The Cambridge Primary Review Trust

by

The end of primary education as we know it?

The government seems seriously to be considering requiring all schools – and yes, that includes all primary schools – to become academies. A white paper setting out such a change may come later this month while, as Robin Alexander pointed out last month, the government has been arguing that ‘all schools should become academies or free schools’ for more than a year.

This would be the biggest change to institutional oversight in the primary sector since the 1988 Education Reform Act, at least. It would enable the Conservative party at long last to achieve what it set out to do less successfully 25 years ago through grant maintained schools: the bypassing of local authorities.

But is it going to herald change for the better, or is it a risky break with what has been a reasonably successful post-war primary education framework in favour of something much less democratic, potentially much more commercialised, arguably much more at risk of capture by vested interests, and certainly much less stable?

A research report I have written for the Cambridge Primary Review Trust, to be published this spring, considers the academies policy in detail. Here is what I found:

Evidence that academy status has improved primary schools since the first primary academies came into existence in 2010 is patchy-going-on-non-existent.

This is perhaps the most obvious finding. The headline is that there is little firm evidence that academy status in itself has improved primary schools. This doubt about evidence perhaps unsurprisingly includes that provided by the Department for Education, which last year was taken to task by the UK Statistics Authority for presenting official test data on sponsored academies without context and was asked by the cross-party Commons Education Select Committee to stop ‘exaggerating’ academy success.

The committee itself said that, as of January 2015:

We have sought but not found convincing evidence of the impact of academy status on attainment in primary schools.

Meanwhile, eight of the nine larger academy chains which have been inspected by Ofsted have come in for criticism.

It is true that the academies policy has been credited by the Commons Education Select Committee with injecting extra dynamism into state education. But the evidence for this seems very indirect.

There is little evidence that academies have used the autonomy which the government says is the centrepiece of the policy on the things that the government usually talks about in relation to it.

Although ministers have tended to argue that academies have greater freedoms over the curriculum, teachers’ pay and conditions and the length of the school day and term, independent studies have tended to find that such theoretical liberties are often not taken up.

For example, although academies can depart from national curriculum arrangements, the existence of an assessment regime which focuses on the national curriculum and against which schools’ futures are decided severely limits their scope for manoeuvre.  Indeed, professionals surveying the current highly prescriptive stipulations of primary English assessments might greet suggestions of professional teaching freedom anywhere within the state-funded sector with a hollow laugh.

The academies policy, with the freedom it gives to multi-academy trusts to control what goes on within a chain of schools, provides no guarantee of meaningful autonomy of any kind for individual schools run by an overarching trust.

At the level of the individual school operating as one of several within a multi-academy trust (MAT), the very concept of school-centred autonomy may not exist as currently understood. Decision-making can be controlled by the MAT board, with the governors of each school having little or no power. If this as a trend continues and many or all schools enter into multi-academy trusts run in such a centralised way – and several leaders of large MATS have confirmed this is what happens in their organisations in the past year– it will be highly significant. Effectively it will bring to an end nearly 30 years of local management of schools, which, ironically, the Conservatives introduced in 1988.

To put it another way, we will have replaced a system whereby heads and governing bodies were given some freedom to manage their own affairs, but subject to oversight and influence by a locally democratic body, with one where a central body which is not subject to local democracy can run a group of schools in a top-down manner.

The academies policy does give meaningful autonomy to academy trusts, at the level of the trust, rather than to single schools within a MAT, in relation to some aspects of what they do. But the question then becomes whether such freedoms are appropriate. Such freedoms come in several categories.

Admissions. For example, the movement of many institutions from ‘community school’ status, run under the auspices of local authorities, to semi-independent academies makes each such academy trust its own admissions authority, rather than having admissions controlled by its local authority.

Yet why would a non-selective school need to control its own admissions? It seems difficult to identify any benefits, from the perspective of a system which sought to treat all local children fairly. However, the potential downsides have been powerfully voiced by, for example, the independent Pearson/RSA Academies Commission. It found that

Academies’ autonomy over admissions has attracted controversy and fuelled concerns that the growth of academies may entrench rather than mitigate social inequalities.

Governance. The academies scheme genuinely gives trusts great freedom in terms of how they set themselves up. At the top of academies’ governance structure sit ‘members’. Members have the ability to appoint and dismiss the other powerful figures within the trust’s governance structure, the trustees. Yet there can be as few as three members controlling multi-academy trusts, which in turn can run large numbers of schools. In some cases, these members seem to know each other well, sometimes as husband and wife. In others, a major figure involved in the day-to-day running of the MAT – say, the chief executive – is also a member sitting at the top of its governance structure.

This seems at odds with established good corporate governance practice and appears to create the clear risk that only a small number of people can be in effective control of large sums of public money and of important public institutions.

Finance. The large sums of taxpayers’ money now finding their way to some senior academy executives – and thus away from the classroom – combined with the payment of public funds to companies in which those governing academy trusts sometimes have an interest, raise additional concerns. Specifically, they highlight the clearly debatable freedoms which have been given to academy trusts over financial affairs.

As DfE’s Academies Financial Handbook puts it, the academies system hands trusts ‘wide discretion’ over the spending of public money, with auditors and the government then checking afterwards that this has been done correctly. In the non-academy sector, the local authority retains ultimate responsibility for spending. Readers will no doubt have views on which procedure is better, but financial goings-on in the academies sector at the very least give rise to concerns.

The system for deciding who runs academies is lacking in transparency and democracy

Decisions such as which organisation gets to take over a school under the new Regional Schools Commissioner (RSC) system are not taken in public; no detailed decision-making documents are available to taxpayers, parents, pupils or staff; there is no detail even on the rules by which such decisions are made, if they exist. Virtually no education stakeholders have any role in the decision-making process. The system is effectively controlled from Whitehall, as RSCs report ultimately to ministers. Though taking decisions with big implications for local communities, they are not subject to any local accountability.

The academies system has also introduced a controversial new feature on education’s landscape: the school takeover. This is when an outside academy trust can be brought in to take over the running of an institution, sometimes whether or not the school community – the parents, staff and pupils – want it.

Conclusion

Moving all schools to primary academy status would seem to herald a major increase in bureaucracy – and a field day for lawyers and auditors – as for thousands of institutions the legal structures on which schools are based are changed. This stands to take resources and the energy of school leaderships away from the core business of what goes on in classrooms.

It also stands to move England towards a system where the claimed greater autonomy of academies over, for example, the curriculum – on which the teaching profession has real expertise –  often seems more rhetorical than real. But it would hand great power to academy trusts over areas such as admissions, where gameplaying in search of a ‘better’ intake seems a clear risk, and finance, where the misuse of public funds is an obvious worry.

It would move the management oversight of schools from governing bodies and local authorities  rooted in their local communities to potentially very small groups of individuals, sometimes friends of each other, supervised essentially from Whitehall. It would allow the writing-out of most parents and taxpayers from meaningful influence and information in relation to major decisions on the future of state-funded schools, including a potential takeover by an outside organisation.

Faced with all of these considerations, one more is worth bearing in mind. As shown by the extensive evidence presented in the final report of the Cambridge Primary Review, considering as it did the system before primary academies:

Primary schools appear to be under intense pressure but are in good heart. They are highly valued by children and parents and in general are doing a good job … [They] may be the one point of stability and positive values in a world where everything else is changing and uncertain. (p 488)

That being so, and taking into account the less attractive aspects of what is being proposed, one question begs itself in relation to this possible change.

It consists of five words: why would you do it?

Warwick Mansell is a freelance journalist and author of ‘Education by Numbers: the tyranny of testing’ (Methuen, 2007). His CPRT research report on recent systemic reforms in the primary sector will be published in the spring.

by Robin Alexander

What’s the point?

In case you missed it…

The House of Commons Education Committee has launched an inquiry into the purpose and quality of education in England.  The deadline for receipt of evidence is 25 January 2016 and submissions may be made via the Committee’s  website  or its online forum. We hope that readers of this blog will respond.

Or do we? When the mother of parliaments asks ‘What’s the point of education?’ we might retort, descending to even greater depths of cynicism than usual, ‘What’s the point of telling you? What’s the point of contributing to yet another consultation when on past form nobody takes any notice?’ and indeed, ‘You ask about educational purposes now? After hundreds of so-called reforms? Are you telling us that these reforms have all been, in the strict sense of the word, pointless?’

But then the voice of moderation gently interposes: ‘It’s true that governments have a lamentable tendency to invite consultations and then ignore the results, for good measure lambasting less than obsequious respondents as “enemies of promise”, “the blob”, “Marxists hell-bent on destroying our schools” and worse. But the House of Commons Education Committee is not the government. Its cross-party gathering of backbenchers tries to hold government to account. It launches enquiries in good faith, inviting evidence, listening to witnesses, and by and large represents fairly their views in reports to which the government is obliged to respond. So while government may continue on its reckless rollercoaster of ill-conceived initiatives that capture headlines, massage ministerial vanity and create scholastic mayhem while never asking the really fundamental questions about educational purpose, our backbenchers deserve credit for attempting to redress the balance.’

So I’ve talked myself, and CPRT, into adding this inquiry to the countless others to which we’ve contributed in the hope of making a difference, and we’ll make our submission in the new year. Please add your voices to ours, for the Committee’s three questions are no less important for being at least a century overdue. They are:

  • What should be the purpose of education in England?
  • What measures should be used to evaluate the quality of education against this purpose?
  • How well does the current education system perform against these measures?

There is no better source for tackling the first question – ‘What should be the purpose of education?’ – than chapter 12 in the Cambridge Primary Review final report.  Entitled ‘What is primary education for?’ it traces and compares the rhetorical and actual purposes of public primary education from the nineteenth century to the present day so as to warn us, before we get carried away, that the old utilitarian habits, mindsets and policy vocabularies die hard and in England efforts to promote a more generous vision of education make headway with difficulty if at all.  It’s not so long ago that a minister announced, crushing any optimism generated by the national curriculum review, that the purpose of primary education is to make children ‘secondary-ready’, no less and, especially, no more.

Undaunted, chapter 12 then synthesises answers to its question about educational purposes from the thousands of witnesses who gave written or oral evidence to the review before coming up with the now well-known statement of 12 aims that informs the work of CPRT and an increasing number of Britain’s schools. These aims balance individual development and fulfilment (well-being, engagement, empowerment, autonomy) with responsiveness to social, societal and global need (encouraging respect and reciprocity, promoting interdependence and sustainability, empowering local, national and global citizenship, celebrating culture and community). The first eight aims are manifested and nurtured through four pedagogical or process aims (exploring, knowing, understanding and making sense; fostering skill; exciting the imagination; enacting dialogue). Each aim is carefully defined and discussed, and the full set adds up to a vision that celebrates the power, vitality and infinite possibility of young children’s development and education: a long way indeed from that tired ministerial mantra, regularly trotted out in BBC interviews, about ‘learning to read, write and do their times tables’. Yes, that, but so much more as well, and how about practising what the national curriculum preaches and using the not overly technical term ‘multiplication’?

So CPR’s exhaustive consultation on the purposes of education does much of the Select Committee’s work, and we may well send them copies of the CPR final report to remind them.

When we consider the Select Committee’s second question – ‘What measures should be used to evaluate the quality of education against this purpose?’ – we collide once again with political habits, mindsets and vocabularies. For the evaluation procedures preferred by governments entertain only what is measurable (the Committee itself has unwittingly perpetuated that one) and in any event attend only to the narrowest segment of educational purposes and outcomes, deeming the rest not so much unmeasurable as not worth the effort.

Since even in relation to literacy the current assessment procedures are said by many to be barely fit for purpose, prospects for a pattern of assessment that does full justice to the larger educational purposes proposed by CPR’s witnesses, and to the rich curriculum that these purposes require, look pretty bleak. So if questions about educational purposes are to have any point at all, they must go hand in hand with reforms of curriculum and assessment considerably more radical than any recent government has either permitted or had the imagination to envisage.

The Select Committee’s third question – ‘How well does the current education system perform against these measures?’ – plunges us deeper into the quagmire, for it muddles ‘ought’ and ‘is’. That is to say, it appears to ask us to adjudicate on the achievement of current educational practice by reference to evaluation procedures which either exist but are unfit for purpose, or which have yet to be devised.

That’s as maybe. But will teachers contribute to the Select Committee’s inquiry or will it be left to others? I ask because during the past few weeks I’ve been visiting schools in connection with CPRT’s project on classroom talk and social disadvantage and for every teacher who is excited by the power of talk in learning and teaching and is eagerly striving to improve it, there is another who is so overwhelmed by government requirements and directives – the new national curriculum, new assessment arrangements, safeguarding, the spectre of Ofsted, endless form-filling and box-ticking – that they can barely entertain anything else.

Too poleaxed by policy to think about pedagogy? Too addled by assessment to think about aims? Has teaching come to this?

All in all, this well-intentioned Select Committee inquiry is a bit of a minefield.  But let that not deter it or us.  There may be a point. Happy New Year.

http://www.robinalexander.org.uk

  • Download the Cambridge Primary Review Trust statement of educational aims here .
  • Submit evidence to the House of Commons Education Committee inquiry here .
  • Join the inquiry’s online forum here .
  • One of CPRT’s eight priorities is  ‘Develop and apply a coherent vision for 21st century primary education; enact CPR’s aims in curriculum, pedagogy and the wider life of the school.’ Read about CPRT’s work in pursuit of this priority here.

This blog was originally published by CPRT on December 18, 2015.

by

How well are primary academies doing? And how well is DfE doing with the evidence?

Has DfE, including its supposedly public-minded official statisticians, been misusing data in its drive to force on primary schools its favoured policy of academy status?

The question arises since I performed an analysis that seems to raise serious difficulties about a key statistic used by a minister to defend the academies scheme.

On February 2nd, education minister Nick Gibb was confronted on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme with the findings of a report by the cross-party House of Commons Education Select Committee. The committee, following an inquiry on academies and free schools, had concluded the previous week: ‘We have sought but not found convincing evidence of the impact of academy status on attainment in primary schools.’

The minister responded that sponsored academies – generally previously struggling schools which are taken over by a ‘sponsor’ entering into a contract with the Secretary of State to run the school – were improving faster than the national average.

He said: ‘We do know sponsored academies do improve standards of education in our schools. If you look at the primary sponsored academies, they’ve seen their reading, writing and maths results improve at double the rate seen across all schools.’ He added: ‘Primary [sponsored academies]…have seen their reading, writing and maths results improve at double the rate of local authority schools.’

This seemed to mark a change of position for the DfE, which less than a year ago concluded, in its publication Academies: research priorities and questions that ‘The research evidence [is] primarily based on secondary schools and with more and more primary schools becoming academies, further evidence is needed on what drives those schools to become academies and what makes them viable and sustainable.’

So was Mr Gibb’s statement accurate? Investigating, it became clear that the source was DfE’s Statistical First Release which accompanied the publication of primary league tables on December 12th, 2014. The document is headed with the reassuring logo ‘National Statistics’. It says: ‘Attainment in sponsored academies increased by 7 percentage points between 2013 and 2014, compared to 3 percentage points in converter academies and LA maintained schools.’

This statement seemed factual enough. But doubts began to surface in my mind after digging a tiny bit further into the data.

So, the 420 sponsored academies included in the statistic did indeed improve at faster than the national rate for other schools between 2013 and 2014, rising seven percentage points in the proportion of their pupils achieving level 4 in all of reading, writing and maths, from 61 to 68 per cent. By contrast, the 13,396 non-academy (local authority) schools rose three points, from 77 to 80 per cent, while, among 1,006 converter academies – generally previously successful schools choosing to take on the status – the rise was from 80 to 83 per cent.

The immediate question, though, was whether like was really being compared with like. With both types of school, other than sponsored academies, starting with higher average scores in 2013, sponsored academies would appear to have had more room for improvement.

Another way of looking at that is to say that, clearly, the closer a school gets to 100 per cent of its children achieving level 4s in all three subjects, the less scope it has to improve on this measure; at 100 per cent, it has no scope at all.

This would seem to be a basic statistical point. Yet it was not acknowledged anywhere in this statistical release that the higher rate of progress might be at least in part a product of sponsored academies starting from a lower base. The comparison used in the release, then, might be deemed invalid. Without further information it certainly looked potentially misleading.

The fairer comparison, then, would be to look at schools with the same statistical starting points. In other words, among schools averaging 61 per cent in 2013, did sponsored academies or non-sponsored academies improve faster?

Again, there is no mention of this potential statistical comparison in the release. So I have now performed this data analysis myself, based on the DfE’s official underlying school-by-school assessment data.

Staggeringly, this seems to show that, when schools with the same starting points in 2013 are compared, sponsored academies fared worse than a comparison group of primaries in 2014.

I am not a professional statistician, and the analysis below is rudimentary. But I did it in two ways. First, I decided to look at all schools which, in 2013, had exactly 61 per cent of their pupils achieving at least level four in reading, writing and maths. Remember, this was the average figure for 2013 sponsored academies.

This yielded 113 primaries: six sponsored academies, two converter academies and 105 non-academy state schools. Among the 107 that were not sponsored academies, results improved to 70.7 per cent in 2014, a rise of 10 percentage points.

Second, I widened the comparison group to include a much larger number of primaries: those which had results, in 2013, ranging from 56 to 66 per cent. Again, I made sure that this sample, of 1,650 schools, had an average result of 61 per cent in 2013.

What was the outcome? Well, the schools which were not sponsored academies improved on average to 72 per cent. So that’s an 11 point improvement, compared to a seven point gain in sponsored academies. (The 11 point gain included figures for academy converters; removing them from the sample, non-academy maintained schools – ‘local authority schools’ in Mr Gibb’s phrase – went up 10 percentage points, which again is higher than the seven points of sponsored academies).

So my research seems to point to an opposite conclusion – sponsored academy results rising less quickly than those of a comparison group – to that of the DfE’s official statistical publication.

It would have been easy for the DfE’s professional statisticians to have published a similar assessment. But they did not. Nor did they publish any statistical caveats about the sponsored academy-to-national-average improvement comparison they chose to use.

Why does this matter? It seems to me to be very important on the ground, where I hear regularly of communities struggling with campaigns against academy status being forced on them by DfE, in the face of claims by ministers that this should be the only option for school improvement.

Indeed, DfE guidance says that, in schools deemed inadequate, ministers’ ‘expectation’ is always that they should become sponsored academies.

Last month, David Cameron went further, proposing that thousands of schools deemed by Ofsted not to be inadequate but merely to ‘require improvement’ should become sponsored academies in the event of a new Conservative government.

But if statistical evidence on an area absolutely central to the current political debate about education is being made to say the opposite of what a reasonable person might think the data actually tell us, acknowledging the need to compare like with like, we have serious problems. Is evidence being made to fit policy, rather than vice-versa?

I’d make one final point.  In a recent article, Cambridge Primary Review Trust chair Robin Alexander, wrote: ‘Deep and lasting improvements in England’s education system will be secured only when, in their discourse and their handling of evidence, policymakers practise the best that has been thought and said rather than preach it, exemplify the educated mind rather than demean it.’

It is staggering that the DfE’s statistical publication was first released without the basic caveats and checks which would be expected of statistics students completing their assignments, and was then endorsed by a minister of education. And a minister of education with an enthusiasm for mathematics, at that. What kind of an example does this set for pupils? We all deserve better.

I invited DfE to comment on the content of this blog but it did not respond. 

Warwick Mansell is a freelance journalist and author of Education by Numbers: the tyranny of testing (Methuen, 2007).

The stance of ministers and DfE towards evidence has been a constant concern of CPRT and CPR, as it must be for any organisation that cares about the probity and efficacy of education policy and seeks to generate the kind of evidence that a well-founded education system requires.  CPRT’s concern is shared by the House of Commons Education Select Committee, which in 2014 launched an online enquiry into DfE’s use of evidence. Robin Alexander’s submission to this enquiry was published as the CPRT blog on 19 December.

by Robin Alexander

From phonics check to evidence check

In ministerial speeches ‘evidence-based policy’ is now as almost as routine as ‘I care passionately about …’ and is as likely to be greeted with hollow laughter. So it’s to the credit of the House of Commons Education Select Committee that it has undertaken an enquiry into the use of evidence by the Department of Education, asking  DfE to list the evidential basis of a number of policies  before inviting the public to comment via a web forum. Nine areas of policy were nominated for these ‘evidence checks’: phonics, teaching assistants, professional measurement metrics, summer-born children, the National College of Teaching and Leadership, universal infant free school meals, the impact of raising the school participation age, music, the school starting age. There was a further section on DfE’s use of evidence generally and this prompted the largest number of responses, including the  following which we reprint as our final blog of 2014. It’s longer than usual, but then you won’t be hearing from us again until January.

DFE’s use of evidence

Several contributors to this enquiry commend DfE for its commitment to evidence, but surely this is a minimum condition of good governance, not a cause for genuflection. More to the point are the concerns of Dame Julia Higgins that DfE’s use of evidence is inconsistent (or, as Janet Downs puts it, ‘slippery’) and those many other contributors across the Committee’s nine themes who find DfE overly selective in the evidence on which it draws and the methodologies it prefers.

The principal filters appear to be ideological (‘is this researcher one of us’?) and electoral (‘will the findings boost our poll ratings / damage those of the opposition’?) and such scientifically inadmissible criteria are compounded by DfE’s marked preference for research dealing in big numbers, little words and simple solutions.

In the latter context, we should be wary of endorsing without qualification the view of several contributors that the randomised control trial (RCT) is the evidential ‘gold standard’, trumping all other attempts to get at the truth. Education is complex and contested, and its central questions are as much ethical as technical – a challenge which the fashionable but amoral mantra ‘what works’ conveniently ignores. The RCT language of ‘treatment’ and ‘dosage’ is fine for drug trials but is hardly appropriate to an activity which is more craft and art than science, and in untutored hands the effort to make teaching fit this paradigm may reduce to the point of risibility or destruction the very phenomena it claims to test. I should add that I make these observations not as a disappointed research grant applicant but as recipient of substantial funding from the rightly esteemed Educational Endowment Foundation for a ‘what works’ project involving RCT.

Of the nine ‘evidence check’ memoranda submitted to the Committee by DfE, those on phonics, the school starting age and the National College most conspicuously display some of the tendencies I’ve so far identified. Thus the defence and citations in DfE’s phonics statement neatly sidestep the methodological controversies and evidential disputes surrounding what is now the government’s mandated approach to teaching reading, so the contributor who applauds DfE’s grossly biased bibliography as ‘accurate’ is plain wrong.

DfE’s school starting age citations carelessly – or perhaps carefully – attribute a publication of the Cambridge Primary Review (Riggall and Sharp) to NFER, but again avoid any evidence running counter to the official view that children should be packed off to school as soon as possible; or the more nuanced finding of the Cambridge Primary Review that the real issue is not the starting age for formal schooling but the availability and quality of early years provision, wherever it takes place; or indeed the inconvenient truth that some of this country’s more successful PISA competitors start formal schooling one or even two years later than England.

As for the National College of Teaching and Leadership (NCTL), no independent evidence is offered in support of DfE’s insistence that this agency, and the models of teacher training and school improvement it espouses, justify its consumption of public funds. Only two publications are cited in DfE’s ‘evidence check’. One is NCTL’s statement of accounts; the other a DfE press release which is neither evidence nor independent. Proper evaluation of NCTL became all the more essential when DfE abolished the relatively ‘arms length’ bodies that NCTL subsumed and charged it with ‘delivering’ approved policies. Of course NCTL can be shown to be effective in relation to the delivery of policies x and y. But what if those policies are wrong?

The Committee has received many unhappy comments from parents about schools’ draconian responses to term-time absences. These highlight a further problem: there are important areas of educational policy, at both school and national level, where evidence is rarely or never on view and parents and the electorate are expected to comply with what may be little more than unsubstantiated claims. In the case of those blanket bans on term-time absence about which so many parents complain to the Committee, as with the tendency to fill more and more of children’s (and parents’) waking hours with homework (i.e. schoolwork done at home) of variable and in some cases little educational value, there appears to be a deep-seated assumption that schools have a monopoly of useful learning. The Cambridge Primary Review scotched this mistaken and indeed arrogant belief in the comprehensive research review on children’s lives outside school that it commissioned from Professor Berry Mayall. Except that the then government preferred summarily to reject the evidence and abuse the Review team rather than engage with the possibility that schools might do even better if more of them understood and built on what their pupils learn outside school.

So although the Education Committee has applied its ‘evidence check’ to nine areas of policy, it might also consider extending its enquiry in two further directions: first, by examining the evidential basis of policies and initiatives, such as those exemplified above, about which teachers, parents and indeed children themselves express concern; second by adding some of those frontline policies which DfE has justified by reference to evidence but which are conspicuously absent from the Committee’s list.

Examples in the latter category might include: (i) the government’s 2011-13 review of England’s National Curriculum; (ii) the development of new requirements for assessment and accountability in primary schools; (iii) the rapid and comprehensive shift to school-led and school-based initial teacher education; (iv) the replacement of the old TDA teacher professional standards by the current set; (v) the strenuous advocacy and preferential treatment of academies and free schools. Each of these illustrates, sometimes in extreme form, my initial concerns about politico-evidential selectivity and methodological bias.

Thus in the 2011-13 national curriculum review ministers deployed exceptionally reductionist and naive interpretations of the wealth of international evidence with which they were provided by DfE officials and others. They resisted until the last moment overwhelming evidence about the educational centrality of spoken language. They ignored Ofsted warnings, grounded in two decades of school inspection (and indeed evidence going back long before Ofsted) about the damage caused by a two-tier curriculum that elevates a narrow view of educational basics above all else – damage not just to the wider curriculum but also the ‘basics’ themselves. And they declined to publish or act on their own internal enquiry which confirmed the continuing seriousness of the challenge of curriculum expertise in primary schools, an enquiry which – and this much is to ministers’ credit – DfE undertook in response to, and in association with, the Cambridge Primary Review. The report of that enquiry, and the wider evidence that informed it, still awaits proper consideration. A job for the Education Committee perhaps?

Similarly, DfE, like its predecessor DCSF, has stubbornly held to its view – challenged by the Education Committee as well as numerous research studies and the Bew enquiry – that written summative tests are the best way both to assess children’s progress and hold schools and teachers to account, and that they provide a valid proxy for children’s attainment across the full spectrum of their learning.

Then, and in pursuit of what has sometimes looked suspiciously like a vendetta against those in universities who undertake the research that sometimes rocks the policy boat, DfE has ignored international evidence about the need for initial teacher education to be grounded in equal partnership between schools and higher education, preferring the palpable contradiction of locating an avowedly ‘world class’ teacher education system in schools that ministers tell us are failing to deliver ‘world class’ standards. Relatedly, DfE has accepted a report from its own enquiry into professional standards for teachers which showed even less respect for evidence than the earlier and much-criticised framework from TDA, coming up with ‘standards’ which manage to debase or exclude some of the very teacher attributes that research shows are most crucial to the standards of learning towards which these professional standards are supposedly directed.

Finally, in pursuit of its academies drive government has ignored the growing body of evidence from the United States that far from delivering superior standards as claimed, charter schools, academies’ American inspiration, are undermining public provision and tainted by financial and managerial corruption. England may not have gone that far, but new inspection evidence on comparative standards in academies and maintained schools (in HMCI’s Annual Report for 2013-14) should give the Committee considerable pause for thought about the motivation and consequences of this initiative.

In relation to the Committee’s enquiry as a whole, the experience of the Cambridge Primary Review (2006-10) and its successor the Cambridge Primary Review Trust is salutary, depressing and (to others than hardened cynics) disturbing. Here we had the nation’s most comprehensive enquiry into English primary education for half a century, led by an expert team, advised and monitored by a distinguished group of the great and good, supported by consultants in over 20 universities as well as hundreds of professionals, and generating a vast array of data, 31 interim reports and a final report with far-sighted conclusions and recommendations, all of them firmly anchored in evidence, including over 4000 published sources.

Far from welcoming the review as offering, at no cost to the taxpayer, an unrivalled contribution to evidence-based policy and practice in this vital phase of education, DCSF – DfE’s predecessor – systematically sought to traduce and discredit it by misrepresenting its findings in order to dismiss them, and by mounting ad personam attacks against the Review’s principals. Such behaviour in the face of authoritative and useful evidence was unworthy of holders of elected office and, for the teachers and children in our schools, deeply irresponsible.

It is with some relief that we note that DfE’s stance towards the Review and its successor the Cambridge Primary Review Trust has been considerably more positive under the Coalition than under Labour, and we record our appreciation of the many constructive discussions we have had with ministers and officials since 2010. Nevertheless, when evidential push comes to political shove, evidence discussed and endorsed in such meetings capitulates, more often than not, to the overriding imperatives of ideology, expediency and media narrative. This, notwithstanding the enhanced research profile applauded by other contributors, remains the default.

 

www.robinalexander.org.uk

This particular Education Committee enquiry was set up as a web forum, with a deadline of 15 December. The DfE evidence checks and the comments they provoked may be viewed here.
DfE’s use of evidence attracted 154 comments, followed by summer-born children (111), phonics (90) and the school starting age (64).

Contact

Cambridge Primary Review Trust - Email: administrator@cprtrust.org.uk