
In consultation with schools, develop information packs
for Year 8 tutors to use
Develop a DVD to support Year 8 school tutors, flagging
progression routes etc.
ESF funded Future Pathways Year 11 Students 2011-12
These students have been given an opportunity to take part in
a “Bridging Course” aimed at smoothing transition and
minimising drop out from Post 16 institutions in September
2012. Early evaluations indicate that students have found the
course reassuring and valuable. We seek to extend the
opportunity next academic year.
Progression day 28th June 2012
160 Year 10 students from 8 City schools went to Leicester
College to participate in an experience day enabling them to
make informed choices at 16+. Students took part in 2
activities and were given information on life in a Post 16
institution. This is a pilot scheme which, following very positive
student evaluations, will be rolled out to other Post 16
institutions and schools in 2013. Our thanks to Leicester College
for their support in arranging and delivering this valuable
collaborative opportunity.
TOP
TOP
The Quality Assurance of Off-site Provision
Quality Assurance for Offsite in Leicester City - A Collaborative
Provision
Approach
Current Practice A cross-city Quality Improvement Consortium (QuIC) was
formed in 2011 with the specific intent to improve and ensure
Future Plans
the consistency and quality of experience for learners on
Movement towards a ‘one campus’ placement with Training Providers. We also wanted to make the
approach workload of those Providers more manageable, a response to
the growing demands being put upon them by various
QuIC a model of good practice organisations in the city and parts of the county. This new
consortium includes representatives from Leicester’s Secondary
Behaviour Support Service (SBSS), Connexions Leicestershire
and VESA 13-19 Education Support Agency.
What has emerged from the work of the QuIC to date?
Current Practice
Leicestershire Education Business Company
undertakes a Health, Safety and Safeguarding check
on Training Providers. Each check is paid for
separately when requested by a school or
organisation.
Leicester City Q Mark has been developed (by
Connexions and VESA) as a Kitemark for Providers
and is a requirement for those wishing to deliver
provision. Q Mark is based on Self-Assessment and
the Continuous Improvement process.
Collaborative Learning Manager has been developed
by VESA and is now used by SBSS and Connexions
for monitoring attendance and progress towards
qualifications.
Currently, each QuIC member organisation:
o has separate Service Level Agreements in
place with Providers
o undertakes separate Quality Visits and Lesson
Observations
o completes separate Self-Assessment Reports.
Future plans
Make one annual Health, Detail agreed with LEBC
Safety & Safe- guarding visit
from LEBC count for all QuIC
members and share the cost.
Share time required for on- Work in progress
going Q Mark revalidation
among consortium
organisations.
Continue to support the use On going
of CLM with all partners.
Standardise the pro-forma for Target for 2012/13
Service Level Agreements.
Create an annual timetable of 2012/2013 plan is to develop
Quality Assurance Visits a password protected online
which encompasses the system to record visits by
needs of all the QuIC any of the above
organisations organisations to Providers
Make it a requirement that Have all contributed to this
one Self-Assessment Report document and it is nearly
is completed which reports on agreed for use in 2012/13
all learners at a Training
Provider
Align the timetable for Lesson Target for 2012-13
Observation so it reflects the
range of barriers and reduces
the number of visits
Advantages (of moving towards this collaborative “One
Campus” approach)
1) Whole systems and procedures will be aligned
2) Takes best practice from separate schemes and
synthesises this into an effective City-wide model
3) Provides schools with reassurance that Quality
systems are in place which cover delivery,
outcomes, health and safety and safeguarding on
their behalf
4) Time saving, as organisations will represent each
other for certain activities
5) Cost effective as less visits will be required to take
place
Disadvantages (if these QuIC developments were not in
place)
1) Diverse systems would create more pressure for
Providers
2) No quality monitoring of delivery or lesson
observations would be undertaken
3) No completion or analysis of Self-Assessment
Reports for compliance with Service Level
Agreements and no way of checking achievement
of targets.
4) Ineffective monitoring of learners and potential
safeguarding issues.
5) Safeguarding issues where no Health and Safety
checks are completed.
6) Schools refer learners to Providers directly and
points 1 to 5 (above) would apply
The work of the QuIC has been acknowledged and endorsed by
the Leicester City 13-19 Partnership as a model of good
practice and will now be discussed by Leicester EIP during the
Autumn Term 2012.
Through this process, schools will understand more clearly
which systems and processes are in place on their behalf should
they wish to use Q Mark-approved and QuIC supported
Providers. They will also have a better understanding of the
responsibilities they will retain and the key requirements they
will have to satisfy should they choose to place students directly
with Providers themselves.
TOP
TOP
Post 16 Decision Making – Apprenticeships
Apprenticeships and WRL and the Importance of Work Related
OFSTED report on good practice Learning/Work Experience
for Apprenticeships
Over the past year there have been a few reports that have
Importance of meaningful work noted the importance of work related learning and, more
experience specifically, work experience, to the development of young
people, particularly those at KS4.
Importance of High Quality IAG
The focus of this article is on messages relevant to schools
emanating from the Apprenticeships for Young People- A
Good Practice Report
Apprenticeships are all too often mistakenly seen as the poor
cousin in the Post 16 progression market, something to be
considered by a minority of young people who are unable or
unwilling to move onto predominantly Level 3 programmes in
school 6th Forms, the Tertiary Sector or FE Colleges with clear
cut progression routes onto Higher Education. Although
employment based opportunities have been adversely impacted
on by the economic recession, the Apprenticeship route is one
that continues to be high up in the thinking of Government and
is a realistic and growing pathway for learners of all abilities,
not least those attracted by the potential of earning whilst
learning.
This OFSTED report focuses on common features of good
apprenticeship programmes. It sends out clear messages
particularly relevant to those providing apprenticeships but is
also relevant to colleagues in schools. The headline quote from
the OFSTED website underlines this point namely, that
“Apprentices are more likely to succeed if they have
completed meaningful work experience”. The report
goes on to note that “while the majority of learners are
completing their apprenticeships, around a quarter are dropping
out. It is clear that more work experience, vocational study
and course tasters are needed to ensure learners are on the
right apprenticeship for them and that they understand the
demands of work”.
This remains a challenge for schools, how to support and inform
effectively learners’ post compulsory education decision-
making. As we move towards the inclusion of progression
measures amongst the range of criteria by which schools will
be judged, there is likely to be a greater need to ensure that
Post 16 school leavers are well-informed and that their next
step is one completed successfully. What price good quality
Careers Education, Information, Advice and Guidance, the
opportunity for good quality (focused) work experience,
opportunities within the curriculum for vocationally orientated
courses and for learners to take part in vocational taster
programmes? The challenge remains to find an effective means
of reconciling these imperatives with the pressures of the
English Bacc!
TOP
TOP
Report on the VESA Foundation Learning
Foundation Learning Conference – 17th May 2012
Conference 2012
This year’s FL conference once again proved to be a successful
Emphasis on SEN provision event largely due to the strong attendance from delegates from
special schools and SEN settings who constituted the majority
The new ‘Supported Employment’ of the audience. The number of delegates from mainstream
qualification schools and colleges was significantly down on previous years,
perhaps a reflection of the current national “planning blight”
The importance of FL for Entry and that exists with FL. Evaluations suggested that those
Level 1 learners colleagues from mainstream settings who did attend found the
event a useful and valuable day, despite the programme having
been revised at a late stage in the light of the strong SEN “sign
up”
Bill Leivers from VESA set the context for the day with a
national and local policy update. This was followed by inputs
from John Furborough [Birkett House School] on target driven
curriculum developments which linked in closely with a later
input by Trevor Howe [Otherways Education] on supporting
the assessment, tracking and target setting for pupils
within SEN settings.
We were particularly delighted to have students from Ellesmere
College and Westgate School at the conference who were
involved in the delivery of a session about how the FL
curriculum has developed in each of these schools. Angela
Smith from Ellesmere and Carole Young from Westgate, along
with their students, provided some very important insights into
the relevance of FL in a special school setting.
Sue Pilkington from Aim awards provided delegates with an
update on the new “Supported Employment” qualification
which should soon be available at all of the Entry Levels. This
was of particular interest to a number of schools and colleges
present who are focussing on employability for their learners as
a key area for development. This qualification, along with
similar offers from other awarding bodies, will help to provide
an accredited option for schools and colleges.
Informal discussions at the conference reminded us that,
whilst FL has entered an uncertain phase in terms of
national policy direction, it continues to offer a vital
curriculum experience for many of our learners at Entry
and Level 1. Done well, it sets a framework for promoting
student achievement and success whilst helping to
support progression into the next phase of learning.
Clearly, this inter-connects with the RPA agenda with its
focus on Post 16 participation and progression.
Some quotes from delegates, taken from evaluation
forms:
Overall comments:
“Enjoyable and well-presented programme. Thanks”
“Liked the SEN focus. Very valuable day”
“Beautiful setting and great hospitality”
The following comments are in relation to the
Westgate/Ellesmere workshop:
“Excellent – a good overview of the realities and practicalities of
relevant courses. (And delivered fantastically by staff and
students!)”
“Excellent – loved the presentations by students. Am looking to
introduce NOCN so found this very helpful”
“Great to see SEN students at an event like his. Usually only
gifted and talented get the opportunity”
The conference presentations can all be accessed on the
VESA website.
For further information about FL developments please contact
Bill Leivers, Jo Charlesworth or Tim Farthing at VESA.
TOP
TOP
Reports from Charlie Taylor – Government
Reports from Charlie Taylor Adviser on Behaviour
Improving Alternative Provision In an earlier edition of the VESA Digest we reported on Charlie
Taylor’s Behaviour Checklist.
Improving Attendance at School
Charlie Taylor is the Government’s Expert Adviser on Behaviour
and, since the Spring Term VESA Digest went to press, he has
published two further papers:
Improving Alternative Provision (March 2012)
Improving Attendance at School (April 2012)
Improving Alternative Provision
The focus of this report is on young people outside of
mainstream education. Alternative Provision, as defined in
this report, relates to young people typically with behavioural
issues, most of whom have been excluded. (As such, it is
important to note that it does not relate to provision that
involves young people in part-time off-site provision, including
vocational courses, arranged as part of local collaborative
programmes or by schools directly with colleges or training
providers under the umbrella of “Foundation Learning”).
The report recommends that:
Schools rather than Local Authorities take responsibility
for funding and commissioning Alternative Provision
Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) have the opportunity to
convert to academies
Creation of more opportunities for teacher training and
CPD in PRUs
Government to set new commissioning standards for
Alternative Provision
OFSTED to focus on Alternative Provision as part of its
inspection programme
Greater emphasis to be placed on English and Maths
Better sharing of information and early intervention to
be adopted where possible
It is easy to see other aspects of Government policy in this
report, namely the broader push for Academies and a greater
emphasis on a free market model of educational provision.
Readers of the TES may have noted that one response to the
report has been the formation of Free/Studio Schools with an
Alternative Provision focus. New providers can set up shop
under the Free School banner whilst existing providers can
choose, should they wish, to become academies. Local
Authorities, thus far the providers of most provision through
PRUs, seem to be in some danger of becoming more
marginalised. Taylor’s report triggers some key questions to be
confronted in the coming academic year(s):
To what extent will individual schools be required to broker
Alternative Provision without the support of centrally employed
support /expertise/systems?
Will schools continue to work together in a joined up,
collaborative way to deal with students collectively through
local Behaviour Partnerships (or something similar)?
What, if anything, will be the LA’s role in this changing and
challenging landscape?
Will alternative “middle-tier” or go-between arrangements be
formed instead (or in addition?) in response to local needs?
As with much that relates to the free market, Charlie Taylor’s
report seems to reflect the government’s hope and intention
that existing profit-seeking entities will step in or new ones will
be formed to provide additional (or replacement?) capacity;
that competition will drive down prices whilst ensuring quality;
and that all will benefit. Watch this space…
Improving Attendance at School
This other report from Charlie Taylor has, I am sure, already
been widely discussed in schools. The origins of the report are
based on the premise that there is a link between poor
attendance and lower academic achievement and a variety of
other longer term social and economic ills. The statistics
appear stark – for those with 50% or less attendance, only 3%
achieve five or more GCSE’s at A*-C, including English and
Maths.
Taylor’s recommendations apply to a range of players including
- parents, schools, Local Authorities and OFSTED. One stand
out feature is the emphasis on primary schools where, it is felt,
that attendance problems start and that good habits need to
become understood and embedded.
The key Taylor recommendations in this report are:
A significant shift in focus to attendance in the Primary
years is needed as this is where the problem takes root
and is difficult to reverse in later years
Change in terminology. Out goes truancy, now need to
focus on improved attendance (more primary friendly).
Out goes authorised and unauthorised absence. All
absence is bad. The focus now should be on overall and
persistent absence
Attendance data is to be produced for each year for the
whole year
Toughen up on term time holidays. Not to be seen as an
entitlement but as an exception
Reception attendance data to be published. To be
looked at by OFSTED, compared to local and national
averages
OFSTED to set timed attendance improvement targets
Primaries to analyse data and act promptly, identify
trends
Primaries to support families of nursery and reception
children failing to get children to school
Parental Sanctions – fines. Failure to pay promptly leads
to fines doubling.
TOP
TOP
Schools Exclusions Enquiry Report – “They
Schools Exclusions Enquiry Never Give Up On You”
Report
In March, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner’s enquiry
Children’s Commissioner’s Report into school exclusions produced its report “They Never Give
Up On You”
The messages for schools The report explores exclusion data, identifies the characteristics
that tend to be common amongst excluded young people,
Report’s recommendations points to alternatives to exclusion, highlights bad and illegal
practice and, importantly, identifies and celebrates a range of
good practice. Maggie Atkinson, the Children’s Commissioner,
specifies that the report is “a challenge to policy makers,
parents, school and sector leaders to practise what the best
schools are already doing”. For colleagues unfamiliar with the
report, I commend the Executive Summary as a decent read
(link, above).
Who Gets Excluded? – the over-represented Groups
The report noted four main over-represented groups, based on:
SEN – In 2009-10, those with a statement were seven
times more likely to be excluded than others.
Ethnicity – particular disparities for those with
Roma/Gypsy, Irish traveller and Black Caribbean
backgrounds. In 2009-10 Black Caribbean children were
four times more likely to be excluded than the rest of
the population.
Gender – In 2009-10 boys permanent exclusion rate
were four times higher than for girls. Boys represent
78% of permanent exclusions. For fixed term exclusions
boys’ rates were three times higher than for girls,
representing 75% of fixed term exclusions.
Income - Children from low income families were more
likely to be excluded. Those eligible for free school
meals were, in 2009-10, four times more likely to be
permanently excluded and three times more likely to
receive a fixed term exclusion.
Messages for schools
Key messages for schools are derived from the report’s
recommendations. Of note are:
o Need for clear and transparent criteria for exclusion
o Having in place mechanisms for appeals
o Establishment of methods of communication with
children and families
o Having in place in-house a range of provision that
addresses the learner issues and behaviour but reduces
the need for (off-site) exclusion
o Being aware of any common characteristics amongst
excluded young people. Use data to inform strategies
that can reduce exclusion amongst such groups, improve
engagement etc
o Work collaboratively with other schools and partner
organisations to develop strategies to reduce exclusion
and to improve provision for the excluded or those in
danger of exclusion.
The Report Recommendations are worded in terms of the
target audience (namely the Department for Education) but
they also include clear pointers for individual institutions.
Calls for the development of new Statutory Guidance on
exclusions where the interests of the child should be the
primary consideration
Statutory Guidance, to apply to all state funded schools,
to:
o Set out how schools communicate with the child
and family with regard to reasons for exclusion,
length of exclusion, evidence (the basis for the
decision to exclude, the process for appealing
(permanent) exclusion, and the provision that will
be made for continuance of education where
exclusion exceeds 5 days.
o Specify the content of communications with
regard to the right to appeal and wording to be
used in formal notices to exclude
Guidance to ensure justice in the system, to minimize
the chance of discriminatory behaviour, through
established principles to ensure clarity and
transparency:
o The conditions for any exclusions (health &
Safety of the child and others, prevent disruption
to learning)
o Exclusion to only be used as a last resort when
other measures have been tried and failed.
Exclusion as a first response to be only in
exceptional situations (eg. assault, threatening
with weapons, supplying drugs)
o Exclusion never to be used for minor
infringements of school rules
To conduct further research into illegal exclusions (noted
in a minority of schools)
Investigate concerns that (some) Academies were failing
to abide by the law regarding exclusions
Clarify the role/s of Government agencies in providing an
oversight of and dealing with parental complaints
regarding Academies (NB. The normal check and balance
role of the LA does not apply to Academies, but
inadequate thought may have been given to the
question of who does provide a challenge to Academies
with regard to their exclusion practice).
Reinstatement of Independent Appeals panels, as a
safeguard to unreasonable exclusions.
Development of a standard approach to the
administration of all exclusions and to ensure that all
parents and young people become aware of the
underpinning legal framework.
Presumption against exclusion from primary schools
Strategies to be put in place to address differential rates
of exclusion (referring to over-excluded groups)
Provide guidance on managing in-house provision
including commissioning Alternative Provision (links to
separate developments, notably linking to Charlie
Taylor’s recommendations arising from the report
Improving Alternative Provision )
TOP
TOP
GCSEs - Is It a Case of Even Further Back to
Changes to GCSEs the Future
Toughening up in certain subjects As reported in the past two editions of the VESA Digest,
significant changes to GCSE have been in process over the past
Issue of ‘Early Entries’ year. The Importance of Teaching White Paper, which
spawned much of the post-election educational review and
The return to O’levels? change, led to the GCSE Reform consultation. This was
followed in January 2012 by the publication of the OFQUAL
GCSE reform policy recommendations. These were duly
accepted by the DfE and have now been formalised as policy.
The changes previously reported mainly take the form of
“toughening up” aspects of the GCSE assessment regime,
including the removal of coursework, increased linearity,
reducing retake opportunities, as well as the formal recognition
of spelling, punctuation and grammar in mark schemes.
So one might have thought that was all with GCSEs, at least for
a while. Not so. There are some additional things which might
impact on GCSEs, emanating from Ministerial speeches as well
as the finding of agencies such as OFQUAL. These include:
OFQUAL commanding the Awarding Bodies to toughen
up English Literature, Maths, History and Geography.
Perhaps, no coincidence that three of these are English
Bacc subjects.
Michaels Gove’s desire to “crack down on early entries”.
OFSTED to explore this one and to identify “bad
practice”. Over the past 5 years, there has been a
considerable increase in early entries. In 2007, there
were 67,000 early entries in English and Maths. The
figure rose to 326,000 in 2010. This indicates that, in
2010, approximately a quarter of entries were prior to
the end of year 11. Early entry has pros and cons, not
least in terms of continuity of subject development and
consequent potential impact on Post 16 progression.
However, if any “tightening up” comes to pass, this is
likely to have a direct impact on professional judgement
and local decision making.
Last but not least, and most recent, is the suggestion by
Michael Gove that we might see a return an O level/CSE
system. This opens a major can of worms. Was the
pre-1986 system that good? Since the original speech
was made, there has been a degree of backing down
and redefining what was really meant. However, out of
the storm, the Minister might expect (intend) to
introduce further changes, marginally less extreme and,
therefore, more palatable.
Surely, the qualification changes already set in train and linked
to other policy developments (eg. Performance Tables) were
intended to overcome these same perceived weaknesses? A
reasonable person might have concluded that this was the case.
Meanwhile, the policy whirlwind continues to blow…!
TOP
TOP
Homework Important Despite the Demise
Homework of Government Guidelines
Government abandonment of March saw an announcement by Michael Gove to the effect that
homework guidelines he was proposing the abandonment of the 1998 Homework
Guidelines. Colleagues may recollect that for secondary
What form should schools’ education, the guidelines recommend that in years 10 and 11
homework policies now take? learners should be doing homework for between 1.5 and 2.5
hours per evening.
Is this a Michael Gove moment of (relative!) softness? In
reality, the guidelines were simply that – a set of guidelines.
Although schools should have a Homework Policy, there was
always uncertainty with regard to what form this should take,
how it might be monitored and the small matter of recognising
that for one learner what might take an hour may take another
three hours.
Set against the much bigger changes that are taking place
(Performance Tables, Teacher Training OFSTED Framework, A
levels, GCSEs etc) this is, one might argue, not particularly
significant. However, what has not changed is the recognition
that homework is important. The EPPSE longitudinal study is
quoted in the TES article, Out of School Fuel for Young
Minds . It notes that the impact of homework “is larger than
the (achievement) differences predicted by gender, free-school
meals, family’s socio-economic status or mother’s qualification
level”.
What continues to be significant is:
the ‘form that homework takes’
the extent to which learners see it as being important
that it should have relevance
that it should be integral to wider class learning.
