Report of the London Education Conference 2014

Report of the London Education Conference 2014

REPORT OF THE LONDON EDUCATION CONFERENCE 2014

Institute of Education

Saturday 8 February 2014

“FROM STRENGTH TO STRENGTH – BUILDING ON SUCCESS IN LONDON SCHOOLS”

Chairs:

Christine Blower, General Secretary NUT and Russell Hobby, General Secretary NAHT

MORNING PLENARY SESSION

The theme of the morning session of the conference was ‘Leaning the Lessons of London’.

The session was chaired by Christine Blower, General Secretary of the NUT.

Keynote Address: ‘How London Schools Rose to the Challenge’ – Professor Tim Brighouse

Tim Brighouse was the Chief Education Officer for Birmingham from 1993-2002. Tim finished his full time career as Commissioner for London Schools in 2007.

Tim Brighouse gave the background to London Challenge. The initiative began in 2003 with a focus on secondary schools. Primary schools were incorporated in 2007 and the programme was ended in 2011.

The challenge had four factors incorporated into the work plan: the London teacher; theLondon school; the London leader and the London pupil. It focusedon the following key interventions:

  • Stimulating the intellectual curiosity and respecting the professional skills ofteachers and school leaders.
  • Encouraging Boroughs to be both collaborative and healthily competitive.
  • Promoting co-operation and school partnerships at local level.
  • Developing ‘bottom-up’ change, the ‘butterfly’ effect, using such changes toreflect and speculate on school improvement and using language to changeculture.

Tim Brighouse described how his experience in Birmingham supported and informed his work on London Challenge. It was important that theories of ‘school improvement’ were based on schools’ experience of what worked.One of the theoretical influences that steered the programme was ‘Evidence-Based Policy: A Practical Guide’, byNancy Cartwright and Jeremy Hardie.

School improvement initiatives had to be based on a moral purpose. The London Challenge also took on board that the schools involved operated in different contexts.

In conclusion, Tim Brighouse emphasised that the London Challenge was very successful: “More good things happened and fewer bad things happened”.

Tim’s presentation is available at:

Keynote Address: ‘The Legacy of the London Challenge’ – Professor Merryn Hutchings

Merryn Hutchings is Emeritus Professor, Institute for Policy Studies in Education, London Metropolitan University. She recently directed the DfE-funded evaluation of the City Challenge programme in London, Greater Manchester and the Black Country, and has carried out subsequent research for Ofsted about the legacy of the Challenge programmes.

Merryn Hutchings posed the question of what more could be done to benefit from the lessons of the London Challenge. She emphasised that the legacy of London schools was the significant levels of student attainment that had been achieved. Primary and secondary schools in London now performed better than schools in any other regions of England, as judged by national test scores. London schools with a higher percentage of pupils eligible for freeschool meals (FSM) had achieved above the national average of GCSE 5 A*-C grades, including in English and mathematics.

Other pupil groups also did better in London than elsewhere in the country. These groups were:

  • pupils not eligible for FSM;
  • white pupil groups;
  • minority ethnic pupil groups;
  • pupilsboth with and without SEN; and
  • pupils with English as an addition language (EAL).

Ofsted judgements for primary and secondary schools in London were also very positive in comparison to the rest of England.

Merryn concluded that the London Challenge was the main factor responsible for London’s success. In interviews, school leaders had identified the following changes initiated by the Challenge:

  • London schools were more outward looking, establishing new partnerships atlocal level.
  • There was a strong focus on teaching and learning in London schools.
  • There were higher expectations of pupils.
  • The development of coaching skills was a positive contribution to the raising of achievement in schools.
  • Teachers’ energy and enthusiasm contributed strongly to the success of the London Challenge schools, alongside their activities and involvement in school improvement.
  • London schools had become more comfortable with external scrutiny.

Merryn argued that the lessons of the London Challenge which could be more widely applied included:

  • Establishing processes to identify schools with the greatest support needs alongside providing advisers to provide support.
  • Ensuring a balance between challenge and collaboration between schools.
  • Monitoring the school improvement support strategies co-ordinated by academy chains.
  • Recognising that school improvement takes time. Focusing on short-term strategies could be counter-productive.
  • Reviewing the geographical distribution of Teaching Schools and National Leaders of Education.
  • Providing more recognition of the importance of the ethos of schools.

Q&A

In discussion following these presentations, the following points were made:

  • The successes of the London Challenge needed to be taken on board by the Labour Party.
  • Building Schools for the Future contributed to the London Challenge success story.
  • The loss of teacher training institutions in Higher Education (HE) needed to be reviewed. This important training needed to be balanced with Teach First initiatives. The professional development of teachers was central to the success of London Challenge and it was suggested that one INSET day a year should be given over to teachers observing others teaching.
  • More research needed to be undertaken on the impact of FSMs on pupil achievement, and the impact of EAL students on school improvement.
  • Lessons needed to be learnt from local authorities such as Tower Hamlets where schools were successful despite a high deprivation ranking.
  • Rigid Ofsted judgements ran counter to supporting and motivating improving schools.
  • Peer coaching was central to classroom observation practice and to the overall success of schools.
  • Private tuition in London was a significant factor in raising school achievement. Itwas suggested that every pupil should have access to this and that it should be centrally financed. Private tutors could also be shared between schools.
  • Cross-borough and local government support was central to the London Challenge success story. It was suggested that the Greater London Authority (GLA)could be the ideal democratic body to co-ordinate school improvement in London schools.

In conclusion, all the data indicated that London schools were doing better, despite negative Government education interventions.

Merryn’s presentation is available at:

AFTERNOON PLENARY SESSION

The theme of the afternoon session of the conference was ‘Moving Forward – Building on Success’. The session was chaired by Russell Hobby, General Secretary of the NAHT.

Keynote Address: ‘What London Schools Can Learn From the Best Education Systems’ – Professor Peter Mortimore

Peter Mortimore is a former teacher and HMI. He has been a Professor of Education at the Universities of Lancaster, London and Southern Denmark. He was Director of the Institute of Education from 1994-2000.

Peter Mortimore began by outlining some of the difficulties posed by studying other countries’ education systems which were rooted in the context of their national history, culture and customs. There were barriers caused by language and understanding as well as the limits of access. However, the observation of how schooling and society are linked could help aid understanding of one’s own education system.

Peter outlined some of the features of the London education system. These included pioneers such as Alex Bloom, the work of the London County Council, ILEA and the London Challenge. He noted that although the establishment – politicians and the media – were based in London, they were more likely to send their children to private rather than state schools.

Peter then went on to identify some of the strengths and some of the ambiguities of the English education system.

Peter commented that some of the best teaching he had witnessed anywhere in the word had been in the UK. As well as the generally high quality of teaching, schools were generally well led, he said. There was also efficient local management of schools, with most well served by their governing bodies and there was generally good local government. Furthermore, most schools were housed in reasonable buildings and possessed good facilities and equipment. He stated that he had never seen such high quality art work displayed around schools in any other country. Many English schools managed to combine both a zest for improvement with a sense of fun and there was a strong tradition of creativity - music, art, sport, school trips and assemblies.

Among its more ambiguous features were school funding: Peter questioned whether there a fair distribution or whether extra resources and greater powers were given to favoured types of school.The National Curriculum suffered from political interference; we had a plethora of testing and assessment;our faith schools divided communities;and we had costly inspections that could dominate schools’ focus.

The weaknesses of England’s education system included the over-dominance of Westminster; a lack of affordable pre-school care; the competitive, market model of schooling; the impact of private schools which educated just a small proportion of children who went on to dominate politics and the professions; divisive school selection; the fact that our children were among the most stressed and unhappy in the world; and that we seemed to have an obsession with measuring ability.

On this last point Peter stated that we suffered from a national obsession with sorting people by ability. He questioned how ability should be determined – was it through IQ scores or a broader definition that took into account, for example, intellectual, social, emotional, physical and artistic capabilities; the skill in using luck; the capacity for hard work; resilience and a sense of strategy.

He stated that education systems tend to cope well with pupils coming from relatively advantaged backgrounds whereas pupils from poor family backgrounds do less well everywhere (although exceptional individuals bucked the trend). The achievement gap was one of education’s greatest challenges. Some countries – like Finland - are good at reducing this gap just as England had been from 1950-2000.

Peter went on to discuss what England could learn from more successful education systems. He outlined the key features of such systems as being:

•Pre-school is good and school starting age is six or seven;

•There is much less testing and few league tables;

•There is less pressure on pupils, teachers and parents;

•Trust is highly valued;

•School is seen as preparation for democratic life;

•Life-long learning is encouraged by slower pace and built in catch up points; and

•Their societies appear less selfish.

Discussing possible ways forward, Peter stated that immediate measures should be taken to ensure all schools have common funding, powers and governance;league tables were abolished; selection was outlawed; and faith school admissions were opened up.

In addition, we needed to explore ways to ensure all schools have a balanced intake; anda more even spread of teachers.Finally, it would be necessary to work towards the integration of private schools.

Peter concluded his presentation by stating that England has excellent teachers but a muddled system; it has strengths but also weaknesses and English school pupils appear less happy than their counterparts. While remedies are available, politicians will ignore them unless we can persuade the public to demand change.

He added that we must maintain our enthusiasm for education –while its impact might be limited, it still represents the best hope of creating a better society.

Peter’s presentation is available at:

Peter Mortimore’s latest book – Education under siege: why there is a better alternative – is published by Policy Press and is also available as an e-book:

Panel Debate: ‘From Strength To Strength – Maintaining A World Class Education For London’s Children’

Panel Members:

  • Rushanara Ali, MP For Bethnal Green and Bow and a member of the Shadow Education Team
  • Jennette Arnold OBE, Chair Of The London Assembly’s Education Panel
  • Melissa Benn, author and campaigner for state education
  • Emma Knights, Chief Executive, National Governors’ Association
  • Cllr Peter John, Leader of Southwark Council and London Councils’ Executive Member For Children And Young People
  • Dr. Dame Jane Roberts, Chair of The Advisory Committee Of The Compass/NUT Inquiry Into ‘A New Model Of Education’
  • Caroline Ezzat, London Teacher
  • Peter Mortimore, Former Professor Of Education at the Universities Of Lancaster, London And Southern Denmark

The Chair, Russell Hobby, explained to delegates that workshops had been asked to formulate a question and nominate a participant to put this to the panel. Members of the panel would be selected to respond to specific questions.

Q1: How can we encourage Ofsted to promote collaboration and federation?

Jane Roberts stressed that there needed to be greater trust in teachers and schools but said that there was an inherent tension between the need for autonomy and the need for an independent body to provide oversight. Achieving this balance was difficult.

Caroline Ezzat said that head teachers spent a lot of time stressing about Ofsted and that this was counterproductive. She added that Ofsted inspectors often appeared to make judgements before arriving at a school, often based on flawed data. Ofsted therefore could lack credibility; there was a need for informed feedback from inspectors.

Q2: How do we create a developmental rather than punitive environment in terms of work in the classroom – removing stress?

Melissa Benn emphasised that there had been a significant shift towards a more punitive approach within education. She also noted that university-based initial teacher training (ITT) was under attack with the shift towards School Direct and Teach First. The advantage of university-based ITT was that it allowed teachers to develop an understanding and critical approach towards the processes of learning, as well as an awareness of wider education policy.

Melissa added that the right-wing narrative that small class sizes were not important had gained too much acceptance and should be challenged. Large classes meant it was harder to provide children with individual attention and could make the class more difficult to manage. The provision of quality education should be seen as an argument about resources; there was a need for better pay, funding and smaller class sizes.

Rushanara Ali stressed that Labour was committed to a strong and supported teaching profession and believed that all teachers should be qualified; this was the way to raise standards. She also said that London could be used as an example to inform improvements in education elsewhere.

Q3(i): How do you think we can encourage collaboration on school improvement in an increasing fragmented system?

Q3(ii) Do you think the Greater London Authority (GLA) should/could have a role in this?

Peter John said that the public assume and expect their local authority (LA) to be responsible for school planning and school improvement, in part because of its local democratic mandate. For this reason LAs would continue to have a role in education provision. He emphasised that many London Boroughs were working collaboratively on education. However, he also said that he was in favour of powers being devolved from the centre to a more local level and on this basis would accept a role for the GLA if this became a possibility.

Jennette Arnold noted that the GLA already had a range of responsibilities that included fire and housing and that the London Mayor has the power to intervene in any area that he or she believed affected the lives of Londoners. Ken Livingstone had showed an interest in a role for the GLA in education as had Boris Johnson.

Jennette added that the GLA had a unit that had been charged with the promotion of free schools and it was important that there should be transparency around its role and activity. Jennette said she was in favour of a strong middle tier and a role for the GLA.

Q4: If we are working to develop the curriculum to include skills that equip pupils for the 21st Century, such as emotional resilience and the ability to research effectively, what role does assessment play in this? And do schools have to sacrifice exam results if we are going to teach wider skills?

Peter Mortimore said that there had to be a match between curriculum and assessment. There was also a need to look at ways of effectively assessing levels of skills.

Emma Knights said that the NGA was trying to encourage governors to challenge teachers. She said that there was some reluctance on governors’ part to get involved in these issues because teachers are rightly seen as professionals. However, she said that governors could offer the role of strategic focus and vision for the school. There is space to do other things outside of the requirements of assessment, and governors could support teachers to do this by offering a broader vision about what the school does. She stressed that school should be seen as “fun and interesting”.

Top View