August 2017
Registered Charity No. 1132122 | Company Registration No. 6953650
In the past 15 years or so, a consensus has begun to emerge in the United States about what the common characteristics are of the country’s most successful schools, particularly when it comes to the attainment of the most disadvantaged students. They are almost exclusively in large cities like New York, Boston and Chicago; the vast majority are ‘charters’, i.e. the American equivalent of free schools; and they characterise their approach to education as ‘No Excuses’. A recent article in Vox by Elizabeth Green, author of the New York Times bestseller Building a Better Teacher (2014), summed up the achievements of these schools: “Looking at test scores, all the highest academic results ever produced for poor students and students of colour have come from No Excuses schools. Period.”1
The phrase ‘No Excuses’ was first used by Abigail and Stephen Thernstrom in a book called No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning (2001) and has since become part of the lingua franca of the American education debate. It does not just refer to a particular approach to managing pupils’ behaviour, although all No Excuses schools are characterised by strong discipline. It also refers to the refusal of the schools to accept any excuses for poor pupil performance, particularly excuses that make reference to religion, ethnicity or parental socio-economic status. They typically have the following characteristics: strong discipline, smart school uniforms, high academic expectations, a commitment to getting every child into university, longer school days, younger-than-average teachers, traditional pedagogy (for example, teacher-led, whole-class instruction) and speedy interventions if children are getting left behind.
There is now so much research attesting to the effectiveness of No Excuses schools, much of it bearing the imprimatur of America’s most respected universities, that educators in the mainstream public education system have begun to implement some of the strategies
1 Green, E., ‘Beyond the viral video’, Vox, March 12, 2016.
that have proved so successful in the charter sector.2 For instance, a group of educators in Houston have managed to turn around some low-performing public schools by encouraging them to adopt some No Excuses practises.3 Like the advocates of the free schools policy, the pioneers of charter schools hoped that creating a space for innovation in America’s public education system would enable educators to discover new, more effective teaching methods that other schools could benefit from. And with the No Excuses model becoming more and more widespread, it looks as if that is happening. Flat-lining Social Mobility
Are there any lessons the English school system can learn from the success of No Excuses schools? This is particularly urgent in light of the continuing under-performance of disadvantaged pupils in England’s state-funded education system. A recent report by the Education Policy Institute found that, by the time they reach 16, the gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers is 19.3 months. That is to say, it is as if disadvantaged pupils have received 19.3 months less schooling than their non-disadvantaged classmates by the time they take their GCSEs. For the persistently disadvantaged, defined as those who have been eligible for free school meals for at least 80 per cent of their school lives, the gap is 24.3 months.4
Disadvantaged students fare particularly badly when it comes to getting into high tariff universities. While the number of English students from disadvantaged backgrounds getting in to all universities increased every year between 2006 and 2016, the number of disadvantaged students being admitted to the UK’s elite universities is declining. In 2016, the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) published some data revealing that of the 24 universities that comprise the Russell Group, seven recorded a drop in the percentage of disadvantaged students being admitted in 2015, including Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, Exeter and Imperial College.5 Only 50 students on free school meals were admitted to Oxford and Cambridge in 2014, an increase of just five since 2007, when 45 were admitted.6 This suggests that the education reforms initiated by the Coalition Government and continued since have done little to increase access to Britain’s top universities for the most disadvantaged – at least, not yet. This conclusion was borne out by the Social Mobility Commission’s
2 See Hoxby, C. and Rockoff, J., 2004. ‘The Impact of Charter Schools on Student Achievement’; Hoxby, C., M., Murarka, S., and Kang, J., 2009. ‘How New York City’s Charter Schools Affect Student Achievement: August 2009 Report’, New York City Charter Schools Evaluation Project; Abdulkadiroglu, A., Angrist, J., Cohodes, S., Dynarski, S., Fullerton, J., Kane, T. and Pathak, P., 2009. ‘Informing the Debate: Comparing Boston’s Charter, Pilot and Traditional Schools’, Boston Foundation; Angrist, J., Dynarski, S., Kane, T., Pathak, P. and Walters, C., 2010. ‘Who Benefits from KIPP?’, NBER Working Paper Series No. 15740. National Bureau of Economic Research; Clark, M., Gleason, P., Tuttle, C. and Silverberg, M., 2011. ‘Do Charter Schools Improve Student Achievement? Evidence from a National Randomized Study’, Mathematica Policy Research. 3 Fryer, R., ‘Injecting Successful Charter School Strategies into Traditional Public Schools: Early Results from an Experiment in Houston’, 2011. NBER Working Paper Series No. 17494. National Bureau of Economic Research. 4 Andrews, J., Robinson, D., and Hutchinson, J., 2017. ‘Closing the gap: Trends in Educational Attainment and Disadvantage’, Education Policy Institute. 5 ‘Performance Indicators: Widening participation of under-represented groups’, 2016. HESA. 6 ‘Poor pupil numbers frozen in time: Oxbridge takes on just five more pupils than in 2007’, 2016. New Schools Network.
State of the Nation 2016 report. Among other things, it found that young people who grow up in poor households are six times less likely to go to Oxford or Cambridge.7
No Excuses schools could be part of the solution to the problem of flat-lining social mobility. As a rule, these schools increase the test scores of pupils from low income families when it comes to English and maths by a third of a standard deviation per year, which is sufficient to eliminate the attainment gap between disadvantaged students and their peers after a few years. But could the No Excuses model be transplanted to England?
Gromps
In England, the nearest equivalent of No Excuses schools are those referred to as ‘Neo- Traditionalist’ – comprehensives that combine the inclusiveness of mixed-ability, community schools with the high academic expectations and standards of grammar schools. We have decided to call these schools ‘Gromps’ because they are a hybrid of grammars and comps. The purpose of this report is to find out whether England’s most successful schools can be described as ‘Gromps’.
7 ‘State of the Nation 2016’. Social Mobility Commission.
Mossbourne Community Academy
The best-known example of an English school that has embraced the No Excuses philosophy is Mossbourne Community Academy in Hackney. For the past 10 years, Mossbourne has consistently been among the highest-performers when it comes to the percentage of GCSE students getting A* to C in five GCSEs, including English and maths (80% of disadvantaged students achieved this in 2015). In 2016, seven of its pupils received offers from Oxford or Cambridge. What is particularly impressive about this is that Mossbourne replaced a school in exactly the same location as Hackney Downs School, described by the government before it closed in 1995 as the “worst school in Britain”.
“There is this view that children from poor areas cannot achieve,” says Sir Michael Wilshaw, who was the headmaster of Mossbourne before becoming the head of Ofsted. “The thing that I am most proud of is that we’ve shown they can. I’m also proud that we’ve done it in Hackney, which was one of the lowest achieving areas in the country. The line has been clear from the start. No excuses. You can do it.”8 England’s Most Successful Academy Chains
A brief scan of England’s most successful academy chains also suggests that the No Excuses approach is bearing fruit. Take ARK, for instance, an academy chain with 35 schools that has, in part, modelled itself on KIPP (the Knowledge is Power Programme), one of America’s most successful No Excuses chains. ARK schools share many of the same characteristics as No Excuses schools, including strong discipline, smart school uniforms, high academic expectations, a commitment to getting every child into university, longer school days and speedy interventions for children falling behind.
Some individual ARK schools have done exceptionally well, such as King Solomon Academy (KSA), a secondary school in the most economically deprived ward in London where the school day starts at 7.55am and does not end until 4pm. In 2016, 93% of its GCSE students got five A* to C in five GCSEs, including English and maths – the best results in the country for a school with a comprehensive intake.
Some of England’s other successful academy chains also follow the No Excuses approach, such as the Harris Federation, the Inspiration Trust and City of London Academies Trust. All three are characterised by strict discipline, smart school uniforms, high academic expectations, a commitment to getting every child into university and speedy interventions. In the league table compiled by the Education Policy Institute, which looked at the performance of multi-academy
8 Fowler, R., ‘Mossbourne Academy: A tale of high expectations… and no excuses’, The Daily Telegraph, February 23, 2011
trusts and local authorities in England in 2015, the Inspiration Trust came top of the secondary table and the Harris Federation top of the primary table.9 In Chain Effects 2017, the annual survey of multi-academy trusts and local authorities by the Sutton Trust, the City of London Academies Trust was the top performer.10
England’s Most Successful Free Schools
In 2016, many free schools posted their first ever GCSE results and if you look at the most successful there is a clear pattern: they all share a number of characteristics with No Excuses schools. Of the 10 free schools that recorded positive Progress 8 scores (see below for an explanation of this accountability measure), seven shared many of the characteristics of No Excuses charter schools: the Tauheedual Islam Boys’ High School, Dixons Kings Academy, Bedford Free School, Queen Elizabeth’s Grammar School (non-selective, in spite of its name), the West London Free School, Bradford Girls’ Grammar School (also non-selective) and IES-Brecklands. It remains to be seen whether this pattern will be repeated in 2017, when many more free schools will be posting GCSE results for the first time. Progress 8
But beyond the highest-performing academies and free schools, is there any evidence that England’s most successful schools in general could be described as ‘Gromps’?
To answer this question, New Schools Network (NSN) will be carrying out an analysis of the 100 most successful English secondary schools and the 100 least successful, as measured by this year’s GCSE results, and we will publish the results later in the year. The idea is to first identify these schools and then look at what they have in common (if anything) before determining the extent to which the most effective can
9 Andrews, J., 2016. ‘School performance in multi-academy trusts and local authorities – 2015’, Education Policy Institute. 10 Hutchings, M. and Francis, B. ‘Chain Effects 2017: The impact of academy chains on low-income students’, Sutton Trust.
be described as ‘No Excuses’. However, as a first step NSN has analysed the 25 most successful comprehensives and the 25 least successful comprehensives based on last year’s GCSE results.
To identify the top and bottom performers, we used ‘Progress 8’, a new accountability measure introduced by the Department for Education for the first time last year. This awards each English secondary school a score – usually between -2 and +2 – depending on the progress made by its pupils if you compare their performance in eight GCSEs with their performance in their Key Stage 2 SATS. Of the eight GCSEs in question, two must be English and maths, three must be EBacc subjects (sciences, computer science, geography, history and languages) and three can be from a wide range of subjects, including but not limited to the EBacc subjects. For instance, Art, Music and Drama can all count towards Progress 8.11
To calculate whether the progress made by an individual pupil is negative or positive, that pupil’s progress is compared to the average progress made by all those pupils who got the same Key Stage 2 SATS results. After each pupil’s progress has been calculated, an average is then calculated for all the school’s pupils and that average is the school’s Progress 8 score.
Progress 8 is not a perfect measure of how effective an individual school is, but it is fairer than looking at a school’s Attainment 8 results – the average GCSE grade obtained by all the pupils – because it takes prior attainment into account. In essence, it measures how well a school’s GCSE cohort has done in eight subjects relative to the average attainment of pupils with the same starting points. A positive score means that a school’s pupils have made above average progress compared to similar children across the country, while a negative score means they have made below average progress.
11 NSN published a report earlier this year which found that schools with above average results in the EBacc subjects were characterised by higher levels of per-pupil GCSE arts entries. ‘The Two Cultures: Do schools have to choose between the EBacc and the arts?’ 2017, NSN.
England’s Most and Least Successful Schools as Measured by Progress 8
Table 1: Top 25 performers at Progress 8
School Name Progress 8
Tauheedul Islam Girls' High School 1.37
The Steiner Academy Hereford 1.31
Tauheedul Islam Boys' High School 1.15
Harris Academy Battersea 1.14
ARK King Solomon Academy 1.08
St Andrew's Catholic School 1.08
The City Academy, Hackney 1.02
Sheffield Park Academy 0.93
Harris Girls' Academy East Dulwich 0.93
Outwood Academy Portland 0.93
Preston Muslim Girls High School 0.92
The St Thomas the Apostle College 0.91
Uffculme School 0.91
Forest Gate Community School 0.81
Sacred Heart Catholic School 0.8
City of London Academy Islington 0.8
The Oxford Academy 0.8
The Compton School 0.79
Bridlington School 0.79
Mossbourne Community Academy 0.78
Wren Academy 0.78
St Augustine's Catholic High School 0.78
ARK St Alban's Academy 0.76
Ursuline High School Wimbledon 0.76
St Mark's Catholic School 0.75
Table 2: Bottom 25 performers at Progress 8
School Name Progress 8
Corpus Christi Catholic High School -1.04
Millbrook Academy -1.05
All Saints Catholic High School -1.06
The Gainsborough Academy -1.06
The Prescot School -1.07
The E-Act Burnham Park Academy -1.07
Thornaby Academy -1.08
Kearsley Academy -1.09
St Ambrose Barlow Catholic College -1.09
Sandymoor -1.1
Tudor Grange Samworth Academy, A -1.12 Church of England School
Balby Carr Community Academy -1.12
Gloucester Academy -1.12
Highfield Humanities College -1.13
Park Lane Learning Trust -1.13
The Royal Harbour Academy -1.14
Beacon Hill Community School -1.14
Mexborough Academy -1.15
The Bulwell Academy -1.17
Oasis Academy Oldham -1.21
Winstanley Community College -1.23
The Whitehaven Academy -1.35
Bloxwich Academy -1.36
Fearns Community Sports College -1.36
Robert Owen Academy -1.72
What Do These Schools Have in Common?
To determine what, if anything, these schools have in common, and whether they can be described as ‘Neo-Traditionalist’ or ‘Gromps’ we gave them a score of between -5 and +5 in various different categories according to where they sit on the ‘Progressive-Traditional’ spectrum, with -5 being the most progressive score possible and +5 the most traditional score possible.
Before discussing our findings, it is worth noting that nine of the top 25 schools are either in multi- academy trusts that we have already identified as broadly following a No Excuses approach or are schools that we have already identified as embrace this approach: the Tauheedul Islam Girls’ High School, the Tauheedul Islam Boys’ High School, Harris Academy Battersea, ARK King Solomon Academy, the City Academy Hackney, Harris Girls’ Academy East Dulwich, City of London Academy Islington, Mossbourne Community Academy and ARK St Alban’s Academy.
Furthermore, the success of the top 25 cannot be ascribed to the fact that they have a below average number of disadvantaged students, defined as eligible for free school meals at any point in the last six years. Of the 25, 15 have an above average percentage of disadvantaged pupils, while 10 have a below average percentage. And of those 15, 14 are significantly above the national average – the national average is 29.3%, while the percentage of disadvantaged students in these 14 schools is 10 percentage points higher.
It is also worth drawing attention to another characteristic of these schools: in the top 25, children from disadvantaged backgrounds perform better than the national average for all students, while in the bottom 25 disadvantaged children get results that are well below average.
Graph 1: Average Attainment 8 score for disadvantaged pupils in the top 25 schools:
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 0 5 10 15 20 25
Average Attainment 8 score per school National average Attainment 8 score for all pupils National average Attainment 8 score for all disadvantaged pupils
Graph 2: Average Attainment 8 score for disadvantaged pupils in the bottom 25 schools
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Average Attainment score per school
National average Attainment 8 score for all pupils
National average Attainment 8 score for disadvantaged pupils
Behaviour Management
The first thing we analysed was behaviour management. To what extent do the schools in our survey take a No Excuses approach to discipline? We looked at a combination of quantitative and qualitative factors. Assembling the quantitative data was straightforward. We looked at the DfE’s performance tables to see what percentage of each school’s pupil population was absent in the academic year 2015-16 and what percentage persistently absent – a measure of how strict a school is, with the stricter the school, the less likely it is to tolerate absences. Pulling together the qualitative data took more time. A team of NSN researchers looked at each school’s website and Ofsted reports and gave its overall approach to discipline a score of between -5 and +5 according to how progressive/traditional it is. The researchers looked at the following things:
Traditional Behaviour Management Policy: Same-day detentions Bans on chewing gum Bans on mobile phones and electronic devises Home-school agreements A member of the Senior Leadership Team clearly responsible for behaviour management Quiet and orderly procession between classrooms Sanctions for relatively minor infractions, such as detention for being late to school Progressive Behaviour Management Policy: A ‘restorative’ approach to behaviour Non-existent, weak or unspecified sanctions for infractions of the rules No ban on chewing gum, mobile phones or electronic devises in schools Uniform and Appearance Policy: How long/detailed is the policy? How traditional is it? Are pupils expected to wear blazers and ties? Are trainers allowed instead of shoes? Are girls allowed to wear make-up? Are unusual hair styles permitted? What are the consequences of not having the correct uniform?
We then combined the quantitative and the qualitative data to produce an aggregate score and created a scatter plot to see if there was a link between how traditional each school’s approach is to behaviour management and its Progress 8 score:
Graph 3: Aggregate behaviour management score mapped against Progress 8
2
1.5
1
0.5 8 8
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Progress Progress -0.5
-1
-1.5
-2 Aggregate Behaviour Management Score
As you can see, there is a strong relationship between the two. While we gave four schools in the top 25 negative behaviour management scores, and two schools in the bottom 25 positive scores, for the most part there is a clear correlation between a positive behaviour management score and a positive Progress 8 score. High Academic Expectations
For this category, we looked at how high each school’s academic expectations are. Again, we looked at a combination of quantitative and qualitative factors, with our researchers looking at DfE performance tables and the school’s websites and Ofsted reports.
Quantitative:
The percentage of students entered for the EBacc The percentage of students obtaining the EBacc The percentage of all the GCSEs taken in each school that were in modern foreign languages
Qualitative:
Does the school’s mission statement explicitly focus on academic excellence? Does the school say it wants all pupils to go on to university? Does the school have an academic specialism?
Having given each school an aggregate score according to how high its academic expectations are, we then produced the following scatter plot:
Graph 4: Aggregate high expectations score mapped against Progress 8
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 Progress Progress 8 -0.5
-1
-1.5
-2 Aggregate High Expectations score
As before, there is a strong relationship between the two scores. While two schools in the top 25 received negative scores for traditional expectations and six schools in the bottom 25 got positive expectations scores, overall there is a strong correlation between the two. Expectations of Disadvantaged Pupils
It is worth reiterating that the top performing schools at Progress 8 in most cases had a higher proportion of disadvantaged students than the national average. Once again, we looked at a combination of quantitative and qualitative factors using the same sources as above to determine how high each school’s academic expectations of its disadvantaged students is.
Quantitative:
The percentage of disadvantaged students entered for the EBacc The percentage of disadvantaged students obtaining the EBacc
For the qualitative factors, we looked at how each school spends its pupil premium funding, something schools are obliged to disclose on their websites. In particular, we looked at:
Is the money spent on resources intended to boost academic attainment, such as individual tutors for disadvantaged children falling behind, rather than on non-academic enrichment activities? Does the school measure the effect of its pupil premium spending according to its impact on the GCSE results of disadvantaged pupils? How much of a school’s pupil premium funding is spent on non-academic activities?
Having given each school an aggregate score according to how high its academic expectations are of disadvantaged pupils, we then produced the following scatter plot:
Graph 5: Aggregate expectations/disadvantaged score mapped against Progress 8
2
1.5
1
0.5
8 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-0.5 Progress
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5 Aggregate Expectations/Disadvantaged Score
As you can see, there is quite a strong relationship between the two scores. While more than half of the bottom 25 schools get a positive expectations/disadvantaged score, all of the top 25 schools have positive expectations/disadvantaged scores – and, in aggregate, their scores are higher than the scores for the bottom 25.
School Ethos
Finally, we analysed each school’s ethos and tried to give it a score according to where it sits on the ‘Progressive-Traditional’ continuum. We had no quantitative data to go on here, just qualitative data. In particular, we looked at:
Curriculum Traditional characteristics included: Focus on academic subjects Evidence of high academic expectations Mandatory foreign language at GCSE Greek, Ancient History, Latin or Classical Civilisation offered at GCSE History, Geography and RE studied separately at Key Stage 3 Progressive elements here included: The curriculum being organised around themes or topics, rather than subjects Combined Humanities at Key Stage 3 Describing its curriculum as ‘progressive’ on its website Pedagogy Traditional characteristics included: Whole-class, teacher-led instruction Scripted lessons Regular, low-stakes quizzes Progressive elements included: Student-led, personalised instruction Emphasis on ‘discovery’ or ‘enquiry’ rather than the transmission of knowledge Emphasis on group work Length of school day Extra-curricular activities Traditional activities included: Academic clubs – debate club, maths club, chess club Does the school have an explicit drive for pupils to take up these academic activities, e.g. by making them mandatory? Does the school have a Combined Cadet Force? Progressive activities included: Non-Academic clubs – dance club, video games club, Lego club Sports
A traditional approach included: School teams in several different sports that regularly compete with other schools A progressive approach included: Prioritising participation over competition? Non-competitive sports days School Trips Traditional approach included trips to museums, galleries and sites of historic interest Progressive approach included trips of no academic value, such as to theme parks or leisure centres
We then gave each school an aggregate ethos score and produced the following scatter plot:
Graph 6: Aggregate school ethos score mapped against Progress 8
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 Progress Progress 8 -0.5
-1
-1.5
-2 Aggregate score for school ethos
The relationship is weaker here than in the other categories. While it is true that, in aggregate, the higher a school’s ethos score, the higher its Progress 8 score – the trendline is upward-sloping – all but four of the schools in the bottom 25 received a positive ethos score. Moreover, one of the schools in the top 25 for Progress 8 – the Steiner Academy Hereford – is firmly on the progressive side of the spectrum according to this metric. As this category is based solely on qualitative data, we aim to analyse these metrics in greater detail in the longer report.
Conclusion
Our tentative conclusion is that England’s most successful schools do, for the most part, sit at the traditional end of the ‘Progressive-Traditional’ continuum and are following a No Excuses/Gromp approach. Moreover, the more traditional they are, the more likely they are to be successful, both for their disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students – and the fact that disadvantaged pupils do particularly well at these schools is something they have in common with American No Excuses schools. By the same token, the less successful the schools are, the more likely they are to have progressive elements.
The reason this conclusion is only tentative is because we have only analysed 50 schools – the most successful 25 and least successful 25. We should be cautious about reading too much into these results. As discussed, we intend to publish a larger survey later in the year in which we look at four times as many schools. It is also worth acknowledging that not all progressive schools do badly and not all Gromps do well. We are only claiming that, in general, successful state secondary schools (as identified by their high Progress 8 scores) tend to have more traditional characteristics and unsuccessful schools more progressive characteristics. When we publish our full report later in the year we should have a clearer idea about whether more of England’s most successful schools can be labelled ‘Gromps’ and whether they are, in fact, England’s answer to No Excuses schools.
Nevertheless, if you combine NSN’s analysis of England’s best and worst performing schools with everything else we know about England’s successful schools – namely, that the most successful academies and free schools do, broadly speaking, adopt a No Excuses approach, as do the most successful schools in the United States – the evidence begins to look compelling. Like their American counterparts, these schools are almost exclusively in urban settings, often in areas of high deprivation, and they are notable for the above-average attainment of their disadvantaged students. When it comes to closing the attainment gap, this appears to be the educational approach that is most likely to work.