House of Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee School Accountability First Report of Session 2009–10 Volume I Report, together with formal minutes Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 30 November 2009 HC 88-I [Incorporating HC 369-i to -vi, Session 2008–09] Published on 7 January 2010 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Children, Schools and Families Committee The Children, Schools and Families Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department for Children, Schools and Families and its associated public bodies. Membership at time Report agreed Mr Barry Sheerman MP (Labour, Huddersfield) (Chairman) Annette Brooke MP (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset & Poole North) Ms Karen Buck MP (Labour, Regent’s Park & Kensington North) Mr Douglas Carswell MP (Conservative, Harwich) Mr David Chaytor MP (Labour, Bury North) Mrs Sharon Hodgson MP (Labour, Gateshead East & Washington West) Paul Holmes MP (Liberal Democrat, Chesterfield) Fiona Mactaggart MP (Labour, Slough) Mr Andrew Pelling MP (Independent, Croydon Central) Helen Southworth MP (Labour, Warrington South) Mr Graham Stuart MP (Conservative, Beverley & Holderness) Mr Edward Timpson MP (Conservative, Crewe & Nantwich) Derek Twigg MP (Labour, Halton) Lynda Waltho MP (Labour, Stourbridge) The following members were also members of the Committee during the inquiry. Mr John Heppell MP (Labour, Nottingham East) Mr Andy Slaughter MP (Labour, Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/csf/ Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Kenneth Fox (Clerk), Anne-Marie Griffiths (Second Clerk), Emma Wisby (Committee Specialist), Judith Boyce (Committee Specialist), Jenny Nelson (Senior Committee Assistant), Kathryn Smith (Committee Assistant), Sharon Silcox (Committee Support Assistant), and Brendan Greene (Office Support Assistant). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Children, Schools and Families Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6181; the Committee’s e- mail address is csfcom@parliament School Accountability 1 Contents Report Page Conclusions and recommendations 3 Summary 11 1 Introduction 15 Context for the Inquiry and Report 15 The need for an accountability system 18 Overview of the accountability system 20 2 Schools’ Self-Evaluation, Self-Improvement Partners and Local Authorities 28 School governance 28 Self-evaluation 31 School Improvement Partners 36 The role of local authorities 42 School performance and improvement 43 School budget and finance 44 Statutory powers 45 3 The Inspectorate 51 Background: the duties of the Chief Inspector and the functions of Ofsted 51 The need for an independent inspectorate 55 The role of Ofsted in school improvement 58 The evaluation of provision: the need for a balanced picture of school provision 63 Performance data based on test results 63 Indicators of other aspects of provision 68 4 Achievement and Attainment Tables and the School Report Card 73 Achievement and Attainment Tables 73 The effects of Achievement and Attainment Tables on schools 75 Accounting for the full range of a school’s work 78 School Report Card 79 The proposals 79 Contents of the school report card 82 Appraisal of the school report card 84 5 Conclusion: complexity, consistency and coercion 95 Complexity 95 Consistency 98 Coercion: are schools really free to drive their own improvement? 102 Conclusion 105 2 School Accountability Formal minutes 107 Witnesses 108 List of written evidence 109 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 111 School Accountability 3 Conclusions and recommendations Introduction 1. We are satisfied that schools should be held publicly accountable for their performance as providers of an important public service. We concur with the views expressed in evidence to us that the two major consequences of the accountability system should be school improvement and improvement in broader outcomes for children and young people, including well-being. (Paragraph 15) 2. The New Relationship with Schools policy was a laudable attempt by the Government to simplify the school accountability system, particularly in relation to inspection. However, the Government has continued to subject schools to a bewildering array of new initiatives and this has in many ways negated the good work started in New Relationship with Schools. (Paragraph 24) 3. We are concerned that the Government’s 21st Century Schools White Paper signals even greater complexity in an already overly complex system of school accountability and improvement initiatives. There is a real danger that schools may become overwhelmed by the intricacies of the proposed reforms and that School Improvement Partners and local authorities may not have sufficient time or resources to mediate effectively between schools and the myriad providers of school improvement support. (Paragraph 36) Schools’ Self-Evaluation, Self-Improvement Partners and Local Authorities 4. We note that Ofsted is actively considering ways of involving governing bodies more in the inspection process, particularly where inspections are conducted without notice. However, it would have been preferable had the 2009 inspection framework been introduced following a satisfactory resolution of this issue. We recommend that Ofsted bring forward at the earliest opportunity firm proposals setting out how governing bodies will be appropriately involved in all inspections. (Paragraph 45) 5. We urge the Government to reconsider the proposals to place additional statutory duties on governors. We support the principle of better training for governors, but we recommend that the Government set out a detailed strategy for encouraging governors to take up training opportunities without training requirements becoming a barrier to recruitment. (Paragraph 47) 6. We are persuaded that self-evaluation—as an iterative, reflexive and continuous process, embedded in the culture of a school—is a highly effective means for a school to consolidate success and secure improvement across the full range of its activities. It is applicable, not just to its academic performance, but across the full range of a school’s influence over the well-being of the children who learn there and the community outside. (Paragraph 53) 7. We believe that Ofsted should do more to encourage schools to be creative and produce evidence of the self-evaluation process which works for them and speaks to 4 School Accountability the true culture and ethos of their own school. Ofsted should ensure that its own inspection processes are flexible enough to accommodate and give appropriate weight to alternative forms of evidence of self-evaluation. (Paragraph 59) 8. We are attracted to a model of accountability which encourages and supports schools towards a meaningful, continuous self-evaluation process, evidenced in a form which the school considers most appropriate and verified through inspection. We are persuaded that true self-evaluation is at the heart of what a good school does. For a school which is performing at a good level, embedding processes which encourage continuous self-improvement are likely to be of far more practical benefit than an inspection every few years. The latter is necessary mainly as a check to see that a school is performing at the appropriate level. Inspection should be a positive experience, reinforcing good practice and fostering dialogue with schools in relation to areas where further improvement can be made. The Government and Ofsted should endeavour to do more to help schools which have not yet come to terms with the concept of self-evaluation in its fullest sense. (Paragraph 63) 9. We welcome the fact that the National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services is being asked to review its training and accreditation procedures to support School Improvement Partners in their new role. (Paragraph 76) 10. The Government must take care that it does not exacerbate the existing problems with recruitment of School Improvement Partners by increasing the training burden and introducing requirements that existing School Improvement Partners be re- accredited and that they all carry an ongoing licence to practice. (Paragraph 77) 11. We recommend that the Government produce clear plans to show how and from where enough School Improvement Partners (SIPs) with appropriate skills and experience will be recruited with sufficient time to dedicate to the expanded remit for SIPs which is proposed in the Government’s White Paper. (Paragraph 84) 12. We agree with the Audit Commission that local authorities should be more involved with monitoring, supporting and, where necessary, intervening in school budgets and finance. It is indefensible that the expenditure of such vast sums should attract so little scrutiny. Central government should make clear that schools must make a proper accounting of their expenditure to local authorities; and that local authorities should be as engaged