Review of School Structures
Report of the
Member Working Group
Member Working Group Membership:
Cllr. Rita Drinkwater (Chairman)
Cllr. Jane Walker (Vice Chairman)
Cllr. Alan Carter
Cllr. Jennifer Fairbairn
Cllr. Susan Gaszczak
Cllr Susan Goodchild
Cllr. David Grugeon
Cllr. Peter Hollick
Cllr. Gillian Howard
Cllr. John Mingay
Cllr. Richard Stay
Mrs Frances Image - Roman Catholic Diocese of Northampton
Mr Jon Reynolds – Church of England Diocese of St Albans
Mr Philip Brindle – Parent Governor Representative
Mrs Carol Campbell - Parent Governor Representative
Mr James Tindley - Parent Governor Representative
Mr Martin Cooke – Bedfordshire and Luton Learning and Skills Council
June 2006
REVIEW OF SCHOOL STRUCTURES
REPORT OF THE MEMBER WORKING GROUP
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 2
REPORT OF MEMBER WORKING GROUP.......................................................................... 5
Background ....................................................................................................................... 5
Evidence............................................................................................................................. 6
School Standards .......................................................................................................... 7
Attainment within Bedfordshire................................................................................ 7
Evidence from other authorities ............................................................................. 10
Effect of transfer between schools ........................................................................ 11
OFSTED assessments ............................................................................................. 11
Specialist teaching and facilities............................................................................ 12
Outcome of Consultation............................................................................................ 13
Pastoral care ................................................................................................................ 13
Why the 3 tier system was introduced ...................................................................... 14
National Trends............................................................................................................ 14
Recruitment and retention .......................................................................................... 15
Impact of structures on vulnerable groups............................................................... 15
Children with Special Educational Needs.............................................................. 15
Children from Black and Minority Ethnic Groups ................................................. 16
Traveller Children..................................................................................................... 17
Looked After Children ............................................................................................. 17
14-19 Issues ................................................................................................................. 18
Extended Schools........................................................................................................ 18
Children’s Centres....................................................................................................... 18
Every Child Matters ..................................................................................................... 19
Areas of concern if a change in structures were implemented and arguments
supporting change .......................................................................................................... 19
Conclusions of the Member Working Group in respect of structures ....................... 21
Factors linked to change ................................................................................................ 23
School Size................................................................................................................... 23
Timing and Phasing of Change and Financial Implications .................................... 24
Human Resources ....................................................................................................... 24
Property ........................................................................................................................ 25
School Transport ......................................................................................................... 26
Phasing......................................................................................................................... 26
Recommendations of the Member Working Group...................................................... 26
Annex 1
Annex 2
Annex 3
Annex 4
Annex 5
Annex 6
Annex 7
Annex 8
Annex 9
Annex 10
Terms of reference of the Member Working Group
Organising for Excellence – Consultation Report. May 2006. Four S
Four S Research Findings
Comparison of Performance with Statistical Neighbours
Value Added Data for Bedfordshire Schools in 2005
An overview of performance in Suffolk
OFSTED judgements (under the new framework)
Race Impact Assessment
14-19 Education – Specialist Diplomas
Transport Briefing Note
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. At its meeting on 19 July 2005, the Executive agreed that a review be undertaken of
the 3 tier system in Bedfordshire to determine whether to retain the current system or
whether to change to a different structure.
2. In taking this decision, the Executive noted that standards in Bedfordshire schools
were not as high as they should be at Key Stages 2, 3 and 4 and that the step
change in performance which had been sought following OFSTED’s inspection of the
LEA in 2002 had not been achieved.
3. The Member Working Group was set up by the Executive to oversee the review. The
Group was made up of the members of the Children and Young People Select
Committee, including the parent governor and diocesan representatives, the
Executive Members for Education and Finance and a representative from the LSC,
seventeen people in all.
4. Since it first met in September 2005, the Working Group has met 20 times and
received a wide range of information on school standards within Bedfordshire and
other local authorities as well as on other issues related to pupil performance and
well-being. It has considered written reports and data and received presentations
from expert witnesses. The Working Group also commissioned an outside body,
Four S, to carry out a comprehensive consultation process on behalf of the County
Council.
5. The Working Group noted that performance in Bedfordshire schools was good at Key
Stage 1 (7 years old), both above national average and generally that of statistical
neighbours. In 2005, Bedfordshire’s performance at Key Stage 1 was highest among
its statistical neighbours (see paragraph 12 of the main report).
6. At the end of Key Stage 2 (11 years old), performance in Bedfordshire schools was
found to have dropped generally to below that of statistical neighbours and around
the national average.
7. It was noted that there tended to be a slight improvement in performance in
Bedfordshire during Key Stage 3 so that the results of the Key Stage 3 assessments
in Bedfordshire schools (at 14 years old) are generally at or slightly above national
averages although still below that of many statistical neighbours.
8. By the end of Key Stage 4, the percentage of students in Bedfordshire schools
achieving 5 A*-C grades at GCSE tends to be well below the national average. In
2005 the percentage of students achieving 5 or more A*-C grades was below that of
all Bedfordshire’s statistical neighbours.
9. On the basis of detailed information on performance within Bedfordshire, the Working
Group concluded that there was clear evidence of underperformance across
Bedfordshire’s schools. As a result, it sought further information which might indicate
the cause or causes of this underperformance.
10. Having examined the evidence, the Member Working Group came to the conclusion
that there was a link between performance and school structure. Furthermore, they
concluded that transfer during Key Stage 2 and the resultant shared ownership of
responsibility for the Key Stage was a contributory factor in the drop off in
performance in Key Stage 2 assessments in Bedfordshire and in many other
authorities running a three tier system.
11. The Working Group noted that one of the strongest arguments put forward during the
consultation process in favour of the retention of the three tier system was the benefit
it offered in terms of pastoral care. It noted that this was reflected in OFSTED
2
inspection reports which tended to score middle schools more highly on personal
development and well-being than in other areas. However, they also noted that the
pastoral system was considered a strength in secondary schools generally.
12. The Working Group looked at the recruitment and retention of staff and the
importance of being able to appoint leaders and staff of a high quality. Whilst
evidence in this area was mixed, the Working Group concluded that maintaining a
system which was different from a growing number of authorities was not likely to aid
recruitment and could impede it.
13. The Working Group also considered the needs of vulnerable groups and which
system might best meet these needs (see paragraphs 60 - 74 of the main report).
14. A particular focus was the Government’s plans for the education of 14-19 year olds
and the need to ensure that future structures had the ability to meet the needs of
pupils, parents and the local economy in a flexible manner. It was noted that this
required collaboration between institutions so that all pupils had access to the full
curriculum offer.
15. The Working Group considered the benefits of the existing three tier system and the
arguments for change, in both cases looking in particular at the views expressed in
response to the consultation process. It considered suggestions which had been
made of steps which could be taken to improve performance under the existing
system. In particular, the possibility of accelerating Key Stage 3 was considered so
that pupils could sit the Key Stage 3 assessments in Year 8 rather than Year 9.
However, having considered the evidence, the Working Group concluded that this did
not provide the opportunity to raise standards across the whole of Years 7 and 8.
16. Having noted the link between standards and structures, the Working Group
concluded that standards were most likely to be raised by a change in school
structure, if this was accompanied by a focus on raising standards of leadership
within schools and the Authority.
17. The Working Group therefore agreed to recommend to the Executive that:
•
•
•
•
•
•
the Council adopt a preferred option to move to a two tier system of primary
schools covering the 4 to 11 age range and secondary schools covering the
11 to 19 age range subject to further consultation on both the principle and
its application to individual schools in each part of the County
there should be a presumption that secondary schools maintain sixth forms,
whilst recognising that for an individual school this would be dependent
upon viability, value for money and an ability to deliver a high quality of
education to its students
the preferred size for new primary schools should be two forms of entry, but
that it be recognised that schools might range between one and three forms
of entry in urban areas and below that in rural areas
very small lower schools should be encouraged to consider federation or
other collaborative approaches with neighbouring schools in order to ensure
that as primary schools they would be in the best possible position to meet
the needs of their pupils
ten forms of entry should be the preferred size for secondary schools but that
it be recognised that schools will range in size between eight and twelve
forms of entry
the consultation process on the proposed change in structure and subsequent
implementation be carried out in phases taking account of capacity and
financial considerations.
3
18. The Working Group would also recommend to the Executive that the change in
structures be supported by the following initiatives in order to ensure that standards
are raised in schools:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
support for primary schools to identify and implement best practice in respect
of provision for Years 5 and 6
encouraging all primary schools to provide their pupils with access to modern
foreign language teaching
ensuring that all schools are given high quality data on their performance and
how it compares to other schools both within Bedfordshire and beyond,
broken down in a way which enables them to pinpoint areas of both good and
bad practice, and that they are given appropriate assistance in developing
and implementing strategies to use this data to improve performance
ensuring that all secondary schools have in place a programme to support the
transfer of pupils from the primary sector, to implement best practice for
Years 7 and 8 and to minimise the negative impact of transfer on both
attainment and attitude
ensuring that pupils within secondary schools are given high quality impartial
advice and guidance on 14-19 options and on career pathways so that they
are able to make appropriate choices of courses at the age of 14, thereby
minimising the likelihood of pupils dropping out of courses before completing
them
ensuring that work is initiated within Bedfordshire to help to raise the
aspirations of pupils within Bedfordshire schools and to raise expectations
across the County
ensuring that the benefits of current innovative practice in Bedfordshire, for
example within science teaching, are maintained and built upon in both the
primary and secondary sectors
strengthening leadership within both the primary and secondary sectors,
particularly in those schools currently causing concern
providing training to governing bodies to manage change
ensuring that pupils with special educational needs are well supported both
during and after the change in structure
enhancing support to schools with pupils with behavioural difficulties
ensuring that adequate investment is made in schools and in the capacity of
the County Council to manage change
ensuring that support is given to all staff within schools which might be
subject to closure so that pupils’ education does not suffer during the period
leading up to closure.
19. The Working Group was also very conscious of the concerns expressed, particularly
by many pupils, parents, governors and school staff, over a possible change in
school structure. It, therefore, felt that steps must be taken to address those
concerns and provide the reassurances that those pupils, parents, governors and
staff needed. In particular, the Member Working Group emphasised the need to:
•
•
•
provide a clear explanation to all stakeholders of why it was believed that a
change in structure would effect a rise in standards within Bedfordshire
schools
provide immediate reassurance that, contrary to some speculation, there was
no intention to close local lower schools or remove educational provision
from local communities except in exceptional cases
provide stakeholders with a clear indication of the steps which would be
involved in a change in structures, particularly the requirement for further
consultation on detailed proposals at a local level, the likely timescale for
change and how this could impact on pupils currently attending Bedfordshire
Schools.
4
REPORT OF MEMBER WORKING GROUP
Background
1.
At its meeting on 19 July 2005, the Executive agreed that a review be undertaken of
the 3 tier system in Bedfordshire to determine whether to retain the current system
or whether to change to a different structure 1 .
2.
In taking this decision, the Executive noted that standards in Bedfordshire schools
were not as high as they should be at Key Stages 2, 3 and 4 and that the step
change in performance which had been sought following OFSTED’s inspection of
the LEA in 2002 had not been achieved.
3.
Other reasons for reviewing the existing system were:
• the lack of alignment between National Curriculum Key Stages and phases of
schooling in Bedfordshire
• the impact of the 2 tier systems in neighbouring authorities on recruitment and
retention in some schools in Bedfordshire
• the national trend away from 3 tier arrangements
• the need to take a decision over the long-term structure of schools within
Bedfordshire before a Strategic Business Case could be drawn up in
preparation for participating in the Building Schools for the Future (BSF)
initiative
• the fact that the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) had recently conducted an
initial review of post 16 provision in Bedfordshire and had expressed a wish to
work with the County Council in taking this forward
• pressure for a review from a number of sources within the County, including
some schools within the Voluntary Aided sector
• the opportunity to address other structural issues within the system such as
surplus places, the development of extended schools and, most importantly,
the agenda set by Every Child Matters.
4.
The Member Working Group was set up by the Executive to oversee the review.
The Group is made up of the members of the Children and Young People Select
Committee, including the parent governor and diocesan representatives, the
Executive Members for Education and Finance and a representative from the LSC,
seventeen people in all. Annex 1 contains the terms of reference of the Working
Group.
5.
Since it first met in September 2005, the Member Working Group has met twenty
times and received a wide range of information on school standards within
Bedfordshire and other local authorities as well as on other issues related to pupil
performance and well-being. It has considered written reports and data and
received presentations by expert witnesses.
6.
The Working Group also commissioned an outside body, Four S, to carry out a
comprehensive consultation process on behalf of the County Council. The
employment of Four S provided additional capacity so that the consultation process
could be both thorough and inclusive and so that the consultation process and
analysis of responses could be carried out in an impartial manner.
5
7.
As part of the consultation process, consultation documents 2 were sent to all school
governing bodies and other major stakeholders, consultation leaflets 3 were sent to
parents through schools and pre-school providers, questionnaires were provided to
groups of pupils, public meetings were organised and workshops were held with
headteachers, school governors, staff, pupils, FE colleges, town and parish councils,
representatives of minority groups and other stakeholders. Information on the
review and a form for responding to the consultation were included in Bedfordshire
magazine which is distributed across the County. The consultation documentation
was available on a widely publicised website which also provided an opportunity to
respond to the consultation on-line. Following the end of the consultation period,
Four S produced a report for the Working Group which provided a detailed analysis
of the responses. A copy of the report is attached as Annex 2.
8.
In addition, Four S were commissioned to carry out research and analysis of issues
which had been identified as being potentially relevant to consideration of school
structures. This information was again provided to the Working Group and is
included in Annex 3. Four S were not asked to make any recommendations to the
Working Group in respect of structures but to provide an impartial analysis of
information and evidence.
Evidence
9.
As indicated above, the Working Group received evidence on a wide range of issues
which it felt might impact on school performance and consideration of whether or not
to change structures 4,5 .
10. Since the main reason behind the decision to conduct the review was concern over
standards within schools, this was a major focus of the work of the Working Group.
Papers were presented by officers looking at information on performance within
Bedfordshire and in other local authorities, including those with 3 tier systems.
Additional information was provided by Four S and evidence was received from
expert witnesses.
11. The Working Group agreed that the criteria for determining its recommendations
should be providing the best possible learning environment for pupils through
structures which will:
•
•
support the raising of standards, and
enable all pupils to reach their full potential
having regard to available resources, both now and in the future 6 .
6
School Standards
Attainment within Bedfordshire
12. The Working Group noted that performance in Bedfordshire schools was good at
Key Stage 1 (7 years old), both above national average and generally that of
statistical neighbours 7 . In 2005, Bedfordshire’s performance at Key Stage 1 was
highest among its statistical neighbours. (Statistical neighbours are ten authorities
which have been identified by OFSTED as having similar characteristics to
Bedfordshire and so would be expected to show similar performance. They are
Cheshire, Dorset, Essex, Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire, Kent, South
Gloucestershire, Warwickshire, West Sussex and Worcestershire).
% Achieving level 2 and above at Key Stage 1
in 2005
95
90
85
80
75
Reading
Writing
Bedfordshire
Stat. Neigh.
Mathematics
National
13. At the end of Key Stage 2 (11 years old), performance in Bedfordshire schools was
found to have dropped generally to below that of statistical neighbours and around
the national average.
% Achieving level 4 and above at Key Stage 2 in
2005
90.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
English
Mathematics
Bedfordshire
Stat. Neigh.
7
Science
National
14. It was noted that there tended to be a slight improvement in performance in
Bedfordshire during Key Stage 3 so that the results of the Key Stage 3 assessments
in Bedfordshire schools (at 14 years old) are generally at or slightly above national
averages although still below those of many statistical neighbours.
% Achieving level 5 and above at Key Stage 3 in
2005
78.0
76.0
74.0
72.0
70.0
68.0
66.0
English
Mathematics
Bedfordshire
Stat. Neigh.
Science
National
15. By the end of Key Stage 4, the percentage of students in Bedfordshire schools
achieving 5 or more A*-C grades at GCSE tends to be well below the national
average. In 2005 the percentage of students achieving 5 or more A*-C grades was
below that of all Bedfordshire’s statistical neighbours.
% Achieving at least 5 A*-C at GCSE in 2005
60.0
58.0
56.0
54.0
52.0
50.0
48.0
Bedfordshire
Stat. Neigh.
8
National
16. Performance post 16 also causes concern, with the average number of points
scored per candidate at ‘A’ level being lower in Bedfordshire than nationally.
Total Post 16 Point Score in 2005
295.0
290.0
285.0
280.0
275.0
270.0
265.0
260.0
255.0
250.0
Bedfordshire
National (All Schools)
17. More information on performance within Bedfordshire at Key Stages 2-4 and at ‘A’
level compared with statistical neighbours is provided in Annex 4.
18. Having examined detailed information on performance within Bedfordshire, the
Working Group concluded that there was clear evidence of underperformance
across Bedfordshire’s schools.
19. It was suggested that this might be caused by pupils leaving state schools to enter
the private sector between the end of Key Stage 1 and the end of Key Stage 2.
Four S were asked to look at the information to identify whether this could explain
Bedfordshire’s performance in comparison to its statistical neighbours. Their report
can be found in Annex 3.
20. This reported that compared to its statistical neighbours, Bedfordshire did indeed
have a high percentage of pupils of secondary age in independent schools
compared to its statistical neighbours whilst the percentage of pupils of primary age
in independent schools had been low compared to statistical neighbours. The data
was, therefore, subjected to a statistical analysis. This indicated that the proportion
of Bedfordshire’s pupils in independent schools was unlikely to be a significant factor
in the relatively low performance of pupils at Key Stages 2 and 4 when compared to
statistical neighbours.
21. The Working Group were conscious that performance varied between different
areas of the County. They, therefore, sought information on value added data in
respect of each area. Summary information is attached as Annex 5. It should be
noted that schools scoring more than 100 (or 1000 in the case of Key Stage 4) are
deemed to be performing above expectation. Those scoring below 100 or 1000 as
appropriate are deemed to be performing at a lower level than expected. It will be
noted from this information that there is variable performance across different parts
of the County. At Key Stage 2, in only one area do scores in all middle schools
demonstrate added value compared with prior attainment and only seven schools
across the County (out of forty) show added value when contextual measures
relating to each school are taken into account (CVA). At Key Stages 3 and 4, only in
five of the seventeen pyramids (each based around one upper school and its feeder
middle schools) are schools across the whole 11-16 age range performing at or
above expectation.
9
22. On the basis of the evidence they had considered, the Working Group accepted that
standards in Bedfordshire schools were a concern 8 . The Working Group then
sought further information which might indicate the cause or causes of this
underperformance.
23. The Working Group noted that pupils made inconsistent progress in lower schools in
Years 3 and 4 compared to what might have been expected from their performances
in Key Stage 1 assessments and that this was compounded by a dip in performance
following transfer to middle school 9,10 .
24. It noted that the decrease in performance shown in Bedfordshire between the end of
Key Stage 1 and the end of Key Stage 2 was found in other authorities with three
tier arrangements. The Group received a recently published report from Suffolk
County Council which is an authority with both two and three tier arrangements.
This report, which was published on 28 April 2006, examined pupil performance in
both two tier and three tier systems 11 . An extract of this report is attached as Annex
6.
Evidence from other authorities
25. Suffolk’s research showed that performance at Key Stage 1 in the three tier areas in
Suffolk was as high as or higher than that within schools in two tier areas within the
county. This suggested that there was little or no difference in the nature of the pupil
population at the age of seven. However, by Key Stage 2 pupils in schools in two
tier areas performed significantly better on average than those in schools in three
tier areas. This difference was also seen in the percentage of students gaining 5 or
more A*-C grades at GCSE. The Working Group noted in particular that higher
attaining students appeared to underperform within the three tier system, although
one group of pupils, those identified as being from “hard pressed” backgrounds, did
appear to perform better in the three tier system.
26. Information which had been provided to the Working Group by Northamptonshire
County Council 12 provided a similar picture to that in Suffolk. Prior to implementing
a change in structure in Northampton, Northamptonshire had compared
performance in Northampton schools, which were operating under a three tier
system, with that within schools in Corby and Wellingborough, which were operating
under a two tier system. Again a picture emerged of similar performance to the rest
of the county in Key Stage 1 assessments but poorer performance in the three tier
schools in Northampton at Key Stages 2 and 3 and at GCSE than in the two tier
schools in Corby and Wellingborough.
27. The Working Group also noted that Northumberland showed a similar pattern of
performing better than its statistical neighbours at Key Stage 1 but with performance
diminishing significantly by the end of Key Stage 2, in 2005 falling to 10th (out of 11)
in English, 9th in mathematics and 8th in science 13 .
28. Following reorganisation, 2005 was the first year in which children sat Key Stage 2
assessments in primary schools in Northampton rather than middle schools. Whilst
a single year’s results should be treated with caution, the improvement in
performance in those schools following change was significantly better than the
improvement in the overall county performance12. At the same time, the Working
Group noted that Northamptonshire had experienced some challenges in
implementing change in Northampton secondary schools, although it was too early
to assess the impact of change on GCSE results in Northampton.
29. The Working Group received evidence from expert witnesses who indicated possible
reasons why children may not be best served by a three tier arrangement. Sir Mike
Tomlinson (former Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector) argued that children were too
young to transfer to secondary school at the age of 9. He suggested that the
10
learning styles of young pupils were incompatible with the secondary subject based
ethos and that they became frustrated if unable to finish a task. Sir Mike expressed
the view that two transfers, at the ages of 9 and 13, were more damaging to
children’s progress than one 14 .
Effect of transfer between schools
30. Professor Maurice Galton also spoke to the Working Group about the negative
impact of transfer between schools on both pupil attainment and pupils’ attitudes to
learning 15 . He spoke about his research on transfer and transitions 16 . This had
identified a dip in attainment on transfer between schools. He reported that whilst
the attainment of most pupils recovered from this, the performance of 12% of pupils
did not ever fully recover. (In Bedfordshire, 12% of a year group would be around
550 and 600 pupils.) He also reported that the attitude of pupils, particularly more
able pupils, to school tended to become more negative in the period following
transfer. The Working Group received information that it took two years for most
pupils to recover from the dip in performance on transfer
31. The Working Group also reviewed information which Milton Keynes Council had
produced prior to changing its age of transfer to eleven. Milton Keynes compared
performance at Key Stages 1 and 2 between those children attending separate first
and middle schools (transferring at the age of eight) and those children attending
combined first and middle schools. Whilst there was little between the performance
of children in the two systems at Key Stage 1, this evidence showed significantly
better performance at Key Stage 2 in the combined schools than in the middle
schools. This was seen as further information to suggest that pupil performance
was adversely affected by transfer between schools.
32. Discussion of the needs of the 14-19 agenda also highlighted issues around transfer
which could be resolved by transfer to secondary school at the age of 11 rather than
delaying transfer to upper school at age 13. The view was expressed that, if
children do not enter upper school until the age of 13, this leaves insufficient time for
them to get to know the school and the subjects to make appropriate choices of
GCSE courses and for the staff to get to know them well enough to advise them.
George Gyte in particular advised that it was essential that young people received
support, advice and guidance at this stage from an establishment where staff knew
their students well.
33. In aggregate, the evidence outlined above provided a picture of underachievement
within three tier systems linked to pupils changing school twice and at inappropriate
ages. In addition, the change of school during Key Stage 2 and again during Key
Stage 3 appeared to result in a lack of ownership of Key Stages, as neither the
lower nor the middle school was wholly responsible for Key Stage 2 and neither the
middle nor upper school felt totally responsible for Key Stage 3. This lack of
ownership of key stages was also reflected in responses to the consultation 17 .
OFSTED assessments
34. The Working Group looked at the assessments of performance of lower, middle and
upper schools in Bedfordshire which had been made within OFSTED reports 18 . This
revealed that Bedfordshire middle schools have generally received good or
satisfactory OfSTED reports. Further analysis of recent OFSTED inspection reports
indicated that middle schools scored particularly highly on personal development
and well-being 19 , this latter point being emphasised by Mike Lavelle, President of
Bedfordshire Middle School Heads Association, both in a letter to County
Councillors 20 and in a presentation he made to the Working Group 21 .
11
35. However, the Working Group also noted that a greater proportion of middle schools
have been placed in special measures, serious weaknesses or given notice to
improve than either lower or upper schools. An analysis of OFSTED performances
over the period April 2002 – August 2005 shows that during this period four lower
schools (2.5% of lower schools), four middle schools (10% of middle schools) and
no upper schools were identified by OFSTED as either having serious weaknesses
or needing special measures.
36. Inspection reports have been published for 47 Bedfordshire lower, middle and upper
schools under the current OFSTED arrangements which were introduced nationally
in September 2005. The table below shows the outcomes of these inspections.
Outcomes of OFSTED inspections: Sept 2005 – May 2006*
Outstanding Good
Satisfactory Notice to
Improve
2 (7%)
16 (55%) 9 (31%)
2 (7%)
Lower
schools
1 (9%)
7 (64%)
2 (18%)
Middle
schools
3 (43%)
3 (43%)
Upper
schools*
2 (4%)
20 (43%) 19 (40%)
4 (9%)
TOTAL
Special
Measures
1 (9%)
1 (14%)
2 (4%)
TOTAL
29
(100%)
11
(100%)
7 (100%)
47
(100%)
* includes a pilot inspection carried out in April 2005 under the current arrangements
37. The information above shows that, both before September 2005 and since, a larger
proportion of middle schools have been identified by OFSTED as performing
unsatisfactorily. Annex 7 provides a more detailed breakdown of the grades given
by OFSTED in recent inspections. This confirms that middle schools scored more
highly on personal development and well-being than in other areas.
Specialist teaching and facilities
38. The Working Group noted that a number of advocates of the three tier system had
drawn attention to the benefits of pupils having early access to specialist teaching
and facilities in middle schools at the age of nine. The Group sought information on
whether or not there was a long term benefit from this, by looking at comparative
performance in French and Science at GCSE. This showed that pupils within
Bedfordshire did indeed perform better at GCSE in French and Science than might
be expected in comparison with national figures. The Working Group wanted to
know whether this benefit in performance at French and Science might be linked
with reduced performance in other subjects. They, therefore, looked at performance
in Maths and English. This showed that pupils in Bedfordshire performed less well
at GCSE Maths and English than might be expected in comparison with national
figures 22 .
39. Having examined all of the above information, the Working Group came to the
conclusion that, on the balance of evidence, school structures do have an impact on
achievement within school although there are clearly aligned and linked issues that
are of equal importance, for example leadership within the Local Authority and
schools. Furthermore, they concluded that transfer during Key Stage 2 and the
resultant shared ownership of responsibility for the Key Stage were contributory
factors in the drop off in performance in Key Stage 2 assessments in Bedfordshire
and in many other authorities running a three tier system.
12
Outcome of Consultation
40. As can be seen from Annex 2, the results of the consultation process were mixed.
41. Over 9,500 written responses were received to the consultation process.
The largest response came from parents, of whom two thirds expressed a wish to
retain the existing three tier system and one third supported change, whether to a
simple two tier system, a tertiary system or the adoption of all-through schools.
42. The response depended, however, on the medium used, with fewer than 60% (of a
sample of 2,843) of parents who responded to the consultation leaflet supporting the
three tier system but nearly 90% (of a sample of 332) of those responding to the
questionnaire in Bedfordshire Magazine preferring the existing structure. Equally,
the figures differed depending on the age of the child, with just under half of parents
of pre-school children responding to the consultation leaflet supporting the existing
structure but more than 60% of middle and upper school parents seeking to retain
the three tier system. Responses also differed by postcode, with more than 50% of
responses from parents living in MK41, MK42 and MK43 (the area around Bedford
and Kempston but excluding much of central Bedford) supporting some change but
more than 75% of responses from LU5 and LU6 (the Dunstable area) favouring the
three tier system.
43. Around 80% of pupils surveyed supported retention of the current system.
44. 70% of responses from lower school headteacher or governing bodies were in
favour of retaining the current system, but it does appear that these responses may
have been coloured by a widespread fear among smaller schools that a change in
structure would result in their schools being closed.
45. All responses from middle schools were in favour of retaining the current system.
46. The collective response from upper schools favoured change to a two tier system
with 4-11 and 11-18 schools, although some individual responses expressed
concern that a change in structure could lead to them losing their sixth forms.
47. There was support for a change from the Catholic Diocese and from FE Colleges.
48. Therefore, whilst a majority of respondents did not support a change in structure,
there was a sizeable minority in favour of change. Interestingly, the parents of
younger children, those who might be most affected by the outcomes of any change,
were more in favour of change than those whose children would have little
opportunity to benefit from it. It is, also, believed that some of the responses were
influenced by fears of school closures, particularly in rural areas. If this is the case,
it might be envisaged that some of this opposition to change could be dissipated if
that issue were resolved at an early stage.
Pastoral care
49. The Working Group noted that one of the strongest arguments put forward during
the consultation process in favour of the retention of the three tier system was the
benefit it offered in terms of pastoral care. Many supporters of the existing system
had argued that middle schools provide a useful bridge between small lower schools
and much larger upper schools. They had also argued that there were benefits in
children going through early adolescence attending schools with a relatively limited
age range and that it was more appropriate for them to transfer to upper school at
the age of 13. In addition, supporters of the existing system had argued that
children transferring at the age of eleven to secondary schools serving the eleven to
eighteen age range would be to prone to bullying from the older pupils and
susceptible to influence by older children who might provide poor role models. As
13
indicated above, OFSTED reports on middle schools tended to reinforce the
perception that middle schools were particularly strong on pastoral care.
50. The Working Group considered which other indicators might help to confirm the view
that the three tier system provided better pastoral care than the two tier system.
Two indicators which might be considered appropriate were levels of attendance
and levels of exclusion.
51. As far as attendance was concerned, the Working Group noted that this was good in
all phases in Bedfordshire.
52. However, it was noted that the level of exclusions from schools in Bedfordshire was
higher than the national average and than that of statistical neighbours.
Furthermore, the Working Group had been reminded that the study of school
exclusions published out by the Lifelong Learning Select Committee in 2005 had
suggested that there could be a link between the high level of exclusions within
Bedfordshire and the three tier system 23 .
53. As far as bullying is concerned, the Working Group received information that
national research on bullying showed that the greatest proportion of such incidents
took place between pupils within the same year group 24 .
54. The Working Group also looked at the levels of racist incidents reported in lower,
middle and upper schools, which showed that the most incidents reported were in
middle schools 25 , although it was felt that this may not be linked to structures.
55. The Working Group recognised the perception that middle schools provided a high
level of pastoral care and noted that OFSTED inspection reports tended to score
middle schools more highly for pastoral care than other factors. However, the
Group felt that other evidence was mixed. Sir Mike Tomlinson had indicated that the
pastoral system in most secondary schools was considered a strength. Overall it
was not clear that the three tier system necessarily provided a much higher level of
pastoral care than the two tier system.
Why the 3 tier system was introduced
56. The Working Group received a report on why the three tier structure was first
established in Bedfordshire 26 . This reported that three tier structure had been
introduced:
•
•
•
•
to deal with a rapidly rising school population
because a break at 13 rather than 11 was felt to reflect more accurately the
variable physical and intellectual development of young adolescent children
because a first school for the 5 to 9 age range (rather than an infant school
covering the 5 to 7 age range) gave a greater measure of stability and
continuity to younger children because research at the time demonstrated
that younger children who spent less time in infant schools tended to be in
lower streams in subsequent stages of their education
because introducing a three tier system would allow continued use of most
existing school buildings without costly modifications and without creating
very large schools.
National Trends
57. The Working Group also received information on the diminishing number of local
authorities nationally supporting a three tier system and the consequent reduction in
the number of middle schools 27 . It was noted that Northumberland County Council
had decided to change to a two tier system, Harrow Council had developed
14
proposals to change in the future and Suffolk County Council and Poole Council
were consulting on change. It was possible that very soon only Bedfordshire and
the Isle of Wight would be running exclusively or mainly three tier systems.
Recruitment and retention
58. With a decreasing number of middle schools elsewhere in the country there is also a
concern over future recruitment, particularly of headteachers, and there is no doubt
that the main determinant of standards in a school is the quality of the staff and the
leadership in particular. The evidence from Worcestershire County Council 28
indicated that over the past ten years only two middle school headteachers had
been appointed from outside the County, thus limiting the amount of new blood
which could be brought into middle schools at a senior level. It was noted that in
recent years, Bedfordshire has benefited from being able to recruit, including to
headships, a number of strong candidates who were leaving Northampton as the
result of the reorganisation from three tiers to two tiers in the town.
59. The Working Group also considered whether or not this situation was likely to
improve or to become more difficult in future years. They noted the diminishing
number of authorities which were maintaining a three tier system. They also noted
the need for leaders and staff of a high quality in schools, a point particularly
emphasised by Sir Mike Tomlinson in the evidence he had provided to the Working
Group. It was accepted that there were mixed views and little hard evidence over
problems of recruitment currently. It was also the case that initial teacher training
tends to concentrate on either primary or secondary teaching and this can limit the
flexibility of staffing particularly in middle schools. On balance, the Working Group
concluded that maintaining a system which was different from a growing number of
other authorities was not likely to aid recruitment and could impede it.
Impact of structures on vulnerable groups
Children with Special Educational Needs
60. The Working Group received evidence on the education of pupils with special
educational needs (SEN) and the factors which might be pertinent to consider when
considering future school structures 29 .
61. They noted that there was some evidence to suggest that children with special
educational needs had their needs dealt with well in small lower schools, although
this was not conclusive.
62. The Working Group noted that anecdotal evidence indicated that there was a high
level of pre-transfer anxiety among SEN pupils and their parents 30 .
63. They also noted that it was believed that:
•
•
•
•
•
•
fewer transitions could benefit children with special educational needs
it was easier for the leadership team to monitor SEN in larger schools and for
training to have a greater impact
were there fewer schools this could help the Local Authority and its partners
organise support for special educational needs more efficiently
parental confidence in support for children in Years 5 and 6 could increase if
transfer took place at 11 rather than 13
pupils with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties appear to experience
particular difficulty in larger schools, with unsupervised times such as
lunchtimes being a particular problem
having the whole key stage covered by one phase could help to provide a
stronger accountability framework
15
•
the impact of any change in structure on specialist provisions in mainstream
schools would have to be carefully managed.
Children from Black and Minority Ethnic Groups
64. The Working Group noted that the performance of pupils from some minority ethnic
groups was a matter of concern to the County Council. There was particular
concern over the performance at GCSE (for the percentage of pupils achieving 5+
A*-C or equivalent) of children from Bangladeshi, Black African, Black Caribbean,
Mixed Race Black Caribbean, Italian and Pakistani backgrounds 31 . Children in most
of these groups perform below the Local Authority average at all Key Stages.
However, pupils within the Black Caribbean group perform at around the Local
Authority average in reading and mathematics at Key Stage 1 but there is a
significant decline in performance at GCSE.
65. Annex 3d contains an analysis from Four S of the performance of ethnic groups
within Bedfordshire compared to statistical neighbours and other local authorities
with a similar ethnic makeup.
66. The main findings from this analysis were that:
•
•
•
•
Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups perform the least well compared to those
groups in other local authorities – this poor performance is detectable from
Key Stage 1
the performance of the Pakistani group is generally the weaker of the two
by the time they reach GCSE, the performance of Pakistani pupils was lowest
of all the local authorities in both 2003 and 2004; in 2003 the performance of
the Bangladeshi group in Bedfordshire was also the lowest of all the local
authorities
Black Caribbean and mixed White/Black Caribbean pupils performed most
consistently in line with or slightly above average with performance in other
local authorities.
67. At the workshop held with representatives of the Black and Minority Ethnic
Community, there was no consensus over school structures with support both for
the current structure and for change. The main views expressed were that:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
for pupils with poor English language skills a delay in age of transfer may be
advantageous
the need to build up and maintain a relationship with the school was
important. Some felt that this may be enhanced by a primary / secondary
model as there was currently a loss of contact at 9 but others felt that their
local middle school was very supportive of and welcoming to families
discipline and effective behaviour management were key to high academic
standards
there was some concern that there was a lack of ambition in Bedfordshire
Schools
there was a view that schools had stagnated and not kept up with changing
needs in the community. It was agreed that diversity should be valued and
celebrated
there was a need for positive black and minority ethnic role models in
schools, and for more governors from black and minority ethnic communities
to be recruited
whatever happens in school structures the drop off in performance for some
ethnic groups after key stage 1 must be addressed to enable all young people
to succeed
16
•
•
that a mixed economy of different structures would be confusing particularly
to families who move through the County, such as Travellers, Asylum
Seekers, Refugees and migrant workers
factors other than structure may have an equal or greater influence on
standards, for example class sizes could be reduced to meet the needs of all
children.
68. Those respondents to the consultation who identified themselves as being from
Black and Minority Ethnic Communities generally reflected the views of all
respondents. There was no consensus on future school structures but there was
considerable support for the retention of the three tier system with additional
resources to fund improvements. 32
69. Clearly there are issues over the performance of young people from particular Black
and Minority Ethnic Communities which need to be addressed by the Authority. It is
not clear that these are related to the structure of schooling within Bedfordshire.
Annex 8 contains an assessment of the possible impact of any change in structures
for these young people. It will be noted that the conclusion is that there is no
evidence that a change in structures would raise levels of performance among these
groups, although it is felt that some children, particularly those for whom English is
not their first language, would benefit from remaining longer in primary school before
transferring to secondary school. However, it is recognised that there are some
middle schools which serve their pupils from Black and Minority Ethnic Communities
very well and there would certainly be a significant concern among these
communities over a possible change in structure.
Traveller Children
70. The Working Group considered evidence on the possible impact of school structures
on the performance of traveller children. This noted that Traveller children are
already a significantly underachieving group.
71. Concerns were expressed about the impact on the performance of this group of the
number of transfers within the three tier structure. Concerns had also been
expressed over whether Traveller children of primary age might have to travel
further to school, but the Working Group noted that this was not intended.
72. It was also noted that many Traveller children and their families perceived
secondary education as being inappropriate and irrelevant to their needs. At
present they tended to stay in the school system in Bedfordshire until the end of
Year 8, but many dropped out of the system on transfer to upper school. Anecdotal
information from other areas with two tier systems suggested that a change of
transfer age might result in the children staying longer in the system as the age of 11
was not seen as an appropriate time to leave school and start work.
Looked After Children
73. The Working Group noted that nationally educational outcomes for Looked After
Children are often adversely affected by changes of home placement which
necessitated changes of school. It also noted that the majority of authorities in
which Looked After Children from Bedfordshire are educated operate a two tier
system. It was felt that this could present greater problems for Bedfordshire children
experiencing a change of school system at the same time as a change in placement.
74. It was believed that if more of Bedfordshire’s Looked After Children stayed within
Bedfordshire and were educated locally, the impact of Bedfordshire running a
different system of schooling from other authorities would be less significant.
However, since Looked After Children were often less mature than their peers, there
17
was a view that they could find a change of school at the age of 9 more difficult than
other children.
14-19 Issues
75. The Working Group received presentations on 14-19 issues from Linda Hockey,
then Executive Director of the Learning and Skills Council, George Gyte, who was
speaking in his capacity as an adviser to the Learning and Skills Council, Brian Cue,
14-19 adviser, Tony Withell, Chair of the Upper School Heads Association and Ian
Pryce, Principal of Bedford College 33 .
76. A common theme coming from these presentations was the need for 14-19
providers to work together to ensure that a full curriculum offer was available to
learners and a recognition that few if any providers would be able to provide all of
the pathways which learners would be entitled to access. It was also felt important
to offer choice at the age of 14 in order to meet the needs of children and their
parents as well as the needs of the local economy.
77. Some concern was expressed over the impartiality of the guidance being provided to
individual pupils and the perceived dependence of upper schools on sixth form
funding (compared with 11-18 schools and certainly compared with 11-16 schools).
78. Another perception shared by the witnesses was that children need to have more
time in the school before making GCSE choices so that they are able to make better
informed choices and so that the school knows them better in order to assist them to
make those choices (see paragraph 32).
79. There was little support from witnesses for the establishment of discrete post 16
provision, although much support for the establishment of “hubs”. The LSC
produced a short paper on the factors to consider when establishing post 16
provision 34 .
80. The Working Group noted the importance of the developing 14-19 agenda and, in
particular, the necessity of all learners having access to the full curriculum offer,
including the new fourteen specialised diplomas which will run alongside more
traditional provision (Annex 9 lists the specialised diplomas). It also noted that this
can only be achieved through institutions working together.
Extended Schools
81. The Working Group considered the Government’s agenda for establishing Extended
Schools and noted that this was planned to result in all schools providing access to
additional out of hours activities for pupils, enhanced provision for the wider
community and support for parents and families. The Working Group recognised
that the initiative had been planned with a national pattern of primary and secondary
schools in mind. However, it noted that plans were currently being implemented to
introduce the initiative in Bedfordshire within the existing three tier system, with wrap
around child care within lower schools, a wider range of activities within middle
schools, including facilities for homework support and additional sporting
opportunities, and a range of activities for upper school pupils. Whilst it was
recognised that some of the approaches taken to the delivery of the initiative would
vary depending on the structure of schooling, the Extended Schools initiative can
and will be introduced into the County whichever system was in place.
Children’s Centres
82. It was noted that there were already seven Children’s Centres established within
Bedfordshire, most sharing nursery and/or lower school sites, although one was not
on a school site. It was also noted that there were plans to establish at least 18
18
more Children’s Centres by 2008 and that discussions were already taking place at
a local level on the most appropriate locations for these Centres. In most cases,
these would be likely to be on lower school sites. As the programme rolled out into
more rural areas, it was recognised that a different form of provision may be
required to take account of the size of school and the different needs of the local
population. It was recognised that any developments on school sites, including that
of Children’s Centres, would need to take account of possible future building work
on site, including that associated with the Primary Capital Programme 35 . A change
in structures would also be likely to be linked to different accommodation needs and
it was accepted that a decision to change structures could impact on how the plans
for Children’s Centres might be implemented on particular sites. It was felt that this
would be an important factor to take into account when considering plans for
individual sites. However, it was not believed that there was any evidence to
suggest that a particular structure of schooling was more appropriate for the
development of Children’s Centres.
Every Child Matters
83. The Working Group were particularly concerned to ensure that any future
developments within Bedfordshire took account of the need to deliver the Every
Child Matters agenda and to deliver the desired improvements to provision made for
all children in the County. It was recognised that this involved working with children
within all schools and ensuring that there was appropriate liaison across phases to
ensure that support, particularly for vulnerable children, was provided seamlessly
throughout their school lives.
84. It was noted that there were some benefits for children in attending smaller schools
with limited age ranges in which they were known by most teachers and could be
given consistent and individual support across the school. However, it was also felt
that there could be advantages in children spending longer in individual schools,
providing a greater level of continuity and security of provision and enabling them to
stay with staff who knew them and understood their needs. There were also felt to
be advantages for outside agencies in working with fewer schools so that their
efforts could be more concentrated and not dissipated across a large number of
establishments. A particular issue may be the need for Connexions to work across
Years 8-13 within schools and the difficulty this may currently present of working
with 57 schools within the County, in 40 of them only largely with a single year
group.
Areas of concern if a change in structures were implemented and arguments
supporting change
85. The Working Group considered the benefits of the existing three tier system and, in
particular, the concerns which had been raised during the consultation process over
the possible effect of change. These included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
possible disruption to schools and consequently to the education of children
currently in the school system
the loss of the transitional role of the middle school leading to concerns of
pupils over moving directly from small lower schools to larger upper schools
possible bullying of younger children by older children
older pupils providing inappropriate role models
the inappropriateness of transfer at the age of 11 taking account of the social
and emotional development of pupils at this age
the fear that small schools would be closed
that pupils would have to travel further to school
that schools and classes would be bigger
the loss of early access to specialist subjects
19
•
•
the possible cost of change to the tax payer
the capacity of the Council to implement change.
86. The Working Group also considered the arguments for change which had been put
forward in responses to the consultation process:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
alignment with the National Curriculum Key Stages
ownership of each Key Stage resting with a single phase
matching national patterns making it easier for children moving in and out of
the area
single transfer between schools
five years’ preparation in the same school for GCSE examinations, with three
years in the school before needing to make choices of courses at the age of
14
concerns over the future recruitment and retention of staff
change in structure would allow more flexibility over post 16 arrangements
ages of 9 and 13 are today inappropriate for transfer
standards haven’t improved sufficiently with the current structure.
87. The Working Group considered both the arguments in favour of retaining the three
tier system and those for change. It noted that any decision to change structure
would need to take account of the possible disruption to children’s education and
that steps would need to be taken to mitigate the effects of this. The Working Group
recognised the concerns of parents over transfer to larger secondary schools and in
particular the concerns over possible bullying, although it had received evidence that
most bullying tended to take place between children within the same year group or
an adjacent year group. It also noted the concerns over the possible loss of small
schools, fears of larger classes and concerns over young children having to travel
further to school.
88. The Working Group noted that there were differing views over the best age of
transfer and that this may reflect the fact that children mature differently so that no
one age of transfer is probably best for all children. It noted the arguments for a
change which would reduce the number of transfers between schools and align the
structures within Bedfordshire with other structures nationally and it noted the
benefits this would have in pupil data only needing to be passed once between
schools. The Working Group also noted that the resources likely to come in to the
County Council under Building Schools for the Future would help to fund any
change.
89. In noting that standards had not yet improved sufficiently within the current structure,
the Working Group considered proposals which had come out of the consultation
process on how standards might be raised within the three tier structure. These
included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
better use of performance data
better support for schools over behavioural difficulties
more focused support for schools from the Local Authority
acceleration of Key Stage 3 so that assessments would be taken at the end of
Year 8
enforcing the Year 4 and Year 8 tests
building upon learning communities
hot housing for tests
the appointment of a local authority officer responsible for standards at Key
Stage 2
workshops for middle schools and learning communities which focused on
Key Stage 2
20
•
picking up best practice from other authorities.
90. The Working Group recognised that a number of good ideas for improving standards
had come out of the consultation and needed to be considered whatever structure
was in place. In respect of the acceleration of Key Stage 3, the Working Group
noted that it had received evidence that this would not be appropriate for all pupils in
all subjects and some pupils would still need to sit Key Stage 3 assessments in
upper schools. This would remove the ability for Key Stage 3 to be concentrated
solely in middle schools and for upper schools to concentrate only on Key Stage 4.
91. After considerable discussion, the Working Group concluded that it was not
convinced that the proposals for improving performance within the current system
would be sufficiently effective in raising standards in schools.
92. Having noted the link between standards and structures, the Working Group
concluded that standards were most likely to be raised by a change in school
structure.
93. The Working Group also reviewed the evidence it had received on the 14-19
agenda, together with information on the relative performance of 11-16 and 11-18
secondary schools. It noted that there had been little support for the establishment
of sixth form colleges even from those involved with the 14-19 age range who were
advocating new approaches. Instead, there appeared to be a consensus in support
of a mixed economy with school sixth forms and FE colleges working together to
deliver the full range of curriculum opportunities to 14-19 students in a flexible way
which was appropriate to meeting their needs. The Working Group took particular
account of the advice of the Learning and Skills Council on this matter. Whilst
recognising that the continued functioning of individual school sixth forms depended
on them being able to deliver a high quality of education to their students and to be
able to offer a reasonable range of courses, it was agreed that there should be a
presumption that schools would continue to maintain sixth forms.
94. The Working Group noted that there was limited support for the introduction of allthrough schools. It recognised that such schools could have the advantage of
removing the need for children to transfer between schools and, therefore, avoid any
consequent drop in performance. Equally it was recognised that this model would
not be appropriate in most parts of the County although proposals could come out of
local consultation during the statutory consultative period. The Working Group also
recognised that there were different models of all-through schools which could be
adopted and even under these arrangements some formal transition between parts
of the school, as can be found locally in the independent sector, can be beneficial.
Conclusions of the Member Working Group in respect of structures
95. Having considered all the information and evidence which it had received, together
with the criteria on which it had agreed its recommendations should be based, the
Working Group agreed that the Executive be advised that:
•
•
•
after analysis of the evidence the Member Working Group accepts that
standards in Bedfordshire schools are a concern
on the balance of evidence, the Member Working Group is of the view that
school structures do have an impact on school achievement although there
are clearly aligned and linked issues that are of equal importance, for
example leadership within the Local Authority and schools
having considered the results of the consultation and other evidence
presented to it the Member Working Group agrees that its preferred option is
to move to a system of 4 to 11 primary and 11 to 19 secondary schools
21
subject to further consultation on both the principle and its application to
individual schools in each part of the County.
96. The Working Group agreed to recommend to the Executive that:
•
•
the Council adopt a preferred option to move to a two tier system of primary
schools covering the 4 to 11 age range and secondary schools covering the
11 to 19 age range subject to further consultation on both the principle and
its application to individual schools in each part of the County
that there should be a presumption that secondary schools maintain sixth
forms, whilst recognising that for an individual school this would be
dependent upon viability, value for money and an ability to deliver a high
quality of education to its students.
97. The Working Group agreed any change in structures should be linked to other
initiatives within the Local Authority to ensure that standards were raised, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
support for primary schools to identify and implement best practice in respect
of provision for Years 5 and 6
encouraging all primary schools to provide their pupils with access to modern
foreign language teaching
ensuring that all schools are given high quality data on their performance and
how it compares to other schools both within Bedfordshire and beyond,
broken down in a way which enables them to pinpoint areas of both good and
bad practice, and that they are given appropriate assistance in developing
and implementing strategies to use this data to improve performance
ensuring that all secondary schools have in place a programme to support the
transfer of pupils from the primary sector, to implement best practice for
Years 7 and 8 and to minimise the negative impact of transfer on both
attainment and attitude
ensuring that pupils within secondary schools are given high quality impartial
advice and guidance on 14-19 options and on career pathways so that they
are able to make appropriate choices of courses at the age of 14, thereby
minimising the likelihood of pupils dropping out of courses before completing
them
ensuring that work is initiated within Bedfordshire to help to raise the
aspirations of pupils within Bedfordshire schools and to raise expectations
across the County
ensuring that the benefits of current innovative practice in Bedfordshire, for
example within science teaching, are maintained and built upon in both the
primary and secondary sectors
strengthening leadership within both the primary and secondary sectors,
particularly in those schools currently causing concern
providing training to governing bodies to manage change
ensuring that pupils with special educational needs are well supported both
during and after the change in structure
enhancing support to schools with pupils with behavioural difficulties
ensuring that adequate investment is made in schools and in the capacity of
the County Council to manage change
ensuring that support is given to all staff within schools which might be
subject to closure so that pupils’ education does not suffer during the period
leading up to closure.
98. The Working Group was also very conscious of the concerns expressed, particularly
by many pupils, parents, governors and school staff, over a possible change in
school structure. It, therefore, felt that steps must be taken to address those
concerns and provide the reassurances that those pupils, parents, governors and
22
staff needed. In particular, the Working Group emphasised the need to:
•
•
•
provide a clear explanation to all stakeholders of why it was believed that a
change in structure would effect a rise in standards within Bedfordshire
schools
provide immediate reassurance that, contrary to some speculation, there was
no intention to close local lower schools or remove educational provision from
local communities except in exceptional cases
provide stakeholders with a clear indication of the steps which would be
involved in a change in structures, particularly the requirement for further
consultation on detailed proposals at a local level, the likely timescale for
change and how this could impact on pupils currently attending Bedfordshire
Schools.
99. The Working Group considered the implications of change for existing schools and
after deliberation considered that the preferred option of a two tier arrangement
could be most effectively implemented through existing upper schools becoming
secondary schools and lower schools becoming primary schools, with some middle
schools becoming additional primary or secondary schools.
Factors linked to change
School Size
100. The Working Group considered whether it would be appropriate to make
recommendations about school size.
101. It noted that for primary schools, two forms of entry (60 pupils in each age group)
were believed to be preferable. In urban areas, it was agreed that any new schools
which were established should generally be of this size. However, it was accepted
that many existing schools with between one half and three forms of entry were
providing a good standard of education to their pupils. It was not felt appropriate for
the County Council to seek uniformity in size under these circumstances and the
Working Group expected that in most cases the size of intake to primary schools
would remain relatively unchanged.
102. In respect of rural areas, it was noted that whilst there were some large schools
many lower schools had an intake of one form of entry or less. The Working Group
noted that in rural areas schools with a half form of entry (between 12 and 15 pupils
in each year group) were quite common and often very successful. There were
some concerns about the ability of a lower school smaller than this to become a
primary school serving the full 4-11 age range, but it was noted that there were
many examples of successful small schools. In considering the position of very
small schools, it was felt that many factors needed to be taken into consideration,
including the ability to recruit a headteacher, the level of local support for the school,
the standard of education which the school could provide and the nature of the site
and buildings. The Working Group recognised the importance of small rural schools
to local communities and agreed that there should be a presumption against the
closure of such schools unless there was a strong case for doing so. However,
schools with an intake of less than half a form of entry would be encouraged to
consider federation or other collaborative approaches in order to ensure that they
were in the best possible position to meet the needs of their pupils.
103. In considering the size of secondary schools, the Working Group took account of the
need for a viable sixth form and the fact that a greater proportion of pupils may
choose to remain in the sixth form in future. The Working Group, however, were
also conscious of concerns that parents would have over very large schools. The
Working Group agreed that a secondary school of ten forms of entry was probably
the ideal size, being likely to have 1800 pupils, assuming 300 in the sixth form. The
23
Working Group felt that a range of 8 – 12 forms of entry was acceptable, although
there were concerns over exceeding the top of this range. However, it was noted
that arguments could be put forward during local consultations for primary or
secondary schools of a different size to be considered.
Timing and Phasing of Change and Financial Implications
104. The Working Group considered the timing and phasing of change. The Group
recognised that in any one area, the process from start to finish was likely to take
three years, including local consultation on the detailed proposals for each school.
105. It was felt that Bedfordshire was too large to implement change in a single phase,
but that authorities in a similar position had found that once implementation had
commenced there had been pressure to complete the process as soon as possible.
At the same time, it was noted that early implementation of a change in structures
across Bedfordshire would mean that the change would need to be undertaken prior
to the receipt of funding under Building Schools for the Future (BSF) and the
Primary Capital Programme (PCP). It was noted that the capital cost of fully
implementing change could be in excess of £200 million. Whilst much of this could
be covered within plans for Building Schools for the Future and the Primary Capital
Programme, it was unlikely that the County Council could meet such a cost in full in
advance of these programmes. Thus a decision to implement change earlier might
require temporary arrangements to be put in place until BSF and PCP could fund
permanent accommodation.
106. On balance, it was felt that early implementation and completion of reorganisation
was preferable to implementing change over a much longer time period in order to
align with the receipt of funding under BSF. The Working Group wished to
emphasise the importance of managing carefully any building work, particularly if
this involved interim temporary arrangements. It also urged the County Council to
ensure that full account is taken of the needs of areas of expansion in the County as
well as the need to remove surplus places elsewhere.
107. The Working Group also agreed that it should recommend that appropriate levels of
revenue funding should be identified to support change, to build the capacity of the
County Council and provide support to headteachers and senior school staff to
manage the change and to support the professional development and possible
redeployment and redundancy costs which were likely to be associated with a
change in structures.
Human Resources
108. A change in school structures would be likely to have significant HR implications.
109. It is proposed that, if the County Council agrees to consult upon detailed proposals
for the introduction of a two tier structure, that the change should be implemented
through the enlargement of lower and upper schools each by two age groups. This
is likely to involve the closure of at least some middle schools, although alternative
approaches might be agreed at a local level following consultation.
110. The greatest impact would be likely to be on staff within middle schools. There is an
immense amount of experience and expertise among staff in all phases of school in
Bedfordshire and it is very important that these valuable staff are not lost to the
system as the result of a change in structures. In some cases, middle schools could
be identified as future primary or secondary schools. However, where a school were
to be identified for closure, all the staff would be placed at risk of redundancy. For
most of these staff who would wish it, there should be ample opportunities for
redeployment within Bedfordshire as there would still be the same number of pupils
within the system. From the Authority’s point of view, it is important to try to ensure
24
that staff are reassured about remaining within the County and about their career
prospects if they continue to do so. There would be a need to offer opportunities for
professional development for middle school staff as many might have little or no
recent experience of teaching children outside the middle school age range.
111. If the approach outlined in paragraph 109 were to be followed, staff within the
continuing lower and upper schools would continue within their existing posts,
subject to any reorganisation which might be planned within specific schools by
individual governing bodies. However, some professional development
opportunities may also need to be offered to these staff in order to help them
prepare for the additional year groups, of which in some cases the existing staff
might have little recent experience.
112. In addition, it would be important to agree protocols with unions and professional
associations and with the governing bodies of continuing schools whereby new
posts were offered initially on a ring fenced basis to staff from other schools in the
County who were at risk of redundancy. This should benefit receiving schools by
giving them an experienced local pool of staff to draw from without having to face
the expense of advertising externally. The County Council will need to review its
policies on supporting redeployment through assisting governing bodies with salary
protection and additional travel costs so that governing bodies were not dissuaded
from appointing redeployed staff.
113. Some authorities have also adopted protocols which allow new posts within schools
to be advertised well in advance and appointments to be made to them of staff who
currently work in schools which might be closing well before they would transfer to
the new posts. This would provide the opportunity for staff within schools which
were due for closure to gain posts in other schools and the reassurance that this
offered, whilst being able to continue to work at their present school until it closed.
In this way, it is hoped that disruption to pupils’ education in their existing schools
would be minimised through providing an incentive for staff to remain in those
schools until the end.
114. By taking the steps indicated above, it is to be hoped that redundancies will be
minimised and the existing expertise and experience of staff within Bedfordshire
would be kept within the County. It must be recognised, however, that there may be
some redundancies within schools which were closing, in particular of senior staff
and of premises related staff. The County Council will need to allow for this as
indicated above under consideration of financial issues.
Property
115. A change in structures would require a thorough review of all school sites to ensure
best use is made of these sites and buildings. In preparing for Building Schools for
the Future and the Primary Capital Programme, it will be necessary to identify which
sites are most appropriate for primary and secondary provision, taking account of
both site and existing buildings, and to determine whether existing buildings are
appropriate for extension, remodelling and/or refurbishment as appropriate or
whether there is a case for the total replacement of the buildings either on the same
site or another site.
116. It is envisaged that buildings will be designed to meet the needs of personalised
learning as well as more traditional approaches to teaching and learning within the
classroom, workshop or laboratory setting. This will include appropriate ICT
provision.
117. In planning the use of sites, account must be taken of any requirements under the
wider Every Child Matters agenda, including Extended Schools and Children’s
25
Centres, but also enabling the use of the buildings by the wider community.
118. Where a site is identified as surplus to requirements, there would be an assumption
that the site would normally be sold in order to generate a capital receipt. The
Working Group expected that capital receipts arising in this way would be used to
fund developments on other school sites. Only in this way will it be possible to fund
all the building work necessary to deliver both primary and secondary schools fit for
the twenty-first century.
119. It is recognised that implementation of a change in structures may involve some
interim arrangements, either making use of temporary accommodation or existing
buildings, in some cases with split site arrangements.
School Transport
120. A move to a two tier system would be likely to result in more children within Years 5
and 6 attending a local school within walking distance of their homes. This should
reduce the amount of transport required for this age group. In general, more
children within Years 7 and 8 would be likely to require transport to a secondary
school than currently require transport to an upper school.
121. Annex 10 provides a comparison between current expenditure on home to school
transport to lower, middle and upper schools and possible costs within a two tier
system. It will be noted that these figures indicate a possible small saving of around
£460,000 per annum in costs. This would be reduced if any small lower school sites
were closed and pupils qualified for transport to the nearest primary school as a
result. It is estimated that the additional cost would increase by around £1,400 £1,500 for every additional primary pupil requiring home to school transport.
Phasing
122. It is proposed that the County Council seeks to deliver the recommended changes
as soon as possible but in a way in which the changes can be managed to maximise
their positive impact on performance whilst at the same time minimising the
disruption to the education of children currently in the system. In a county of the
size of Bedfordshire, it is not believed that it would be appropriate to try to implement
change all at the same time. It is, therefore, suggested that consultation on
proposals for change be phased to take account of the capacity within the
organisation to implement change as well as financial considerations.
123. It is also felt that the areas which should be identified for inclusion in the first phase
should be those which were performing least well, which would be likely to conform
with the phasing of BSF. There is also an argument that those areas identified for
phase one should be located together.
Recommendations of the Member Working Group
124. The Working Group recommend to the Executive that:
•
•
the Council adopt a preferred option to move to a two tier system of primary
schools covering the 4 to 11 age range and secondary schools covering the
11 to 19 age range subject to further consultation on both the principle and
its application to individual schools in each part of the County
there should be a presumption that secondary schools maintain sixth forms,
whilst recognising that for an individual school this would be dependent
upon viability, value for money and an ability to deliver a high quality of
education to its students
26
•
•
•
•
•
the preferred size for new primary schools should be two forms of entry, but
that it be recognised that schools might range between one and three forms
of entry in urban areas and below that in rural areas
very small lower schools should be encouraged to consider federation or
other collaborative approaches with neighbouring schools in order to ensure
that as primary schools they would be in the best possible position to meet
the needs of their pupils
ten forms of entry should be the preferred size for secondary schools but that
it be recognised that schools will range in size between eight and twelve
forms of entry
the consultation process on the proposed change in structure and subsequent
implementation be carried out in phases taking account of capacity and
financial considerations
the additional recommendations listed in paragraphs 97 and 98 be supported
as part of the implementation.
1
Proposed Review of the Three Tier System in Bedfordshire. Report to Executive. 19 July 2005
Organising for Excellence. Consultation on the Review of School Structures in Bedfordshire. Four
S.
3
Organising for Excellence. Review of School Structures Consultation Questionnaire. Four S.
4
Agenda and papers for meetings of the Member Working Group
5
Minutes of meetings of the Member Working Group
6
Minutes of Member Working Group. 28 September 2005.
7
Standards, Curricular and Pastoral Issues. Report to Member Working Group. 14 November 2005
8
Minutes of Member Working Group. 8 May 2006.
9
Minutes of the Member Working Group. 16 May 2006.
10
Analysis of evidence and issues raised in response to the consultation. Report to the Member
Working Group. 22 May 2006.
11
School Organisation Review. Pupil Performance. Research Findings. Suffolk County Council. 28
April 2006.
12
Information on performance in Northampton schools – provided by Northamptonshire County
Council.
13
Minutes of Member Working Group. 23 January 2006
14
Minutes of Member Working Group. 20 February 2006
15
Minutes of Member Working Group. 3 March 2006
16
Transfer and Transitions in the Middle Years of Schooling (7-14). Continuities and Discontinuities
in Learning. Maurice Galton, John Gray and Jean Ruddock. University of Cambridge. June 2003.
17
Annex 2
18
Annex 3a
19
Annex 7
20
Letter from Mike Lavelle. Papers to Member Working Group. 22 May 2006
21
Minutes of Member Working Group. 22 May 2006
22
Performance in Bedfordshire at GCSE in French, Science, English & Mathematics in comparison to
national averages
23
Lifelong Learning Select Committee Report: Study into Permanent Exclusion. 2005
24
Further Analysis on Standards Issues. Report to Member Working Group. 23 January 2006.
25
Annual Report of Racist Incidents. Report to Member Working Group. 22 May 2006
26
Why a three tier structure was first established. Report to Member Working Group. 1 November
2005
27
Number of Middle Schools in England. Report to Member Working Group. 28 November 2005
28
Minutes of Member Working Group. 13 December 2005
29
Presentation on Special Educational Needs issues to the Member Working Group. 28 November
2005
30
Minutes of Member Working Group. 28 November 2005
31
Analysis of Achievement Data by Ethnic Group. Report to Member Working Group. 22 May 2006
32
Responses to consultation.
33
Minutes of Member Working Group. 20 April 2006
34
Report from Martin Cooke, Director of Learning and Inclusion, LSC Bedfordshire and Luton to
Member Working Group. 22 May 2006.
35
Minutes of Member Working Group. 24 May 2006
2
27
Review of School Structures
Report of the Member Working Group
Annex 1
Member Working Group - Terms of Reference
1. To direct and oversee a review of the three tier system of education within
Bedfordshire
2. To agree the criteria by which an assessment will be made of the existing
system and any possible alternatives
3. To agree how the review will be carried out
4. To determine what information will be required to inform the review. This
would be likely to include information on :
- the advantages and disadvantages of the current system and possible
alternatives
- the effect of different systems across the country, particularly in respect of
school standards
- the possible cost of change, both financial and human
- the possible impact on standards
- the implications of retaining the current system at this time, including any
lost opportunity costs
5. To commission the provision of this information
6. To determine how best to consult on the issues and with whom
7. To agree any materials which are to be sent out for consultation
8. To receive an analysis of the outcomes of consultation
9. To consider all the information which the Working Group has received,
including the outcomes of any consultations undertaken
10. To agree whether to recommend to the Executive that the current 3 tier
system of education be retained or whether to recommend an alternative
model
11. To provide feedback to consultees on the outcome of the consultation
process and on the conclusions reached by the Working Group
12. To provide during the review process a periodic update to the Executive and
to other interested parties within Bedfordshire on the progress of the review.
Organising for Excellence
Bedfordshire County Council
Review of School Structures
Consultation Report
May 2006
Page 1 of 82
I have pleasure in presenting the report on the outcomes of the consultation on school
structures in Bedfordshire. All Four S colleagues who worked on the review were pleased
with the courteous and engaged response from everyone they met. I would like to thank
everyone who responded and the considerable time and effort many made in preparing their
response.
The decision on school structures is one of the most important the County will have to take
this year and any decision will affect future generations of young people. This consultation is
only one of the pieces of evidence the County Council will need to take into account in
making the decision. The Council will need to weigh the strength of argument as well as the
volume of response. I hope the report itself is clear and reports accurately the views
expressed.
I wish the Bedfordshire children’s service well in the future.
Steve Clarke
Chief Executive
Four S
Four S Project Sponsor:
Four S Project Manager:
Steve Clarke
David Groves
© VT Four S, May 2006. The information contained herein is the property of VT Four S Limited and is supplied without liability
for errors or omissions. No part may be reproduced, disclosed or used except as authorised by contract or other written
permission. The copyright and the foregoing restriction on reproduction, disclosure, and use extend to all media in which the
information may be embodied.
The use of the expression Four S on any page of this document shall be understood to refer to VT Four S Limited
Page 2 of 82
1 Executive Summary
Four S was engaged to “carry out a consultation process to seek views from Bedfordshire
residents and other interested parties on whether the existing three-tier system should be
retained or whether a different model should be introduced and, if so, which model would be
favoured”. The Consultation was to provide Bedfordshire County Council with a thorough
analysis of information to inform the decision making process.
The consultation was undertaken on a neutral basis. The County Council did not make a
recommendation. The role of Four S was to add capacity and neutrality. It did not itself have
a view but was employed to actively listen and challenge arguments to ensure clear
understanding.
1.1 Methodology
Stage One of the review was for ‘reflection’: the strengths and weaknesses of the current
system and barriers to raising attainment. Seven workshops with heads and governors were
held and there were 15 one to one structured telephone dialogues. There were individual
meetings with trade unions and professional associates, other educational partners, Colleges
and MP’s. Over 3000 questionnaires for pupils were sent to 50 schools.
Stage Two focused on the issue of school structures and the strengths and weaknesses of
alternative options and whether alternative structures could help overcome some issues that
were raised in stage 1. This stage also sought to establish whether there was consensus
regarding the system that Bedfordshire County Council should adopt for the future (including
the retention of the current three-tier system).
This involved 21 workshops with a wide range of stakeholders and 7 public meetings, one in
each learning community.
Across stages one and two a consultation document was issued to all parties and individual
stakeholders. 65,000 leaflets were sent to parents through pupil post and there was an online questionnaire. Schools were given materials to conduct their own staff and governor
consultation.
1.2 Reporting Back
Reporting back throughout the consultation was a central part of the study. There was a
County Council newsletter and webpage in addition to the Four S website. A six-page midproject update was sent to all organisations that received the Consultation Discussion Paper,
and was also placed on the Four S website; this was designed to keep stakeholders
informed about the project progress and share the responses that had been received to that
point.
Page 3 of 82
1.3 Level of Response
The consultation began on 30 January 2006 and ended on 4 April 2006. Almost 9,500 written
responses were received, broken down as follows:
3475
2477
1906
921
706
_____
Individual responses through the individual questionnaires and Bedfordshire County
Council leaflet .
Pupil questionnaires.
Website responses
Individual questionnaires from workshops and public meetings
Written responses
9,485
Of those replying the greatest number (over 5,000) categorised themselves as parents and
the next largest group were pupils.
The responses from pupils and schools can be regarded as representative. The response
from parents was at the lower end of expectations at well under a response rate of 10% and
the County Council will want to consider how representative this response rate is and, if
possible, the views of those who did not respond.
There was not an organised campaign in favour of changing school structures. There was
however significant organised activity which promoted the view that the current three-tier
system should remain. The County Council will want to judge how significant this was when
it considers the responses.
1.4 Key Findings
The key findings from workshops and questionnaires on issues other than solely school
structures are:
1)
Acceptance within the school system that there is underachievement in Bedfordshire
overall. Responses from several learning communities felt that this was not the case in
their area however.
2)
Improving the performance of individual schools was considered to be a key priority by
all respondent groups.
3)
Improving recruitment and retention of good leaders and staff is also a key issue.
Smaller numbers suggested other factors as key issues for Bedfordshire County Council.
Page 4 of 82
1.5 School Structures
65% of respondents wanted to retain the present three-tier system.
There are some significant variations within the overall figure.
● 70% of lower schools favoured retention with a particular concern about the impact of
changes in rural schools.
● A uniform support for retention from Middle Schools.
● A collective view from Upper Schools headteachers that the County should change to an
11-18 system.
● Most of the education partners expressed no view. Two, the Northampton RC Diocese
and FE Colleges, are in favour of change-at-11 years old (with FE Colleges advocating a
greater variety of provision for pupils aged 16+). Connexions did not feel the current
system offered breadth and quality of advice at 16+.
● 66% of parents who responded wanted to retain the three-tier system. The consultation
leaflet showed substantially smaller levels of support for retention (59%) than for example
the public meetings (88%). In a small number of areas, mainly surrounding Bedford
town, a majority were in favour of change. Generally parents of pre-school age children
were less in favour of retention (just under 50%) than parents of Middle and Upper
Schools pupils.
● Pupils were overwhelmingly in favour of retaining the current structure.
● There was very limited support for a mixed (two-tier and three-tier) system in
Bedfordshire.
1.6 Arguments for retention and for change
The arguments for retention were:
● The current system is not failing, but there may be a need to raise performance in some
individual schools and areas.
● KS1 results may be overstated and therefore in Middle/Upper schools overall progress is
acceptable.
● The current system is better for pastoral care and a more balanced curriculum.
● Pupils get earlier exposure to specialist teaching and facilities.
● There is no proof that change will lead to better results.
● The process of change is costly and disruptive.
Page 5 of 82
● There are other ways of improving standards, e.g. learning communities, council
leadership, use of data.
● The acceleration of KS3 tests to the end of middle school would overcome current split
accountability for KS3.
The main arguments for change made by respondents were:
● Accountability - schools share responsibility for a national curriculum key stage.
Currently in Bedfordshire attainment tests do not therefore illuminate where responsibility
for achievement and underachievement lie. Aligning key stages and school structures
would be a powerful driver in raising school standards.
● GCSE preparation – pupils would have a 5 year preparation for GCSE within the same
school environment which respondents argued would support choosing of GCSE options
in Year 9 within a familiar environment.
● Fewer transfers of school at a formative age.
● Alignment with the national system would improve recruitment and retention. There are
now so few middle schools nationally that attracting heads is more difficult.
● Better performance pre 16 would lead to a better performance post 16 and assist a
revised 14-19 curriculum.
1.7 Consensus
There was consensus from most respondents that learning communities were the way
forward for raising standards and delivering the children’s services agenda. All agreed that
better use could be made of education performance data. The County Council is criticised
for lack of leadership and effective educational challenge.
1.8 Summary
1)
A significant majority of those who responded favoured retention of the current three-tier
system overall. This however masks variation between stakeholder groups and
geographic areas.
2)
The County Council will want to judge the effects on the results of the campaign
organised against change and the significance of how this affected responses from
parents.
3)
There is no consensus throughout the county or service about the most appropriate
school system for Bedfordshire.
The County Council will want to assess whether there is sufficient support for the
retention of the existing system to make it likely that a decision to retain the three-tier
system could be sustained in the long term or whether there will be pressure to revisit
the decision in the short to medium term.
Page 6 of 82
Table of Contents
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................... 3
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................................................... 3
REPORTING BACK .................................................................................................................................. 3
LEVEL OF RESPONSE .............................................................................................................................. 4
KEY FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................ 4
SCHOOL STRUCTURES ............................................................................................................................ 5
ARGUMENTS FOR RETENTION AND FOR CHANGE .................................................................................... 5
CONSENSUS ............................................................................................................................................ 6
SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. 6
2
GLOSSARY................................................................................................................................................ 10
3
PROJECT RATIONALE AND METHODOLOGY............................................................................... 11
3.1
THE RATIONALE FOR THE PROJECT ....................................................................................................... 11
3.2
THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT.................................................................................................................. 12
3.3
THE METHODOLOGY FOR THE PROJECT................................................................................................. 13
3.3.1 The Two Stage Methodology ........................................................................................................... 14
3.4
STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATIONS....................................................................................................... 16
4
CONSULTATION FINDINGS: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW .............................................. 17
4.1
WHO RESPONDED?............................................................................................................................... 17
4.1.1 Educational Organisations ............................................................................................................. 19
4.1.2 Pupils .............................................................................................................................................. 19
4.1.3 School Staff and Governors............................................................................................................. 20
4.1.4 Government: District and Town and Parish Councils .................................................................... 20
4.1.5 Parents and Residents ..................................................................................................................... 20
4.1.6 Other Responses.............................................................................................................................. 20
4.1.7 Multiple Respondent Types ............................................................................................................. 21
4.2
FINDINGS: ISSUES FOR IMPROVEMENT.................................................................................................. 21
4.3
FINDINGS: FUTURE SYSTEM ................................................................................................................. 23
4.3.1 Schools and Educational Organisations ......................................................................................... 23
4.3.2 Parents ............................................................................................................................................ 24
4.3.3 Pupils .............................................................................................................................................. 26
5
BARRIERS TO RAISING ATTAINMENT AND THE ROLE OF SCHOOL STRUCTURE ........... 29
5.1
5.2
5.3
6
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF BEDFORDSHIRE’S EDUCATION SYSTEM .......................................... 29
WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS TO RAISING PUPIL ATTAINMENT?................................................................. 30
DOES THE STRUCTURE OF SCHOOLS AFFECT PUPIL ATTAINMENT? ........................................................ 31
CONSULTATION FINDINGS: ISSUES NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO SCHOOL STRUCTURE
32
6.1
THE ROLE AND LEADERSHIP OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ..................................................................... 32
6.2
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SCHOOL ADVISORY SERVICE ................................................................... 33
6.3
THE MANAGEMENT AND EFFECTIVE USE OF PUPIL DATA ...................................................................... 34
6.3.1 Accuracy of Data............................................................................................................................. 34
6.3.2 Analysis, distribution, and access to data ....................................................................................... 35
6.3.3 Use of data within school and the Local Authority ......................................................................... 36
6.4
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNING COMMUNITIES ................................................................................ 37
7
CONSULTATION FINDINGS: ARGUMENTS FOR THE RETENTION OF THE THREE-TIER
SYSTEM .............................................................................................................................................................. 38
7.1
7.2
WHO ARGUED IN FAVOUR OF RETAINING THE CURRENT THREE-TIER SYSTEM?..................................... 38
PARENTAL FAMILIARITY AND SUPPORT ............................................................................................... 39
Page 7 of 82
7.3
THE THREE-TIER SYSTEM SUPPORTS PASTORAL DEVELOPMENT OF PUPILS ........................................... 39
7.3.1 Education is about more than test results ....................................................................................... 41
7.4
THE CURRENT SYSTEM PERFORMS WELL .............................................................................................. 42
7.4.1 Early access to specialist teachers and facilities ............................................................................ 42
7.4.2 Bedfordshire has not always underperformed – so the system is not inherently problematic......... 42
7.4.3 Some geographic areas and schools within Bedfordshire perform well ......................................... 43
7.4.4 Other councils perform well with a three-tier system and/or badly with a two-tier system ............ 44
7.4.5 Someone has to be below national averages................................................................................... 44
7.5
THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS WHICH EXPLAIN THE ATTAINMENT RESULTS............................................ 44
7.5.1 Key Stage 1 results are overstated .................................................................................................. 44
7.5.2 Breadth of curriculum and lack of ‘cramming’ for KS2 ................................................................. 45
7.5.3 Surrounding Grammar Schools and/or Independent Schools attract the most able pupils after Key
Stage 1 45
7.6
THE CURRENT SYSTEM CAN BE IMPROVED TO RAISE ATTAINMENT ....................................................... 45
7.6.1 Address non-structural issues to support raising attainment.......................................................... 45
7.6.2 Work more effectively with schools, pupil types, and areas of underperformance rather than
replace the system ........................................................................................................................................ 46
7.6.3 Recruitment and Retention is not an issue and/or not a structural issue ........................................ 46
7.6.4 Accelerate KS3 to Year 8 ................................................................................................................ 47
7.6.5 Enforce Y4 and Y8 tests................................................................................................................... 47
7.6.6 Build upon Learning Communities to improve attainment.............................................................. 48
7.7
A CHANGE IN SYSTEM DOES NOT GUARANTEE IMPROVEMENT .............................................................. 49
7.7.1 The structure of schools is not the major influence on attainment.................................................. 49
7.7.2 Change of structure does not guarantee improvement.................................................................... 49
7.7.3 Disruption of change to pupils currently within the system ............................................................ 50
7.7.4 Money for change could be used more effectively........................................................................... 50
7.7.5 The Local Authority could not manage change effectively.............................................................. 51
7.7.6 A change-at-11 system is undesirable ............................................................................................. 51
7.7.7 The future of rural Lower Schools .................................................................................................. 52
7.8
THREE-TIER FITS THE 14-19 AGENDA ................................................................................................... 52
8
CONSULTATION FINDINGS: ARGUMENTS FOR A CHANGE OF STRUCTURE ..................... 53
8.1
IMPROVED ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PERFORMANCE THROUGH ALIGNMENT WITH NATIONAL CURRICULUM
KEY STAGES ...................................................................................................................................................... 54
8.2
ADOPTING THE ‘NATIONAL PATTERN’ WILL SUPPORT IMPROVEMENT................................................... 55
8.3
5 YEAR PREPARATION, WITHIN THE SAME SCHOOL, FOR GCSE EXAMS................................................. 56
8.4
ONE TRANSFER IS BETTER THAN TWO ................................................................................................... 57
8.5
PREVIOUS IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS WITHIN THREE-TIER STRUCTURE HAVE NOT WORKED .................... 58
8.6
NATIONAL PATTERN: FUTURE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION AND TEACHER/HEADTEACHER QUALITY
59
8.7
IMPROVE PUPIL CHOICE AND QUALITY OF OFFER POST 16..................................................................... 61
8.8
THE CURRENT AGES OF TRANSFER OF 9 AND 13 ARE INAPPROPRIATE ................................................... 62
9
POSSIBLE SCHOOL ORGANISATION MODELS.............................................................................. 63
9.1
9.2
9.3
10
PRIMARY OR INFANT/JUNIOR SCHOOLS? .............................................................................................. 63
POST 16 PROVISION .............................................................................................................................. 64
THE MIXED ECONOMY FOR STATUTORY AGE EDUCATION .................................................................... 65
CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................... 67
10.1
THE CONSULTATION PROCESS .............................................................................................................. 67
10.2
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DECISION ABOUT THE SYSTEM ........................................................................... 67
10.2.1
Local Authority Leadership and School Support ........................................................................ 67
10.2.2
Improve the use of and access to pupil attainment data, and other management information ... 68
10.3
IF THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS TO BE RETAINED ........................................................................................ 68
10.3.1
Learning Communities: Collective Responsibilities and Aspirations ......................................... 68
10.3.2
Accelerate KS3............................................................................................................................ 68
10.3.3
KS2 educational breadth............................................................................................................. 69
10.3.4
Pastoral care and/or educational attainment ............................................................................. 69
10.4
IF THE SYSTEM IS TO CHANGE ............................................................................................................... 69
Page 8 of 82
10.4.1
10.4.2
10.4.3
10.4.4
10.4.5
The case for change .................................................................................................................... 70
Future of rural schooling............................................................................................................ 70
The respective roles of Schools and Colleges for Post 16 provision .......................................... 70
The Local Authority: the ‘day job’ and reorganisation .............................................................. 70
The impact during reorganisation .............................................................................................. 71
APPENDIX ONE: METHODOLOGICAL EVALUATION .......................................................................... 72
THE LEVEL OF RESPONSE ................................................................................................................................... 72
FOUR S PERFORMANCE ..................................................................................................................................... 72
FEEDBACK UPON THE CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION AND PROCESS............................................................ 74
APPENDIX TWO: ADDITIONAL RESPONSES ........................................................................................... 75
APPENDIX THREE: POSTCODE BREAKDOWN OF WRITTEN RESPONSES .................................... 76
APPENDIX FOUR: COUNCIL PRIORITY AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT............................................ 77
APPENDIX FIVE: PREFERENCES FOR THE SYSTEM FOR THE FUTURE........................................ 79
APPENDIX SIX: VIEWS REGARDING PRIMARY PHASE SCHOOLING ............................................. 81
APPENDIX SEVEN: POST 16 PROVISION................................................................................................... 82
Contents of Figures
Figure 1: Consultation Project Stakeholders ......................................................................................... 12
Figure 2: Consultation Process and Methodology ................................................................................ 14
Figure 3: Written Consultation Responses: Source of responses ........................................................ 17
Figure 4: Written Respondents: Respondent Types ............................................................................. 18
Figure 5: Written Responses: Postcode analysis.................................................................................. 18
Figure 6: Percentage of respondents identifying areas for improvement ............................................. 21
Figure 7: Areas for Improvement: Postcode Analysis ........................................................................... 22
Figure 8: Total Responses: Future System Preference ........................................................................ 23
Figure 9: Future System: Parental preferences via different media...................................................... 24
Figure 10: Future System: Parent responses and age of child ............................................................. 25
Figure 11: Future System: Postcode analysis....................................................................................... 26
Figure 12: Pupils: On the whole I like being at school .......................................................................... 27
Figure 13: Pupils: I think we should keep three types of school ........................................................... 28
Figure 14: SWOT of Bedfordshire Education System ........................................................................... 29
Figure 15: Pupils: The school helps me feel good/self-confident about myself .................................... 40
Figure 16: The school stops people being bullied; deals effectively with bullying ................................ 41
Figure 17: Pupils: Advice regarding Year 10 options ............................................................................ 57
Figure 18: Lower School respondents’ views regarding primary phase schooling ............................... 64
Figure 19: Year 10 views regarding location of Post-16 education....................................................... 65
Figure 20: Workshop Delegate Feedback............................................................................................. 73
Figure 21: Public Meeting Feedback..................................................................................................... 73
Contents of Tables
Table 1: Delivery of Agreed Methodology ............................................................................................. 15
Table 2: Delivery of Agreed Stakeholder Communications................................................................... 16
Table 3: Written Responses from other Educational Organisations and Groups ................................. 19
Table 4: Pupil Questionnaire Responses .............................................................................................. 20
Table 5: Pupil responses to online questionnaire ................................................................................. 20
Page 9 of 82
2 Glossary
CoE: Church of England
FE: Further Education (usually used in relation to Further Education Colleges)
Headteacher Working Group: A group of headteachers, including Lower, Middle and Upper
Schools, who advised the County Council regarding the process for the Review and
consultation.
KS: Key Stage. The National Curriculum is divided into five Key Stages, with breaks at ages
7, 11, 14, 16, and concluding at age 18.
LC: Learning Community. Bedfordshire County Council and schools have sub-divided
Bedfordshire into seven Learning Communities, each comprising between 18 and 42
mainstream schools.
LSC: Learning and Skills Council
Member Working Group: The body who are managing the Review and
commissioned/sponsored the consultation. The Group consists of elected Members from
each of the political parties, three parent governors, and representatives from each Diocese
and the Learning and Skills Council (LSC)
NC: National Curriculum
RC: Roman Catholic
Page 10 of 82
3 Project Rationale and Methodology
This section outlines:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
The rationale of the project as specified by Bedfordshire County Council
The scope of the project as specified by Bedfordshire County Council
The methodology for the project, as agreed between Bedfordshire County Council and
Four S.
Information Analysis processes
Stakeholder Communications
3.1 The rationale for the project
Bedfordshire County Council’s Executive agreed in July 2005 to undertake a review of school
structures within the County. This Review was in accordance with Bedfordshire’s 2002 PostOfsted Action Plan which stated that the Authority would review the structure in 2005 if
results had not improved by the ‘step-change’ that was envisaged.
The Review of School Structures was undertaken in response to a range of issues:
ƒ
Pupil Achievement: In 2005 pupil achievement within Bedfordshire schools was above
the national average at age 7, but performance at GCSEs (5+ A*-C grades) was over 3%
below the national average.
ƒ
National Curriculum: The current structure means that pupils change school during Key
Stages 2 and 3; the review sought people’s views as to whether this affects standards.
ƒ
National Trends: Over 95% of pupils in England change to a secondary school at 11.
Most council’s who adopted a three-tier structure have changed or are changing. The
review sought people’s views as to whether Bedfordshire should continue to operate a
system that is different to national patterns.
ƒ
Opportunities to Shape the Future: The school structure in Bedfordshire needs to suit
future generations of pupils and to ensure that opportunities offered by Government
‘Building Schools for the Future’ funding are grasped.
ƒ
Demographics Mean Change is Inevitable: Population change means that some parts
of the county have surplus school places and in other areas more pupil places are
required.
ƒ
Teacher Recruitment: The review sought people’s views as to whether it may become
harder to attract headteachers and teachers into Bedfordshire if almost all other councils
run a different system.
ƒ
Internal Pressure: A number of groups within the county, including some schools, had
indicated they would welcome a review
Following competitive tender Bedfordshire County Council appointed Four S to undertake the
Consultation to:
Page 11 of 82
1. Add Capacity – the County Council did not have the internal resources available to
manage a consultation project of this size
2. Ensure Impartiality – the Member Working Group were clear that they wished the
consultation to be impartial and consider as wide a range of issues and opinions as
possible. An external consultant is more able to facilitate this without any vested
interest or defensiveness.
3.2 The scope of the project
The key stakeholders for the consultation are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Consultation Project Stakeholders
Four S was engaged to “carry out a consultation process to seek views from Bedfordshire
residents and other interested parties on whether the existing three-tier system should be
retained or whether a different model should be introduced and, if so, which model would be
favoured” (Contract Specification, October 2005). The Consultation was to provide
Page 12 of 82
Bedfordshire County Council with a thorough analysis of information to inform the decision
making process.
Bedfordshire County Council and Four S agreed several baselines for the consultation:
ƒ
Neutrality: the consultation would be undertaken on a neutral basis, without a
recommendation from Bedfordshire County Council about their preferred future structure.
ƒ
Strength of Argument: the consultation would record the focus and source of
arguments as well as giving an indication of the volume of that argument. Bedfordshire
County Council’s decision in summer 2006 will be based upon their understanding of the
strength of argument rather than the volume of the argument.
ƒ
No Four S Recommendations: Four S was employed to undertake a consultation, not
to make professional recommendations about future school structures. This report
reflects only information gathered during the consultation and does not make any
structural recommendations.
ƒ
Active Listening: Four S’ role was to listen and hear people’s opinions. This listening
was to be ‘active’, by which this report means that part of Four S’ role was to probe and
challenge opinions that were offered to better understand the rationale and argument
behind them. This ‘devils advocate’ role was to be provided both in favour and against
retention of the three-tier system, depending upon the prevailing views being gained from
that consultation session.
ƒ
Consultation is about statutory age mainstream provision: The consultation project
was to focus upon education for children of ‘statutory age’ for education, and for
provision within mainstream schools.
ƒ
Strength of argument is paramount: The Consultation Discussion Paper stated that
“The County Council will listen carefully to all arguments put forward before making a
decision. That decision will be informed by the strength and quality of those arguments”
(Consultation Discussion Document, page 15).
3.3 The methodology for the project
The agreed methodology at the point of the start of the Consultation period at the end of
January 2006 is shown in Figure 2.
The consultation methodology was designed to enable as many people as possible to
participate, and to provide a range of quantitative and qualitative information that
Bedfordshire County Council can consider.
The consultation was framed by the Consultation Discussion Paper. This document was
approved by the Member Working Group on January 23, 2006, at the same time as the
Consultation Leaflet. All of Four S’ consultation process took place within this framework.
Bedfordshire County Council retained responsibility for:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Contacting and consulting with neighbouring Local Authorities
Contacting and consulting with District and Borough Councils within Bedfordshire
Providing translation services (written and oral) as required during the consultation
Page 13 of 82
3.3.1 The Two Stage Methodology
Four S used a two-stage methodology with schools and educational organisations to focus
upon separate themes:
ƒ
Reflection – considering the current system and its strengths and areas for improvement
– what barriers are there to raising pupil attainment, and how important is the structure of
schools within these barriers?
ƒ
The Way Forward – what structure of schooling is most likely to overcome the barriers
that have been identified? Do the possible structures, including the current three-tier
structure, have their own inherent strengths or weaknesses? Is there consensus about
the best structure for the next generation of pupils?
Figure 2: Consultation Process and Methodology
This methodology enabled Four S to effectively report back to the Member Working Group
mid-way during the project, and to build the precise methodology for the ‘Way Forward’
workshops using evidence gained from the ‘reflection’ phase.
Page 14 of 82
Table 1 details the methodologies that were employed by Four S:
Table 1: Delivery of Agreed Methodology
Stage 1
Launched the Consultation Discussion Paper and Consultation Leaflet (70,000 copies)
Launched the online questionnaire
Ran 5 workshops with a randomly selected group of headteachers who represented all
types of school and all areas of the County
Ran 2 workshops with a randomly selected group of governors, inviting representatives
from all types of school and all areas of the County
Held 15 individual phone consultations with randomly selected headteachers
Held 11 individual meetings with trade unions, professional associations, Diocesan Boards,
the LSC, and the Chamber of Commerce
Distributed over 3,000 copies of pupil questionnaires to a random selection of schools
(covering every phase of school and every Learning Community)
Ran a workshop with the 5 Further Education or Sixth Form colleges
Stage 2
Ran 7 workshops with headteachers, one for each Learning Community, to which every
headteacher was invited
Ran 3 workshops for Governors, based geographically, to which a random selection of
schools (covering every type of school) were invited
Ran 3 workshops for Town and Parish Councils, based geographically, to which every
Town and Parish Council was invited
Ran 2 workshops for teaching staff, geographically based, to which representatives from
each phase of school were invited
Ran 2 workshops for non-teaching staff, geographically based, to which representatives
from each phase of school were invited
Ran 2 pupil workshops in association with the BSIP students, who subsequently ran
several additional sessions (we also held an additional session specifically with the BSIP
students)
Ran a workshop for representatives of black and minority ethnic community groups
Ran a Workshop with the representative Governors from each Learning Community
Ran 7 public meetings, one in each Learning Community
Ran a Workshop with organisations including trade unions, professional associations, and
Sixth Form or Further Education Colleges.
At the suggestion of the Headteacher Working Group Four S created a PowerPoint
presentation that headteachers or governors could use during internal staff/governors
meetings to introduce the Review and facilitate discussion. It included optional group work
exercises that could be completed and returned to Four S.
In accordance with the County Council’s consultation and inclusion principles, the County
Council ensured that the Consultation Leaflet was offered in six alternative languages, and a
workshop was undertaken with representatives of black and minority ethnic groups.
Some feedback and review of the methodology is provided in Appendix One.
Page 15 of 82
3.4 Stakeholder Communications
Consultations regarding school planning and organisation inherently elicit emotional
reactions from stakeholders directly involved or affected. It was recognised that there needed
to be clear communication from Bedfordshire County Council and Four S before, during, and
after the consultation. Table 2 details the implementation of agreed stakeholder
communication actions.
Table 2: Delivery of Agreed Stakeholder Communications
Action
Bedfordshire Webpage, with direct link from Bedfordshire
CC home page
Newsletter 1 – explained rationale and reasons for Review
Newsletter 2 – explained the consultation process
Newsletter 3 – publicised the Public Meetings and
reminders about the consultation process
Letter to Schools – Letter to all schools introducing Four S
and outlining the consultation process
Letter to Schools – Introductory letter with more detail
about the consultation process
Four S webpage, with link from Bedfordshire website, with
consultation documents and online questionnaire. Updated
during the project
Consultation Discussion Paper (1,750 copies) sent to: all
schools (number of copies determined by size of school),
all libraries, all medical centres, all Bedfordshire CC
buildings
Consultation Leaflet (70,000 copies) distributed so that all
pupils can take a copy home; copies also sent to libraries,
medical centres, Bedfordshire County Council buildings,
pre-school providers
Mid-Project Update sent to all organisations who received
the Consultation Discussion Paper; also posted to Four S
and Bedfordshire CC websites
Newsletter 4 – summary of consultation process
Executive Summary of Four S report will be distributed to
all who received the Consultation Discussion Paper, and
posted to Four S and Bedfordshire CC websites
Page 16 of 82
By
When
Autumn
Bedfordshire
05
Bedfordshire Oct 05
Bedfordshire Jan 06
Bedfordshire March 06
Bedfordshire Dec 05
Four S
Jan 06
Four S
Jan 06
Four S and
Feb 06
Bedfordshire
Four S and
Feb 06
Bedfordshire
Four S
Feb 06
Bedfordshire April 06
Four S
May 06
4 Consultation Findings: Introduction and Overview
The consultation began at the end of January 2006 and ran until April 2006. The consultation
used a variety of methodologies to engage stakeholders during the period.
This section introduces the consultation responses, providing a breakdown of the
respondents, and giving an overview of the findings. These findings are then explored in
more detail in subsequent sections.
Four S is grateful to everyone who responded to the consultation.
4.1 Who Responded?
Almost 9,500 written responses were received to the consultation process. A breakdown of
these responses is provided in Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5.
Figure 3: Written Consultation Responses: Source of responses
707
449
1906
Website
Pupil Questionnaire
Individual Questionnaire
Consultation Leaflets
Bedfordshire Magazine
3026
Written Responses
2477
921
Page 17 of 82
Figure 4: Written Respondents: Respondent Types
3284
Parent
4578
Headteacher
Governing Body
Governor
School Staff
Teacher
Pupil
237
864
636
148
Figure 5: Written Responses: Postcode analysis
700
600
Number of Responses
500
400
300
200
100
0
LU1
LU2
LU3
LU4
LU5
LU6
LU7 MK17 MK40 MK41 MK42 MK43 MK44 MK45 MK46 SG5 SG15 SG16 SG17 SG18 SG19
[Note: This data is available in numerical form in Appendix Three]
Page 18 of 82
4.1.1 Educational Organisations
All mainstream school headteachers were invited to at least one workshop during the
process, and there were 150 headteacher attendances. This included 98 Lower School
representatives, 37 Middle School representatives, and 13 Upper School representatives.
This represented attendance from 125 schools (approximately 62% of mainstream schools).
Every school was engaged in the consultation process through headteacher, governor, and
staff workshops, or the pupil questionnaire.
Several organisations formally replied on behalf of groups of schools, including Bedfordshire
Association of Small Schools, Bedfordshire Middle School Heads Association, and
Bedfordshire Upper School Headteachers, and from certain Learning Communities/other
groupings of schools. These collective responses include the headteachers representing the
vast majority of pupils within mainstream state schools within the County.
In addition to workshop attendance and these collective responses, 73 schools formally
replied to the consultation in writing (42 Lower Schools, 20 Middle Schools, 3 Special
Schools, 8 Upper Schools. [Including the schools within the Bedford Catholic Federation
which replied as one Governing Body, these figures become 41 Lower, 22 Middle, 8 Upper
Schools]).
Table 3: Written Responses from other Educational Organisations and Groups
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Bedfordshire Association of Small Schools
Bedfordshire Middle School Heads Association
Bedfordshire Upper Schools Headteachers
Bedford Catholic Federation
Combined response from five urban Upper Schools in Bedford and Kempston
Diocese of St Albans (Church of England)
Northampton Roman Catholic Diocese
Connexions Partnership Bedfordshire and Luton
NASUWT
ATL
NUT
Heads of Bedfordshire Sixth Forms
Learning Community 3 Conference Discussion
Learning Community 7 Governors Group
Bedford College
Luton Sixth Form College
Dunstable College
4.1.2 Pupils
A questionnaire was distributed to approximately 600 pupils in each of Years 4, 5, 8, 10, 12.
This survey involved 50 schools (20 Lower, 20 Middle, and 10 Upper). Table 4 shows the
response level.
Page 19 of 82
Table 4: Pupil Questionnaire Responses
Year Group
4
5
8
10
12
Number of Responses
467
567
538
379
526
In addition, in association with the gap-year students from Bedfordshire School Improvement
Partnership (BSIP), Four S ran two workshops with pupils from the Student ‘Super Councils’
representing schools within particular Learning Communities.
Pupils were able to complete the online questionnaire. This included the same questions as
the paper versions for schools that were involved, although without being able to identify the
pupil’s actual year. Table 5 indicates the pupil responses that were received:
Table 5: Pupil responses to online questionnaire
Lower School Pupils
Middle School Pupils
Upper School Pupils (Years 9-11)
Upper School Pupils (Sixth Form)
40
623
32
16
4.1.3 School Staff and Governors
Four S ran 5 workshops for Governors, 2 for teaching staff, and 2 for support staff. Four S
invited a representative sample of schools to these workshops based upon size, phase, type,
and location of school. Almost 70 Governors attended these dedicated workshop sessions,
with a further 163 completing questionnaires at public meetings and over 130 responding to
the online questionnaire.
4.1.4 Government: District and Town and Parish Councils
All Town and Parish Councils were sent the Consultation Discussion Paper. Responses were
received from 20 Town or Parish Councils. A response was also received from Mid
Bedfordshire District Council (Overview Committee). In addition, 30 Town and Parish Council
representatives attended the three workshops.
4.1.5 Parents and Residents
Parents were the largest respondent group. They were able to complete the Consultation
Leaflet, the online questionnaire, Consultation Response Forms, and questionnaires at the
Public Meetings. In total over 4,500 responses from parents were received.
4.1.6 Other Responses
There were few responses from organisations that are not directly involved in education,
although South Bedfordshire Strategic Partnership, one firm of property developers, and a
Deanery did reply.
Page 20 of 82
Four S and/or Bedfordshire County Council received five pupil/parent petitions. These were
exclusively in favour of retention of the current system. Four S received some information
from 11 school organised questionnaires regarding the Review and the possible future of that
specific school. Nine of these questionnaires were organised by Middle Schools. The vast
majority of responses (generally over 85%) were in favour of retaining the current three-tier
system. In total, these petitions and questionnaires included over 2,300 responses. Four S
have not included each of these individual responses within the subsequent statistics, but
have reflected the arguments that were raised by qualitative comments in the Middle School
parental questionnaires. Greater information about the petitions and parental questionnaires
are shown in Appendix Two.
4.1.7 Multiple Respondent Types
Many respondents were from several respondent groups – for example, a teacher and a
parent. The statistics that follow count their response within each category – someone who
classed themselves as a teacher and a parent will have their responses evaluated under
each category. The sum of the responses per respondent category can therefore be greater
than the number of actual unique responses.
4.2 Findings: Issues for Improvement
The Consultation Leaflet and Online Questionnaire asked respondents to prioritise the issues
that they felt should be addressed to help raise attainment. Respondents were able to select
several options. Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the percentages of respondents who selected
each area for improvement. The numerical data behind these Figures is available in
Appendix Four.
Figure 6: Percentage of respondents identifying areas for improvement
100
90
80
70
Percent
60
Total
School Staff
Parent
School Governor
50
40
30
20
10
0
% respondents:
improving school
performance
% respondents:
changing in KS
% respondents:
number of school
changes
% respondents:
National system
Page 21 of 82
% respondents:
recruitment
% respondents:
demographic
change
‘Improving the Performance of Existing Schools’ is the most important area to focus upon for
all respondent groups, with parents being the respondent group most likely to select this
option. In every group this option is selected by more than 70% of respondents. For all
respondent groups ‘Improving Recruitment’ was the second most commonly selected area
for improvement, with figures of between 40-50%.
Factors that are most easily and directly linked to the structure of schooling received much
less support. Changing during a Key Stage was identified as a significant area to improve by
a quarter of parents (although almost a third of Governors), which was a higher level of
support than for ‘reducing the number of changes’ and adopting the same system as most of
the rest of England (which was less frequently mentioned than addressing surplus places).
Figure 7: Areas for Improvement: Postcode Analysis
100
90
80
LU5
LU6
70
LU7
MK17
Percent
60
MK40
MK41
50
MK42
MK43
40
MK44
MK45
30
SG17
SG18
20
SG19
10
0
% respondents:
improving school
performance
% respondents:
changing in KS
% respondents:
number of school
changes
% respondents:
National system
% respondents:
recruitment
% respondents:
demographic change
Figure 7 only includes postcodes where there were over 100 responses to this question. The
graph shows considerable variation between different postcodes in terms of the percentage
of respondents mentioning particular issues (compare for instance the percentage identifying
‘improving school performance’ from MK17 at nearly 90% with that for MK44 which is barely
40%). However, there is much less variation when you consider the order of issues raised by
respondents in each postcode – although the respondents from MK44 generally mentioned
fewer options, they still placed the issues in the same order (improving performance,
recruitment, changing during a Key Stage, number of changes, surplus places, and same
system as the rest of the country).
Page 22 of 82
4.3 Findings: Future System
In absolute numeric terms, the majority of respondents who selected a future system
preference voted to retain the current three-tier system: 65% of all responses from the
questionnaires. The total response is shown in Figure 8. The numerical data regarding
preferences for the future system is shown in Appendix Five.
Figure 8: Total Responses: Future System Preference
3%
3%
6%
Retain
Change at 11
Tertiary
All through
Mixed
23%
65%
This overall statistic hides significant variations between respondent groups and areas of the
county.
4.3.1 Schools and Educational Organisations
ƒ
Lower Schools: 70% of responses from Lower School headteachers and Governing
Bodies were in favour of retaining the current system. A significant issue throughout the
consultation, and which is evident in responses from many of the Lower School
responses and that of Bedfordshire Small Schools Association, was concern about
whether a reorganisation would result in the closure of many (especially rural) Lower
Schools. It can not be stated whether this concern affected their responses regarding
future structural options.
ƒ
Middle Schools: written responses to the consultation from schools and the
Bedfordshire Middle School Headteachers Association were uniformly in favour of
retaining the current system. This position was maintained in Workshops, although 2
Middle School headteachers did vote for a ‘change-at-11’ system in anonymous
questionnaires.
Page 23 of 82
ƒ
Upper Schools: The Upper School headteachers collective ‘position statement’ sought a
change-at-11 system where Secondary Schools are 11-18 (and so retain Sixth Forms).
The retention of Sixth Forms was a crucial issue for the Upper Schools. Individual
responses from headteachers and Governing Bodies, including headteachers at
workshops, demonstrated a more varied response which was often influenced by Sixth
Form considerations (principally a fear that they may lose a Sixth Form if there is a
change in system).
ƒ
St Alban’s Church of England Diocese: Expressed no formal view about the structure
for the future, but stated a desire to maintain (and potentially increase) the number of
CoE school places.
ƒ
Catholic Diocese of Northampton: In favour of a change-at-11 system for areas where
the Diocese is represented.
ƒ
FE Colleges: In favour of a change-at-11 system with greater choice for pupils at age 16
to attend either school Sixth Forms (where viable) or specialist FE provision.
4.3.2 Parents
Overall, 66% of parental responses to the consultation voted to retain the three-tier system.
This figure includes all responses to the Four S consultation, but does not include the
individual signatures on petitions, or the individual details of parental responses to Middle
School questionnaires. The views of parents varied considerably depending upon which
media within the consultation they were replying to, as Figure 9 shows.
Figure 9: Future System: Parental preferences via different media
100%
80%
60%
Answered: % mixed economy
Answered: % all through
Answered: % tertiary
Answered: % change at 11
Answered: % retain 3-tier
40%
20%
0%
Parent Overall
(4146)
Public Meeting
(539)
Bedfordshire
Magazine (332)
Consultation
Leaflet (2843)
Website (864)
[Note: the numbers in brackets represent the number of responses]
Page 24 of 82
Parents who attended public meetings or who replied to the questionnaire within the
Bedfordshire Magazine were the most strongly in favour of retaining the current system. By
far the largest response media was the Consultation Leaflet distributed to all parents via
schools – this has a sample size of over 3 times the next most substantial media (the online
questionnaire; over 2,800 compared to over 850). The Consultation Leaflet was also the
medium showing the highest level of support for changing the system – with over 40% of
answers advocating an alternative system in at least part of the County.
The Consultation Leaflet also enabled parents to indicate which phase of school their
children are within. This sample (over 2,800) included parents of over 5,100 children (the
leaflet only enabled parents to say the phase of their children, not the number within each
phase, and so is inherently an underestimate). Figure 10 shows the responses of parents
with children of different age.
Figure 10: Future System: Parent responses and age of child
100%
75%
Answered: % Mixed Economy
Answered: % All through
Answered: % Tertiary
50%
Answered: % change-at-11
Answered: % retain 3-tier
25%
0%
Total Parent
(2861)
Parent: Upper
(839)
Parent: Middle
(1498)
Parent: Lower
(1740)
Parent: Nursery
(404)
Parent: PreSchool (680)
[Note: number in brackets reflects the total number of responses included. The ‘total parent’
figure is lower than the sum of the others because each parent may have children in more
than one stage of education; the ‘total parent’ counts only unique response – i.e. each
parent’s response is only counted once.]
Parents of Middle School pupils have the strongest support for the current system, with 67%
of those answered preferring retention. This may be a reflection of their experience of the
current system, and also perhaps reflecting the concern that a change in structure could
disrupt their child’s education. Below Middle School age, there is declining support for the
current system as the age of the child decreases – only a minority of parents of pre-school
children are in favour of retaining the current system.
Analysis by postcode reveals substantial differences in responses across Bedfordshire
(Figure 11). There is a range of over 40% in the level of support for retaining the current
system, between LU6 at one extreme (82%) and MK41 at the other (41%). Three postcodes
Page 25 of 82
around Bedford show a majority of respondents in favour of a change in system in at least
part of the County.
Figure 11: Future System: Postcode analysis
100%
75%
Answered: % mixed economy
Answered: % all through
Answered: % tertiary
50%
Answered: % change at 11
Answered: % retain 3-tier
25%
0%
LU5
LU6
LU7
MK17 MK40 MK41 MK42 MK43 MK44 MK45 SG17 SG18 SG19
[Note: this graph only includes postcodes where more than 75 responses were received to
this question.]
4.3.3 Pupils
The pupil questionnaires asked each year group some identical questions, the responses to
which are provided below. The questionnaires also asked specific questions regarding
school structures and transfers to differing year groups to understand their experiences – this
information is used throughout the remainder of the report to triangulate information.
All pupils were asked their view on the following statement:: “On the whole I like being at
school” as an initial indicator. The results are shown in Figure 12.
Page 26 of 82
Figure 12: Pupils: On the whole I like being at school
100%
75%
Answered: % Strongly Disagree
Answered: % Disagree
Answered: % Agree
Answered: % Strongly Agree
50%
25%
0%
4
5
8
10
12
Year
[Note: Pupils in Year 4 were only able to ‘Agree’ or ‘Disagree’ with statements rather than the
four-point scale used for other ages of pupils]
In many of the questions, Year 10 pupils are the least positive about their experience.
Statements that Year 10 had the lowest rate of agreement with included:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
I like being at school (76% agree or strongly agree);
I feel safe and well-cared for in the playground (55% agree or strongly agree)
The work I do in lessons is interesting (only 46% agree or strongly agree)
The school helps me to feel self-confident about myself in everything I do (51% agree or
strongly agree)
The school deals effectively with bullying (only 49% agree or strongly agree)
I know what my target is in each subject and how well I am doing (71% agree or strongly
agree)
Regarding future structure, pupils were all asked the same two questions:
ƒ
ƒ
I think we should keep three types of school – Lower School, Middle School, and Upper
School
I think we should have two types of school and change school at 11 years old
Figure 13 demonstrates that pupils in all age groups strongly support the retention of the
current system. This perhaps reflects their limited knowledge of alternative systems.
Page 27 of 82
Figure 13: Pupils: I think we should keep three types of school
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Answered: % Strongly Disagree
Answered: % Disagree
Answered: % Agree
Answered: % Strongly Agree
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
4
5
8
10
12
Year
[Note: Pupils in Year 4 were only able to ‘Agree’ or ‘Disagree’ with statements rather than the
four-point scale used for other ages of pupils; this graph does not include responses where
pupils agreed/strongly agreed with the statement in favour of a change-at-11 system as well]
Page 28 of 82
5 Barriers to Raising Attainment and the Role of School
Structure
Stage 1 of the Consultation involved educational stakeholders reflecting upon the current
school system and identifying strengths and weaknesses. An important element was
identifying the perceived barriers to raising attainment, and understanding respondent’s
perspectives about whether the existing school structure was a significant factor within these
barriers.
The initial consultation with educational organisations was focused upon reflection and
understanding:
ƒ what people believe are the current strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats;
ƒ what people believe are the barriers to raising pupil attainment within Bedfordshire
schools, and how significant is the structure of schools within these barriers
5.1 Strengths and Weaknesses of Bedfordshire’s education
system
Figure 14 illustrates the more typical strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that
were identified by respondents from educational organisations during stage 1. This diagram
was included in the Mid-Project Update that was distributed to stakeholders.
Figure 14: SWOT of Bedfordshire Education System
Page 29 of 82
5.2 What are the barriers to raising pupil attainment?
Respondents during stage 1 were asked to identify barriers to raising attainment, thinking
beyond just the issue of ‘school structure’ to include the key elements that needed to be
overcome if pupil attainment is to be raised. The following list outlines the most common
responses:
•
Teacher Recruitment/Retention – this reflects national trends, and the importance
of high quality teachers. It also reflects some schools concerns about the ability to
recruit subject-specialists for Middle Schools in the future if Bedfordshire is one of
very few authorities that still have Middle Schools. This was raised principally by
Upper School headteachers.
•
Pupil Attainment Data – there was disagreement between schools about the validity
of some test results (including the significance of Y4 tests at the point of transfer
between Lower and Middle Schools). There was also an apparent lack of effective
use of pupil data to inform target setting within schools, and inconsistency in the
effectiveness of data transfer between schools.
•
Pupil Transfers – the three-tier structure determines how often pupils must change
school, and when they must change school.
• Some schools felt that changing twice (rather than once at age 11) impacts
upon pupil attainment.
• Some schools felt that the time of transfers – at ages that do not align with the
National Curriculum Key Stages – makes it more difficult to ensure effective
continuity of learning as pupils start at their new school.
• All schools agreed that the structure of schools did not impact upon the
effectiveness of the transfer arrangements, and that there was the opportunity
to learn and create best practice in this area, which is nationally recognised to
be a weakness.
•
Ownership of KS2/KS3 and ‘blame culture’ – responses from schools identified a
lack of collective ownership for pupil performance at KS2 and KS3. This could be
linked to the structure of schools, whereby pupils are taught in Lower/Middle Schools
for KS2 and Middle/Upper Schools for KS3. There was evidence of schools ‘blaming’
other schools who had previously educated the children.
•
Teacher Quality – schools agreed that effective teachers must be retained, and poor
teachers supported to improve performance; several believed that the latter was not
always effectively managed.
•
LA leadership, school support – there was a feeling that the Local Authority
needed to demonstrate clearer leadership of the Education service, and provide more
targeted and effective challenge to schools. This was discussed within the context of
the current reorganisation within Bedfordshire County Council.
The workshops in stage 2 with school representatives and other educational organisations
considered how various school structures could affect these barriers. These barriers to
raising attainment were also regularly raised in written responses from schools, other
educational organisations, and often formed part of the response from parents.
Page 30 of 82
5.3 Does the structure of schools affect pupil attainment?
Respondents were asked whether they felt that the structure of schools impacted upon pupil
attainment, and if so how significant a factor it was. From the written responses, 56% of
those who expressed a clear opinion felt that structure was significant, with arguments both
that it had a positive effect and that it had a negative impact. Two-thirds of headteachers
involved in stage 1 workshops using ‘Ask-the-Audience’ technology disagreed with the
statement that ‘The current structure of schools within Bedfordshire has no impact on
attainment’; they also presented both positive and negative impacts of the current system.
The following indicates the most common views, with information about how frequently and
from whom they were heard.
•
The structure determines the number, and timing, of pupil transfers…but it does
not determine the effectiveness of pupil transition (including the educational and
social impact upon individual pupils). This was a consistent theme from Lower and
Middle School representatives, as well as from a minority of parents. 9% of
Consultation Leaflets included comments that mentioned the lack of alignment with
KS breaks as being significant.
•
The structure should have little impact on whether schools use and transfer
pupil attainment data effectively. However, the structure is directly responsible for
the significance placed upon the Y4 tests in particular since these are used as part of
the transfer process between Lower and Middle Schools.
•
The structure could have a significant impact on recruitment/retention – and
many schools agreed that the three-tier system could deter staff from other areas
applying for jobs in Bedfordshire
•
The structure is not a significant factor in the perceived lack of LA leadership
•
The structure does directly impact upon school perceptions of their
responsibilities for pupil attainment, due to the school structure not matching
National Curriculum Key Stages and therefore reducing accountability of schools for
Key Stage results – there is always someone else to blame
10% of written responses from parents included a belief that the structure of schooling has
less impact upon attainment than the leadership and performance of individual schools (this
was less regularly mentioned upon Consultation Leaflet responses).
Many of these points regarding the impact of structure are considered in more detail in
Sections 7 and 8.
Page 31 of 82
6 Consultation Findings: Issues not directly related to
School Structure
The consultation process identified several themes and areas for future development that do
not directly relate to school structure, by which Four S means that they need to be addressed
irrespective of the system of schooling that Bedfordshire believes is most appropriate for the
future.
When considering this section of information, the context of the consultation must be
remembered:
1. School inherently felt challenged, and some felt threatened, by a consultation that
explicitly stated that standards of attainment are not high enough. This directly
challenges school effectiveness. It is instinctive and natural that schools identify other
aspects of the education system within Bedfordshire that could be improved.
2. The consultation took place during a period of reorganisation within Bedfordshire
County Council as a Children and Young People directorate is established. Schools
felt that this reorganisation was not supporting raising attainment in schools, and
generally believe that the new officer structure represents a down-grading of the role
of education within Bedfordshire County Council.
Irrespective of the timing of the consultation vis-à-vis changes within Bedfordshire County
Council, there were several clear themes in response that the Member Working Group will
wish to consider. These are explained through this section.
6.1 The Role and Leadership of the Local Authority
There was strong criticism of Local Authority leadership for the education service, which
related to both members and officers. An example quote, covering the breadth of LA
services, is:
“There is a lack of leadership of the Key Stages and the standards achieved by the Local
Authority. Who currently is in charge of the results in each Key Stage? Who identifies good
practice or is responsible for raising standards?...there is little support for schools to help
them raise standards in key subjects as there are no recognised subject advisers or
inspectors to work with schools and subject co-ordinators. There is insufficient analysis of
why results are like they are…the Local Authority should be taking a lead to give guidance
and direction on leadership matters in some key schools. There is ineffective use by the LEA
with schools on pupil data at the point of transfer and there has been insufficient training for
staff and managers on the interpretation of this data.” (Middle School Governing Body,
response 496).
When asked why pupil progress and achievement in Bedfordshire does not keep pace with
national averages, one Middle School Governing Body commented:
“Poor education authority is not driving standards, leadership, and management” (Middle
School Governing Body, response 510).
Page 32 of 82
This theme was common in responses from many schools across all phases of school and
areas of the County, especially during Workshops.
As a suggested improvement within the current structure, one Governing Body commented:
“A knowledgeable, competent, strategically aware Local Authority who work along side
schools actively supporting and coaching them to identify their strengths and work on areas
for development.” (Middle School Governing Body, response 665, emphasis in original).
There was some criticism from workshop attendees of the consultation process for the
following reasons:
ƒ
ƒ
The consultation documentation implied that schools had failed to perform, without
indicating that the Council may also be fallible
A neutral consultation was seem by some as indicative of an Authority that was unwilling
and/or unable to show leadership to the service
Some educational stakeholders, in particular some headteachers, felt that the actions taken
by the council since the LEA Ofsted in 2002 were not especially wide-ranging or likely to
result in the desired ‘step-change’ in performance. This was occasionally taken further to
argue that the Council had not effectively supported schools, and was often linked to
discussions regarding the Advisory Service (see below). This was a theme of workshops with
headteachers and Governors in particular.
6.2 The effectiveness of the School Advisory Service
Bedfordshire’s Advisory Service received very mixed responses. Lower School
representatives were generally considerably more positive about the quality of the service
than Middle and Upper School colleagues.
There were common comments, from most schools and at some public meetings, about the
size of the Advisory Service. There appeared to be a perception that at a time of great and
acknowledged need for Advisors to support schools and share/embed best practice, the
Advisory Service was shrinking and becoming less directly involved in schools. Very few
respondents linked this perception to the issue of the relative budgets of the central LEA/LA
and schools as funding becomes more devolved.
Middle and Upper School headteachers were generally the most critical of the Advisory
Service, and generally focused upon three elements:
ƒ
Quantity of Support: headteachers recounted their particular experiences of seeking to
obtain Advisory Support, and of the limited amount of contact that they had with any
Advisors.
ƒ
Quality of Support: A vocal minority of headteachers commented that they felt that
many Advisors were not adequately suited to the role; either their experience was not
sufficiently senior, or was in the wrong type of school, or that they had been moved into
the Advisory service precisely to take them out of school.
ƒ
Scope of Support: Headteachers were concerned, either through experience or fears
for the future, that the scope of support available would decline. This included the
provision of expert curriculum support in all subjects, but also for associated professional
Page 33 of 82
areas such as Educational Psychologists, SEN, and behaviour management. It was
argued that these associated areas directly impact upon the prevailing culture and
calmness of a school, the ability to support every pupil and the Every Child Matters
agenda, and the attainment of individuals and whole class groups.
A Middle School headteacher argued that the school improvement teams spend too much
time training and in meetings “rather than being where it really counts” and went on to argue
that “because they see themselves as ‘friends’ of the school, many of them are not prepared
to be sufficiently frank or honest to really contribute to the improvement agenda.” (Middle
School headteacher, response 363).
There was some recognition that the LA was targeting resources to schools that were most
in need, which is significant given the arguments elsewhere in the consultation that it is
individual schools (rather than the system) that is underperforming:
“As a Local Authority, I feel we need to be more proactive in supporting schools with
underachievement, this may need a change of ‘culture’ at Local Authority level. This has
happened over the last year or two. Increased intervention and support in schools with data,
assessment, teaching and leadership would be more beneficial than changing structures”
(Headteacher, Middle School, letter to parents and response to consultation, response 362).
6.3 The management and effective use of pupil data
It became clear during stage 1 with stakeholders and other organisations that the effective
analysis, distribution, and use of pupil level attainment and achievement data is a significant
issue. It was mentioned at length in every Workshop during stage 1, and was repeatedly an
issue during stage 2 Workshops. It was raised by headteachers, teachers, governors, and
other educational organisations:
“The Local Authority has never managed the issue of pupil data. Despite holding data
centrally, they have not distributed data to schools insisting that it is each individual school’s
responsibility to transfer data on its pupils. Despite some schools not having the capacity or
expertise to do this, the Local Authority has not been proactive in supporting schools. The
development of ASPIRE software by the Local Authority was a typical example of their
inability to address the key issue and in fact delayed the process of improving the transfer of
data…” (Middle School Governing Body, response 504).
“The data provision at the Local Authority is awful. The data analysis as [Middle School] is
much better than that provided by the LA; small schools do not have that capacity!”
(Headteacher, Middle School, response 362)
6.3.1 Accuracy of Data
Stage 1 revealed mistrust between schools about the accuracy and/or usefulness of some
attainment data, in particular the KS1 and Y4 data.
Lower School headteachers generally argued that:
ƒ KS1 results are correct – 146 Lower Schools could not effectively collude to distort the
tests (and evade external assessors’ attention). If was further argued that if Lower
Schools did collude on KS1 they would be likely to similarly influence the Y4 tests to
show themselves in a better light.
Page 34 of 82
ƒ
The issue with KS2 attainment relates principally to Middle Schools not adopting a
primary school ethos or focusing upon the KS2 core curriculum.
Middle School headteachers focused upon two elements:
ƒ The accuracy of the KS1 data – were these results over-inflated (and, consequently, was
there actually a drop in performance between KS1 and KS2)? This accuracy issue was
also raised in relation to Y4 tests by some headteachers.
ƒ The comparative drop in performance within Lower Schools between the end of KS1 and
the end of Y4 as shown by the Value Added data – Lower Schools, they argued, were
not performing acceptably in years 3 and 4.
Both sets of headteachers generally agreed that this discussion distracted attention from
actually raising attainment, and had harmed relations between schools. Both sets of
headteachers, and representatives from the LA, recognised that the significance placed upon
Y4 tests in particular was a direct result of the school structure.
6.3.2 Analysis, distribution, and access to data
Workshops with headteachers, governors, and school staff consistently revealed a need to
improve in particular the analysis and distribution of data.
Responses from school representatives, in Workshops and via email, identified three key
issues:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Lack of awareness of actual performance of the whole of Bedfordshire – many
respondents were unaware of performance beyond their pyramid or Learning Community
Lack of awareness of comparative Authority performance – most respondents were
unaware of how poorly Bedfordshire is performing when compared to its statistical
neighbours (or the national average for GCSE and A Level).
Lack of comparable school performance – most respondents were unsure which schools
were similar to theirs (within Bedfordshire or any from other authorities), and
consequently had less idea about how well their school was performing against those in
similar situations.
Some respondents, particularly in Workshops, were critical of the Local Authority
management of data, and its distribution to schools. In particular, the detailed but substantial
annual Analysis documents that Bedfordshire produces were felt to be too broad and
intimidating for schools to effectively use – information would be more effective if it was
targeted and focused upon the school rather than the Authority.
A general feeling among headteachers was that the analysis and provision of information
had improved during the last 18 months to two years.
Page 35 of 82
6.3.3 Use of data within school and the Local Authority
Respondents believed that it was necessary for schools and the Local Authority to continue
to improve the strategic use of pupil attainment and achievement data. In particular that:
ƒ
ƒ
Schools needed to use pupil-level attainment data more effectively to inform target
setting. This needs effective liaison between Lower, Middle, and Upper Schools to inform
SAT targets.
The Advisory Service needs to use pupil-level data more thoroughly and confidently to
challenge and support schools in target setting and through the Self-Evaluation Form
(SEF) process
“The use of data both on pupil transfer and at classroom teacher level needs to be more
actively managed. There needs to be good, robust data available and there is a need for
training in using assessment data for the classroom teacher…at present this is only starting
to be development and may be perceived as threatening…this data management must be
lead from the LA with targeted development monies” (Middle School Governing Body,
response 646).
“A high quality, County led emphasis on tracking pupil achievement with a dedicated team to
work in each Learning Community to support work within the individual schools, and to assist
with pupil data transfer. This tracking should include detailed moderated curriculum
assessments, behaviour logs and pastoral information” (Middle School Governing Body,
response 665).
“The use of data to inform improvement strategies lacks any central leadership. Hence a lot
of energy, time and commitment has been taken up in schools to develop systems, instead
of staff being able to fully focus on the essential development of teaching and learning,
informed by the data, in order to raise standards of learning” (Chair of Governors, Middle
School, response 305).
Page 36 of 82
6.4 The development of Learning Communities
Learning Communities were almost universally acknowledged as a positive development.
This was from all categories of school-based respondent.
While these arguments were generally put forward by proponents of the current school
structure, they are equally valid to any alternative structure. Some of those who argued for
change in Workshops identified that the Learning Community could have an important role
during any reorganisation to ensure curriculum continuity for pupils and to act as an effective
vehicle for communication and HR processes.
There were some comments, in particular from individual headteachers to Four S consultants
at the end of Workshops, suggesting that the Learning Communities were not all performing
as well as some respondents had sought to present. This was generally Lower School
representatives suggesting that Middle School colleagues were emphasising positive points
about Learning Community development while overlooking less flattering issues.
Several respondents acknowledged that Learning Communities were developing at different
rates and in different directions, although many respondents were unsure of specific details
for Learning Communities other than the one they were directly involved within.
Comments made regarding Learning Communities included the following:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Give them time – they are an effective mechanism for improving pupil transfer and
sharing best practice
They do not do anything that could not be done by schools anyway
There is variable performance between them so far, which may reflect personalities
involved or the geographic setting
The Learning Communities can only work within the system that is in place – it can
improve transition and transfer, but can not affect when it occurs in relation to Key
Stages
Learning Communities are not self-contained islands – there is pupil transfer between
schools in different learning communities and there needs to be work at other geographic
scales as well. This was particularly relevant to the Voluntary Aided sector where schools
may have larger catchment areas and different feeder-school patterns.
Learning Communities need to raise their horizons to ensure that they look for, identify,
and incorporate national best practice as well as sharing local examples.
Page 37 of 82
7 Consultation Findings: Arguments for the retention of
the three-tier system
The majority of responses overall favoured retaining the three-tier system. This section
provides more detail regarding the arguments that were advanced, and the characteristics of
the respondents who made these arguments.
Arguments for the retention of the current three-tier system were from two perspectives:
ƒ
ƒ
Positive arguments concerning the strengths of the current system:
ƒ The strengths of the current pastoral system (especially in Lower and Middle
Schools)
ƒ There are areas and schools that show good performance
ƒ There are proposals for how to improve the performance of the system
Arguments against a reorganisation, which included the lack of certainty of whether
reorganisation would cause improvement, the disruption and/or cost of change, and the
ability/capacity of the Local Authority to manage a County-Wide reorganisation.
7.1 Who argued in favour of retaining the current three-tier
system?
Arguments for the retention of the current system were advanced by:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
The majority of Lower School written responses to the consultation were in favour of
retaining the current system (70%), and this was also reflected in the individual
questionnaires completed by Lower School headteachers at workshops during the
consultation (also approximately 70%).
Middle School headteachers, and the Middle School Headteachers Association. This
was a uniform position in formal written responses, and almost uniform in Workshops
with representatives from Middle Schools.
Overall, parents were in favour of retaining the current system (65%). As was shown in
Section 4.3, the level of this support varied depending upon the response method, the
age of their children, and their geographic location. The most vociferous support for
retention came from the Dunstable region and parents of children currently at Middle
School.
Most other respondents recognised some strengths within the current system (most
typically the pastoral development and gradual transition of and for pupils, and the
familiarity of the system).
79% of pupils involved in the questionnaire sample (across all ranges) were in favour of
retaining the current system. Figure 13 provides more detail of the range of support by
different age groups; the highest level of support was from Year 8 (82%).
Page 38 of 82
7.2 Parental Familiarity and Support
“Both Lower and Middle Schools are extremely popular with parents” (Middle School
Governing Body, response 188)
Several responses, especially from parents in Dunstable and its surrounding area, argued
that parental support for the existing system was strong, and in that part of the County this is
supported by the public meeting responses and the Consultation Leaflets returned (see
Figure 11 for the postcode breakdown). The need for effective links between the school and
its local community were strongly advocated by those attending the workshop for
representatives of minority communities.
7.3 The three-tier system supports pastoral development of
pupils
This belief was the most consistently advanced educational argument for the retention of the
three-tier system. The responses focused upon the small size of Lower Schools, and the
quality of pastoral care within Middle Schools. It generally included one or more of the
following points:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
The Middle School system splits the school experience into three approximately even
episodes. This restricts the age range of pupils within each particular school which
respondents felt:
ƒ Provided a graduated transition to large schools
ƒ Reduced the risk of bullying
ƒ Reduced the ‘fear’ associated with the change of school, in particular if you
compared the two transfers to the change that could happen from a primary into a
much bigger secondary school
ƒ Increased self-esteem of pupils through enabling them to be ‘top of school’ twice
(Y4 at the end of Lower School and Y8 at the end of Middle School)
ƒ Being ‘top of school’ supported the acquisition and discharging of responsibility in
a manner that some respondents felt was not possible in a primary/secondary
system
As well as restricting the age ranges within each school, there was a belief that the threetier system generally included smaller schools overall in terms of numbers of pupils. This
was most frequently argued in terms of comparing Upper Schools with the possible size
of 11-18 secondary schools; it was rarely explicitly mentioned in relation to Years 5 and 6
in a Middle School compared to a primary phase school. Respondents who advanced
this belief were generally of the opinion that larger schools were likely to be less
personal, and therefore not offer the same quality of pastoral care and individual attention
as is possible within the current system.
The ‘smaller school’ argument was sometimes extended to argue a belief that smaller
schools led to smaller class sizes (or, conversely, that larger schools had larger class
sizes).
This argument was advanced by parents and Middle Schools in particular; the Bedfordshire
Association of Small Schools reflected upon part of the rationale for the creation of the threetier system:
Page 39 of 82
“Social and emotional development suggest that the age of transfer was deemed to be most
appropriate at ages 9 and 13, this has not changed. This is particularly important with small
Lower Schools as they nurture children, and allow a more gradual transfer, from Lower
School to Middle and Middle to Upper. This also allows children to move from a small Lower
School to a larger Middle School and then a larger Upper School, not just one leap from a
Primary to a huge Secondary” (Bedfordshire Association of Small Schools, response 131).
Bringing the issue to the present, several Middle Schools argued along the following lines:
“Behaviour and attendance in Middle Schools are generally very good. Our recent Ofsted
inspection judged all areas within the ‘personal development and well being of pupils’ section
to be outstanding” (Chair of Governors, Middle School, response 305).
The outcome of these arguments was a belief that the current school system enables pupils
to feel secure within their environment, and to therefore be happy, as this parent clearly
values:
“My children have blossomed in their Middle School and there appears to be little or no
truancy, they are extremely happy at school and as a parent it is very difficult to put a value
on that” (parent, response 244)
This stance is supported by the pupil questionnaires where a strong majority of pupils in
Lower and Middle Schools agree that the school helps pupils to feel self-confident and also
deals effectively with bullying (Figure 15 and Figure 16).
Figure 15: Pupils: The school helps me feel good/self-confident about myself
100%
75%
Answered: % Strongly Disagree
Answered: % Disagree
Answered: % Agree
Answered: % Strongly Agree
50%
25%
0%
4
5
8
10
12
Year
A limited number of parental responses expressed concerns about discipline at Upper
Schools, and the responses of Year 10 pupils were consistently the least positive regarding
pastoral aspects of schools.
Page 40 of 82
Approximately 5% of written responses from parents identified good and/or local and/or small
Lower Schools as a strength of the current system. There was a belief that a smaller Lower
School increases knowledge of the ‘whole-child’ and supports effective pastoral care. The
limited size of many rural Lower Schools was sometimes advanced as the very reason for
their attainment success at KS1.
Figure 16: The school stops people being bullied; deals effectively with bullying
100%
75%
Answered: % Strongly Disagree
Answered: % Disagree
Answered: % Agree
Answered: % Strongly Agree
50%
25%
0%
4
5
8
10
12
Year
7.3.1 Education is about more than test results
Coupled with arguments about the strength of the pastoral system in Lower and Middle
Schools were assertions that education must do more than only teach children to effectively
pass exams. The following is a quotation from a parent:
“The motives [of this consultation] are purely results driven which I do not believe improves
the child that leaves the education system. We need well rounded children, able to think,
discern and live in society in harmony with one another. We do not need children who can
jump through the false academic hoops imposed by education systems we work with. The
net result is children who cannot think for themselves” (parent, response 386).
Several public meetings, in particular those in LC2 and 3, saw numerous responses that
focused upon the parental value of a ‘secure’ environment for their children that enabled
them to grow as individuals rather than just be ‘hot-housed’ for SATs. This argument was
often linked to points regarding breadth of the curriculum during Year 5 and 6 in particular, a
lack of ‘cramming’ for SATs, and the limited age-range of schools within the three-tier
system.
Page 41 of 82
7.4 The current system performs well
Respondents, including Middle Schools, some Lower Schools and some parents, argued that
either the current system performs effectively, or that certain geographic areas or specific
schools perform well. The various facets of this argument were often combined in individual
responses. The following is a representative quote of the comments on Consultation Leaflets
from parents in favour of retention:
“Why change a system which is already working perfectly well? Why waste money on
changing something that doesn’t need changing? Put the money to better use, e.g. more
qualified teachers and more equipment” (Leaflet 1541).
7.4.1 Early access to specialist teachers and facilities
This was a very common theme of the responses upon the Consultation Response Forms,
where it was argued that Middle Schools enable pupils in Y5 and Y6 to access specialist
teachers and facilities that respondents felt would not be available in a change-at-11
structure. It was also a strong theme at several public meetings. The following quotation
summarises these views:
“Children moving to Middle Schools gain the benefit of specialist teaching in both the core
and the foundation subjects two years earlier than they would if they were at a Primary
School. Primary teachers are not skilled in teaching every subject equally well. They will not
deliver as high a standard of lesson in a subject they are less competent and confident in
teaching that someone who specialises in that subject. Children who attend Middle Schools
therefore have the advantage over Primary School children of receiving this specialised
teaching at an earlier stage in their academic life” (parent, response 354).
Most Middle School responses to the consultation, and contributions to workshops, also
emphasised this element:
“Middle schools provide children with the advantages of specialist teaching and dedicated
specialist facilities at an early age. Employing teachers with experience of both primary and
secondary level they are uniquely placed to offer children enhanced curricular opportunities
and attentive pastoral support” (Middle School Governing Body, response 660).
7.4.2 Bedfordshire has not always underperformed – so the system is not
inherently problematic
A small number of respondents drew attention to the fact that in the data presented
throughout the consultation Bedfordshire performance in 2000 was in line with national
averages at KS4 and KS5. It was therefore argued that the system itself appears not to be
the inherent cause of the current underperformance. By implication therefore, the current
system can be improved to raise attainment back to earlier levels.
Extending this argument into the future the Bedfordshire Middle School Heads Association
also expressed a view that “we believe that the ‘step’ change so often referred to in the
consultation may already exist within the County system” (response 315) on the basis of KS2
result improvement since 2002.
Page 42 of 82
7.4.3 Some geographic areas and schools within Bedfordshire perform
well
Respondents from several Learning Communities argued that their schools and/or Learning
Communities were performing in excess of national averages and the overall figures for
statistical neighbours. This was mentioned by over 15% of parental and teacher responses
overall (approximately 25% of those responses in favour of retaining the current system).
Any ‘underperformance’ was therefore limited to a few schools or Learning Communities who
were adversely affecting the County average attainment results. The higher performing
schools and areas were advanced as proof that the three-tier system can deliver higher
levels of pupil attainment.
This argument was most strongly advocated by Middle School respondents and by parents
of Middle School pupils, especially parental responses who referenced attendance at
meetings organised by local Middle Schools. It was a prominent theme at the public
meetings in LC’s 2, 3, and 7. Representative parental and Governing Body quotations are:
“The data suggests [that] Bedfordshire as a whole is doing badly, this is not true! Let’s have
the true statistics, learning community by learning community!” (parent, response 124)
“The current system is working well in many areas of the County and “proves” that the threetier system can be effective” (Middle School Governing Body, response 187).
Some respondents making this argument used selective statistics to ‘prove’ the effective
performance of the Bedfordshire system, such as including the Independent Schools results
or discounting the lowest performing Bedfordshire schools and comparing the average of the
remaining with national or statistical neighbour averages.
A limited number of respondents argued that Upper Schools were the weakest part of the
current system. This was often on the basis of one or several of the following:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
The drop in performance between KS3 and KS4
Perceptions of behaviour and discipline within the school
The larger size of some Upper School, coupled with a belief that this creates an
impersonal atmosphere where students are less emotionally secure and less well known
to staff (which links back into perceptions of behaviour).
The following quotation illustrates this position:
“If results only dip below the national average at this point [between KS3 and GCSE], why is
the focus on completely altering the system rather than looking at what occurs in Upper
Schools that causes results to drop?” (parent, response 354).
The area of the County where this argument was made most vocally, in particular Learning
Community 2 around Dunstable, was also the area of strongest support for retention of the
current three-tier system.
Page 43 of 82
7.4.4 Other councils perform well with a three-tier system and/or badly
with a two-tier system
Several of the more detailed responses from individuals – including teachers or school staff
as well as parents – included the results of other councils (not statistical neighbours) in
comparison to Bedfordshire and national averages. This was usually to show one or both of
two points:
ƒ
ƒ
That other three-tier systems perform in excess of national averages and Bedfordshire
(for instance, Harrow or Poole)
That some councils’ with two-tier systems perform below national averages and
Bedfordshire (for instance, North East Lincolnshire).
This information was then used to argue that there is no apparent link between structure and
performance in comparison to national averages, and that Bedfordshire should learn from
authorities such as Harrow or Poole to improve. If the respondent was arguing against a
change in structure (rather than positively in favour of retaining the current system) poor
performing two-tier authorities were sometimes used to indicate what could happen.
7.4.5 Someone has to be below national averages
Very few parental responses, and only some school responses, felt that attainment results
were a cause for concern. Several headteachers, governors and teachers argued at
workshops that results were acceptable throughout the system. There was a belief in several
workshops that someone has to be below average, as this parent articulates:
“I note with interest that although poor SATs results are talked about, the GCSE performance
for 2005 are only 3% below the national average – are these results so poor? Someone has
to be just below the national average, just as someone else has to be just above it.” (parent,
response 464).
7.5 There are other factors which explain the attainment
results
Consultation responses revealed a belief that several other factors may influence the
Bedfordshire attainment results.
7.5.1 Key Stage 1 results are overstated
A theme of some discussions, in particular with Middle School headteachers (and
correspondingly with their Lower School colleagues), concerned the accuracy and validity of
the KS1 results. A Middle School Governing Body stated that:
“KS1 is judgement and not a measure, even with moderation there is a margin for marking
with “the benefit of the doubt”. Lower Schools are judged on KS1 results. If we have high
KS1 results we must investigate why they are high. It may be the KS1 results which are out
of line. However, it is important that this is done without a “blame culture” as expressed
Page 44 of 82
elsewhere. It is an exercise of UNDERSTANDING the results not exposing faults in the
schools” (Middle School Governing Body, response 646, emphasis in original response).
This argument is therefore that the drop in performance between KS1 and KS2 reflects
inaccurately high attainment at KS1 rather than poor performance during KS2.
7.5.2 Breadth of curriculum and lack of ‘cramming’ for KS2
There were some responses, mainly from Middle Schools or parents of pupils at Middle
Schools, which argued that Bedfordshire may appear to underperform at KS2 because it
recognises that education is about more than KS test results. The Middle School Heads
Association articulated this belief:
“We believe that given clear leadership from the centre, with targeted support, Middle
Schools would provide the KS2 results expected without having to ‘deform’ the curriculum in
Years 5 and 6, which is prevalent in many primary and junior schools. Middle Schools could
close down the rich experiences they provide for primary age pupils (MFL, dance, drama,
learning technologies, specialist staff and facilities, extra time for Humanities etc) and then
focus on hot-housing for SATs. We would be much the poorer for such a solution to ‘raising
standards’” (Bedfordshire Middle School Heads Association, response 315).
7.5.3 Surrounding Grammar Schools and/or Independent Schools attract
the most able pupils after Key Stage 1
There was a perception during particular workshops and public meetings that either
Grammar Schools in Buckinghamshire and/or Independent Schools in Bedfordshire attract
the most able pupils after KS1, which artificially deflates Bedfordshire’s state school results
subsequently. It was mentioned in approximately 3% of parental written responses. A
representative quotation was:
“Does the Harpur Trust system impact on the attainment level at KS3 and KS4…creaming off
by Harpur Trust” (Middle School Governing Body, response 701).
7.6 The current system can be improved to raise attainment
Respondents were asked to offer ways in which the current system could be improved. This
section details the most common responses.
7.6.1 Address non-structural issues to support raising attainment
Section 6 discussed responses and issues that are less directly linked to school structure.
Several responses argued that effectively addressing these issues would support raising
attainment more effectively than changing structure. Representatives of minority groups were
supportive of greater use of pupil attainment data to indicate progress of pupils from different
backgrounds, and using that data to help promote community appreciation of the value of
high-quality education.
Page 45 of 82
A particular theme of some responses, and of comments at public meetings from parents
and teachers, was regarding the behaviour of a minority of pupils that dominates the time of
teachers and so reduces the attention available to support the teaching of other pupils:
“A few disruptive children can ruin the learning potential of the others in a lesson” (Leaflet
199).
7.6.2 Work more effectively with schools, pupil types, and areas of
underperformance rather than replace the system
Many of those who argued that some schools and Learning Communities perform effectively
now felt that the most certain path for future improvement was to share best practice and
target areas of underperformance. This should include schools, geographic areas, or types of
pupil, that are currently underachieving. Identified examples of areas to focus upon included:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
“Concentrated support for Lower Schools to moderate Key Stage 1 test marking and to
raise standards so that the ‘dip’ in standards in Year 3 and 4 are addressed” (Middle
School Governing Body, response 504) – this was a theme from Middle School
headteachers and Governors during workshops
“Funding should be provided to target those schools with particular problems.
Bedfordshire data indicates that most schools are performing well but a few schools
need intensive support. This would provide the best service at the lowest cost and with
the minimum of disruption” (Middle School Governing Body, response 660).
“Targeting of the 3 or 4 Middle and Upper Schools finding SATs and GCSE results or
sustaining success more of a challenge” (Bedfordshire Middle School Heads
Association, response 315).
This belief is compatible with the findings from the Consultation Leaflet and online
questionnaire where 85% of respondents felt that the Council should focus upon improving
the performance of individual schools.
7.6.3 Recruitment and Retention is not an issue and/or not a structural
issue
Discussions about recruitment and retention were usually focused upon Middle School
specialist teachers. Those in favour of retaining the current system argued that there was no
evidence that Bedfordshire would experience difficulties in recruiting staff in the future if it
retained the current system. Several Middle School respondents, in particular headteachers,
argued during Workshops that Bedfordshire was actually experiencing a current ‘recruitment
boom’ as a result of reorganisations in other Councils (in particular Northampton, from where
some headteachers had moved). Middle Schools, while recognising in Workshops the
pressures upon recruiting specialist teachers, generally ascribed this not to the structure, but
uncertainty:
“The uncertainty about whether or not the three-tier system will change is far more likely to
affect recruitment and retention than the three-tier system itself. Once the Local Authority has
made a firm commitment to retaining the current structure, it is unlikely that Bedfordshire
would experience any more recruitment and retention issues than other counties offering
different structures.” (Middle School Governing Body, response 504).
Page 46 of 82
Several school responses from across phases argued that the Local Authority should
develop a more strategic approach to recruitment for Bedfordshire.
7.6.4 Accelerate KS3 to Year 8
The possibility of accelerating KS3 so that the tests were sat at the end of Y8 in Middle
School (rather than in May of Y9 at Upper School) gained support during the consultation
period. Almost all Middle School written responses supported this idea, and it was mentioned
by a minority of parent responses (generally from parents who had attended either public
meetings or other meetings organised by Middle Schools). Some Upper Schools were in
favour of accelerating KS3 if the current system is retained, although their preference was for
a change in school system.
Accelerating KS3 was felt to have several potential advantages:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
It improves accountability for KS3 performance
It enables pupils to transfer with Middle and Upper Schools both clear about what should
have been taught
It allows Upper Schools to adopt innovative and flexible arrangements to the Y9
curriculum, including potentially adopting three year GCSE courses for less-able pupils to
enhance their chances of success.
The majority of responses that supported accelerating KS3 were less detailed about how it
might be achieved, or what impact it may have on pupils of different genders, ethnic origins,
or abilities. Most responses, such as the one below from a Middle School Governing Body,
stated the desire for this development without providing any further information:
“Accelerated KS3 in Year 8 for more ownership of key stages” (Middle School Governing
Body, response 646).
This recognition of greater Key Stage accountability was matched by the belief that
accelerating KS3 would help improve GCSE results by providing an additional year for Upper
Schools to focus upon KS4 courses:
“Governors believe that the transition period at age 13 has an effect on standards. This can
be alleviated by introducing an accelerated KS3 examination taken at the end of Y8. This will
enable Upper Schools to concentrate on GCSE courses from Year 9 to Year 11 enabling
improvement of GCSE” (Middle School Governing Body, response 306).
7.6.5 Enforce Y4 and Y8 tests
Section 6.3 outlined the responses that concerned the use of data and of the validity of some
data for certain respondents. A suggested improvement to the current position (in addition to
improving central co-ordination) is to enforce the use of Y4 and Y8 tests:
“[An improvement would be] an agreement across all schools for the use of end of Y4 and
end of Y8 non-statutory tests. This must be driven by the Local Authority so that they have
consistently reliable exit and entry data for all schools within the three-tier system. This
agreement and the effective use of this data is already in place in Learning Community 2”
(Chair of Governors, Middle School, response 305).
Page 47 of 82
It was argued that this provides schools with greater data at point of transition between
schools (replicating the role that Key Stage tests perform in a Primary/Secondary model),
and would contribute to improving the effectiveness of transition and addressing any real or
perceived dips in performance as pupils change school. It was recognised that accelerating
KS3 to the end of Y8 would address this issue for the transfer between Middle and Upper
School.
7.6.6 Build upon Learning Communities to improve attainment
Those who made the argument for retaining the current system often cited Learning
Communities as an improvement that needs to be built upon. This argument was made most
strongly, and with most examples, by school respondents. Lower and Middle School
responses identified examples of Learning Communities undertaking work to improve pupil
transition between Lower and Middle Schools – such as the closer working of Y4 and Y5
teachers, increasing curriculum continuity, and closer co-operation between, or joint
employment by several schools, staff such as SEN Co-ordinators. Using cross-staffing to
help improve the effectiveness of pupil transfer was recognised in the majority of Workshops
as being an area where Learning Communities should have a significant impact.
It was argued that Learning Communities could provide the mechanism through which
schools collectively take responsibility for the performance of pupils. It was argued that this
would “secure phase accountability, which is what is at the heart of this review” (Upper
School Headteacher, response 571). One Middle School Governing Body argued:
“With the current three-tier system there is a lack of accountability for whole key stages.
However with the development of Leaning Communities this could be addressed with the
Learning Community taking responsibility for KS results in the area” (Middle School
Governing Body, response 646).
Some school respondents believed that the role of Learning Communities should be
‘formalised’ through increasing alignment of Bedfordshire LA services with the Learning
Communities. For instance, School Improvement Advisers for Lower Schools, or SEN, EAL,
and Educational Welfare and Psychology support, could be organised through the same
seven geographic areas. An ‘Executive Director for Learning’ in each Community could
assume accountability for all services within that area and would work with all the schools.
Alternatively, schools in LC 7 in particular were advocates of creating a formal ‘hard’
federation of schools within the LC so that a single Governing Body and Headteacher were
responsible for pupil development and attainment within a pyramid. One Middle School
Governing Body summarised these arguments as follows:
“The fact that the three-tier system crosses the traditional key stages is a strength of the
system rather than a weakness, as it requires regular consultation and dialogue between
Lower, Middle and Upper Schools which does not happen to the same degree in the
traditional primary/secondary system. There are examples of well-structured liaison taking
place between the Lower and Middle Schools, and the Middle and Upper Schools, within the
LA. This ensures curriculum continuity, consistency of approach and strong pastoral support
for students” (Middle School Governing Body, response 665).
Page 48 of 82
7.7 A change in system does not guarantee improvement
As well as positive arguments in favour of retaining the current system, respondents offered
reasons as to why there should not be a reorganisation. These are arguments against
change, rather than arguments for the current system.
7.7.1 The structure of schools is not the major influence on attainment
The consultation process asked respondents to consider whether the structure of schools
has a significant impact upon pupil attainment. Many respondents who argued for retention
of the current system believed that the quality of leadership and teaching quality within
individual schools is more important than the overall structure of schools. This is reflected in
many of the arguments throughout this section that focus upon improving the performance of
particular schools, geographic areas, phases of schools, or types of pupils. This position can
be summarised by the following response from a member of school staff:
“[Structure] is one factor, but the most important is the quality of the teachers and the
headteachers” (Leaflet 81).
Respondents to the Consultation Leaflet and online questionnaire consistently rated
‘Improving the performance of individual schools’ as the most significant area for
improvement – this was selected by 85% of respondents overall (with every different
respondent group and postcode area displaying a similar dominance).
7.7.2 Change of structure does not guarantee improvement
This was a theme of every public meeting, and many workshops during the consultation. It
was mentioned by approximately a quarter of the written responses to the consultation.
These respondents felt that the educational case for changing structure had yet to be
statistically proven, and that anecdotal evidence was insufficient to base such an extensive
reorganisation upon. Improving the current system was seen as a more ‘guaranteed’ method
for improving attainment than a reorganisation of the whole system over several years.
Some of these responses identified that there are strong and weak schools in all systems:
“Presumably, there are good schools and poorly performing schools in both 2-tier and threetier systems. If so, why would changing to a 2-tier system improve schools that are already
struggling?...As we do have schools that perform well in the County, I feel we should be
looking more closely at the schools that do less well and seeking to establish how they can
be improved, rather than disrupting the whole system.” (parent, response 354).
The text of the following comment was included in an identical manner in over 20 responses
from parents in Dunstable. On email responses it was often accompanied by a title of
something similar to “Why change something that works so well!!!!” (parent, response 391).
While the wording may vary, the central argument of the quotation was shared by Middle
School responses, and by some from Lower Schools and Town and Parish Councils.
“We believe that the current three-tier system works well and has significant educational
benefits for our child. We have not seen any evidence that a change in structure would lead
Page 49 of 82
to an improvement in standards. We cannot see how the County could possibly justify the
expenditure and, more importantly, the disruption to the schools involved and their pupils
which such a change would bring, without clear evidence that there would be a significant
improvement in standards” (parent, response 358).
Respondents in several workshops expressed concern that, if reorganisation occurred,
Upper Schools would become Secondary Schools. The concern was often focused upon a
belief that Upper Schools are the weakest part of the current system and therefore giving
them two additional years of pupils may not raise standards:
“It would be erroneous to believe the Upper School heads will solve underperformance just
by becoming Secondary heads” (Middle School, response 362).
7.7.3 Disruption of change to pupils currently within the system
A very real concern of proponents for retaining the current system was the possible impact
that a county-wide reorganisation would have upon the pupils who would be in the system at
that time. This was mentioned in just under a third of parental written responses to the
consultation (this equates to a majority of the responses from parents who wished to retain
the current system). Parents and school representatives argued that these pupils only
experience the education system once, and that their unique experience and opportunities
must not be detrimentally affected by any disruption from reorganisation. The possible
disruption that was mentioned included building works, staff retention problems (and
subsequent recruitment problems), having to change schools/sites more often than currently,
and the emotional stress caused by the uncertainty having a negative impact upon their
disposition to learning.
A background current during the consultation period was a belief that the current
reorganisation in Northampton is adversely affecting standards. The quotation below
indicates this belief:
“I do not wish to ‘scare-monger’ at all. However, the re-organisation within Northampton has
created chaos” (Headteacher, Middle School, letter to parents and response to consultation,
response 362)
7.7.4 Money for change could be used more effectively
This argument had two facets:
ƒ
ƒ
The cost of change could not be justified
The money that would be spent upon changing the structure could be better spent
improving the current system (including more and better teachers to reduce class sizes)
There was uncertainty among many respondents, including some within the education
system, about the possible costs of change, and how this related to the Building Schools for
the Future funding. Respondents argued that the money “earmarked” for changing the
structure would be more productively spent upon additional teachers and shrinking class
sizes, probably (and very understandably) without realising the nuances of local government
capital funding and BSF.
Page 50 of 82
Isolated comments suggested that Bedfordshire County Council had only recently finished
paying for the change to a three-tier structure in the 1970s, and therefore should not burden
the tax-payer with another 30-year bill.
7.7.5 The Local Authority could not manage change effectively
There were significant concerns about the capacity and capability of Bedfordshire County
Council to manage a reorganisation effectively, which was often linked to general
perceptions of the Council. Several school delegates, who in principle supported changing
the structure, acknowledged in Workshops that this was their most significant reservation.
The concern about capacity may have been influenced by the consultation occurring at the
same time as the Council’s internal reorganisation, as one Middle School Governing Body
implies:
“A County Council which is trying to transform itself can only have so much capacity for
change management. The pressures upon the newly appointed Director of Children’s
Services who has no experience of the education sector and whose team needs to continue
the much needed improvement in Social Services whilst reorganising and improving
standards in the schools and sixth form system would seem ill-advised” (Middle School
Governing Body, response 326).
7.7.6 A change-at-11 system is undesirable
This argument had several interlinked strands:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
The jump from primary to secondary school at age 11 is too great (and certainly less
desirable than the graduated transition of the three-tier system)
Secondary schools would become too large and impersonal, which would threaten the
pastoral system that many parents currently comment positively about in Lower and
Middle Schools
The age ranges in primary and secondary schools would become too large: 4 year olds
should not mix with 11 year olds, and 11 year olds should not be subject to the influence
(and potential bullying) of 18 year olds.
Creating secondary schools would require enlarging existing Upper Schools. Those
respondents who were critical of Upper School performance currently did not believe that
enlarging those schools would help raise standards of behaviour or attainment.
Approximately 7% of parental written responses stated a belief that the age-range within allthrough Primary Schools and, in particular, 11-18 Secondary Schools is too wide. A clearly
articulated fear was that of 16 or 18 year olds bullying 11 year olds in a Secondary School
was common:
“We would not be happy with our 5 year old mixing with 11 year olds, or our 11 year old
mixing with 16, or potentially 18 year olds. This situation will inevitably lead to increased
levels of bullying, younger children being influenced and goaded into smoking and drinking
and possibly, in some cases, experimenting with drugs” (Consultation response 459).
Page 51 of 82
7.7.7 The future of rural Lower Schools
Parental responses clearly indicated support for Lower Schools, based upon a combination
of the KS1 results, their generally small size, and their geographic accessibility. Town and
Parish Councils’ who attended Workshops or made written responses to the consultation
were very supportive of their local Lower Schools; Middle and Upper School representatives
also recognised the very positive perception of Lower Schools. One Town and Parish
Council, who were supportive of the reasons for the review, argued:
“We are well satisfied with the performance of [the local Lower School], a view which is not
only shared by parents but also supported by Key Stage 1 results and a recent Ofsted
Report. The argument about surplus places is a cogent reason for review. As a school with
currently fewer than 50 pupils [the local Lower School] must obviously figure in such a
review…whatever the organisation adopted by the County therefore, the council would argue
that [village] needs its school” (Town and Parish Council, response 340).
This Council argued that the school continued to be viable, and that it was a vital part of the
local community. The Bedfordshire Association of Small Schools also emphasised this point:
“Schools in rural areas support the local and rural economy and allow young families to live
in many Bedfordshire villages and enjoy basic services such as a local school. This is
particularly important in rural areas with small Lower Schools as these villages would
struggle to survive without a local school, families would then move out and the local
economy would suffer, house prices would be affected and businesses and other local
services would suffer i.e. the pub, the shop, the church” (Bedfordshire Association of Small
Schools, response 131).
There was a very real fear among respondents that a reorganisation to a change-at-11
system could result in the closure of many rural Lower Schools. As part of this, several
responses mentioned the implications for transport if a reorganisation threatened the future
of rural Lower Schools, which included the positive environmental impact of many children
walking to Lower School currently, and the possibility of increased traffic to fewer primary
schools (including the possibility of bussing four year olds to school which was viewed
negatively by those who mentioned it).
7.8 Three-tier fits the 14-19 agenda
Respondents who believed that the current system should be retained felt that the change of
school at 13 was optimally timed to take advantage of emphasis upon options for pupils aged
14-19, and that this advantage is compounded if KS3 is accelerated:
“Middle School systems are ideally placed to deliver the new government proposals for the
education of 14-19 year olds – our system could almost be designed to meet these new
demands. Upper Schools can take full advantage of the move to new vocational routes and
new examination structures, which Middle Schools can specialise in the delivery of a broad
and balanced curriculum for all. The move to a two-year KS3 will only add to this strength.
Indeed many County schools have resolved to implement a condensed programme of study
which effectively ‘frees’ Y9 in the Upper School for vocational and conventional studies”
(Bedfordshire Middle School Heads Association, response 315).
Page 52 of 82
8 Consultation Findings: Arguments for a change of
structure
There were fewer overall responses that argued for a change of structure. Within this overall
picture, the arguments for change were advocated by particular respondent types:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Upper Schools headteachers, who collectively argued for a change-at-11 system
whereby the new secondary schools are 11-18
Further Education (FE) and Sixth Form Colleges, who argued for a change-at-11 system
with greater opportunity for students at age 14 and 16 – this should include a greater role
for Colleges and greater collaboration with schools. In some parts of the County this
could mean the provision of 11-16 schools with tertiary colleges.
Connexions did not advocate a preference for a future structure, but stated a clear belief
that the current system was not offering, and could not offer, the breadth and quality of
advice and curriculum for pupils aged 16+
The Catholic Diocese of Northampton argued for a change-at-11 structure, while the
Catholic Federation in Bedford argued for an all-through school to further develop their
federation
A significant minority of Lower Schools (30%) and their headteachers argued for a
change in structure.
Overall, 35% of responses opted for a change in system. Almost two-thirds of those who
opted for change selected the change-at-11 system, with 17% of the respondents voting for
change opting for a tertiary system (meaning that over 80% of those who voted for change
selected a change-at-11 system). All through schools were advocated by 2% of respondents
overall (and only 7.5% of those who opted for change). Not all respondents expressed a
preference regarding post-16 provision, although of those parents who did the majority
favoured Sixth Form provision within schools.
Very few respondents (2% overall, and only 8% of those who argued for a change in system)
argued for a mixed system within Bedfordshire as first choice. However, representatives of or
respondents from Learning Communities that believe they are performing well (such as LC’s
2, 3, and 7) did sometimes offer a ‘second choice’ view that some parts of Bedfordshire
should change structure if this is necessary to address their underperformance as long as
the higher performing LC’s were able to retain the current structure.
In general, arguments for alternative structures were based upon positive assertions about
what was good about that system (and/or better than the current system). There were very
few responses that argued for a change of structure solely on the basis that the current one
was not working acceptably.
Page 53 of 82
8.1 Improved accountability for performance through
alignment with National Curriculum Key Stages
Accountability was a key theme of responses that argued for a change in structure, and
alignment with the National Curriculum Key Stages was the most frequently advocated
argument for change from all respondent groups.
Respondents who advocated a change in structure argued that the school ages need to align
with National Curriculum Key Stages before there can be clear accountability. Proponents of
this position, including some Lower Schools and all Upper Schools, argued that within the
current set up no headteacher can be held accountable for pupil performance at KS2 and
KS3. This, it was argued, was the basis of the “blame-culture” that Four S identified in stage
1 Workshops. More importantly, it hinders effective identification of under-performance, and
enables staff and schools to ‘coast’ without effective challenge. Responses generally focused
more upon KS3 than KS2, perhaps reflecting the discussions during the consultation about
accelerating KS3 and that it was the Upper Schools who were the most unified advocates of
a change in structure.
“Too many schools and too many Heads: lack of accountability” (Upper School headteacher,
response 203).
Even those arguing to retain the three-tier system recognised that the lack of clear
accountability was a weakness, as this Middle School headteacher recognises:
“I feel the ‘blame’ culture by some schools to be the major weakness of the three-tier system,
with schools not having ownership of complete key-stages and their test results”
(Headteacher, Middle School, response 362).
An Upper School Governing Body went further:
“The three-tier system does not mesh in neatly with the national curriculum key stages.
Hence Lower Schools are not accountable for standards of attainment and progress in years
3 and 4. Middle Schools are not held accountable for standards of attainment and progress
in years 7 and 8, but they are held accountable for standards of attainment and progress
during the whole of key stage 2, although they are only responsible for the teaching of half of
it. Similarly Upper Schools are held accountable for standards of attainment and progress
during the whole of key stage 3, even though they teach less than one third of the course.
When staffing is a scarce resource, schools will allocate their strongest (and perhaps only )
specialist teachers to the year groups taking national tests. Pupils in other year groups will be
taught by weaker teachers and may make slower progress before being transferred to the
next phase” (Upper School Governing Body, response 332).
The majority of school responses, from all phases of school, recognised that the “splitting of
Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3” (Middle School Governing Body, response 197) could be a
weakness, as this quotation from a parent suggests:
“If a school does not have complete ownership of a key stage they will not take full
responsibility for ensuring those children achieve their best and even “rubbish” the national
tests to parents and pupils” (parent, response 194)
Page 54 of 82
The consistency of curriculum taught across all schools in Y3 and 4 and in Y7 and 8 were a
theme of a limited number of responses, with teachers/school responses being the most
likely to mention the issue. These responses tended to discuss the difficulty of assimilating
pupils from several feeder schools part-way through a key stage when the receiving school
was unsure what areas of the curriculum had or had not been taught. Consequently, several
(in particular Upper Schools) stated that they needed to undertake additional tests upon
entry, and acknowledged that this could be frustrating:
“[Our] Upper School takes students from 11 Middle Schools. This means that the progress of
students from each Middle School takes time to evaluate so that teaching in Year 9 is
appropriate to each student. Despite having robust transition plans in place, there is no
consistent measure of attainment currently agreed. In addition, we know that although many
students enter the school with a good knowledge base in each subject, deficiencies and gaps
have to be checked and addressed through thorough revision – this means that some
students have a year of repetition, whilst others have a year of rapid catch up. We know that
for many students starting Upper School, this can be confusing and boring” (Upper School
Governing Body, response 616).
A response from some Upper School staff illustrated that “transition between schools creates
anomalies e.g. one of our feeders stopped teaching French; another is outstanding at French
teaching. Both sets of students are in the same classes” (Upper School staff, response 657).
This was also identified by some parent respondents who argued that children were faced
with repeating some work following transfer as schools seek to assimilate pupils from a
number of schools during a KS:
“Our children’s comments at the time was that they were frustrated in the first year of both
Middle and Upper Schools as work covered in the previous school was repeated” (parent,
response 264)
A very limited number of respondents felt that there was too much emphasis upon pastoral
care, potentially at the expense of academic attainment. One Upper School Governing Body
stated:
“Middle Schools often describe themselves as caring schools. This can be a euphemism for
low expectations and low aspirations; as such they may not challenge individual students
sufficiently and accept low standards…it is not caring to have low aspirations and accept low
standards of attainment” (Upper School Governing Body, response 332).
8.2 Adopting the ‘national pattern’ will support improvement
Statistically 13% of responses stated that adopting the same system as most other councils
should be a priority for the County Council (data available in Appendix Four). 7% of parental
written responses (Consultation Response Forms and letters/emails) mentioned adopting the
same system as the dominant national system as a positive development. A limited number
of respondents argued that adopting a change-at-11 system would support families who
move into or out of Bedfordshire:
“Change-at-11 goes with what is happening elsewhere in schools - helps if pupils move from
different areas” (Leaflet 530)
Page 55 of 82
A small minority of respondents argued that adopting the national model of change-at-11
would help Bedfordshire simplify processes at school and Local Authority level so enabling
more attention and resources to be focussed upon teaching and learning. Areas that this
referred to included:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
The current need to adapt national strategies and policy initiatives – which are created
based upon a change-at-11 system and the Key Stages – to the Bedfordshire system
The impact upon commercially produced ICT systems which are increasingly configured
around a primary/secondary model
The ability to reduce the importance that is currently placed upon the Y4 tests in
particular due to their role as part of pupil transfer from Lower to Middle Schools. Instead,
KS tests would form the tests at the end of each school (KS1 from Infant to Junior, KS2
from Junior/Primary to Secondary).
8.3 5 year preparation, within the same school, for GCSE
exams
Upper School headteachers felt that GCSE KS4 performance would be boosted if pupils
were transferred into secondary education at age 11. This was also mentioned by
approximately 8% of written parental responses (where it was generally articulated as part of
a concern that changing school at 13 was too pressured as a result of KS3 tests and
selecting GCSE options while becoming familiar in a new school). Respondents believed that
this would support raising standards because:
ƒ Pupils would be more settled and familiar with their surroundings and teachers when
they selected their GCSE options, which should improve the quality of choices that are
made
ƒ School staff will be more familiar with the pupils who are making their choices, in terms of
their academic and pastoral development, and therefore able to offer more effective
advice
ƒ KS3 would not be split between schools, which would enable the secondary schools (as
they would become) to be more innovative in the delivery of the curriculum to support
particular groups of students
Some Upper School responses argued that Middle Schools do not have the teaching
expertise to deliver the full breadth of the KS3 curriculum due to their restricted size and
possible impacts upon recruitment. This was felt to impact upon pupil learning during KS3,
which Upper Schools feeling that they had to teach KS4 and repeat parts of KS3 when pupils
arrived. One Upper School headteacher stated:
“There are only weaknesses [of the current system]…there is a lack of teaching expertise in
Middles in key areas including ICT, languages, sciences etc…Middles can not deliver key
National Curriculum requirements…there is virtually no cross Middle liaison or
commonality...change at 13+ far too late to effect real learning changes” (Upper School
headteacher, response 203).
Some Middle School respondents, in workshops and written responses, acknowledged that a
potential weakness of the three-tier system is the need to make GCSE choices so quickly
after entering Upper School:
“Having to make the choice of GCSE subjects immediately on entry to Upper School is a
potential weakness” (Middle School Governing Body, response 188).
Page 56 of 82
This concern about the ability to select GCSE options shortly after entry into Upper School is
reflected in the data from the pupil questionnaires concerning the quality of advice to pupils
from Middle and Upper Schools. Only 70% of Year 10 pupils agreed or strongly agreed with
the statement “I found that a year in my Upper School gave me enough time to choose my
GCSE Options”, although this figure rose to 78% of Year 12 pupils. The pupils also drew a
clear distinction between the quality of advice that is offered by Middle and Upper Schools for
Year 10 options (Figure 17).
Figure 17: Pupils: Advice regarding Year 10 options
Pupils: My Middle School provided helpful information and advice on
options available in Year 10
Pupils: My Upper School provided helpful information and advice on
options available in Year 10
100%
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
Answered: % Strongly Disagree
Answered: % Disagree
Answered: % Agree
Answered: % Strongly Agree
50%
40%
50%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
10
10
12
12
8.4 One transfer is better than two
The number of transfers was a source of difference among respondents. Parental responses
to the Consultation Leaflet included responses volunteering a belief that pupils perform more
effectively when they are emotionally settled, and that each transfer of school unsettles a
pupil which adversely affects their disposition to education – hence one change-at-11 was
viewed as preferable to two changes at 9 and 13.
This view was shared by some school respondents, both Lower Schools who wished to offer
education through to the end of KS2, and Upper Schools who wished to begin educating
pupils at Y7 to provide a longer stable build up to GCSE options and exams. One Upper
School Governing Body, acknowledging the challenges of pupil transfer, argued:
“We have listened carefully to students and parents about when transition to a new school is
appropriate. Clearly, the [ideal] time for each child varies…a universal service for all children
can only seek to ameliorate the difficulties for individual children, whilst offering opportunity to
all. The Governing Body would simply seek to reduce the number of transitions and therefore
reduce the likelihood of difficulties for individual children.” (Upper School Governing Body,
response 616).
This was also a theme of parental responses of those who argued for change:
Page 57 of 82
“It can be difficult for children to settle in a school at the best of times. So surely the least
number of school changes made is better for the child” (Leaflet 157).
A limited number of respondents pointed out that an infant/junior/secondary model still
contains two changes of school (as would a primary/secondary/tertiary system). Some also
pointed out that an infant/junior/secondary/tertiary is actually a four-tier system with three
changes of institution. One example of this response was from a Middle School Governing
Body:
“Two moves are harder to manage from the school point of view than one because a Middle
School is liaising both up and down the system. However the split between infant and junior
schools in some two-tier systems create a three-tier structure anyway! The only difference is
when the transfers occur” (Middle School Governing Body, response 646).
Part of the consultation asked for responses regarding whether there is a preference for all
through primary provision or infant/junior schools (or a combination). These results are
discussed in Section 9.
8.5 Previous improvement efforts within three-tier structure
have not worked
Some respondents, especially in discussions at Workshops, argued that a change in
structure had become the default option, precisely and only because previous efforts to raise
attainment within the current system had not been successful. This was noted in particular
with effect to the actions taken since 2002, when all those within the education system in
Bedfordshire acknowledged that it was collectively underperforming. Workshop discussants
were aware that the Review was only occurring because performance had not improved, and
some therefore argued that change must be the result. The following quotation from an
Upper School Governing Body summarises these feelings:
“The quality of teaching has been the subject of many government initiatives over a number
of years, but this has not raised standards of attainment in Bedfordshire to the extent it has
elsewhere. Hence we suggest that there is little hope that more of the same will make any
difference in the future.” (Upper School Governing Body, response 332).
There were a limited number of respondents who argued that Bedfordshire has had sufficient
time and money to make the current system work:
“Having worked in Oxfordshire and Milton Keynes schools, standards are higher in both
systems, discipline structures are embedded earlier on and are more successful, learning
techniques are better practiced and teachers better qualified…Bedfordshire has had enough
time and money to try and make it work” (teacher, response 294)
Isolated respondents at Workshops in stage 2 expressed some surprise at the sudden
momentum of Middle School support behind increasing the role of Learning Communities
and accelerating KS3 to the end of Y8. These respondents felt that these ideas had not been
developed and promoted actively prior to the consultation. Some respondents did not agree
with these proposals:
“I don’t think that moving the KS3 assessments forward a year is helpful – making children
take tests designed for children a year older than them is unfair on the children and I cannot
see if producing better results in the assessments” (parent, response 418).
Page 58 of 82
The Upper School Headteachers collective response adopted a geographical perspective
when they argued that:
“Acknowledging that some Learning Communities perform well is not in our view an
argument for the status quo – the issue is how we advance all standards across all of the
County.” (Collective Upper School headteachers, response 337).
8.6 National Pattern: Future recruitment and retention and
teacher/headteacher quality
Proponents of change argued two elements with respect to recruitment and retention:
ƒ
ƒ
If Bedfordshire does not adopt a change-at-11 system, some argued that there was a
risk to future retention of, in particular, Middle School specialist teachers. This was based
upon an evaluation of supply and demand – there is limited supply of Middle-School
trained teachers, and limited national demand for them. Consequently the field of
potential applicants is inevitably narrowed. Several respondents queried whether
ambitious teachers would be attracted to an education system that was different to the
majority of the rest of the country - consequently, Bedfordshire may attract lower quality
staff than it wishes to.
Future recruitment and retention would be enhanced if Bedfordshire adopted a changeat-11 system. This is because it would enable Bedfordshire to compete equally with most
other authorities and potentially select from a larger pool of recruits. This was felt to be
particularly important for headteacher positions, and was strongly articulated by
Northampton RC Diocese.
Responses to the consultation strongly indicated a belief that the County Council should
focus upon improving the performance of individual schools (see Figure 6). 85% of
responses argued that in the drive to raise standards the performance of individual schools is
more significant than the school structure. Workshops often discussed the importance of high
quality leadership for schools, as the following headteacher response argues:
“The fact has to be faced that when a school fails, it is normally at least partially a leadershiprelated issue. Bedfordshire just does not have enough top calibre leaders who are prepared
to do whatever it takes to transform institutions and systems.” (Middle School headteacher,
response 363).
Several Upper School Governing Bodies argued that the school structure is a factor within
recruitment challenges, and stated they were already suffering recruitment challenges which
they attribute at least in part to the current three-tier system. One Governing Body
commented:
“We continue to struggle to find high quality teachers which will make it difficult to continue to
improve standards. We believe the Upper School structure is a factor as teachers want to
work with the full age range from 11 to 18 as they believe it may affect their future career
prospects. Retaining our sixth form whilst gaining years 7 and 8 will make recruitment
significantly less challenging” (Upper School Governing Body, response 468).
This was also emphasised by the Northampton Roman Catholic Diocese (where the pool of
available applicants is invariably smaller) as a key driver behind their support of
reorganisation:
Page 59 of 82
“Our middle schools have found it increasingly difficult to recruit staff at all levels and both
our middle schools are currently without a substantive head or deputy head. These issues
together with a drive to raise standards were the reasons behind the formation of the
Federation of Bedford Catholic Schools on 1 September 2005” (Northampton Roman
Catholic Diocese, response 715).
Some Upper Schools argued that the recruitment challenge is strongest for Middle Schools:
“The dwindling number of Middle Schools and their relative small size has an impact on
recruitment and retention, particularly for leadership teams and specialist teachers. We
believe that small specialist departments, particularly where there is only one such specialist
teacher may suffer from a lack of professional debate and development…[pre age 16] the
issue is one of recruiting and retaining high quality staff in a structure that is not common
elsewhere in the profession” (Upper School Governing Body, response 162).
The risk to Bedfordshire of being one of only a few authorities with a three-tier system in the
future was also emphasised by individual Upper Schools and in the collective response of
Upper School headteachers:
“One such challenge [facing Bedfordshire as a small County] is the recruitment and retention
of high quality teachers. Many teachers have career aspirations and recognise that getting
poor experience can hold them back. If Bedfordshire is one of the only counties operating a
three-tier system this will act as a disincentive to teachers to apply for jobs here…or we will
get lower quality applicants taking advantage of smaller fields [of applicants]…we are aware
of a number of Middle and Upper Schools who have suffered a real difficulty in appointing
specialist teacher staff.” (Upper School Governing Body, response 332).
“If the current structure were to be retained, recruitment in specialist subjects will continue to
be an issue – indeed, if fewer and fewer Authorities maintain a three-tier structure, the future
of career progression in Middle Schools has to be of concern” (Collective Response from
Upper School Headteachers, response 337).
Upper Schools strongly emphasised a belief that if a reorganisation created 11-16 schools
then they would face a significant flight of staff – potentially up to a third (response 337) –
due to the loss of Sixth Form teaching:
“Recruitment challenges will only be exacerbated again if Upper Schools lose their sixth
forms. Having experience of teaching post 16 is an essential ingredient if a teacher is
seeking subject responsibility in an 11-18 school. As there are more posts of responsibility in
11-18 schools, ambitious teachers will not want to miss out on this experience and so will
turn away from posts advertised in 11-16 schools” (Upper School Governing Body, response
332).
One Upper School headteacher stated:
“In the event of a move to 11-16 schooling in Bedford, my entire senior team would
leave…sadly I would join them.” (Upper School headteacher, response 571).
The recruitment and retention argument was, alongside the contribution of Sixth Form
students to school life and as role models and possible transport implications of change, the
basis of Upper School arguments for the retention of Sixth Forms in an 11-18 system.
Page 60 of 82
8.7 Improve pupil choice and quality of offer post 16
All respondents acknowledged that Upper Schools must retain their Sixth Forms if the
current system is preserved. However, some respondents felt that this position of ‘automatic
right to a Sixth Form’ was not in the best interests of pupils, and that a change in structure
was needed to improve the choice and quality of advice and the curriculum offer post-16.
This was the advocated position of Connexions and FE Colleges. The Upper School position
was more complicated – the combined submission from the headteachers argued for a
universal 11-18 system, but responses from individual schools (generally those with larger
Sixth Forms) recognised that some small Sixth Forms were unviable.
There was an argument presented that stated:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
All Upper Schools have Sixth Forms in the current structure, and Sixth Form pupils
represent a proportionally larger element of the school community than in an 11-18
school.
Some current Sixth Forms are not of sufficient size to offer the breadth of curriculum that
students deserve; this threat to viability of Sixth Forms makes those students have
financial as well as social and educational importance.
This need to attract students can impact upon pupils through:
ƒ The level of impartial advice offered to students in Year 11 about post-16 options,
because the school has an inherent and practical incentive to retain the student
within the school for Sixth Form provision
ƒ The small size of some Sixth Forms inhibits the development of a broad and
balanced curriculum, thereby restricting the options available to pupils
ƒ The focus of school Sixth Forms generally upon academic qualifications for post16 students reduces the collective breadth of choice to pupils within an area
ƒ Bedfordshire’s post-16 participation rates and course completion rates need to be
improved, but this can not be achieved while there is such limited choice and so
many vested institutional interests
Connexions argue that within the current system there are:
“barriers to providing comprehensive and consistent impartial information advice and
guidance to all Year 11 pupils because of the nature and importance for some schools of the
numbers entering post 16 provision in school Sixth Forms. There is some evidence that for a
significant number of young people there is a passive choice in continuing learning at Sixth
Forms. This compares to the more active choice in tertiary education systems…Connexions
is neutral on decisions made by education providers. Nevertheless, Connexions is of the
view that the current structural arrangements appear to suggest significant barriers to
securing the achievement and progression for all young people and this is hampering the
ability of the County to provide the best educational standards” (Connexions, response 533,
emphasis in original).
FE Colleges supported this view, with one arguing that:
“Poor staying on rate and poor attainment post 16 is the result of a lack of change of
institution and therefore failure to re-focus students at 16…[a tertiary system] would align the
structure to the stages of the National Curriculum and eliminate current small, poorly
performing Sixth Form provision with a lack of choice and specialism in post-16 teaching and
learning” (FE College, response 532).
Page 61 of 82
An extensive response from one FE College argued that the current system “fails a
significant number of pupils, some of whom then disengage from education and work” (FE
College, response 438).
Upper Schools refuted claims of vested interests and of insufficient advice. The pupil
questionnaire conducted as part of this consultation suggested that pupils felt that they did
receive effective support when selecting their Sixth Form options; over 80% of respondents
agreed or strongly agreed with a proposition that they had received useful advice regarding
post-16 options, and also that they were able to select the subjects that they wanted to study
(it must be remembered, however, that all of the respondents had chosen to continue
studying and to remain with their Upper School Sixth Form so this response should be
expected).
A collective response from the Heads of Sixth Forms argued that Sixth Forms were well
regarded in recent Ofsted inspections, that staying-on rates were favourable compared to
statistical neighbours, and that “pre-16 and post-16 provision are complementary and fulfil
the ethos of the 14-19 curriculum in schools” (Collective Head of Sixth Form response,
response 676). This response argued that Sixth Forms provide integral role models for
younger pupils, and advocated schools retaining Sixth Forms irrespective of the other
structural decisions.
This universal retention of Sixth Forms was not shared by all Upper School Governing
Bodies who replied to the consultation:
“We believe that the revised structure should consist of 4-11 Primary Schools and 11-18
Secondary Schools. However, we recognise that the continuation of small Sixth Forms is not
a viable option and that a restructuring of 11-16 with a Sixth Form College may be
appropriate for Upper Schools with small sixth forms in urban areas.” (Upper School
Governing Body, response 162).
8.8 The current ages of transfer of 9 and 13 are inappropriate
There was a minority view from parents that changing school at 9 and 13 is inappropriate for
pupils. This is because:
ƒ
ƒ
9 is too young to start secondary-style education for some children (mentioned by 5% of
parental written responses)
13 is a difficult age to change due to its proximity to KS3 SATs, and to choosing GCSE
options while you are still learning the expectations of the school and the teachers
(mentioned by 5% of parental written responses).
There were very few responses which argued that 11 was a good age to transfer school,
although some mentioned that it was more appropriate than 9 and 13 as the following two
quotes indicate alternative aspects of:
“I feel children are more ready for secondary education [at 11] rather than at 9 and feel they
benefit from being in Primary School that bit longer” (Leaflet 355).
“[Change-at-11] would be in line with the rest of the country. Also pupils [would not have to]
change schools during puberty and when about to choose GCSEs” (Leaflet 1337).
Page 62 of 82
9 Possible School Organisation Models
The consultation offered respondents several alternative organisational models to consider.
35% of responses overall argued for a change of structure, and Figure 9 indicated the levels
of support from parents using different response models, while Figure 11 showed how the
responses varied based upon postcode.
There were only limited responses in favour of organisational models other than a change-at11 system. Alternatives that were suggested included:
ƒ
ƒ
A system of schools with KS1 and KS2, a KS3 school, and then KS4 and KS5 provision
A system of KS1 schools, with Middle Schools covering all of KS2 and KS3, and then
KS4 and KS5 provision.
9.1 Primary or Infant/Junior Schools?
Respondents at workshops and public meetings were asked to consider whether they prefer
all-through Primary Schools (from Reception to Year 6), Infant and Junior Schools (from
Reception to Year 2, and Year 3 to Year 6 respectively), or a combination of both
approaches.
Workshop discussions provided the following thoughts from those directly involved in
educational provision:
ƒ
ƒ
Some belief that all-through primary schools are a preferable structure: they reduce the
number of transfers for pupils, and offer greater flexibility for staff development and
financial management
A feeling that the Infant/Junior model may offer a flexible approach to preserving
education in rural communities
Figure 18 shows the response of all Lower School headteachers (75 respondents) and
Governors (121) who attended stage 2 workshops. It shows a majority of Governors favour a
mixture of primary and infant/junior based upon local circumstances, while the largest single
response from headteachers (of just over 40%) was for all-through primary schools. When
you examine feedback from only the headteachers who voted for a change in system, 61%
of those were in favour of all-through primary schools. It may be that this increase in support
for all-through Primary Schools reflects the composition of the schools voting for a change in
system: while it cannot be proven from these questionnaires, a perception from the
workshops was that smaller rural schools were more likely to favour retaining the current
system.
In contrast to Figure 18, Middle School headteachers (18 responses) were strongly in favour
of a mixture of provision (61%) while only 6% were in favour of Infant/Junior schools. More
numerical data regarding preferences for primary phase education, if a change-at-11 system
is adopted, is available in Appendix Six.
Page 63 of 82
Figure 18: Lower School respondents’ views regarding primary phase schooling
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Answered: Mixture
Answered: Infant/Junior
50%
Answered: Primary
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Governor: Lower School
Head: Lower School
9.2 Post 16 Provision
From the Consultation Leaflet and online questionnaire, only 6% of respondents selected the
tertiary system as their preferred model. The level of support was lowest among respondents
to the online questionnaire and the Bedfordshire Magazine questionnaire, while it was just
over 8% in Consultation Leaflet responses.
Geographically, support for a tertiary system was varied. LU1 saw almost no support for
tertiary provision (1%), while LU5 (Dunstable and Houghton Regis) and MK40 (Bedford) both
saw overall support of around 5%. Support was strongest in MK42 (Kempston), MK44 (very
large postcode in the north of the County, including Sharnbrook, Riseley, and Wilden), and
SG18 (including Biggleswade) where 14%, 14%, and 12% favoured tertiary provision.
The individual questionnaires distributed at workshops and public meetings included a
question asking for preferences for post-16 provision if Bedfordshire County Council does
reorganise. The overall response indicated:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
51% in favour of retaining Sixth Forms in all Secondary Schools (as they would become)
34% in favour of a mixture of school and college provision
15% in favour of only college based provision
Among headteachers, Middle School headteachers were the most in favour of college-only
provision (9 out of 23), while Upper School headteachers were strongly in favour of retaining
Sixth Forms in all Secondary Schools. More numerical information regarding post-16
preferences, if Bedfordshire County Council choose to adopt a change-at-11 system, is
available in Appendix Seven.
Page 64 of 82
FE Colleges advocated a mixture of school and college based provision, reflecting the
geographical differences within the County and the variable size and quality of school based
Sixth Form provision.
The questionnaire with Year 10 pupils revealed a difference based upon the type of course
that pupils were considering, as Figure 19 demonstrates.
Figure 19: Year 10 views regarding location of Post-16 education
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Answered: % Strongly Disagree
Answered: % Disagree
Answered: % Agree
50%
Answered: % Strongly Agree
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
A Levels
Vocational Course
Sixth Form
[Note, the questions were:
ƒ
A Levels: I am thinking of taking A-levels and would prefer to take them at a school
rather than a College for 16-19 year olds
ƒ Vocational Course: I am thinking of taking a vocational course after GCSEs and would
prefer to take them at a school rather than a College for 16-19 year olds
ƒ Sixth Form: I would prefer to attend Sixth Form at my current school rather than change
school or attend a College]
9.3 The Mixed Economy for statutory age education
There was very limited support for a mixed system within Bedfordshire as a first preference.
Never more than 11% (in MK47), and usually less than 5% of respondents selected this
option. One Union argued that:
“While there are marked differences between parts of Bedfordshire, it is a small shire county
and different forms of provision would only exacerbate problems of recruitment, particularly
as our perception is that a significant amount of movement among teaching staff takes place
within the county boundary” (Union, response 564).
Page 65 of 82
However, in discussions and in comments from public meetings and written responses, there
was a sense that a mixed economy could be introduced. This was generally from
respondents in Learning Communities where they felt current performance was strong and
did not want change structure in that area, but thought that it might be an option for less
successful Learning Communities – thereby creating a mixed economy by default. The
following is an example of this perspective:
“Different areas will have different needs. In our area - the 3 tier system works well” (Leaflet
2634)
Page 66 of 82
10 Conclusions
This report has detailed the findings from the consultation, arranging these findings into
arguments for and against change, and raising issues that were identified for improvement
that have less direct link to structure.
This section offers some overall conclusions and highlights particular arguments and themes
that the Authority may wish to consider as it forms its recommendation. It is beyond the
scope of this project to offer any recommendations regarding the most appropriate future
structure for Bedfordshire.
10.1 The consultation process
The consultation received over 9,000 responses, including the involvement of almost every
mainstream school, and including over 3,000 pupil and 4,500 parent responses. This scale of
response gives Bedfordshire County Council confidence that it has heard the breadth of
argument about school organisation, and that it has a strong understanding of the respective
popularity of different options for the future.
The consultation process has shown that there is no consensus about the most appropriate
school structure. There is difference between the responses of schools from different
phases, difference between parents of pupils of differing age, and difference between
responses from various geographical areas of the County.
In this context, Bedfordshire County Council needs to understand the consultation responses
and seek to triangulate these with the factual and research information that has been
collated.
10.2 Irrespective of the decision about the system
There were two strong themes during the consultation that require addressing irrespective of
the decision about school organisation.
10.2.1 Local Authority Leadership and School Support
Respondents were generally critical of the Authority’s leadership of the education service
(which may have been accentuated during the consultation as a result of its timing in relation
to the creation of the C&YP department and senior officer changes). Middle and Upper
Schools were also generally critical of the school support services, including the Advisory
Service and associated services such as SEN, EAL, Education Welfare and Psychology, and
behaviour management. The Council will want to take this feedback into account.
Page 67 of 82
10.2.2 Improve the use of and access to pupil attainment data, and other
management information
Workshops with headteachers consistently returned to discussions about the accuracy,
reliability, storage, dissemination, and use of pupil level (and aggregated school level)
attainment and achievement data. There was acknowledgement that progress had been
made in the last 18 months or so, but similarly a belief that there is much more that needs to
be accomplished. High quality data that is trusted, understood, and used effectively is
imperative to a high-performing school and education authority. Schools need to be given
targeted information about their performance and that of similar schools, and pupil attainment
data must be used to derive challenging targets that are effectively agreed and monitored.
10.3 If the current system is to be retained
If the current system is to be retained, the consultation responses and process have
highlighted the following issues.
10.3.1 Learning Communities: Collective Responsibilities and Aspirations
Learning Communities are being advanced as a significant forum for sharing best practice,
developing effective cross-school transition and improving collective accountability of the
school system for pupil attainment and achievement. It is recognised that the rate of
development has varied to this date. Moreover, it is important that these Communities build
upon the sharing of best practice internally that many respondents mentioned but also raise
their horizons beyond Bedfordshire to identify and learn from outstanding practice nationally.
The perception from many schools and the public that Learning Communities should be
additionally funded by the Authority appears to be in tension with the increased devolution of
funding and autonomy to school level – the success of Learning Communities will be at least
as reliant upon schools pooling budgets as it will upon the LA devolving services.
Further development of Learning Communities must ensure more effective collective
responsibility of Key Stage attainment and overcome the questioning of national Key Stage
test validity and the tendency of schools to blame earlier phases that was evident during this
consultation.
10.3.2 Accelerate KS3
There was broad support from Middle Schools for the acceleration of KS3 to the end of Year
8 which would resolve the accountability for KS3. If Bedfordshire wish to implement this
proposal it will need to:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Learn from schools nationally who are piloting this approach regarding practical
implementation
Agree with schools about how Y9 would be effectively used by Upper Schools
Be confident that this programme will not have negative impacts upon the performance
of any groups of pupils within Bedfordshire (whether geographic, gender, or ethnic).
Page 68 of 82
In addition, Bedfordshire will need to consider how to reconcile the acceptance of the need
for accountability at KS3 with the lack of similar accountability for KS2. The profile of
Bedfordshire’s attainment data suggests that the weaknesses are within KS2 more than KS3;
Learning Communities were the only consultation suggestion for increasing KS2
accountability.
10.3.3 KS2 educational breadth
Many of the arguments presented to Four S during the consultation suggested that KS2
results were affected by:
ƒ
ƒ
Less cramming within Bedfordshire than elsewhere
A broader curriculum in years 5 and 6, using specialist teachers and facilities, than is
available in many primary schools.
It could be expected that, particularly in the case of the latter, this would represent a strategic
recognition that KS2 results could suffer. Bedfordshire needs to be confident that this early
exposure to specialist teachers and facilities – which were mentioned regularly by parents as
strengths of the current system – is not negatively impacting upon the development of ‘core
skills’ in the primary curriculum that continues to hinder pupil progress during KS3 and
beyond.
10.3.4 Pastoral care and/or educational attainment
Many responses, especially from the public and Middle Schools, argued correctly that
education is about more than just attainment statistics. The argument continued that the
current system, with limited age ranges within schools, offers graduated transition as pupil’s
mature. This system therefore provides greater opportunity for responsibility and
development and pupils gained confidence and ‘social skills’ as a result. Parents in particular
argued that this was as important as attainment.
The implication within this argument is that attainment and pupil development are mutually
exclusive. Four S’ opinion is that Bedfordshire’s education system, parents and pupils should
not accept this simple scenario – an outstanding school is strong in pastoral care and
academic achievement.
10.4 If the system is to change
The key arguments for a change of system that respondents expressed are to:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Improve accountability through aligning with the National Curriculum Key Stages.
Seek to ‘future-proof’ the system by becoming part of the national pattern of provision,
potentially affecting issues such as recruitment and retention
Improve the options and advice available to students within the 14-19 age range
The consultation highlighted several key issues that Bedfordshire must address if it does
choose to change the system:
Page 69 of 82
10.4.1 The case for change
If Bedfordshire decides to change the structure of schools it needs to explain to stakeholders:
ƒ
ƒ
The educational rationale for the change – how the new system will successfully retain
the perceived benefits of the current system, and also deliver a culture of greater
attainment for the medium to long term
The financial business case – many respondents were frustrated by the lack of
information about what a revised system would look like in practice and in their local
community, although those that attended workshops and meetings were generally more
accepting of the difficulty of running a neutral ‘in principle’ consultation if this information
had been fully prepared. Stakeholders however will need reassurance that the County
Council is able to afford the reorganisation.
10.4.2 Future of rural schooling
There is a clear fear about the future of rural schooling if Bedfordshire choose to change
structure. Bedfordshire will need to work effectively with schools, Unions and professional
associations, District/Borough and Town and Parish Councils to develop solutions that
effectively meet educational requirements and integrate community aspirations as far as
possible. In the short term, it needs to explain clearly that the DfES school organisation
guidance includes presumptions against the closure of rural schools except in particular
circumstances.
The information from respondents provides mixed messages regarding all-through Primary
Schools as opposed to a combination of Infant/Junior Schools.
10.4.3 The respective roles of Schools and Colleges for Post 16 provision
The collective response from Upper School headteachers supported the creation of 11-18
schools. The FE Colleges favour greater opportunity for FE/College based provision. The
Authority will need to decide whether it wishes all of the new secondary schools to have Sixth
Forms, or whether in certain parts of the County there should be a tertiary system.
10.4.4 The Local Authority: the ‘day job’ and reorganisation
Confidence in the Local Authority to successfully manage a reorganisation is low, from all
groups of respondents who expressed a view. This concern was around the capacity of the
Council to manage the programme in addition to the ‘day job’ of school support (which
respondents felt was also in need of improvement), and of the capability of the council
generally to manage a programme of this magnitude and complexity. The council will need to
work with stakeholders to create a dedicated programme team of appropriate size and with
appropriate skills and resources, and ensure that this team promotes confidence among
stakeholders and the public.
Page 70 of 82
10.4.5 The impact during reorganisation
Respondents, in particular headteachers and parents, are worried about the possible
disruption of a reorganisation upon the pupils who will be in the system as it changes. This
fear is magnified by the lack of confidence in the Council’s ability to manage the change
effectively. The fear also appeared to be a reflection of uncertainty about how the change
would occur, over what timeframe, and exactly what it would mean for individual pupils. The
compounded consequence of this was a fear that attainment results could decrease during
the reorganisation.
If Bedfordshire choose to change system, the Council will want to ensure that it learns
lessons from authorities who have recently undergone (or are undergoing) similar
reorganisations.
Page 71 of 82
Appendix One: Methodological Evaluation
The project methodology included a variety of consultation mechanisms to enable as many
people as possible to feed into the consultation. This section includes feedback from
respondents about the consultation process.
The level of response
Four S utilised a range of methods to enable as many individuals and organisations to be
part of the consultation process. Over 9,000 consultation responses were received, including
involvement from almost every mainstream school, related educational organisations, and
over 4,500 responses from parents and over 3,000 pupil responses. This provided an
exceptionally wide range of quantitative and qualitative information to summarise in this
report. This response rate is greater than that achieved by Northumberland County Council
in their similar consultation during 2004.
Four S Performance
Four S delivered seven Workshops during Stage 1, and 21 during Stage 2. Four S also
delivered seven public meetings during Stage 2.
As part of Four S’ Quality Assurance processes, delegates at Workshops and three Public
Meetings were asked to feedback upon Four S performance. At every workshop we asked
respondents to complete an evaluation form for the session, including comments about the
administration of the session, the knowledge of the facilitators, and the success of the
session. As part of Four S’ commitment to continuous improvement and Quality Assurance,
the delivery and methodology of the sessions was enhanced using this feedback throughout
the process to refine presentations and delegate exercises.
The feedback from delegates was very positive. The overall percentages – taken across all
of the Workshops – of delegates who felt that the session was Fully Effective or Effective in
each of the areas is shown in Figure 20. It is particularly pleasing to note the almost
universally positive feedback concerning the knowledge of Four S facilitators.
For three public meetings, as part of Four S quality assurance processes, attendees were
asked to feedback upon the usefulness of the Four S presentation, and the
answers/clarifications offered by Four S and/or Bedfordshire representatives. These results
are shown in Figure 21.
Page 72 of 82
Figure 20: Workshop Delegate Feedback
100
90
80
70
Stage 1
Percent
60
Stage 2
50
Combined
40
30
20
10
0
Effective Admin
Knowledgable
Facilitators
Session
achieving its
objectives
Enabling you to Session meeting Session Overall
input
your
expectations
Figure 21: Public Meeting Feedback
100%
80%
60%
Answered: % unhelpful
Answered: % not useful
Answered: % useful
Answered: % v useful
40%
20%
0%
PM - LC1
PM - LC6
PM - LC7
PM - LC1
Four S Presentation
PM - LC6
PM - LC7
Response to Questions
There were comments received from 34 individuals that the online questionnaire was biased
in favour of a change in structure.
Page 73 of 82
Feedback upon the Consultation documentation and process
The Bedfordshire Member Working Group endorsed a neutral consultation, without a
Bedfordshire County Council recommendation to discuss. The consultation was framed by
the Consultation Discussion Paper, and was most widely summarised through the
Consultation Leaflet. The Discussion Paper was discussed with both the Headteacher
Working Group and the Member Working Group, and signed-off by the latter. The
Consultation Leaflet was also signed-off by the Member Working Group.
The Consultation Discussion Paper made clear that:
“The County Council will listen carefully to all arguments put forward before making a
decision. That decision will be informed by the strength and quality of those arguments”
(Consultation Discussion Document, page 15).
Four S received several areas of feedback which are explained below. This feedback related
the Discussion Paper, the Leaflet, and to the online questionnaire.
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Bias towards change: there was feedback, in particular from Middle School
representatives, that the Discussion Paper was biased towards change. Some
respondents felt that the reasons given to explain why a Review of School Structures
was necessary and timely were actually making a case for change. It was argued that
this distorted the balance of the document.
Bias towards retention: There was some limited feedback from individuals that there
was no articulation of the case for change within the Discussion Paper to balance the
section entitled ‘Does that mean that structures have to change?’
Just about Middle Schools: many Middle Schools (and parents at public meetings) felt
or implied that the consultation process was about the future of Middle Schools rather
than the future organisational structure for all of the mainstream schools within
Bedfordshire.
A democratic vote: Some respondents at public meetings, where there was generally
an overwhelming preference for the retention of the current system, felt that the decision
should be influenced by the volume of the arguments (i.e. the number of people
advocating a certain position) rather than the educational strength of their arguments.
Effective engagement: Four S selected school staff, pupils and governors to ensure a
balance between phase, size, location and type of school. This was welcomed by
schools. Other organisations, such as Unions and FE Colleges, were pleased to have
the opportunity to be so involved in the consultation.
More information requested: Respondents were keen for further information, including
different geographical scales (such as information for each Learning Community),
additional information on issues such as attendance or exclusions, and for more
information about the implications of a reorganisation for different geographical areas
(although many respondents recognised that this would have affected the perception of
the consultation as neutral).
A small number of individuals at workshops felt that the lack of an explicit case for change,
including some more information about what an alternative structure might actually physically
look like in Bedfordshire, enabled the ‘retain three-tier’ lobby to seize the initiative during the
consultation. The consultation period did see the emergence of organised ‘retain three-tier’
lobbies while there were not any correspondingly public and vocal champions of change. The
organised campaign in favour of the retention of the current system included several schoolorganised meetings for parents, two colour adverts in local press, and several petitions.
Page 74 of 82
Appendix Two: Additional Responses
Petitions were received from:
ƒ
Residents of Queens Park (486 signatures) who “believe that the current three-tier
system should be retained. Any change will not be of benefit to our children who have
experienced a very disruptive move with the closure of Marlborough School. Above all
stability is required.”
ƒ
Eversholt Lower School (339 signatures) who wish to retain Eversholt Lower School.
ƒ
Ashton CoE Middle School, who sent an A2 completed with pupil signatures in favour of
retaining the three-tier system as well as several hundred pupil letters expressing
support for retaining the current system.
ƒ
Westfield Middle School, who sent letters of support for retaining the current system from
their pupils.
ƒ
St George’s Lower School (35 signatures) who wish to retain the existing system.
Questionnaires of parents and/or pupils were held at the following schools:
ƒ
Houghton Regis Lower School (46 responses) – 50% in favour of retaining three-tier
system.
ƒ
Ashton Middle School (190 responses) – 93% in favour of retaining three-tier system
ƒ
Brewers Hill Middle School (85 responses) – 92% in favour of retaining three-tier system
ƒ
Five Oaks Middle School (52 responses) – 88% in favour of retaining three-tier system
ƒ
Kings Houghton Middle School (140 responses) – 77% in favour of retaining three-tier
system
ƒ
Priory Middle School (214 responses) – 87% in favour of retaining three-tier system
ƒ
Robert Bloomfield Middle School (371 responses) – 89% in favour of retaining three-tier
system
ƒ
Streetfield Middle School (154 responses) – 95% in favour of retaining three-tier system
ƒ
Millvale Middle School (100 responses) – 85% in favour of retaining three-tier system
ƒ
Hadrian Lower School (45 responses) – 87% in favour of retaining three-tier system.
ƒ
Gilbert Inglefield Middle School (84 responses) – 95% in favour of retaining three-tier
system.
The comments from these questionnaires are reflected in the report. Arguments advanced
for retention include: the three-tier system provides strong pastoral care and a graduated
progression through the school system, Middle Schools provide early exposure to specialist
teachers and facilities, disruption to education during a reorganisation, strong performance of
existing schools, lack of evidence to support a change in structure, concern about the
location of schooling if the system changes.
Page 75 of 82
Appendix Three: Postcode breakdown of written
responses
This table shows the postcode breakdown for responses to the Consultation Leaflet, the
questionnaire within the Bedfordshire Magazine, and website responses to the online
questionnaire.
LU1
LU2
LU3
LU4
LU5
LU6
LU7
MK17
MK40
MK41
MK42
MK43
MK44
MK45
MK46
SG5
SG15
SG16
SG17
SG18
SG19
Total
Consultation
Leaflet
27
0
11
15
227
190
344
80
267
199
223
267
98
433
9
38
10
44
98
121
163
2864
Bedfordshire
Magazine
30
0
0
0
128
116
29
4
7
15
8
16
5
29
0
7
2
3
9
9
4
421
Website
23
2
7
13
172
135
140
31
127
210
47
334
207
183
1
18
2
17
31
52
51
1803
Total
80
2
18
28
527
441
513
115
401
424
278
617
310
645
10
63
14
64
138
182
218
5088
The total information for each postcode area is shown graphically in Figure 5.
Page 76 of 82
Appendix Four: Council priority areas for improvement
This table details responses regarding future County Council priorities. Respondents were
asked to:
“Please tick the most important issues from this list for the council to consider in working to
raise standards in Bedfordshire schools.”
The available options were:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Improving the performance of existing schools
Whether pupils change school during Key Stages
The number of times pupils change schools
Whether Bedfordshire operates the same system as most other parts of the Country
Recruitment of headteachers and teachers
Addressing surplus places and demographic growth
Total
School Staff
Parent
School
Governor
Total
School Staff
Parent
School
Governor
Change
in Key
Stage
Number
of
changes
Same
system
Surplus
places
Total
responses
Improving
performance
3896
851
3438
3319
642
2988
1042
248
929
859
182
774
497
129
446
1995
381
1778
818
150
715
736
583
228
159
122
339
130
Recruitment
%
respondents
saying
improving
performance
%
respondents
saying
changing in
KS
%
respondents
saying
number of
changes
%
respondents
saying same
system
%
respondents
saying
recruitment
%
respondents
saying
surplus
places
85.19
75.44
86.91
26.75
29.14
27.02
22.05
21.39
22.51
12.76
15.16
12.97
51.21
44.77
51.72
21.00
17.63
20.80
79.21
30.98
21.60
16.58
46.06
17.66
The Total Responses figures include all respondents who identified themselves as from this
respondent type and who also answered this question. If a respondent identified themselves
as a ‘school staff’ and also a ‘parent’ their response will be in each line. The total row (the
first row of data), however, only counts each Leaflet/web response as a single unique entry –
hence this row contains fewer responses than the sum of the other rows.
These results are shown pictorially in Figure 6.
Page 77 of 82
The following tables only show results where in total 100 or more responses were received
from that postcode area with this question completed.
LU5
LU6
LU7
MK17
MK40
MK41
MK42
MK43
MK44
MK45
SG17
SG18
SG19
LU5
LU6
LU7
MK17
MK40
MK41
MK42
MK43
MK44
MK45
SG17
SG18
SG19
Total
responses
Improving
performance
399
325
484
111
394
409
270
601
305
616
129
173
214
288
253
376
98
285
216
201
270
123
462
106
122
177
Change
in Key
Stage
Number
of
changes
86
72
116
12
49
95
72
101
44
174
28
49
49
Same
system
73
50
69
16
47
90
71
94
30
126
28
35
47
Recruitment
39
20
55
8
34
54
48
48
13
77
18
28
16
189
125
210
59
243
136
143
145
74
285
61
76
92
Surplus
places
48
62
81
10
187
47
78
69
30
70
20
38
17
%
respondents
saying
improving
performance
%
respondents
saying
changing in
KS
%
respondents
saying
number of
changes
%
respondents
saying same
system
%
respondents
saying
recruitment
%
respondents
saying
surplus
places
72.18
77.85
77.69
88.29
72.34
52.81
74.44
44.93
40.33
75.00
82.17
70.52
82.71
21.55
22.15
23.97
10.81
12.44
23.23
26.67
16.81
14.43
28.25
21.71
28.32
22.90
18.30
15.38
14.26
14.41
11.93
22.00
26.30
15.64
9.84
20.45
21.71
20.23
21.96
9.77
6.15
11.36
7.21
8.63
13.20
17.78
7.99
4.26
12.50
13.95
16.18
7.48
47.37
38.46
43.39
53.15
61.68
33.25
52.96
24.13
24.26
46.27
47.29
43.93
42.99
12.03
19.08
16.74
9.01
47.46
11.49
28.89
11.48
9.84
11.36
15.50
21.97
7.94
These results are shown in Figure 7.
Page 78 of 82
Appendix Five: Preferences for the system for the future
All respondents, through all response methods, were asked to state their preference for the
most appropriate future system. The question, however, was phrased differently for the pupil
questionnaire to ensure it was in keeping with the style of the overall document (i.e.
statements to agree/disagree with).
Total
Total
Total
responses
6302
Answered:
% retain
65.34
Retain
current
system
3403
Total
answers
5208
Answered:
% change
at 11
23.18
Change
at 11
1207
Answered:
% tertiary
5.97
Tertiary
311
Answered:
% all
through
2.65
All
through
138
Mixed
Economy
149
Answered:
% mixed
2.86
[This determines the statistic as a proportion of respondents who answered this question]
The following two tables indicate the variation in the response of parents between different
methods of response:
Parent Overall (4146)
Public Meeting (539)
Bedfordshire Magazine
(332)
Consultation Leaflet
(2843)
Website (864)
Parent Overall (4146)
Public Meeting (539)
Bedfordshire Magazine
(332)
Consultation Leaflet
(2843)
Website (864)
Total
responses
4146
539
Total
answers
4320
515
Retain
2854
455
Change
at 11
962
45
Tertiary
270
All
through
104
9
Mixed
130
6
332
330
291
24
5
3
7
2843
864
2861
614
1676
432
790
103
244
21
79
13
72
45
Answered:
% retain
66.06
88.35
Answered:
% change
at 11
22.27
8.74
Answered:
% tertiary
6.25
0.00
Answered:
% all
through
2.41
1.75
Answered:
% mixed
3.01
1.17
88.18
7.27
1.52
0.91
2.12
58.58
70.36
27.61
16.78
8.53
3.42
2.76
2.12
2.52
7.33
[This determines the statistic as a proportion of respondents who answered this question]
Page 79 of 82
The following tables examine the response to this question by postcode (including all
respondent types). Postcodes are only included if 100 or more responses to this question
were received from that postcode.
LU5
LU6
LU7
MK17
MK40
MK41
MK42
MK43
MK44
MK45
SG17
SG18
SG19
LU5
LU6
LU7
MK17
MK40
MK41
MK42
MK43
MK44
MK45
SG17
SG18
SG19
Total
responses
527
441
513
115
401
424
278
617
310
645
138
182
218
Answered:
% retain
77.71
83.42
65.48
71.43
72.17
40.99
48.24
44.15
52.14
58.85
73.23
54.22
61.84
Total
answers
462
386
478
105
327
283
255
342
140
576
127
166
207
Retain
359
322
313
75
236
116
123
151
73
339
93
90
128
Answered:
% change
at 11
12.99
10.10
21.34
12.38
18.35
41.34
32.94
38.01
22.14
29.51
17.32
28.31
22.22
Change
at 11
60
39
102
13
60
117
84
130
31
170
22
47
46
Answered:
% tertiary
5.41
2.07
6.49
3.81
4.89
9.54
13.73
9.94
14.29
6.60
3.94
12.05
9.18
All
through
5
5
10
1
12
17
12
7
5
16
2
5
5
Tertiary
25
8
31
4
16
27
35
34
20
38
5
20
19
Answered:
% all
through
1.08
1.30
2.09
0.95
3.67
6.01
4.71
2.05
3.57
2.78
1.57
3.01
2.42
Mixed
13
12
22
12
3
6
1
20
11
13
5
4
9
Answered:
% mixed
2.81
3.11
4.60
11.43
0.92
2.12
0.39
5.85
7.86
2.26
3.94
2.41
4.35
[This determines the statistic as a proportion of respondents who answered this question]
Page 80 of 82
Appendix Six: Views regarding primary phase schooling
Figure 18 illustrated the views of Lower School headteachers and Governors regarding what
should happen within the primary phase if Bedfordshire County Council reorganise to a
change-at-11 system. The table below details all of the responses to the individual
questionnaires that were used throughout the stage 2 workshops and at all seven public
meetings.
The question asked was: “If the decision is taken to adopt a change-at-11 system, what is
your preference regarding the primary phase?”
The available responses were:
ƒ Prefer primary schools
ƒ Prefer infant/junior schools
ƒ Mixture based on local circumstances
Responses
Primary
Infant/Junior
Mixture
Answered:
Primary
Total
Percentages
Answered:
Infant/Junior
Answered:
Mixture
Governor: Lower School
41
15
65
121
33.88
12.40
53.72
Governor: Middle
21
16
34
71
29.58
22.54
47.89
Governor: Upper
5
6
12
23
21.74
26.09
52.17
Head: Lower School
31
19
25
75
41.33
25.33
33.33
Head: Middle School
6
1
11
18
33.33
5.56
61.11
Head: Upper School
2
1
7
10
20.00
10.00
70.00
Staff: Lower School
17
22
27
66
25.76
33.33
40.91
Staff: Middle School
8
7
8
23
34.78
30.43
34.78
Staff: Upper School
0
6
5
11
0.00
54.55
45.45
Teacher: Lower School
12
5
14
31
38.71
16.13
45.16
Teacher: Middle School
8
12
19
39
20.51
30.77
48.72
Teacher: Upper School
2
1
7
10
20.00
10.00
70.00
66
85
140
291
22.68
29.21
48.11
Parent: Lower School
Parent: Middle School
55
61
117
233
23.61
26.18
50.21
Parent: Upper School
27
23
54
104
25.96
22.12
51.92
PM - LC1
39
55
69
163
23.93
33.74
42.33
PM - LC2
15
20
38
73
20.55
27.40
52.05
PM - LC3
11
19
52
82
13.41
23.17
63.41
PM - LC4
10
5
8
23
43.48
21.74
34.78
PM - LC5
5
2
8
15
33.33
13.33
53.33
PM - LC6
22
19
20
61
36.07
31.15
32.79
PM - LC7
24
10
54
88
27.27
11.36
61.36
PM = Public Meeting.
The percentages are based upon those respondents who answered this question.
Page 81 of 82
Appendix Seven: Post 16 Provision
Figure 19 illustrated the views of current Y10 pupils regarding where they may wish to
undertake post-16 education. The individual questionnaires that were used throughout the
stage 2 workshops and at all seven public meetings asked respondents to consider what
system of post-16 provision they would favour if Bedfordshire County Council were to adopt
a change-at-11 system for statutory age education.
The question asked was: “If the decision is taken to adopt a change-at-11 system, what is
your preference regarding post-16?”
The available responses were:
ƒ All schools retain Sixth Forms
ƒ
Some areas have 11-16 schools and Colleges, some have 11-18 schools
11-16 schools and FE/Sixth Form Colleges throughout Bedfordshire
ƒ
Respondents
School
Mixture of
Sixth
school and
Schools
Tertiary
Percentages
Tertiary
Answered:
school
Total
Answered:
Mixture
Answered:
tertiary
Governor: Lower
57
51
10
118
48.31
43.22
8.47
Governor: Middle
27
25
14
66
40.91
37.88
21.21
Governor: Upper
16
10
1
27
59.26
37.04
3.70
Head: Lower School
37
27
7
71
52.11
38.03
9.86
Head: Middle School
6
4
9
19
31.58
21.05
47.37
Head: Upper School
7
3
0
10
70.00
30.00
0.00
Staff: Lower School
26
30
12
68
38.24
44.12
17.65
Staff: Middle School
12
9
5
26
46.15
34.62
19.23
Staff: Upper School
7
2
2
11
63.64
18.18
18.18
Teacher: Lower School
16
8
3
27
59.26
29.63
11.11
Teacher: Middle School
23
8
10
41
56.10
19.51
24.39
Teacher: Upper School
4
6
1
11
36.36
54.55
9.09
Parent: Lower School
168
88
40
296
56.76
29.73
13.51
Parent: Middle School
134
82
24
240
55.83
34.17
10.00
Parent: Upper School
80
30
5
115
69.57
26.09
4.35
Resident
77
54
25
156
49.36
34.62
16.03
PM - LC1
123
31
19
173
71.10
17.92
10.98
PM - LC2
34
30
13
77
44.16
38.96
16.88
PM - LC3
51
19
11
81
62.96
23.46
13.58
PM - LC4
11
7
2
20
55.00
35.00
10.00
PM - LC5
8
5
2
15
53.33
33.33
13.33
PM - LC6
47
11
10
68
69.12
16.18
14.71
PM - LC7
29
42
11
82
35.37
51.22
13.41
PM = Public Meeting.
The percentages are based upon those respondents who answered this question.
Page 82 of 82
Review of School Structures
Report of the Member Working Group
Annex 3
Review of School Structures
Four S Research Findings
a)
Analysis and evaluation of OFSTED reports
b)
The size and impact of the independent sector within
Bedfordshire
c)
A two year Key Stage 3 curriculum
d)
Bedfordshire ethnic groups compared to statistical
neighbour and other Local Authorities with a similar
ethnic makeup
e)
Evaluation of GCSE results in 11 to 16 and 11 to 18
schools within Bedfordshire’s statistical neighbours
f)
Performance of Luton in comparison with its
statistical neighbours
Analysis and evaluation of OfSTED Reports of Bedfordshire
Lower, Middle and Upper Schools (Sept 2003 to May 2006)
Purpose
To find out whether recent OfSTED reports can help to identify reasons for underperformance at KS2
and beyond and to determine whether these reasons can be linked to the current school structure
Context
90 schools have had OfSTED reports posted since Sept 2003, 21 Middle Schools, 60 Lower Schools
and 9 Upper Schools. Sizes of schools and available value added measures were also considered
alongside the inspection reports. Demographic and Free School Meal data is taken into account by
OfSTED, so has not been factored in further at this stage.
Focus
The research focused on issues relevant to standards, achievement and progress within school
structure as it currently is in Bedfordshire, for example
• teaching, learning and progress especially where judgements differ between key stages within
one school or where judged inappropriate for the age or stage of pupils;
• assessment and the use of assessment data to track progress, this impacts directly not only on
pupils’ progress, but on any school’s ability to rationalise, articulate and evidence evaluations
of their own performance in relation to pupils’ achievements;
• curricular provision where specifically commented on and relevant;
• links with other schools, particularly feeder and receiving schools where the transfer of
information is essential to ensure progress, as is the pastoral care for pupils at points of
transfer.
Positive judgements in these areas were also noted.
Where there were differences in judgements for example in quality of teaching or progress
between two key stages, these were not noted if both judgements were good or better, nor was
implied criticism of a key stage read into reports by omission, i.e. where the other key stage
received particularly positive commentary.
Where assessment was judged good in core subjects but needing development in foundation
subjects this was not noted as significant.
Other issues were noted simply because of frequency of occurrence.
Time constraints prevented a detailed analysis of curricular provision, but it was not a significant
feature of the reports.
Inspection and reporting requirements changed in Sept 2005. There is now less detail and
commentary, making it a little more difficult to identify specifics. Also inspections of schools
coming out of a category are reported differently, which again made the identification of relevant
issues problematic in a few cases.
Page 1 of 10
Findings
Of the 81 schools inspected, most, (94%) were graded Satisfactory or better overall, and 65%
were judged to be Good or better. 11% were judged Very Good
Only one Lower School (Elstow) has been graded better than good since November 2004, and no
Middle School has been judged better than good overall since March 2004. No Upper School has
been graded higher than good/grade 2 since before September 2003. Overall school grade
judgements are better in Lower Schools at all levels than in Middle Schools.
Leadership and Management grades are also better in Lower Schools. Leadership and
management judgements include evaluation of the effectiveness of governors and senior staff as
well as headteachers; it is the overall grade which has been used. The leadership of the
headteacher was often judged to be better than the overall grade for Leadership and
Management, especially where a new head is in post, this is true in both phases, but is more
noticeable in Middle School reports, especially where schools are coming out of a category or a
period of instability. Leadership and Management grades in Upper Schools are the same as the
overall grade in all 9 cases.
Slightly over half of all schools were identified as having relevant issues. Relevant issues are less
prevalent in Lower Schools. (See Table 1) By far the most frequently occurring issue, in both
phases, is assessment; both the day to day use of assessment in order to match work to pupils’
abilities and the use of assessment information or data to track pupils’ progress; this is an issue in
one third of schools overall, but is far more widespread in Middle Schools. The next most
frequently occurring issue is in relation to Key Stage 2 provision, this is an issue in around one
quarter of schools, but is more prevalent in Lower Schools.
Links and transfer arrangements were graded as effective in almost all schools where reports
covered this aspect.
Table 1: Grades and Issues
OfSTED
V.G. +
Overall
G+
Grade
S+
Leadership
V.G. +
&
G+
Management
S+
% schools with relevant
–ve issues as specified
% schools with specific
assessment related
issues
Key Stage 2 specific
issues
ALL SCHOOLS
11%
65%
94%
16%
62%
100%
54%
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
5%
52%
81%
14%
43%
100%
90%
LOWER SCHOOLS
13%
70%
98%
17%
68%
100%
42%
33%
67%
22%
26%
24%
27%
Page 2 of 10
Lower Schools
No Lower School has issues in KS1 but not KS2. However, 25 of the 60 (42%) are identified as having
relevant issues within KS2 or with assessment or the use of assessment data to track progress, some
have both. However, a similar number (24) are judged to have good assessment systems.
NOR
The size of Lower Schools varies considerably. Schools in the inspection reports range from a NOR of
40 to 321. The small schools, those with fewer than 100 on roll, tend to have been given better overall
grades by OfSTED. Fewer of these small schools have relevant issues identified but they are slightly
less likely to have Leadership and Management grades of Good or better. The small schools also add
more NC points Y2-4 on average compared with schools with more than 100 pupils, but they still do
not, on average, achieve the expected 6 points from Y2 to Y4. (See Table 2)
Table 2: Size of Lower Schools
NOR
OfSTED Overall
grade Good or
better
<100
84%
100+
63%
All
70%
Leadership &
Management grade
Issues identified
Value Added
Y2-4 points gained
65%
70%
68%
30%
47%
42%
5.4
5.0
5.1
Value Added
Analysis suggests that there is little direct relationship between OfSTED grades and Y2-4 added
points as currently measured. (see table 3). Although at opposite ends of the scale one school
graded Outstanding added 7.1 points on average, and another adding only 2.3 was graded
Satisfactory, the relationship between the two measures in between these two extremes does not
follow a pattern. Indeed, two schools judged to be Very Good by OfSTED added only 4 points on
average, and one adding 6.9 was graded only Satisfactory. Of course OfSTED inspections focus
on far more than quantifiable progress measures between two points but all of the inspections
involved fell within the same time frame as the points gained, i.e. 2003 to 2005. Similar
proportions of schools above and below 6 pts have issues such as assessment identified, but
schools with lower added points are, not surprisingly, more likely to be identified as having KS2
issues. It should be noted that point gains in Maths were considerably lower than in English, but
only a few reports picked out maths in KS2 as a specific issue.
Almost one quarter of Lower Schools have issues relating to provision for more able or higher
attaining pupils, which would impact on higher level attainment at KS1 and Y4 as well as the
progress and achievement of those pupils.
Table 3: NC Points gained and OfSTED grades
NC points gained
Number of schools
% OfSTED Good or
Y2-4 (2003 –2005)
better
<5
25
69%
5-6
19
74%
6+
16
69%
All
60
70%
Page 3 of 10
Identified KS2 issues
36%
21%
19%
27%
Only one Lower School is identified as having curricular issues. Almost all Lower Schools inspected
before Sept 2005 when reporting requirements changed, are judged to have at least good links with
other schools including the Middle Schools to which their pupils transfer.
Middle Schools
Analysis of Middle Schools’ reports suggests that in general the quality of education provided by
them is not as strong as that in Lower schools (see table 1). Of the seven Middle schools
inspected in the last year, only two have been graded better than satisfactory
No Middle school has been graded better than Good since March 2004.
All but two of the Middle Schools have weaknesses that are relevant. 5 have weaknesses in KS2,
a further 2 have weaknesses in the quality of teaching which would also impact on KS2 and 1 a
general progress issue, thus 8 (38%) have issues which are likely to impact on the achievement of
KS2 pupils. Assessment is an issue in 14 (67%) of the schools and in only 2 is it praised.
NOR
The 21 Middle Schools range in size from 187 pupils to 765. Those in the mid size range have the
better OfSTED grades overall, and are better graded for Leadership and Management.
The negative issues are spread across the size range, but it is noticeable that it is only those in
the mid range which have relevant positive judgements; quality of teaching, KS2, assessment,
and progress. It would seem that size could be a factor in being able to make appropriate
provision; all schools identified with KS2 issues are larger than 480 pupils.
Table 4: NOR and grades for Middle Schools
NOR
Number of schools
421
6
422-530
10
531
5
% Good or better
17%
80%
40%
L & M Good or better
0%
70%
40%
Value Added (DfES CVA and point gains)
There is a much stronger correlation between Value added measures and OfSTED grades in
Middle Schools. Again this is most noticeable at the extremes. It is to be expected that the
availability of data in Middle Schools will influence judgements made, albeit that the greatest
emphasis is placed on KS2 results and KS1 to KS2 progress. That said, issues of assessment
and quality of teaching are found across the spectrum of value added, both CVA and points
gained.
Although there are Lower Schools with Y2-4 added points exceeding 6, the LA average is only 5.3
and Data in the Middle Schools Pupil Performance Report shows no Middle School receiving a
cohort with greater than 6 points progress in either writing or maths and only a handful in reading.
The data in this report suggests that progress made by pupils in Y4-6 exceeds that of the same
pupils in Y2-4, even when it does not meet the 6 point expectation and that pupils go on to make
even greater progress in years 6 to 8. It is difficult to reconcile this with the pronounced difference
in OfSTED judgements between the two phases.
Page 4 of 10
Upper Schools
Of the nine schools inspected since 2003, 4 were graded as satisfactory and 5 were graded as good.
The grades for leadership and management followed the same pattern. In 2005, schools which
achieved KS3 results higher than or around the national average point score at Key Stage 3 scored
higher than the national average at GCSE (5 or more grades A*-C), with one exception (Manshead).
Value added scores for eight schools were above the national median of 989.1, with three schools
over 1000. However, progress was rated as only satisfactory in four of the nine schools.
A notable feature of the majority of the reports was the recognition that the curriculum was good, with
significant flexibility to meet the needs of all learners. The quality of pupils’ well-being was also good in
all but one school, although in three schools the behaviour of a minority of pupils was a cause for
concern. One or more of the core subjects was a weakness in seven of the schools.
Other Common Themes
Other issues noted incidentally because of the frequency with which they appeared were:
the need to make better provision for more able, or higher attaining pupils which was picked up in
a number of reports across the phases and of course impacts on attainment at higher levels and
therefore school performance measures. This was an issue in about one quarter of both Lower
and Middle Schools;
leadership and management by subject leaders was also criticised in many reports, mainly in their
monitoring of and support for other teachers and standards in the their specialist subjects. Similar
proportions i.e. around one quarter of schools in each phase, were involved;
marking, particularly the inconsistent use of marking to enable pupils to know how to improve
their work, which whilst an aspect of assessment, was not as relevant to the study
the failure to comply with statutory requirements in the provision of collective worship was
surprisingly common
and in some, even good or very good schools, the need to improve the presentation of work.
Page 5 of 10
Conclusion
Children in KS2 seem to be the most vulnerable to weaknesses up to Y8, i.e. the end of Middle
School. According to OfSTED reports, issues relating to pupils in KS2 are slightly more prevalent in
Lower Schools than in Middle Schools, i.e. Years 3 and 4. Data on Y2-4 average point score gains
would seem to endorse this, which would support the view that the KS2 decline often begins in Lower
Schools.
Apart from general quality of teaching issues in particular schools, the most significant weakness
impacting on pupils’ progress is a lack of rigour in assessment systems to identify their levels of ability
and attainment and to track their progress towards targets. This is exacerbated by a change in schools
at the midpoint in KS2, when there is no compulsory, externally validated assessment of their
attainment, nor is there therefore, national data which schools, the Local Authority or indeed OfSTED
can use to base their comparative judgements. It may be that this is why assessment has been
criticised by OfSTED so regularly, because their need to evaluate the progress made by pupils not at
end of key stages has highlighted the lack of evidence available in individual schools.
So, added to potential weakness in Y3 and Y4, there is limited, unvalidated assessment of outcomes
at Y4, often combined with weak in-house assessment and tracking systems. This is then exacerbated
by similar weaknesses in assessment combined with sometimes poorer quality provision, sometimes
also particular to KS2 in Middle Schools. Any weaknesses in provision or assessment in Middle
Schools will also, of course, impact on pupils at the beginning of KS3, who may have already been
disadvantaged by the system.
There is an enormous amount of data available to schools, particularly Middle Schools, but because of
the need to make comparative judgements of attainment and progress Y4 –Y8 there is a need for
more rigorous tracking in schools and some study into the measures used; the data needs to tell
people what they need to know and it needs to be accurate. For example, the validity and accuracy of
Y2-4 measures; if pupils make as little progress as suggested by this data one would expect a far
greater proportion than 27% of Lower Schools to have progress in Key Stage 2 highlighted as an
issue by OfSTED. One problem in this example may be the translation of NC levels to NC points. For
example a pupil assessed at L3 at the end of KS1 may be assessed by the school as a L3C, i.e. just
into Level 3, but data transfer will translate that L3 as 21 points, not the 19 which Teacher Assessment
would give it. Any pupils at this level will therefore apparently lose 2 points of potential progress
between then and Y4 or indeed beyond. It is important that any tracking system is not just rigorous,
but that it is accurate and trusted by all who use it.
Within Upper Schools, weaknesses are identified in at least one core subject in seven of the nine
schools assessed, which is likely to have an impact upon KS results.
Report Date: May 2006
Report Version: Final
Report Client: Bedfordshire County Council
© VT Four S
Page 6 of 10
Lower Schools
Phase
NOR
Y2-4
NC
OfSTED
Grade
LM
Grade
Positive
Aspects
Negative
Aspects
All Saints
Ashton
Aspley
L
L
L
152
154
94
6.3
6.1
7.1
Oct-03
Oct-05
Dec-03
VG
S
G
VG
S
G
Y3/4,
QT, P, L
Y1/2
L
A
KS2, A,
Balliol
L
220
2.4
Nov-04
G
G
A, Y3/4,
L
Beaudesert
Beecroft
L
L
211
206
4.3
4.6
Jun-05
Oct-05
G
G
G
G
School
Caldecote
Carlton
Chalton
Dunstable
Icknield
Eaton Bray
Elstow
Eversholt
Flitwick
Gothic Mede
Gravenhurst
Hadrian
Hawthorn Park
L
L
L
68
58
67
5.9
5.1
4.4
Nov-05
Nov-04
Apr-04
S
VG
S
S
VG
S
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
313
99
238
74
261
215
40
224
240
5.8
5.1
7.1
6
3.1
2.8
6.4
5.7
4.7
Oct-04
Apr-04
Nov-05
Dec-05
Nov-04
Jun-05
Nov-04
Nov-03
Oct-05
G
VG
O
G
G
G
S
G
S
G
VG
O
G
G
VG
S
VG
S
Haynes
Hazeldene
Heathfield
Houghton Regis
Husborne
Crawley
L
L
L
L
49
432
160
239
6.2
5.5
4.6
5.7
Nov-04
Oct-03
Sep-05
Sep-04
G
G
US
S
G
S
S
S
L
57
4
Sep-04
VG
VG
John Donne
Kingsmoor
Langford
Lark Rise
Linslade
Maple Tree
Meppershall
Milton Ernest
Oakley
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
94
255
192
246
213
209
94
61
158
6.4
6.5
3.4
4.9
5.1
5.5
4.1
6
6.9
Sep-04
Sep-04
Oct-05
Oct-04
Jan-06
Oct-03
Mar-05
Jan-05
Apr-05
G
G
G
VG
S
G
G
G
S
S
G
G
E
S
G
G
G
G
Page 7 of 10
P, L
Other
Aspects
Ma
HAPs, Marking
Y4,
HAPs, P
T
Marking
HAPs, Ma,
Marking,
SubCos
A*
L
Y1/2, L
A, L
A
L
A, L
L
Y4, L
L
A, L
L
A,P,
KS2
KS2
SubCos
KS2
Accom KS2
Y4
Ma, Marking
SubCos
A
A,
KS2Ma
KS2Ma
KS2P
A
HAPs
HAPs
Targets,
SubCos
Marking
P
A, L
P, A
A, C, L
L
L
A, L
L
SubCos
Ma
HAPs, SubCos
Y3/4?
A
HAPs, SubCos
SubCos
A
SubCos, HAPs
Priory
Putnoe
Queens Park
Renhold
Ridgmont
Roecroft
Roxton
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
135
258
449
100
67
140
40
6.5
4
4.8
5.5
5.3
5.7
6.5
Mar-04
Mar-04
Sep-05
Oct-04
Sep-05
Oct-05
Oct-03
G
VG
G
VG
G
G
G
G
VG
G
VG
G
G
G
Scott
Sharnbrook
Shefford
Shortstown
Southcott
Southill
St Andrews
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
174
134
291
136
265
69
435
4
5.9
5.6
5.4
4.9
5.2
4.4
Feb-05
Jan-05
Oct-05
Nov-05
Mar-04
Jan-05
Jun-05
S
G
G
S
G
G
S
S
G
G
S
G
S
S
St James
St John Rigby
St Josephs
St Marys
L
L
L
L
95
321
293
227
2.3
6.3
5.6
5.5
Sep-05
May-05
May-04
Oct-05
S
S
S
G
S
G
S
G
St Swithuns
Sundon
L
L
157
75
4.9
5.6
Oct-05
Oct-05
S
G
S
G
Thomas
Whitehead
Thornhill
Thurleigh
Totternhoe
Ursula Taylor
L
L
L
L
L
229
201
51
111
218
3.9
6.3
4.3
4.5
3.4
Oct-04
Nov-03
Jan-05
Oct-03
Jan-06
G
S
G
G
G
G
S
G
G
G
Willington
Willowfield
L
L
56
129
6.1
4.5
Oct-05
Jan-06
G
G
G
G
Wootton
L
297
3.9
Sep-05
S
S
A
L, A
Marking
C*, A, L
A
A
A, KS2P,
QT
A, L
A
A
A, L
A, L
A
A, L
A
KS1=G
KS2
Y3 Y4*,
A
QT? A
A
SubCos, HAPs
QTKS2,
A
HAPs
A, C
Y4Ma
KS2=S
KS2P,
Ma
Key to Abbreviations [used across all tables]
* = Extreme judgement
** = not all available from report
6 = Sixth Form
A = Assessment
AfL = Assessment for Learning
C=Curriculum
En = English
HAPs = Higher Attaining or more
able pupils
L = Links
LM = Leadership and Management
Ma = Maths
NOR = Number on Roll
Page 8 of 10
SubCos
SubCos
HAPs
Marking
Marking
SubCos
SubCos
P = Progress
PD = Personal Development
and Well-being
QT = Quality of Teaching
RR = Recruitment & Retention
Sc = Science
SubCos = Subject Coordinators/leaders
SubCos, HAPs
SubCos
HAPs
Targets,
Marking
HAPs, Targets
HAPs
Middle Schools
School
Abbey
Alban VA
Arnold
Ashton CE
Beauchamp
Brewers Hill
Burgoyne
Phase
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
NOR
235
457
562
621
517
324
337
Y4-6
pts
6.7
5.8
5.1
5.7
5.8
6.4
6.4
VA (05)
99.6
100.4
99.7
99.8
99.3
98.9
100.2
VA
coverage
96%
97%
99%
97%
97%
94%
100%
OfSTED
Dec-04
Nov-03
Jan-04
Mar-04
Nov-05
May-05
Oct-04
Grade
I
G
U/A
G
S
S
G
LM
grade
S
S
S
G
S
S
S
Positive
Aspects
Negative
Aspects
L
A
C, A, QT
Etonbury
Five Oaks
Harrowden
M
M
M
486
187
421
6.1
3.8
6.8
100
97.7
99.1
99%
92%
95%
Apr-04
Sep-05
Nov-04
S
U/S
S
G
S
S
L
6.4
7.1
Holmemead
Holywell CE
Kings
Houghton
Leighton
Mill Vale
M
M
512
528
6.9
6.1
7.8
7.5
99
99.8
98%
96%
Mar-04
Nov-04
G
G
VG
G
M
M
M
462
467
560
6.9
6.4
5
9
8.9
8.3
99.9
100
98.8
96%
97%
95%
Jun-05
Jan-04
Nov-05
G
G
NtoI
VG
G
S
A, Y5/6
QT, A, L
Parkfields
Priory
Robert Bruce
Sandye Place
Woodland
Woodside
M
M
M
M
M
M
483
530
750
424
765
223
5.4
5.9
6.4
6.8
6.3
6.5
95%
97%
98%
96%
100%
85%
Mar-04
Nov-04
Feb-04
Jan-06
Nov-04
May-05
VG
G
G
G
S
S
VG
S
G
G
S
S
P, S,L
8.1
100
99.6
98.7
101.4
99.8
99.6
Y6-8**
7.4
7.7
8.2
7.9
7.3
5.8
Page 9 of 10
Other
Aspects
L
L
L
Y7/8, A,
L
Y5/6 QT
L
L
A
RR, A,
A,
A*,
Y5/6Ma
P
QT, A
Y5/6QT P
Y7/8 QT
Links
(Usch)
Y5/6P, A
KS2A,
(QT)
RR, A
Y5/6 A
A,
A,
A,
SubCos
SubCos
SubCos
Y5/6HAPs
SubCos
HAPs
HAPs
Upper Schools
NOR
819
1198
616
1361
1109
KS3
2005
33.2
36.3
29.4
36.9
34.3
VA 2-4
(2005)
993.9
997.4
1007.7
996.2
1005.2
GCSE
(2005)
43
65
45
63
60
OfSTED
2003
2005
2005
2005
2005
Grade
2
3
2
2
2
LM
Grade
2
3
2
2
2
U
U
1140
1174
34.5
34
984.5
997.2
51
57
2005
2006
3
3
3
3
PD, 6
U
782
32.8
993.3
49
2005
3
3
U
1220
37.1
1014.6
67
2004
2
2
PD
QT, C,
A, 6
School
Biddenham
Harlington
John Bunyan
Redborne
Stratton
Phase
U
U
U
U
U
Manshead
Queensbury
St Thomas
More
Wootton
[Note – Grades used are from the 2005 Ofsted framework]
Page 10 of 10
Positive
Aspects
AC
C
C QT
QT L
A QT C
Negative
Aspects
En Ma
En
Sc
AfL En
En Sc
QT
C Sc
En Sc
Middle School Ofsted evaluations
Comparison was made with:
1. other LAs with Middle schools having reports available within same time frame
2. national data (primary and secondary, just in case of differences and because cross Key Stage 2/3)
Other LAs:
i. Suffolk (17 Middle School Reports)
ii. Northumberland (16)
iii. West Sussex (6), Isle of Wight (4), Milton Keynes (2) and Northampton (1) taken together because of
numbers/validity
O/E/VG = Outstanding (Sept ’05 on)/ Excellent/Very Good,
G = Good, S = Satisfactory, <S = unsatisfactory (including Notice to improve and underachieving) or poor
Overall
Grade
Suffolk
(17)
O/E/VG 0
0%
G+
G
12 71% 71%
S
4
24%
<S
1
6%
Leadership
O/E/VG 3
&
G
7
Management
S
6
<S
1
Assessment
issues
18% G+
41% 59%
35%
6%
11 65%
G+
35
Northumberland
(16)
4
25% G+
10 63% 88%
2
12%
0
0%
Others
(13)
1 8%
G+
9 69% 77%
3 23%
0 0%
All 3 tier exc
Beds together
5
10% G+
31 67% 77%
9
20%
1
2%
Beds
(21)
1
5%
G+
10 48% 52%
7
33%
3
14%
National
Primary
19% G+
49% 68%
27%
4%
National
Secondary
26% G+
44% 70%
23%
7%
4
10
2
0
25% G+
63% 88%
12%
0%
2
8
3
0
9
25
11
1
3
6
12
0
27% G+
46% 73%
23%
4%
31%
45%
19%
5%
4
25%
8 73%
75
15% G+
62% 77%
23%
0%
27
Page 1 of 4
20% G+
54% 74%
24%
2%
23 50%
50
14% G+
29% 43%
57%
0%
14 67%
33
G+
48%
G+
76%
G+
48%
With assessment being the most apparent issue from analysis of Bedfordshire’s own Ofsted reports, this was tracked in other
reports. Assessment is graded lower than other measures generally both in primary and secondary schools nationally. You could
assume that issues were not identified in schools where assessment was graded good or better (or vice versa) but that is not certain
statistically, certainly not without checking it out and doing some comparisons with, for instance, Suffolk Primaries. Illustrative figures
for Good + are shown as the bottom line of the table above in italics to highlight the lower confidence level.
As can be seen, Bedfordshire Middle Schools do not compare well with other Middles or nationally in overall judgments or
Leadership and Management grades. The identification of assessment/data issues seems to be common to other 3 tier (except
Northumberland), and is less strong nationally – this would need further research, but does not alter the fact that it needs urgent
attention in Beds.
A similar project could be undertaken to compare the performance of Upper Schools, but the smaller sample size must be
remembered.
National Comparisons
National comparisons are available through HMCI Reports. Four S used Good or better as the key measure. The Bedfordshire
Middle School comparisons for below satisfactory are double secondary average and 3.5 times primary average
Overall
effectiveness
Leadership and
Management
National Good +
Pri/Sec
68%/70%
Beds Lower
Good +
70%
Beds Middle
Good +
52%
73%/76%
68%
43%
Note: National measure taken from HMCI Report 2005/2006, Beds measure from end of 2003 to current. Previous year measures
from HMCI varied by 1% at most.
Report Date: May 2006
Report Version: Final
Report Client: Bedfordshire County Council
© VT Four S
Page 2 of 4
Overall
Middle School Comparisons
5%
(10) 48%
i.e. 53% Good + comp to 68%
(6)29%
(3)14%
Bedfordshire could consider further evaluation of the
quality of teaching and learning
Bedfordshire could consider further evaluation of the
quality of assessment
Leadership & Management
(3)14% (6) 29%
(12) 57%
i.e. 43% Good + comp to 73%
Page 3 of 4
Overall
Middle School Comparisons
5
48
i.e. 53% Good + comp to 70%
Leadership & Management
14
29
57
i.e. 43% Good+ comp to 76%
Page 4 of 4
29
14
The size and impact of the independent sector within
Bedfordshire
This report analyses the percentage of pupils in independent schools in Aug 2004,
based upon available DfES figures (the figures are shown in the Tables on the
following page) and relates these to KS2 and KS4 performance to examine whether
a statistically valid correlation exists. The numbers in primary schools have been
calculated from those aged 5 to 11, and in secondary from ages 11 to 16. Part timers
(almost all below age 4) have been ignored. The figures for previous years are very
similar and so the 2004 figures have been used as a base for comparisons.
As may be seen from the table, Bedfordshire is ranked 8th out of 11 in terms of its
statistical neighbours for the percentage of primary aged pupils in independent
schools, with a percentage exactly in line with the national average. At secondary
level, Bedfordshire is ranked 3rd out of 11 for its percentage of secondary aged
pupils in independent schools, with a percentage 3 points higher than the national
average.
A Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was calculated between the
ranking of the independent school percentages and the reverse ranking (i.e. lowest
ranked as 1) of the KS2 average points score for each of the years 2003-2005. The
highest KS2 correlation was in 2003, at -0.45 but this is not high enough to suggest
any linear correlation between the percentage of pupils in independent schools and
results achieved at KS2. A similar exercise for the secondary aged pupils shows
even less correlation.
The DfES table of cross border movement (Jan 2005) shows that at secondary level,
95.4% of resident pupils attend schools maintained by Bedfordshire LA. This is well
above the average for England of 91.7%, and only Kent, Worcestershire, and West
Sussex of the statistical neighbours have higher percentages.
The analysis suggests that the proportion of Bedfordshire’s pupils in independent
schools is unlikely to be a factor in the relatively low performance of pupils when
compared to statistical neighbours at KS2 and KS4
Source Data:
DfES Pupils in Schools data, Aug 2004 (published January 2005)
DfES Local Authority cross-border movement data, Jan 2005
Report Date: May 2006
Report Version: Final
Report Client: Bedfordshire County Council
© VT Four S
Page 1 of 2
Primary Sector
ENGLAND (2)
Bedfordshire
Cheshire
Warwickshire
Worcestershire
Essex
Hertfordshire
Kent
West Sussex
Dorset
Gloucestershire
South
Gloucestershire
Total primary
age
(independents)
246920
2080
3500
2630
2510
6290
9280
8370
5090
2170
3610
Total all
primary
4299500
36770
58120
43370
45360
115300
97110
121660
62900
31550
49390
%
independent
5.7%
5.7%
6.0%
6.1%
5.5%
5.5%
9.6%
6.9%
8.1%
6.9%
7.3%
270
22870
1.2%
8
7
6
9
10
1
4
2
5
3
KS2 av
point
(2003)
27.4
27.4
27.9
27.8
27.3
27.6
28.1
27.1
27.7
27.7
28
11
27.7
Rank
Pri Phase
Pearson
ind/2003
rank
(reverse)
KS2 av
point
(2004)
27.5
27.5
27.9
27.9
27.5
27.5
28.1
27
27.6
28
28
3
9
8
2
4
11
1
5
5
10
5
Pri Phase
Pearson
ind/2004
Rank
(reverse)
2
6
6
2
2
10
1
5
8
8
28.1
10
-0.4542
KS2 av
point
(2005)
27.6
27.6
28.2
28.1
27.7
27.7
28.3
27.3
27.6
28
28.2
28
Rank
(reverse)
Pearson
ind/2005
2
9
8
4
4
11
1
2
6
9
6
-0.2718
-0.2448
Secondary Sector
ENGLAND (2)
Bedfordshire
Cheshire
Warwickshire
Worcestershire
Essex
Hertfordshire
Kent
West Sussex
Dorset
Gloucestershire
South
Gloucestershire
Total
secondary age
(independents)
225250
2670
3780
2540
3820
3100
9490
7110
4260
2520
3360
Total
secondary
age all
2849150
24810
41120
29800
32630
75110
70010
84330
41730
23480
35160
%
independent
7.9%
10.8%
9.2%
8.5%
11.7%
4.1%
13.6%
8.4%
10.2%
10.7%
9.6%
20
14030
0.1%
3
7
8
2
10
1
9
5
4
6
GCSE
5+A*-C
(2003)
53.7
50.8
58.9
54
52
55
58.1
55.6
55.8
59.8
61.2
11
54.1
Rank
Rank
(reverse)
1
9
3
2
5
8
6
7
10
11
GCSE 5+A*C (2004)
56.3
51.2
60
54.3
54.9
55.4
58.5
55.9
53.7
59
60.9
4
50
GCSE
5+A*-C
(2005)
Rank
(reverse)
Sec
Phase
Pearson
ind/2003
Rank
(reverse)
2
10
4
5
6
8
7
3
9
11
57.1
53.5
60
57.2
55.7
56.3
61.4
59.6
55.9
60.5
62.3
1
8
6
3
5
10
7
4
9
11
1
55.4
2
-0.0455
Page 2 of 2
Sec Phase
Pearson
ind/04
-0.1727
Sec Phase
Pearson
ind/05
-0.1455
A Two year Key Stage 3 Curriculum
One of the options available to Bedfordshire schools seeking to raise standards is to cover the Key
Stage 3 curriculum in Years 7 and 8 as this is now legally possible.
This note sets out briefly the potential educational and practical advantages and disadvantages of
this possibility.
While KS3 could be accelerated within any school system, this note assumes that the three-tier
system is retained. If Bedfordshire choose to change school system they may wish to concentrate
on that change before introducing this one!
Some possible advantages
1. Accountability: if the current system is retained, accelerating KS3 to the end of year 8
clarifies accountability for KS3 performance. This will overcome some of the blame culture
that Four S has witnessed.
2. Ease of Performance Data: By making Middle Schools solely responsible for KS3 the
management and transfer of data between Middle and Upper Schools is simplified.
3. Upper School Flexibility: Upper schools would have markedly more flexibility in their
programmes for Years 9 to 11. Schools could mix the suggested approaches, thus tailoring
the curriculum to the needs of different groups of students. Some examples of approaches
schools could take are:
GCSE in Years 9 & 10 followed by AS level courses in Year 11.
Three years to cover the GCSE programme.
An enrichment programme for Year 9, followed by a conventional 2-year GCSE
programme.
GCSE covered in Years 9 and 10, followed by a mixture of enrichment, or
further GCSEs or AS courses in Year 11
A three year work-related programme.
4. Fresh Start on transfer: Students entering Upper Schools would begin new courses,
rather than having to finish off a course already started in a different environment.
5. Consistent curriculum before transfer: Upper Schools would not have to plan to cope
with an intake which had covered varying parts of the Key Stage 3 programme in Years 7
and 8. Consultation discussions suggest that this can lead to stagnation/repetition for some
pupils currently.
6. Pace and Engagement: Anecdotal feedback from pilot schools suggests that accelerating
KS3 has injected pace into lessons and helped to improve pupil focus and engagement.
Page 1 of 3
Some possible disadvantages
1. KS2 performance: Bedfordshire’s performance data indicates that the decline in pupil
attainment occurs in KS2 (split between Lower and Middle Schools). Performance between
KS2 and KS3 is broadly stable, before another dip in KS4. Accelerating KS3 does not
address the issue of split accountability and poor performance in KS2. Indeed, it could be
argued that condensing KS3 makes it harder to regain initiative from a poor KS2 since you
have to recover that ground and teach KS3 within a shorter timeframe.
2. Limited Experience: There is very little experience nationally of attempting to accelerate
KS3 for such a large cohort, so Bedfordshire Middle schools would be faced with planning
and delivering it essentially from scratch. (see note below re national pilot). There is no
conclusive evidence that accelerating KS3 will improve KS4 results for a large cohort.
3. Pupil Impact of acceleration: There is likely to be some impact upon less able students in
Middle Schools when they have to cope with the demands of a three year programme
condensed into two years. It is not possible to quantify this impact. While many
independent (and some state) schools offer GCSE exams to Y10 pupils, this is done on the
basis of the pupil being ready to sit the exam; if Bedfordshire accelerate KS3 it will be for
the whole pupil cohort. Bedfordshire need to be confident that the needs of less able pupils,
including those with SEN within mainstream education, will not be adversely affected by
this change.
4. National and Statistical Neighbour Comparisons: Standards in the national KS3 tests
might well decline, at least in the initial years of the programme. No student who has
already taken the SAT in Year 8 is allowed to re-take it in Year 9. Bedfordshire would be
taking a strategic decision to potentially ‘sacrifice’ KS3 results (in comparison to national
and statistical neighbour averages) for a desired increase in KS4 results. This is because
pupils in Beds will have 3 terms less than elsewhere to prepare for the tests, so (all other
things being equal) should perform less well.
5. Impact upon KS4: There is currently no evidence to ascertain whether accelerating KS3
will help KS4 results. In theory it should since it enables Upper Schools to either spend
longer on GCSE courses or to offer more variety in their curriculum…but it can not be
proven.
6. Subjects outside KS3 tests: Upper School will still have to teach the Year 9 programmes
for citizenship, sex and relationship education and religious education (RE) though the
locally agreed syllabus for RE could be changed if the Bedfordshire SACRE agreed this.
The national KS3 Acceleration Pilot programme
50 schools nationally are part of an organised pilot of accelerating KS3.
Vast majority of these schools are only accelerating certain subjects – not the whole
curriculum.
Those that are accelerating the whole curriculum, such as Dartford Grammar School and
Dartford Grammar School for Girls, are achieving this through introducing the International
Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme.
In the Dartford schools, which are selective, standards of attainment in KS3 for lower ability
pupils appears to be under threat (anecdotal evidence), but there is also positive anecdotal
evidence that for other pupils accelerating KS3 injects greater pace into the lessons and has
helped engage pupils.
Page 2 of 3
Evaluation report on the programme (reference 0259-2006DCL-EN)
(2006)
This evaluation, published May 2006, contains the following conclusions:
1. A condensed Key Stage 3 curriculum is not appropriate for all schools and is clearly not
appropriate to all pupils within a school.
2. Any school implementing a condensed curriculum should therefore ensure that they :
choose carefully the subjects and pupils for whom a condensed curriculum is likely
to be of benefit;
continually assess and track the progress of different groups of pupils following a
condensed curriculum to inform planning and support learning;
only enter pupils for the National Curriculum end-of-key stage tests when they have
made the expected progress from Key Stage 2.
Report Date: May 2006
Report Version: Final
Report Client: Bedfordshire County Council
© VT Four S
Page 3 of 3
Bedfordshire ethnic groups compared to Statistical
Neighbour and other Local Authorities with similar
ethnic makeup
This report outlines analysis of available 2003 and 2004 data relating to the performance
of different ethnic groups. This data is not available for all KS assessments, and only
data that is consistent for both 2003 and 2004 has been included in this analysis.
Size of groups e.g. Black African 2003 (N=13) an issue for valid statistical
evaluation.
Large variation in some groups B/G and year to year, and need 2005 data (not yet
available).
Detectable patterns:
•
•
•
•
Pakistani and Bangladeshi Asian groups perform the least well compared to
those groups in other LAs.
Pakistani group is generally the weaker of the two
By GCSE Beds Pakistani group was lowest of all LAs in both 2003 and 2004 and
in 2003 Beds Bangladeshi group was also lowest of all LAs
Black Caribbean and mixed White/Black Caribbean are the most consistently in
line with and slightly above the average.
Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups perform significantly less well than they do in both
statistical neighbour authorities and shire counties with similar ethnic make up. This
starts at KS1.
KS1 English L2+
In 2003
• Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Black African groups performed less well than in SN
LAs and those with similar ethnic makeup.
• In reading 16%, 10% and 12% fewer respectively achieved L2+.
• In writing 17%, 8% and 14%.
• Black Caribbean and mixed White/Black Caribbean groups performed in line with
other LAs in both reading and writing.
In 2004
• Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups were closer to the average (-5% and -2%
respectively) in reading but 10% and 7% below the average respectively in
writing.
• Black African overall performance is 10% above the average in reading and 6%
in writing.
• Again Black Caribbean and mixed White/Black Caribbean are also close to the
average (+3% and -5%) in reading and in writing (= and -3%).
Page 1 of 3
KS1 Maths L2+
In 2003
• Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups performed least well 11% and 10% below the
group average respectively
• Black Caribbean group was slightly below the average (-6%) and
• mixed White/Black Caribbean and Black African broadly in line with the average
In 2004
• Pakistani group was in line with average (because of girls performance, they
were highest of all LAs)
• Bangladeshi group remained 10% below the group average
• Other groups were broadly in line with the average
KS2 English L4+
In 2003
• Bangladeshi group much better 10% more pupils achieved L4+ than the average
• Black African group performed below the average (-16%) but small group size
(13) and huge G/B difference (B +13%, G -39%) makes this pretty unreliable
• Other groups broadly in line
In 2004
• Both Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups performed significantly less well than
other LAs, (22%below average and 14% below)
• Black African group remained below the average (-9%)
• Again mixed White/Black Caribbean and Black African broadly in line with the
average
KS2 Maths L4+
In 2003
• Both Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups performed slightly better than the
average (+4% and +6%) respectively
• Black African group overall was broadly in line but again with huge gender
imbalance (B +22%, G -30%)
• Other groups were broadly in line with or slightly above group averages
In 2004
• Both Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups performance was again below average
(-6% and -20% respectively)
• Black Caribbean group was also 6% below the group average
• Other groups were broadly in line.
Page 2 of 3
GCSE 5A* to C
In 2003
All groups performed less well than their group average, again Pakistani and
Bangladeshi groups were the most significantly below their group average
• Black Caribbean slightly at -2%
• Black Africans -8%
• mixed White/Black Caribbean -14%
• Pakistani -27% (overall the lowest of all LAs)
• Bangladeshi -33% (Also the lowest, B G and All pupil of all LAs)
In 2004
• Black African and Black Caribbean groups performed slightly better than their
group averages (both +1.6%)
• mixed White/Black Caribbean were slightly below group average (-5%)
• Bangladeshi group performance was much better than 2003, just below the
group average (-2%)
• Pakistani group remained the lowest in their group for all LAs at almost 30%
below the average.
Value Added may in time give useful information, but those available from Bedfordshire
are not subject specific and are only for KS1 to KS2 2004. Of these the only value over
100 is for the Black African group (that is the small group of 13 so confidence limits
would undermine the validity).
Report Date: May 2006
Report Version: Final
Report Client: Bedfordshire County Council
© VT Four S
Page 3 of 3
Evaluation of GCSE Results in 11-16 and 11-18 Schools
within Bedfordshire’s statistical neighbours
There has been considerable research into the factors which affect the performance of
students at various stages in the education system. Much of this has concentrated on
examining which factors influence an individual pupil’s performance, rather than on
those which affect schools. For example, many research studies have identified the
importance of prior attainment and social background as predictors for a pupil’s future
success. Research into school attainment has looked at whether comprehensive schools
add more value than selective schools and at the effects of specialist status on results
(e.g. Croxford: “Inequality in attainment at Age 16”, 2000). The mix of social classes has
been identified as playing a large part in the attainment overall in a school, suggesting
an effect which is not just the simple aggregation of what might be expected from the
background of each pupil. There appears to be no comparable research on how pupils in
11-18 schools perform at GCSE compared with pupils in 11-16 schools.
In order to undertake a fair comparison, it was decided to analyse only schools which
are described as comprehensive. The majority of selective schools are 11-18 and might
thus skew the results. Further, in order to attempt an analysis based on broadly similar
intakes, the research concentrated on the statistical neighbours of Bedfordshire, with
three exceptions. South Gloucestershire has only 11-18 schools, and Hertfordshire has
only 11-18 and 13-18 schools. Kent has an extremely diverse system with a high level of
selection.
The attached tables show the percentages of pupils gaining 5+ grades A*-C at GCSE for
every school within the statistical neighbour authorities between 2002 and 2004. A
simple mean has been calculated for each of the sectors, which does not of course take
into account the number of pupils in each school.
In six of the seven areas analysed, the 11-18 schools on average perform higher on this
measure of performance than 11-16 schools. In the remaining area, West Sussex, the
gap in performance between the two sectors is narrow. It is possible that the higher
performance of 11-18 schools arises because many of them were selective schools in
the past and thus still benefit from a “halo effect” enabling them to attract a higher
proportion of higher ability pupils (and conversely that many 11-16 schools were
secondary modern schools). However, the number of schools considered in the analysis
is such that this effect could not be attributed to them all, and on this evidence 11-18
schools would seem to be achieving higher standards at GCSE.
Report Date: May 2006
Report Version: Final
Report Client: Bedfordshire County Council
© VT Four S
Page 1 of 1
Cheshire GCSE
"11-16"
Blacon High
Brine Leas
Coppenhall
County High
Hartford High
Kings Grove
Middlewich
Rudheath
Ruskin
Shavington
St Thomas More
Victoria
Weaverham
Mean
2002
2003
2004
2005
25
69
37
58
60
27
54
32
52
57
71
17
72
31
75
30
59
58
35
59
48
58
49
71
46
63
27
72
36
52
67
27
63
41
47
54
70
50
66
34
74
34
54
60
25
54
39
55
53
64
56
71
48.5
52.5
51.7
51.8
56
69
61
65
66
22
70
63
67
54
80
45
83
47
71
43
66
60
60
77
55
78
76
31
78
66
67
42
52
69
27
58
74
73
59
60
23
66
61
55
58
76
45
82
60
75
40
69
64
55
72
48
84
79
32
71
49
67
47
58
67
34
68
76
70
77
61
30
70
58
63
56
75
48
82
56
71
40
62
60
58
74
60
77
81
29
65
66
61
56
56
70
61
66
76
64
62
61
30
71
60
62
52
75
64
85
42
73
38
70
59
61
74
53
83
81
29
70
58
65
47
58
68
64
60.2
60.0
62.5
62.0
58
59
60
60
"11-18"
All Hallows
Alsager
Bishop Heber
Blue Coat
Catholic High
Cheshire Oaks
Christleton
Congleton
Eaton Bank
Ellesmere Port
Fallisbroome
Frodsham
Helsby
Henbury High
Holmes Chapel
Kingsway
Knutsford
Malbank
Neston
Poynton
Queen's Park
Sandbach
St Nicholas
Sutton
Taporley
Tytherington
Upton
Verdin
Whitby
Wilmslow
Woodford Lodge
Mean
LA Mean
Dorset
GCSE
"11-16"
2002
2003
2004
2005
66
50
60
53
64
51
66
46
53
50
55
49
65
40
56
46
57.3
56.8
51.8
51.8
71
75
60
48
48
63
51
63
61
70
33
67
56
59
57
65
71
76
67
60
58
66
56
63
60
66
31
69
45
66
57
54
65
80
68
54
46
62
54
69
61
65
31
68
45
74
57
57
59.2
60.3
59.8
61.1
LA Mean
59
60
59
60
England mean
52
53
54
56
All Saints
Royal Manor
Sturminster Newton
Wey Valley
Mean 11-16
"11-18"
Twynham
Thomas Hardye
Woodroffe
Sir John Colfox
Shaftesbury
Queen Elizabeth
Purbeck
Lytchett Minster
The Gryphon
Highcliffe
The Grange
Gillingham
Ferndown Upper
Budmouth
Blandford
Beaminster
Mean 11-18
64
81
72
55
52
69 (13-18)
54 (13-18)
60
70
65
35
71
52 (13-18)
66
56
55
Essex
"11-16"
FitzWimarc
Deanes
De La Salle
Cornelius Vermuyden
Castle View
Burnt Mill
The Brays
Barstable
The Appleton
Alec hunter
Alderman Blaxhill
James Hornsby
Honywood
The Gilberd
Furtherwick Park
Manningtree
King Harold
Mark hall
St Benedict's
Sir Charles Lucas
Roding valley
The Ramsey
Passmores
Notley High
St John's
St Helena
Mountfitchet
Woodlands
Thomas Lord Audley
Tabor
Sweyne Park
Stewards
Stanway
Mean
GCSE (Comprehensive only)
2002
2003
2004
2005
68
74
22
38
41
51
25
21
55
44
28
13
68
65
29
59
36
43
69
36
51
46
37
59
28
48
47
41
40
45
57
53
42
66
59
11
36
42
54
29
19
61
33
36
23
72
68
42
52
40
40
79
43
52
38
41
66
29
36
31
49
35
53
60
59
49
63
51
27
46
45
46
34
24
55
37
34
33
67
64
34
60
39
42
75
41
55
36
38
60
32
45
30
47
31
50
57
49
51
66
50
30
48
34
59
49
16
62
36
36
37
75
58
33
58
23
58
81
31
45
44
56
64
48
51
40
55
26
52
58
51
62
44.8
45.5
45.4
48.2
65
54
46
67
65
69
43
58
55
57
42
74
67
53
63
65
58
64
67
88
43
57
54
58
45
77
69
55
66
50
64
65
62
82
34
62
53
49
37
77
68
61
74
65
73
70
65
81
36
61
55
54
46
74
73
59
"11-18"
Moulsham High
Mayflower
King Edmund
King John
Great Baddow
Greensward
Harwich
Hedingham
Helena Romanes
Hylands
John Bramston
Anglo European
Beauchamps
Billericay
Boswells
Brentwood High
Ursuline
Bromfords
Chalvedon
Chelmer Valley
Clacton
Colbayns
Colne
Davenant
St John Payne
St Peter's High
St martin's
St mark's
Newport
Philip Morant
Plume
The Rickstones
Saffron Walden
The Sandon
Sawyers Hall
Shenfield High
Tendring
Thurstable
William de Ferrers
West Hatch
Mean
LA Mean
70
59
82
56
40
57
43
27
55
78
74
35
65
43
79
71
44
39
77
58
55
64
46
42
70
68
67
44
76
69
45
53
44
40
62
85
66
35
81
50
75
74
47
43
83
50
44
69
54
55
65
59
75
61
73
70
54
63
50
33
59
89
74
40
76
62
78
67
48
44
84
60
42
60
49
59
64
61
70
63
75
71
44
62
47
34
50
85
71
29
74
70
78
70
49
44
80
56
43
58
53
58
65
63
57.8
60.0
60.6
61.2
54
55
55
56
Gloucestershire
"11-16"
Winchcombe
Whitecross
Thomas Keble
St Benedict's
Severn Vale
Pittville
Oxstalls
Maidenhill
Lakers
Heywood
Dene Magna
Deer Park
Barnwood Park
Mean
GCSE (Comprehensive only)
2002
2003
2004
2005
50
49
47
45
57
39
26
36
30
52
70
79
47
72
48
62
44
40
32
28
40
46
33
76
80
32
73
48
56
44
46
38
23
44
39
37
68
77
44
68
72
61
40
52
28
28
39
38
36
73
62
44
48.2
48.7
49.0
49.3
38
78
35
37
37
63
23
69
67
44
68
69
69
67
67
69
48
66
62
67
54
80
36
39
21
60
24
75
70
56
75
71
70
73
64
62
60
55
60
64
38
80
39
27
29
67
18
72
65
48
77
65
71
78
66
62
61
65
65
70
47
75
40
40
25
66
32
77
71
49
72
65
74
79
62
66
59
63
72
62
57.2
58.5
58.2
59.8
61
61
61
62
"11-18"
Archway
Balcarass
Beaufort
Brockworth
Central Technology
Bournside
Kingsmead
Chipping Campden
Chosen Hill
Churchdown
Cleeve
Cotswold
Farmor's
Katharine Lady B
Newent
Rednock
Sir William Romney
St Peter's
Tewkesbury
Wyedean
Mean
LA Mean
Warwickshire
GCSE
"11-16"
George Eliot
Etone
Ash Green
Alderman Smith
St Thomas More
Manor Park
Kingsbury
Higham Lane
Hartshill
Mean
(Comprehensive only)
2002
2003
2004
2005
34
46
24
29
62
33
39
75
32
42
47
26
21
74
28
51
75
31
32
61
16
31
63
31
50
72
42
30
62
27
38
69
28
40
68
37
41.6
43.9
44.2
44.3
62
34
60
56
33
64
64
55
59
53
25
40
66
35
60
65
33
72
60
70
63
47
31
47
65
36
57
49
37
75
70
71
60
41
31
44
73
48
65
56
48
74
64
61
62
51
31
52
50.4
54.1
53.0
57.1
52
54
54
57
"11-18"
Kenilworth
Queen Elizabeth
Polesworth
N Leamington
Nicholas Chamberlaine
Myton
Southam
Trinity
Ashlawn
Aylesford
Campion
Coleshill
Mean
LA average
West Sussex
GCSE
2002
2003
2004
2005
"11-16"
Bourne
Chatsmore
Davison
Downlands
Durrington
Forest
Manhood
Millais
Oakmeeds
Oathall
St Andrews
Tanbridge House
Warden Pk
Westergate
Worthing High
Mean
40
48
67
62
39
58
36
80
62
71
54
63
73
44
51
56.5
35
55
77
73
41
68
37
82
53
75
51
61
70
36
51
57.7
51
47
63
73
41
63
37
81
57
68
42
54
65
40
44
55.1
50
44
65
70
43
66
39
84
64
66
48
57
73
45
51
57.7
"11-18"
Angmering
Bishop Luffa
Bognor Regis
Boundstone
Chichester Boys
Chichester Girls
Felpham
Hazelwick
Holy Trinity
Ifield
Imberhorne
King's Manor
Littlehampton
Midhurst
Sackville
St Paul's
St Philip Howard
St Wilfrid's
Steyning
Thomas Bennett
The Weald
Mean
62
82
34
35
52
66
54
62
67
29
72
37
37
57
58
69
64
44
57
21
62
53.4
54
88
37
34
55
60
47
68
65
35
72
37
41
57
66
71
62
48
62
28
73
55.2
58
78
34
29
53
66
43
76
73
40
61
42
46
54
57
66
54
58
66
20
75
54.7
53
81
37
27
50
62
40
75
69
40
73
43
42
47
60
84
73
52
65
29
72
55.9
54
56
54
56
LA
Worcestershire
GCSE (Comprehensive only)
"11-16"
Elgar
Christopher Whitehead
Blessed Edward O
Bishop Perowne
Tenbury
Martley
Nunnery Wood
Mean
2002
2003
2004
2005
20
45
53
50
56
64
55
23
38
69
50
40
59
53
24
49
70
55
62
69
49
20
59
57
61
67
71
60
49.0
47.4
54.0
56.4
51
82
55
37
17
71
54
56
45
69
44
72
64
67
60
54
57
24
62
48
56
37
57
86
52
39
13
60
51
53
57
70
37
71
62
74
64
44
69
36
58
46
54
33
70
94
60
36
23
58
50
48
47
74
43
70
63
79
62
53
60
48
56
47
51
60
66
92
55
34
35
57
57
56
55
69
56
71
64
76
61
45
66
56
46
47
53
46
53.7
53.9
56.9
57.4
52
52
55
56
"11-18"
Hanley Castle
Haybridge
King Charles 1
Arrow Vale
Baxter
Bewdley
Drotiwich Spa
Dyson Perrins
Evesham High
Hagley RC
Stourport
St Augustine
S Bromsgrove
Prince Henry's
Pershore
N Bromsgrove
The Chase
Kinsgley College
Woodrush
Wolverley
Waseley Hills
Trinity High
Mean
LA Mean
(13-18)
(13-18)
(13-18)
(13-18)
(12-18)
(13-18)
(13-18)
(13-18)
(13-18)
(13-18)
(12-18)
(13-18)
(13-18)
(13-18)
(13-18)
Statistical Proximity of Neighbours
Very Close
Slough
Close
BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN, BRADFORD, DERBY, NOTTINGHAM, OLDHAM,
ROCHDALE, SOUTHAMPTON
Somewhat close
Birmingham, Middlesborough
KS1 All Pupils Level 2+ (age 7)
Reading
Writing
Maths
2004
2005
2004
2005
2004 2005
Luton
82
84
76
79
89
England Average
85
85
81
82
90
91
Birmingham
80
79
78
76
86
87
BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN
83
83
80
79
90
89
BRADFORD
83
82
80
80
89
88
DERBY
84
85
82
81
90
89
Middlesborough
81
80
78
79
88
87
90
NOTTINGHAM
75
76
70
72
84
86
OLDHAM
81
81
78
79
88
88
ROCHDALE
81
83
79
79
87
89
Slough
86
86
83
84
93
92
SOUTHAMPTON
81
83
79
82
90
91
KS2 All Pupils Level 4+
KS2 Mathematics Test
All Pupils - Percentage Level 4+
KS2 English Test
All Pupils - Percentage Level 4+
KS2 Science Test
All Pupils - Percentage Level 4+
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004 2005
2000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Luton
72
71
70
72
73
71
65
63
67
66
65
67
82
83
83
83
82
England Average
75
75
75
75
78
79
72
71
73
73
74
75
85
87
86
87
86
86
Birmingham
69
71
70
70
74
74
67
67
69
67
70
70
81
85
84
82
83
83
BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN
73
70
72
71
71
73
68
64
71
72
70
72
82
81
83
83
80
82
BRADFORD
66
66
67
68
72
73
59
60
66
65
66
68
74
75
79
80
79
79
DERBY
69
71
69
74
73
76
67
68
70
71
70
73
79
85
83
85
81
83
Middlesborough
69
72
70
72
73
76
67
67
69
71
72
71
80
87
84
83
85
83
82
NOTTINGHAM
60
62
62
63
70
66
60
61
63
65
67
67
73
80
81
81
81
79
OLDHAM
73
71
71
72
75
76
70
70
72
71
73
75
82
85
84
85
83
85
ROCHDALE
70
72
71
68
72
75
69
69
72
68
68
73
81
86
84
80
81
83
Slough
74
74
73
76
75
76
70
72
71
70
69
69
84
86
86
83
79
81
SOUTHAMPTON
68
63
67
66
73
74
66
65
69
64
71
71
83
87
86
84
87
86
KS2 level 5 +
KS2 English Test
All Pupils - Percentage Level 5+
KS2 Maths Test
All Pupils - Percentage Level 5+
KS2 Science Test
All Pupils - Percentage Level 5+
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004 2005
2000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Luton
22
21
22
22
20
16
18
19
19
22
22
22
33
28
33
36
34
England Average
29
29
29
27
27
27
25
25
28
29
31
31
34
34
38
41
42
47
Birmingham
25
24
24
22
22
22
23
23
25
24
27
26
34
32
34
35
38
41
BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN
24
23
21
21
18
18
19
20
23
26
25
26
27
24
30
34
34
40
BRADFORD
22
21
22
20
22
21
17
17
21
22
24
23
25
23
29
31
34
36
DERBY
25
24
26
25
26
23
21
24
25
27
27
30
31
31
34
37
36
43
Middlesbrough
25
25
22
24
22
26
20
22
23
26
25
27
31
35
34
37
42
42
39
NOTTINGHAM
17
18
17
17
20
18
15
17
19
21
25
22
23
26
30
29
32
37
OLDHAM
25
24
25
23
21
21
22
23
26
26
27
27
32
30
33
35
35
40
ROCHDALE
23
23
26
20
22
21
20
22
23
24
27
29
29
29
33
31
35
42
Slough
24
24
24
27
22
25
25
26
31
30
30
29
38
32
38
34
38
41
SOUTHAMPTON
24
21
23
20
22
20
20
20
25
23
28
27
32
33
37
38
43
46
KS3 Level 5+
2005 results are provisional
KS3 English Test
All Pupils - Percentage Level 5+
KS3 Mathematics Test
All Pupils - Percentage Level 5+
KS3 Science Test
All Pupils - Percentage Level 5+
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004 2005
2000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Luton
59
58
60
58
61
70
58
60
59
62
66
67
48
56
56
58
58
England Average
N/A
N/A
N/A
69
71
74
N/A
N/A
N/A
71
73
74
N/A
N/A
N/A
68
66
70
Birmingham
57
57
60
62
65
69
54
56
58
62
66
67
48
54
56
59
57
61
BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN
54
53
57
65
66
67
57
55
59
68
69
69
52
54
55
61
56
63
BRADFORD
55
54
59
65
63
63
54
55
55
60
65
65
47
51
54
55
53
59
DERBY
57
57
62
65
68
71
60
62
64
67
71
71
54
60
61
61
62
65
Middlesbrough
58
56
60
56
58
63
50
55
55
60
63
65
44
52
55
55
54
57
61
NOTTINGHAM
42
43
43
46
55
57
42
47
48
52
58
60
37
44
45
48
49
53
OLDHAM
58
59
60
65
68
69
58
60
59
65
66
69
51
57
56
62
58
64
ROCHDALE
53
55
59
63
64
69
56
59
63
64
69
69
50
58
59
61
58
64
Slough
63
65
72
70
76
81
61
66
67
72
77
79
53
62
64
67
68
72
SOUTHAMPTON
54
59
61
62
64
67
57
60
60
64
66
69
52
58
60
61
59
64
KS3 Level 6+
2005 results are provisional
KS3 Mathematics Test
All Pupils - Percentage Level 6+
KS3 English Test
All Pupils - Percentage Level 6+
KS3 Science Test
All Pupils - Percentage Level 6+
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004 2005
2000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Luton
19
24
23
22
22
24
32
34
36
39
41
43
17
22
22
27
23
England Average
N/A
N/A
N/A
35
34
35
N/A
N/A
N/A
49
52
53
N/A
N/A
N/A
40
34
37
Birmingham
24
26
28
30
27
31
32
34
36
41
44
45
22
26
25
32
27
29
BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN
21
24
22
25
29
26
31
32
36
42
45
48
21
22
24
29
25
29
BRADFORD
21
26
25
29
26
24
31
32
33
37
42
43
20
22
23
29
23
26
DERBY
22
24
28
33
30
32
37
39
42
48
50
50
23
26
28
34
30
33
Middlesbrough
23
23
29
22
23
28
28
29
33
36
39
41
17
21
21
24
21
27
27
NOTTINGHAM
13
17
15
19
19
20
21
24
27
30
35
38
14
19
17
23
20
24
OLDHAM
23
26
28
30
26
29
35
35
38
43
44
48
23
26
24
34
26
30
ROCHDALE
17
20
24
27
24
28
31
36
39
41
44
46
22
25
26
32
25
29
Slough
37
40
46
44
47
54
43
50
53
57
60
64
30
37
39
46
44
45
SOUTHAMPTON
22
28
25
26
25
28
31
34
36
41
45
45
23
27
25
34
28
30
GCSE
GCSE
All Pupils - Percentage achieving 5 or more
GCSEs at Grades A*-C
GCSE
All Pupils - Percentage achieving at
least 1 GCSE at grade A*-G
GCSE All Pupils percentage achieving 5
or more GCSEs,
including Maths and
English, at Grades A*-C
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004 2005
2000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2002 2003 2004 2005
Luton
39.7
38.2
39.5
41.5
43.8
49.9
96.8
95.6 95.9 95.3 96.9 97.0
29.0 28.2
31.6
England Average
49.2
50.0
51.6
52.6
53.7
57.1
94.4
94.5 94.6 94.6 95.9 97.4
42.1 41.9
42.6
44.3
Birmingham
40.8
41.2
45.3
49.4
51.2
56.4
94.2
94.1 94.7 94.4 96.1 96.5
34.1 34.9
36.6
38.8
BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN
40.0
37.6
42.0
38.8
43.1
46.8
93.3
93.2 93.6 95.3 96.8 96.2
30.4 28.6
33.1
35.2
BRADFORD
33.8
34.3
37.3
39.6
39.8
46.3
91.6
92.3 92.8 92.1 93.0 93.4
27.9 28.5
28.8
32.3
DERBY
41.3
43.0
45.2
48.8
48.8
53.5
93.5
93.6 94.4 95.3 96.0 96.7
35.9 36.9
37.4
40.0
Middlesbrough
34.6
35.0
35.8
38.8
40.8
45.2
90.4
93.4 90.3 91.2 92.4 92.9
27.3 25.9
29.1
28.6
35.2
NOTTINGHAM
28.7
30.3
31.4
35.1
37.8
41.6
89.0
89.2 88.9 89.4 89.5 91.8
21.5 21.0
23.9
25.0
OLDHAM
42.4
41.5
42.9
44.6
45.4
51.8
94.1
94.8 94.6 93.9 95.8 95.8
31.9 30.7
31.8
35.2
ROCHDALE
37.9
40.4
40.0
41.3
46.7
49.1
92.6
94.2 93.0 94.2 95.6 95.7
30.8 32.5
36.0
35.8
Slough
51.4
52.4
50.5
53.4
56.5
56.3
96.0
97.2 96.9 93.1 96.4 97.8
43.4 45.8
48.3
49.9
SOUTHAMPTON
39.8
43.1
43.3
44.3
44.2
47.0
94.8
94.7 94.4 93.0 95.8 96.0
32.7 33.4
32.8
34.5
A level
Average points per
candidate
2002
2003
2004
2005
Luton
207.0
213.9
265.6
271.3
England Average
254.7
258.9
269.2
277.6
Birmingham
241.2
243.1
275.1
283.3
BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN
236.7
255.7
259.5
266.9
BRADFORD
212.0
223.0
247.1
257.2
DERBY
237.0
217.2
269.6
280.8
Middlesbrough
190.6
171.1
245.0
249.0
NOTTINGHAM
222.6
252.2
224.4
236.9
OLDHAM
251.5
261.4
265.6
271.4
ROCHDALE
173.5
183.1
261.0
267.5
Slough
230.1
246.3
290.6
299.7
SOUTHAMPTON
207.9
224.3
259.9
262.4
GCSE: Percentage achieving 5 or more GCSEs at grades A*-C
60
55
Luton
England Average
Birmingham
BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN
BRADFORD
DERBY
Middlesbrough
NOTTINGHAM
OLDHAM
ROCHDALE
Slough
SOUTHAMPTON
50
Percent
45
40
35
30
25
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
2004
2005
GCSE: Percentage achieving 5 or more GCSEs at grades A*-C including Maths and English
55
50
Luton
England Average
Birmingham
BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN
BRADFORD
DERBY
Middlesbrough
NOTTINGHAM
OLDHAM
ROCHDALE
Slough
SOUTHAMPTON
45
Percent
40
35
30
25
20
2002
2003
2004
Year
2005
Organising for Excellence - Bedfordshire County Council Review of School Structures
The Organising for Excellence consultation is considering what structure of schooling Bedfordshire County Council should adopt for the next
generation of pupils to ensure that those young people have the best opportunity to fulfil their potential.
To help inform the consultation, this document provides more information about the current and recent performance of pupils within Bedfordshire’s
state schools. Each of the following graphs show the performance of:
ƒ Pupils at Bedfordshire’s state schools;
ƒ Pupils across England as the England Average;
ƒ Pupils within other councils who Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education) and DfES (Department for Education and Skills) believe are similar to
Bedfordshire in terms of the social and economic background of the population as a whole. Every council has ‘statistical neighbours’ and these
are used to compare the performance of one council or set of schools to others. These statistical neighbours are determined by the DfES and
Ofsted, not Bedfordshire County Council or Four S.
In each graph, each council and the England average has the same colour and markings to enable them to be easily recognised. The scale on each
graph varies to ensure that the performance of each council is clear.
The important aspects to focus upon are:
ƒ The position of Bedfordshire compared to its statistical neighbours and compared to the England Average;
ƒ Any trends that can be identified in the performance of Bedfordshire, other councils, or the England Average during the years shown.
In terms of school structures, the statistical neighbours have a variety of systems:
ƒ Lower, Middle, and Upper school structure with changes at 8/9 and 12/13 across the whole of the Council area: Bedfordshire only;
ƒ A mixed system where part of the council area has Lower/Middle/Upper and part of the council area has primary/secondary phase schools with a
change-at-11: Warwickshire and Worcestershire (both of whom are in the process of reorganising parts of their authority to change-at-11 from
Lower/Middle/Upper)’ Hertfordshire; West Sussex;
ƒ Change-at-11 structure across the whole of the Council: Gloucestershire, South Gloucestershire, Kent, Dorset, Essex, Cheshire.
The structure of post 16 education – i.e. the number of Sixth Forms within schools, or separate Sixth Form or Further Education (FE) Colleges – also
varies between the statistical neighbours.
Page 1 of 17
Key Stage 2: Percentage achieving Level 4 in English
86
84
82
Bedfordshire
England Average
Gloucestershire
West Sussex
Worcestershire
South Gloucestershire
Hertfordshire
Kent
Dorset
Essex
Warwickshire
Cheshire
Percent
80
78
76
74
72
70
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
Page 2 of 17
2004
2005
Key Stage 2: Percentage achieving Level 5 in English
38
36
34
Bedfordshire
England Average
Gloucestershire
West Sussex
Worcestershire
South Gloucestershire
Hertfordshire
Kent
Dorset
Essex
Warwickshire
Cheshire
Percent
32
30
28
26
24
22
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
Page 3 of 17
2004
2005
Key Stage 2: Percentage achieving Level 4 in Maths
84
82
80
Bedfordshire
England Average
Gloucestershire
West Sussex
Worcestershire
South Gloucestershire
Hertfordshire
Kent
Dorset
Essex
Warwickshire
Cheshire
78
Percent
76
74
72
70
68
66
64
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
Page 4 of 17
2004
2005
Key Stage 2: Percentage achieving Level 5 in Maths
40
38
36
Bedfordshire
England Average
Gloucestershire
West Sussex
Worcestershire
South Gloucestershire
Hertfordshire
Kent
Dorset
Essex
Warwickshire
Cheshire
34
Percent
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
Page 5 of 17
2004
2005
Key Stage 2: Percentage achieving Level 4 in Science
94
92
Bedfordshire
England Average
Gloucestershire
West Sussex
Worcestershire
South Gloucestershire
Hertfordshire
Kent
Dorset
Essex
Warwickshire
Cheshire
Percent
90
88
86
84
82
80
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
Page 6 of 17
2004
2005
Key Stage 2: Percentage achieving Level 5 in Science
60
55
Bedfordshire
England Average
Gloucestershire
West Sussex
Worcestershire
South Gloucestershire
Hertfordshire
Kent
Dorset
Essex
Warwickshire
Cheshire
50
Percent
45
40
35
30
25
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
Page 7 of 17
2004
2005
Key Stage 3: Percentage achieving Level 5 in English
(2005 results are provisional)
85
83
81
Bedfordshire
England Average
Gloucestershire
West Sussex
Worcestershire
South Gloucestershire
Hertfordshire
Kent
Dorset
Essex
Warwickshire
Cheshire
79
Percent
77
75
73
71
69
67
65
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
Page 8 of 17
2004
2005
Key Stage 3: Percentage achieving Level 6 in English
(2005 results are provisional)
50
45
Bedfordshire
England Average
Gloucestershire
West Sussex
Worcestershire
South Gloucestershire
Hertfordshire
Kent
Dorset
Essex
Warwickshire
Cheshire
Percent
40
35
30
25
20
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
Page 9 of 17
2004
2005
Key Stage 3: Percentage achieving Level 5 in Maths
(2005 results are provisional)
85
83
81
Bedfordshire
England Average
Gloucestershire
West Sussex
Worcestershire
South Gloucestershire
Hertfordshire
Kent
Dorset
Essex
Warwickshire
Cheshire
79
Percent
77
75
73
71
69
67
65
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
Page 10 of 17
2004
2005
Key Stage 3: Percentage achieving Level 6 in Maths
(2005 results are provisional)
65
60
Bedfordshire
England Average
Gloucestershire
West Sussex
Worcestershire
South Gloucestershire
Hertfordshire
Kent
Dorset
Essex
Warwickshire
Cheshire
Percent
55
50
45
40
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
Page 11 of 17
2004
2005
Key Stage 3: Percentage achieving Level 5 in Science
(2005 results are provisional)
80
78
76
Bedfordshire
England Average
Gloucestershire
West Sussex
Worcestershire
South Gloucestershire
Hertfordshire
Kent
Dorset
Essex
Warwickshire
Cheshire
74
Percent
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
Page 12 of 17
2004
2005
Key Stage 3: Percentage achieving Level 6 in Science
(2005 results are provisional)
55
50
Bedfordshire
England Average
Gloucestershire
West Sussex
Worcestershire
South Gloucestershire
Hertfordshire
Kent
Dorset
Essex
Warwickshire
Cheshire
Percent
45
40
35
30
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
Page 13 of 17
2004
2005
GCSE: Percentage achieving 1 or more GCSEs at grades A*-G
98.0
97.5
97.0
Bedfordshire
England Average
Gloucestershire
West Sussex
Worcestershire
South Gloucestershire
Hertfordshire
Kent
Dorset
Essex
Warwickshire
Cheshire
96.5
Percent
96.0
95.5
95.0
94.5
94.0
93.5
93.0
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
Page 14 of 17
2004
2005
GCSE: Percentage achieving 5 or more GCSEs at grades A*-C
63.0
61.0
59.0
Bedfordshire
England Average
Gloucestershire
West Sussex
Worcestershire
South Gloucestershire
Hertfordshire
Kent
Dorset
Essex
Warwickshire
Cheshire
Percent
57.0
55.0
53.0
51.0
49.0
47.0
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
Page 15 of 17
2004
2005
GCSE: Percentage achieving 5 or more GCSEs at grades A*-C including Maths and English
55.0
53.0
51.0
Bedfordshire
England Average
Gloucestershire
West Sussex
Worcestershire
South Gloucestershire
Hertfordshire
Kent
Dorset
Essex
Warwickshire
Cheshire
49.0
Percent
47.0
45.0
43.0
41.0
39.0
37.0
35.0
Year
Page 16 of 17
A Level: Average Points per Candidate
300.0
290.0
280.0
Bedfordshire
England Average
Gloucestershire
West Sussex
Worcestershire
South Gloucestershire
Hertfordshire
Kent
Dorset
Essex
Warwickshire
Cheshire
Percent
270.0
260.0
250.0
240.0
230.0
220.0
2002
2003
2004
Year
Page 17 of 17
2005
Review of School Structures
Report of the Member Working Group
Annex 5
VALUE ADDED DATA FOR BEDFORDSHIRE SCHOOLS IN 2005
Contextual Value Added - Key Stage 1 to Key Stage 2 (Year 3 to Year 6)
Seven out of 40 middle schools add value (CVA) when the contextual factors relating to each school
are taken into account. This is a smaller number than those who add value based on pupils’ prior
attainment only, 18 schools. This means that some who add value should be adding more when the
starting points of their pupils are taken into account (coasting schools). See table below and Annex 1 for
CVA explanation.
Contextual value added at the end of KS2 2005. National mean = 100
SCC
VA
Percentile Inspection
CVA
category
grade
for
based on
rank
Overall
prior attain
In England
effectiveness
Learning community 1
Ashton Middle
Brewers Hill Middle
Five Oaks Middle
Kings Houghton Middle
Mill Vale Middle
Priory Middle
Streetfield Middle
99.8
98.9
97.7
99.9
98.8
99.6
99.4
99.4
98.7
97.5
100.0
98.5
99.1
99.1
74
93
100
54
95
85
85
Learning community 2
Brooklands Middle
Fulbrook Middle
Gilbert Inglefield Middle
Leighton Middle
Linslade Middle
100.0
100.4
99.8
100.0
100.0
99.4
100.2
99.6
99.9
99.8
77
41
66
54
58
Learning community 3
Alameda Middle
Arnold Middle
Etonbury Middle
Henlow Middle
Parkfields Middle
Robert Bloomfield Middle
Woodland Middle
100.0
99.7
100.0
100.3
100.0
101.3
99.8
99.7
99.3
99.8
100.0
99.5
100.9
99.4
62
80
62
49
70
16
77
C
Learning community 4
Daubeney Middle
Holywell Middle
Marston Vale Middle
Robert Bruce Middle
100.1
99.8
100.0
98.7
99.8
99.4
99.7
98.3
62
74
66
96
C
1
4
B1
4
A2
3
B2
3
3
Learning community 5
Alban Middle
Burgoyne Middle
Edward Peake Middle
Holmemead Middle
Sandye Place Middle
100.4
100.2
99.3
99.0
101.4
99.8
100.0
99.1
99.0
101.3
58
49
83
85
10
Learning community 6
Abbey Middle
Beauchamp Middle
Goldington Middle
Harrowden Middle
Newnham Middle
St Bede's Middle
St Gregory's Middle
Westfield Middle
Woodside Middle
99.6
99.3
100.1
99.1
99.7
98.7
98.6
99.6
99.6
99.5
98.8
100.0
99.0
99.3
99.0
98.3
99.7
99.8
70
89
54
88
77
88
96
66
62
Learning community 7
Harrold Priory Middle
Lincroft Middle
Margaret Beaufort Middle
100.6
100.2
100.2
99.8
99.7
99.6
62
66
66
2
C
3
C
3
4
3
B1
C
3
CVA scores take into account the important contextual factors that affect progress, so that all pupils’
progress may be compared fairly and the school’s contribution isolated. We know that there is variation
in the progress made nationally by different groups of pupils. The CVA model for any year examines
the relative progress made by groups of pupils assessed in that year and derives a coefficient for each
characteristic, such as female or eligible for free school meals (FSM). The largest group, White British
in the case of ethnicity, is chosen as the control group and given a coefficient of zero. For other ethnic
groups, the coefficient can be positive or negative, and can be interpreted as the difference in that year
between the progress made nationally by the group and the control group.
The coefficients used in the CVA model provide information on the change in expected progress,
expressed in points score, if a pupil’s value for a characteristic changes by one unit. For some
characteristics, such as female, the pupil’s value can be only 1 for female or 0 for not female. For other
characteristics, such as prior key stage APS, a range of values is possible. For each pupil the effect of
each characteristic is added to give the expected points and the CVA found by subtracting this from the
pupil’s actual points.
Consequently, the coefficients with values further from zero have a bigger effect on the school’s CVA
score than those with values near to zero. However, the size of the coefficient does not indicate the
relative importance of each variable in the national overall model of CVA since it takes no account of the
proportion of pupils who have this characteristic. For both Key Stage 1 to 2 and Key Stage 2 to 4 CVA
models, prior attainment is by far the most important factor for most pupils.
In 2004, for Key Stage 1 to 2 the factors that were found to be significant in determining CVA were all at
pupil level. For Key Stage 2 to 4, two factors at school level were found to be significant, the average
points score at Key Stage 2 for the cohort of pupils and the variability in APS for that cohort. For these
factors the value at school level is applied to each individual pupil in the school to determine each
pupil’s CVA.
Ref: Data module, Reference booklet, Ofsted 2005.
2
Value-added measures for upper schools, KS2-KS3, KS2-KS4, KS3-KS4
School
KS2 – KS3
KS2 – KS4
KS3 – KS4
% GCSE 5A*-C
Biddenham
100.1
995.2
988.8
43
Harlington
99.6
997.5
999.8
65
Hastingsbury
99.9
987.8
981.5
43
John Bunyan
101.3
1036.5
1015.0
45
Manshead
100.5
993.7
991.3
51
Mark Rutherford
99.8
994.0
985.5
43
Northfields
100.9
959.5
970.7
27
Queensbury
99.8
1005.1
999.7
57
Redborne
100.6
991.8
979.8
63
Samuel Whitbread
99.9
1002.6
993.1
50
Sandy
99.0
989.8
990.3
45
Sharnbrook
101.3
1008.0
1004.1
73
Stratton
100.2
1015.3
1012.6
60
St Thomas More
100.5
1005.2
989.3
49
The Cedars
100.4
1014.0
1005.4
66
Vandyke
100.8
999.0
1010.4
57
Wootton
100.9
1013.0
1001.8
67
National average GCSE 5 A*-C, 2005 = 57.1%
3
Review of School Structures
Report of the Member Working Group
Annex 6
An Overview of Performance in Suffolk
1.
The curriculum is organised and assessed within six "Stages" from the Pre-School
(Foundation Stage) through four National Curriculum Key Stages to Post 16 provision. See
Attainment Milestones within the National Curriculum (Annex 1) for a more detailed explanation.
2.
An overview of current performance in Suffolk was published in November 2005 and
reported to Scrutiny Committee. The summary information in this section has been extracted
from two documents, the November 2005 Children & Young People's Services Performance
Report (Annex 2) and the Report to Children & Young People's Services Scrutiny Committee
(Annex 3).
Summary of Suffolk performance by Key Stage for 2005
3.
The pattern of attainment in the Foundation Stage Profile (age 5) matches national
expectations.
4.
At Key Stage 1 (age 7) Suffolk outcomes remain above the national average for all
aspects and compare well with similar local authorities.
5.
Although trends over recent years are generally upwards, our Key Stage 2 results (age
11) do not compare well with similar local authorities. We are not keeping pace with their
improvements and Suffolk performance is below the national average in English, mathematics
and science. For mathematics in particular, our performance is a concern. In 2005 Suffolk was in
the bottom quartile and ranked 119th of all authorities. Our conversion rates from Key Stage 1 to
2 are not acceptable. Schools in the two-tier system continue to outperform those in the threetier system.
6.
Key Stage 3 (age 14) outcomes are generally good. We are above the national average
in English, mathematics and science. Compared to similar authorities at Level 5 and above,
English and science performance places Suffolk in the top half of the group, but mathematics is
towards the bottom.
7.
Key Stage 4 GCSE performance (age 16) has improved steadily over a 10 year period
and is higher than the national average. There is evidence of an emerging plateau of
improvement at Key Stage 4, when compared to other local authorities.
8.
In recent years Advanced Level performance (age 18) in Suffolk has been below the
national average across all three sectors -in school sixth forms, further education colleges and
for apprenticeships. The situation has gradually improved and in 2005 the average point score
per school sixth form pupil exceeded the national average for the first time. In value added
terms, students do not make as much progress as similar students on a national basis, given
their performance at GCSE.
9.
Key areas for improvement were identified as Key Stage 2 and Post 16. These areas
were highlighted in the 2005 Annual Performance Assessment and the concerns are described
in more detail in this report. It should be noted that within both phases there is a range of
1
performance with some outstanding practice and some which is not serving children and young
people well. Inadequate practice is addressed through our normal work with schools of concern.
This report addresses issues which relate to system organisation.
10.
ln addition, priorities were set to improve performance for targeted groups of learners, for
example boys writing and looked after children. Raising the attainment of African-Caribbean
pupils continues to be a key priority.
Key Stage 2
11.
Low Key Stage 2 performance is a concern for Suffolk. Investigations over a 10 year
period have highlighted that attainment in the 3 tier system is a significant factor and for this
reason, a comparison of the 2 and 3 tier systems makes up a significant part of this report.
12.
Differences in performance between the 2 and 3 tier systems were first highlighted in
mid 1990s using the Suffolk Reading Test (SRT) and GCSE outcomes. The 3 tier system has
underperformed when compared to the 2 tier system for many years at Key Stage 2 and this gap
is not closed as learners move through the secondary phase.
13.
The 2002 Internal Report to the Director of Education (Annex 4), covering the period from
1999 to 2002 and including some information dating back to 1995, suggested that these
differences were not significant enough to embark on wholesale changes to school organisation
on this factor alone, but that the situation should be monitored and reconsidered in the light of
further evidence. As a result, performance in 2 and 3 tier systems has been carefully
observed over the last four years (2002 to 2005) and the outcomes of this work are reported in
this paper. Differences in performance between the two systems at Key Stage 2 have remained
remarkably constant. 2005 results for the 3 tier system place us at the bottom of our group of
"statistical neighbour" local authorities and outcomes from the 2 tier system place us towards the
top of this group.
14.
A focus on transfer between schools became a key aspect of school improvement work
in Suffolk and was thoroughly investigated in 1996. A "dip in progress" was identified when
learners changed schools and a summary of the outcomes was presented to Education
Committee (Annex 5). In the 3 tier system, and where there were infant and junior schools in the
2 tier system, progress was found to suffer because of the extra point of transfer. Further work to
address transfer and reduce the "dip" was carried out within schools and the local authority. This
led to a Beacon Council award for Suffolk in 2002 and is reported in a later section of this paper.
Research evidence continues to suggest that extra transfer points have an impact on progress
and that the "transfer dip" is hard to eliminate. Indeed, the DfES describes evidence showing
extra points of transfer adversely affecting the performance of learners as incontrovertible.
15.
Although Key Stage 4 performance in Suffolk is above the national average and has
shown steady improvement for 10 years, a "slow down" has been observed since 2002 and our
performance has not kept pace with national improvements. It can be argued that improved
performance at Key Stage 2 will add value to performance as learners move through the
secondary phase. Improving Key Stage 2 attainment is a priority as this will have an impact on
outcomes for students as they move through the system to Key Stages 3, 4 and beyond.
16.
There is little national or international evidence to compare attainment in the 2 and 3 tier
systems. Sections 2 and 3 in this paper offer evidence unique to Suffolk where both systems
operate in similar socio-economic contexts.
2
Post 16
17.
Underachievement of young people aged 16 to 18 years is a key concern for Suffolk,
both in terms of their actual attainment and their value added performance. The Ofsted 2003
Area Wide Inspection of 14-19 provision (Annex 22) highlighted this as a significant area
requiring development and the Suffolk 14-19 Strategy (Annex 23), published in September 2004,
includes a number of plans to support improvement in post-16 achievement.
18.
The proportion of young people who continue their learning beyond the age of 16 is too
low in Suffolk and has remained static in recent years, although there was an increase of just
under 1% in 2005 bringing the total of 16 to 18 year olds in learning to 71 %. This low level of
continuation in learning is attributed to three main factors: the variable quality of progression
advice available to young people and the impact of structural issues within the post 16 sector
linked to the small size of some sixth forms, the lack of access to appropriate courses within a
reasonable travel-to-learn distance and the variable quality of post-16 learning opportunities.
19.
1n recent years achievement at advanced level study overall has been below the
national average both in terms of attainment and progress made by students. Average points
per advanced level candidate have improved at a faster rate than the national average over the
last four years and for the first time in 2005, exceeded national levels. Performance at points per
entry has also improved steadily over the last three years and in 2004 and 2005 improved at a
faster rate than the national average, but still remains below national levels. Suffolk needs to
improve this measure by 5.1 points per entry to meet the PSA target of 83 points per entry by
2008. This is a very demanding target.
20.
The value added data for points per candidate became positive for Suffolk for the first
time in 2005. Despite this improvement the position remains that over half our schools have a
negative score for student value added progress in terms of points per candidate. Of even
greater concern, value added points per entry declined in 2005 with almost two thirds of schools
continuing to have a negative score. This means that
21.
Inspectors expressed concerns in the 2003 area wide inspection regarding the number
of small sixth forms in Suffolk and the potential impact this was having on breadth and choice of
study for young people and on their attainment. One third of school sixth forms have less than
200 pupils and are therefore below the minimum Ofsted recommended size for viability. Further
analysis of the Suffolk advanced level data indicates that there is a significant correlation
between sixth form size and the levels of attainment achieved by the young people attending
(Annex 25). Curriculum modelling has also indicated the limitations that small sixth form size has
on curriculum range and breadth (Annex 26). This potentially leads to students being unable to
make the best choices for their studies and may partially account for the high drop out rates at
17 years in some school sixth forms.
22.
There is considerable variability in advanced level performance between different areas
of the County , however this does not generally correlate to two and three tier structures. Data
indicates a much stronger link between sixth form size and student achievement. The Statistical
Review for 14-19 Education and Training 2005 (Annex 24) provides up to date information
regarding post-16 performance in each local area of Suffolk.
3
Structure of the report
This report focuses mainly on performance in the 2 and 3 tier systems.
23.
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Section 2 sets the socio-economic context. It argues that the 2 systems in Suffolk are
similar in make up and that early attainment is much the same. It is fair to compare them.
Comparisons at each phase are offered.
Section 3 compares the 2 systems in value added terms e.g. the progress that learners
make. Information from 2 different measures provided by Ofsted and the Fischer Family
Trust is considered.
Section 4 focuses on other evidence including Ofsted inspection reports and knowledge
about the impact of transfers on progress.
Section 5 offers a summary and draws conclusions from the evidence.
Section 6 provides examples of action undertaken in recent years to address issues of
performance in Key Stage 2 and the Post 16 phase.
Suffolk County Council web site - 280406
(extract of School Organisation Review, Pupil Performance, Research Findings)
4
OFSTED JUDGEMENTS
OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS
Achievement & Standards
Personal development & well-being
Teaching & Learning
Curriculum & other activities
Care, guidance & support
Leadership & Management
QUALITY OF PROVISION
3
2
3
1
2
1
3
4
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
4
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
1
3
4
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
4
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
3
2
2
1
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
1
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
1
2
1
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
4
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
16
9
2
1
17
9
2
6
20
3
0
1
17
11
0
2
16
11
0
4
18
7
0
2
16
10
1
7%
55%
31%
7%
62%
93%
3%
59%
31%
7%
62%
93%
21%
69%
10%
0%
90%
100%
3%
59%
38%
0%
62%
100%
7%
55%
38%
0%
62%
100%
14%
62%
24%
0%
76%
100%
7%
55%
34%
3%
62%
97%
LOWER SCHOOLS
Ashton St Peters
Beecroft
Caldecote
Elstow
Eversholt
Greenfield
Hawthorn Park
Heathfield
Langford
Linslade
Queens Park
Ridgmont
Roecroft
Shefford
Shortstown
Silsoe
Springfield
St James
St Mary's, Stotfold
St Swithun's
St Vincent's
Stephenson
Sundon
Totternhoe
Ursula Taylor
Watling
Willington
Willowfield
Wootton
No of schools
Outstanding
Good
Satisfactory
Inadequate
% outstanding
% good
% satisfactory
% inadequate
% good or better
% satis or better
29
OFSTED JUDGEMENTS
OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS
Achievement & Standards
Personal development & well-being
Teaching & Learning
Curriculum & other activities
Care, guidance & support
Leadership & Management
QUALITY OF PROVISION
3
4
3
3
3
4
3
4
2
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
3
4
2
3
3
2
3
1
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
4
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
4
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
3
0
1
7
3
0
1
7
3
1
7
3
0
0
1
9
1
0
4
6
1
1
4
5
1
0
1
9
1
0%
9%
64%
27%
9%
73%
0%
9%
64%
27%
9%
73%
9%
64%
27%
0%
73%
100%
0%
9%
82%
9%
9%
91%
0%
36%
55%
9%
36%
91%
9%
36%
45%
9%
45%
91%
0%
9%
82%
9%
9%
91%
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
Beauchamp
Five Oaks
Gilbert Inglefield
Linslade
Margaret Beaufort
Mill Vale
Newnham
St Bede's
Sandye Place
Streetfield
Westfield
No of schools
Outstanding
Good
Satisfactory
Inadequate
% outstanding
% good
% satisfactory
% inadequate
% good or better
% satis or better
11
Review of School Structures - Report of the Member Working Group
OFSTED Judgements Annex 7
OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS
Achievement & Standards
Personal development & well-being
Teaching & Learning
Curriculum & other activities
Care, guidance & support
Leadership & Management
QUALITY OF PROVISION
3
2
3
4
3
2
2
3
3
3
4
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
1
3
2
3
4
3
2
2
0
3
3
1
0
2
4
1
0
4
3
0
0
3
3
1
0
5
2
0
1
4
2
0
0
2
3
1
0%
43%
43%
14%
43%
86%
0%
29%
57%
14%
29%
86%
0%
57%
43%
0%
57%
100%
0%
43%
43%
14%
43%
86%
0%
71%
29%
0%
71%
100%
14%
57%
29%
0%
71%
100%
0%
29%
43%
14%
29%
71%
UPPER SCHOOLS
Harlington
John Bunyan
Manshead
Mark Rutherford
Queensbury
Redborne
Stratton
No of schools
Outstanding
Good
Satisfactory
Inadequate
% outstanding
% good
% satisfactory
% inadequate
% good or better
% satis or better
1 = outstanding
2 = good
3 = satisfactory
4 = inadequate
As at 070606
7
Review of School Structures
Report of the Member Working Group
Annex 8
Race Impact Assessment
Background
Bedfordshire has a significant and growing culturally diverse black and minority
ethnic population, with over 20 communities including Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian,
African, Caribbean, Italian, Eastern European, Chinese, Gypsies and Travellers,
Asylum Seekers and Refugees. The ethnic minority population in Bedfordshire
continues to grow steadily and currently accounts for 16.7% of the total Bedfordshire
pupil numbers, with a high concentration in the Bedford area.
How would any change in school structure impact on performance?
In considering issues relating to standards the Member Working Group received
evidence on the performance of black and minority ethnic groups. The report
indicated that a two tier system may have potential benefits for particular groups of
underachieving minority ethnic pupils whose baseline on entry to the education
system is, for cultural and linguistic reasons, generally lower than average. These
pupils may benefit from a longer period of time in the nurturing, activity-led,
language-rich environment of the primary classroom. The management and
structure of the daily routine can build confidence and support greater parental
involvement.
The Member Working Group also noted that transitional dips in levels of attainment
are often exacerbated when pupils for whom English is a second language transfer to
middle school at an early age, particularly where those middle schools are deemed to
be “secondary” schools. The technicality of language used by teachers in curriculum
delivery in the secondary phase of education is generally far more complicated as is
the subject specific language that is used in the classroom. These conditions can
create additional barriers to an EAL pupil’s learning. The evidence presented to the
Member Working Group by the then Assistant Director (Learning Standards) was
confirmed by the Head of the Minorities Achievement Support Service.
The Member Working Group has also considered the 2005 Analysis of Achievement
Data by Ethnic Group. From this it noted that there were significant variations in the
patterns of achievement for different ethnic groups across the Key Stages. The
Working Group noted that the performance of pupils from some minority ethnic
groups was a matter of concern to the County Council. There was particular concern
over the performance at GCSE (for the percentage of pupils achieving 5+ A*-Cs or
equivalent and the percentage of pupils achieving 5+ A*-Cs (including English and
mathematics)) of children from Bangladeshi, Black African, Black Caribbean, Mixed
Race Black Caribbean, Italian and Pakistani backgrounds. Children in most of these
groups perform below the Local Authority average at all Key Stages. However,
pupils within the Black Caribbean group perform at around the Local Authority
average in reading and mathematics at Key Stage 1 but there is a significant decline
in performance at GCSE.
An independent analysis from Four S compared the performance of ethnic groups
within Bedfordshire to those of statistical neighbours and other local authorities with a
1
similar ethnic makeup. The main findings from this analysis were that:
•
•
•
•
Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups perform the least well compared to
those groups in other local authorities – this poor performance is
detectable from Key Stage 1
the performance of the Pakistani group is generally the weaker of the
two
by the time they reach GCSE, the performance of Pakistani pupils was
lowest of all the local authorities in both 2003 and 2004; in 2003 the
performance of the Bangladeshi group in Bedfordshire was also the
lowest of all the local authorities
Black Caribbean and mixed White/Black Caribbean pupils performed
most consistently in line with or slightly above average with
performance in other local authorities.
The Member Working Group also received the Annual Racist Incident Report 200405 and looked at the levels of racist incidents reported in lower, middle and upper
schools, which showed that the most incidents reported were in middle schools,
although it was felt that this may not be linked to structures.
Traveller Children
The Working Group considered evidence on the possible impact of school structures
on the performance of traveller children. This noted that Traveller children are
already a significantly underachieving group.
Concerns were expressed about the impact on the performance of this group of the
number of transfers within the three tier structure. Equally, it was noted that there
would be concerns if a change in structure were to result in Traveller children of
primary age having to travel further to school as this could impact adversely on the
attendance of a small minority.
It was also noted that many Traveller children and their families perceived secondary
education as being inappropriate and irrelevant to their needs. At present they
tended to stay in the school system in Bedfordshire until the end of Year 8, but many
dropped out of the system on transfer to upper school. Anecdotal information from
other areas with two tier systems suggested that a change of transfer age might
result in the children staying longer in the system as the age of 11 was not seen as
an appropriate time to leave school and start work.
Consultation
As part of the Review of School Structures, Bedfordshire County Council has sought
to consult with all communities using a range of consultation methods. A consultation
document was sent to all schools and stakeholders, a consultation questionnaire was
sent to the parents of all pupils, the Bedfordshire magazine included articles on the
Review and a questionnaire, the County Council’s web site included information on
the review and public meetings were held in each of the Learning Communities.
In order to reach all communities the consultation questionnaire, sent to the parents
of all pupils via schools, was translated into appropriate community languages. The
County Council advised that other documentation could be supplied in other formats
or community languages, although no requests were received. A translator was in
attendance at the Bedford public meeting.
2
Representatives of black and minority ethnic community groups were invited to a
workshop to discuss the main issues. The Bedford Race Equality Council assisted
the County Council in sending over 100 invitations to the representatives of Black
and minority ethnic community groups throughout Bedfordshire. Although poorly
attended, the workshop included a presentation on the reasons for undertaking the
Review and gave opportunity for workshop discussion on how the current and
alternative school structures could impact on local communities. There was no
consensus over school structures with support both for the current structure and
support for change. The main views expressed were:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
that for pupils with poor English language skills a delay in age of
transfer may be advantageous
that the need to build up and maintain a relationship with the school
was important. Some felt that this may be enhanced by a primary /
secondary model as there was a loss of contact at 9 but others felt
that their local middle school was very supportive of and welcoming
to families
discipline and effective behaviour management were key to high
academic standards
there was some concern that there was a lack of ambition in
Bedfordshire Schools
there was a view that schools had stagnated and not kept up with
changing needs in the community. It was agreed that diversity
should be valued and celebrated
there was a need for positive black and minority ethnic role models in
schools, and for more BME governors to be recruited
that whatever happens in school structures the drop off in
performance for some ethnic groups after key stage 1 must be
addressed to enable all young people to succeed
that a mixed economy of different structures would be confusing,
particularly to families who move through the county, such as
Travellers, Asylum Seekers, Refugees and migrant workers
factors other than structure may have an equal or greater influence on
standards. Class sizes should be reduced to meet the needs of all
children.
Some representatives of Black and minority ethnic community groups, for example
the African Caribbean Saturday School, were unable to attend the workshop but
contacted the County Council to indicate that they would submit written responses.
An analysis of issues arising from the questionnaires completed at public meetings
and written responses has been carried out. The views of those who identified
themselves as being from a Black and minority ethnic group on questionnaires
returned at public meetings very much reflected the views of all responses. There
was no consensus on future school structures but there was considerable support for
the retention of the three tier system with additional resources to fund improvements.
In responses from schools very few race specific issues were raised although one
school suggested that some minority ethnic groups may have more confidence in
girls continuing in post 16 education if this was in a school environment.
The consultation has shown that there is considerable support for the retention of the
three tier structure amongst parents and pupils. For example, in the Queens Park
area of Bedford a petition has shown that there are concerns over a potential change
3
of school structure and these are exacerbated by the recent closure of a local lower
school. The content of letters sent by some pupils from this community to County
Councillors also indicated areas of uncertainty and anxiety.
Conclusion
Clearly there are issues over the performance of young people from particular Black
and Minority Ethnic Communities which need to be addressed by the Authority. It is
not clear that these are related to the structure of schooling within Bedfordshire.
There is no evidence that a change in structures would raise levels of performance
among these groups, although it is felt that some children, particularly those for
whom English is not their first language, would benefit from remaining longer in
primary school before transferring to secondary school. However, it is recognised
that there are some middle schools which serve their pupils from Black and Minority
Ethnic Communities very well and there would certainly be a significant concern
among these communities over a possible change in structure.
From the available evidence it is concluded that a change in school structure may
have particular benefits for some pupils from minority ethnic groups, although for
most the issues are the same as for all pupils. The low performance of pupils
including those from minority ethnic groups is a serious concern for the County
Council and the improvement of standards in order to maximise educational
achievement is a priority within the County Council’s Strategic Objectives.
In consulting over future structures within individual communities the County Council
will use a range of consultation methods to ensure that hard to reach groups are
included and will be sensitive to local community needs.
4
Review of School Structures
Report of the Member Working Group
Annexe 9
14 to 19 Education
Education for 14 to 19 year olds: what the changes mean
Over the next ten years, 14 to 19 year olds will be offered greater choice in the
courses, subjects and qualifications they take, making it easier to gain the basic skills
needed for life and work. New specialised Diplomas will be introduced alongside
GCSEs and A levels.
Why changes to 14 to 19 education are needed
Some young people haven’t been doing as well at school as they could be, and leave
education without the basic skills needed to enter work.
The latest research shows that around half of all students who take their GCSEs get
fewer than five at grade C or above.
In February 2005, the government described in the 14-19 Education and Skills White
Paper how it wanted to change the education system to address this problem. In
December 2005, an implementation plan set out exactly how these reforms will be
put into practice over the next ten years.
New specialised Diplomas
Under the new system, rather than everybody doing a set of standard subjects and
then specialising once their school education finishes, all young people will be
offered the opportunity of having education that meets their particular needs. There
will be more opportunities to learn in a different, more adult environment – including
the potential for significant experience in the workplace.
Students will be able to follow a course in one of 14 specialised Diplomas, which
means they can focus sooner on the subjects that matter to them. Shaped by
employers and universities, the Diplomas will offer more opportunities for practical
learning.
Five of the specialised Diplomas will be introduced from 2008. These will cover:
•
•
•
•
•
ICT (Information Communication Technology)
engineering
health and social care
creative and media industries
construction and the built environment
Five more Diplomas will be introduced from 2009:
•
•
•
•
•
land based and environmental
manufacturing
hair and beauty
business administration and finance
hospitality and catering
The final four Diplomas, in public services, sport and leisure, retail and travel and
tourism will be introduced from September 2010. From September 2013, wherever
young people are in the country, they will have the choice between all the
Specialised Diplomas, alongside the National Curriculum.
DFES – June 2006
Review of School Structures
Report of the Member Working Group
Annex 10
Transport Briefing Note
Shown below is an attempt to quantify the costs cost implications of a
structural change on home to school transport. The figure below should be
highly qualified, however we are confident that a change to a two tier system
would not invoke additional costs in the long term.
Effectively the methodology is to take this year’s school intake and assess it
as if based on a two tier system. In doing this it is assumed that:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
All current lower schools become primary schools
There is an establishment of new upper schools
Transport to denominational schools is unaffected
Transport eligibility is based on Year 4 attending their current lower
school
Years 5 and 6 attend their previous lower school
Years 5 and 5 pupils – the same % of NOR receive transport as for
Year 4
Year 7 pupils – the same % of NOR receive transport as Year 8
(allowing for 4 new schools)
Current spending Profile
£
Lower
864,750
Middle
2,190,320
Upper
2,650,270
Total
5,705,340
Pupils
591
3386
4327
8304
£ per pupil
1,463.20
646.88
612.50
687.06
Spending Profile for a 2 tier system based on forecast provision
Primary
1,271,519
869
1,463.20
Secondary
3,970,199
6482
612.50
Total
5,241,718
7351
Projected
Saving
463,622
May 2006