AND DEPRIVATION
MARCH 2009
INTRODUCTION
To accompany the survey of NUT school representatives working in special measures schools in 2008, the NUT undertook desk-based research on the schools which had been placed into the category by OFSTED. This included using the inspection reports of each school to identify any contextual challenges which such schools faced and determining the level of deprivation in the locality of each school.
SCHOOL INSPECTION REPORTS
School inspection reports contain a range of information about the pupil intake of the school, including the proportion of children receiving free school meals (FSM), the proportion of children with special educational needs (SEN), the proportion of children with English as an additional language (EAL) and, in some cases, the proportion of ethnic minorities within the school population
Typically, OFSTED describes rates of FSM and SEN using the terms ‘none’, ‘all’, ‘above average’, ‘average’ or ‘below average’. Its inspection reports do not contain absolute numbers of pupils or the percentage of the total pupil intake, but makes comparisons between individual schools and the national average of such pupils. Currently, the national average[1] for FSM is 15.9 per cent for maintained nursery and primary pupils and 13.1 or 12.8 per cent for pupils in state funded or maintained secondary schools respectively.
The national average for statemented SEN pupils in Englandis 2.8 per cent, with 56.7 of these pupils educated in mainstream schools and the remainder attending special schools or Pupil Referral Units (PRUs). In addition, 17.2 per cent of the total pupil population are classified as having SEN without statements. There is a greater proportion of such pupils in the primary sector (18.1 per cent) compared to secondary schools (17.8). OFSTED does not generally distinguish between the two groups, or give details of the types of SEN supported by schools in its reports.
In terms of EAL pupils and ethnic minority populations within schools, OFSTED reports sometimes, but not always, contain percentage figures, although descriptive terminology is usedmore frequently. For EAL, these are usually ‘below average’, ‘above average’, ‘increasing’ or‘none’, whilst ethnic pupil populations may be described as ‘low’, ‘high’, ‘increasing’, ‘none’ or ‘average’. The national average for pupils whose first language is other than English is 14.4 per cent in primary schools and 10.8 per cent in secondaries. 23.3 per cent of primary pupils were classified as of minority ethnic origin and 19.5 per cent in the secondary sector.
The NUT used the inspection reports of the special measures schools to identify which, if any, of the four pupil intake indicators was linked to special measures status.
Pupil Intake Factors: All Special Measures Schools
FSM% / SEN% / EAL% / Ethnic Pop %None / 0.7 / 0 / 9.8 / 3.9
Below Av. / 13.7 / 10.6 / 50.7
Average / 7.8 / 18.5 / 1.5 / 3.9
Above Av. / 62.9 / 63.7 / 19.6
Not given / 14.5 / 5.1 / 10.6 / 10.2
All / 1.9
Increasing / 0.3 / 4.3 / 2.3
High / 20
Low / 55.1
5% / 0.3 / 0.3
10% / 0.3 / 1.1
20% / 1.1 / 1.1
25% / 0.7
50% / 0.7 / 0.7
75% / 0.3
It quickly become apparent that the range of terms used by OFSTED to describe the profile of pupils and the lack of consistency in their application across reports may mask significant differences between schools, especially as OFSTED has not provided a standard definition of what constitutes terms such as ‘low’ or ‘above average’ or placed any requirement on inspectors to include percentage figures wherever available.
‘High’, for example, could indicate either above average or a significant number more than average. ‘Below average’ could simply be less than average, not a great deal less than average or even significantly less than average. For SEN, inspection reports do not explain whether their description in the introductory section refers to all SEN pupils or those with statements only. In addition, the public does not have access to data from the Pupil Annual School Census (PLASC), therefore it was impossible for the NUT to determine absolute levels of FSM, SEN etc for the purposes of this report.
It is important to note that, prior to the introduction of the 2005 school inspection framework, inspection reports were longer and tended to give much more detail about the proportion or numbers of pupils in these four categories. Compare, for example, OFSTED’s description of the same school in 2004:
“The proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals is well above the national average, at almost 50 per cent. One hundred and forty nine pupils have been identified as having special educational needs which, at almost 30 per cent, is well above the national average. The pupils receive support for dyslexia, moderate learning difficulties, emotional, behavioural and social difficulties, visual impairment and speech and learning difficulties. Two pupils have statements of special educational need. Around 60 per cent of the school’s population is made up of pupils from non-white backgrounds, including many ethnic groups. The majority group is Asian. Fifty-four pupils are children of refugees or asylum seekers.”
and in 2008:
“The proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals is three times the national average. A high proportion of pupils belong to a large number of different minority ethnic groups and a significant number are refugees or asylum seekers. Over half of the pupils speak English as an additional language and of these a significant number are at the early stages of learning English. The languages spoken in the school include Arabic, Punjabi,Malay and French. The proportion that has learning difficulties and/or disabilities is broadlyaverage and very few pupils have statements of special educational need.”
The usefulness of OFSTED reports has necessarily been reduced in this respect, as parents and others reading them would need to be aware of the national average figures for all of these factors in order to read and understand the report within the particular circumstances of the school. It would be more helpful, for example, if all OFSTED school inspection reports contained a standardised section which contained percentages for these four pupil indicators within the school and set these against national and local average percentages, to facilitate equitable comparisons to be made for every school.
As indicated by previous research on this topic, a strong correlation between high eligibility for FSM and special measures schools was identified, with 62.9 per cent of inspection reports stating that the number of FSM pupils was ‘above average’. A slightly greater proportion of primary schools recorded FSM (66.8 per cent) than secondaries (64.7 per cent). The inspection reports do not indicate, however, the degree to which these schools exceed the national average, so it is inevitable that these statistics mask the full range, from just over the national averages of 15.9 per cent (primary) and 13.1 /12.8 per cent (secondary) to well over 50 per cent of the pupil population.
This also appeared to be the case in special schools and PRUs, where 33.3 per cent and 30 per cent respectively were classified as having ‘above average’ FSM. It is notable, however, that information on FSM was omitted from the inspection report descriptions of these schools in 46.6 per cent and 70 per cent of reports respectively, so it is likely that these figures would be even higher if the reports had all contained the same information. In contrast, FSM information was not included in 12.3 per cent of primary reports and 1.9 per cent of secondary reports.
There was also a significant minority of special measures schools where the proportion of FSM pupils was relatively low. This was more frequently observed in secondary schools, where 19.6 per cent were described as ‘average’ and 13.7 per cent as ‘below average’ in terms of FSM, than primary schools (five per cent ‘average’, 12.9 per cent ‘below average’).
It was also clear that schools in special measures appeared generally to have a high proportion of children with learning difficulties and that this, rather than FSM, was the most common factor amongst all special measures schools. In total, 63.7 per cent of inspection reports described SEN as ‘above average’, with primary schools again being more likely to be described in this way (66.8 per cent compared to 62.7 per cent of secondaries). Unsurprisingly, 73.3 per cent of special schools have‘above average’ levels of SEN, with a further 26.6 per cent of reports stating that ‘all’ pupils had SEN. 70 per cent of reports for PRUs said that SEN was ‘above average’ and an additional 10 per cent ‘all’ pupils. 20 per cent of PRU inspection reports, surprisingly, did not give this information.
More schools had relatively low levels of SEN compared to FSM. In total, 18.5 per cent of special measures schools’ inspection reports described SEN as “average” and a further 10.5 per cent as ‘below average’. ‘Below average’ SEN was more commonly observed in primary schools (13.4 per cent) than secondaries (5.8), whilst ‘average’ more typically applied to secondary schools (25.4 per cent) than primaries (19.1 per cent). No information about SEN was contained in the introduction to five per cent of primary reports and 3.9 per cent of those for secondary schools.
There was a less obvious link between special measures and pupils whose first language was other than English. Just over half of all these schools (50.7 per cent) were described by OFSTED as having ‘below average’ EAL levels, with a further 9.8 per cent having no EAL pupils at all. Only 19.6 per cent of schools had ‘above average’ numbers of such pupils, with inspectors occasionally defining this in reports by the use of percentages, ranging from five to 75 per cent.
This device was used almost exclusively in the inspection reports for primary schools, perhaps reflecting that the national average figures show a greater incidence of EAL in the primary sector. This was certainly the case demonstrated by the NUT’s analysis of the inspection reports, which showed that 23.5 per cent of primaries had ‘above average’ EAL compared to 13.7 per cent of secondaries and that 68.6 per cent of secondary schools had ‘below average’ EAL compared to 48.3 per cent of primaries. 7.8 per cent of both primary and secondary schools were described as having no EAL pupils. Information about EAL was more likely to be omitted from primary inspection reports (9.5 per cent) than those for secondary (1.9 per cent).
In terms of special schools and PRUs in special measures, EAL numbers also appeared to be low, with a third of special schools and a fifth of PRUs described as having no EAL pupils and 40 per cent of special schools and 20 per cent of PRUs having ‘below average’ levels. ‘Above average’ EAL was reported in only 6.6 per cent of special schools and no PRUs. However, no information about EAL was included in the commentary section of the inspection report of 60 per cent of the PRUs and 20 per cent of special schools on the special measures list.
The inspection reports also described a generally‘low’ proportion of minority ethnic pupils (55.1 per cent), with only 20 per cent categorised as ‘high’ in this respect. Very few inspection reports used the classifications relating to averages for this pupil factor, although 3.9 per cent of schools were described by inspectors as having ‘average’ levels of minority ethnic pupil population. Information about the ethnic composition of the school was omitted in 10.2 per cent of special measures inspection reports.
Secondary schools were more likely to have ‘low’ levels of minority ethnic pupils (70.5 per cent) compared to the primary sector (52.8 per cent), whilst 24.1 per cent of primaries had ‘high’ levels, compared to 13.7 per cent of secondaries. No minority ethnic pupils were reported for 2.5 per cent of primary schools and 1.9 per cent of secondary schools. No information about the ethnicity of pupils was included in 10.1 per cent of primary reports and also those for 20 per cent of special schools and 50 per cent of PRUs. This may be because both of these types of institution were reported as having few pupils from ethnic minorities. Just 1.9 per cent of special schools, and no PRUs, had ‘high’ proportions of such pupils and 20 per cent and 10 per cent respectively were reported as having no minority ethnic pupils in their intake.
The NUT’s analysis of special measures schools’ inspection reports would appear to correlate, therefore, with much of the research literature on the link between free school meals and pupil underperformance, which is frequently a key reason why the school is placed in special measures by OFSTED. Shortly after OFSTED school inspections were first introduced, researchers[2] found that:
“In terms of outcomes, the strongest link is between the percentage taking free school meals and the quality of learning, as opposed to teaching …. It appears that 22 per cent of the variation in the achievement of a favourable judgement of learning quality is attributable to the free school meals context. “
The National Audit Office in 2006[3] also reported that:
“A school with a high proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals is, on average, 2.7 times as likely to be in an Ofsted category as one with a low proportion.”
Not enough information is contained within the reports, however, to get any real sense of the extent to which this is a particularly important factor, as not enough information within the reports is provided about the actual level of FSM within individual schools.
In addition, the use of FSM as an indicator of pupils’ socio-economic background has been criticised consistently as an unreliable measure in many quarters. The chief criticism is that statistics on FSM eligibility are dependent upon both parent’s or carer’s decision to claim for them and schools’ accurate recording of them for the Pupil Annual School Census (PLASC), which is maintained by the DCSF and used to construct national data on FSM. A wide variety of reasons have been found for those families who are eligible but do not claim FSM, including lack of awareness, literacy difficulties and over-complex forms, fear of stigma, concerns about the quality of school meals and difficulties in accessing claim forms.
Recently research undertaken at the University of Bristol[4] attempted to assess the usefulness of FSM as an accountability measure. It found that those pupils identified officially as eligible for FSMs accounted for only a small section of a much larger group of disadvantaged pupils.
“We saw that the income cut-off imposed will characterise a significant proportion (61%) of low-income families with low-capital assets as ‘non-disadvantaged’. The ‘non-disadvantaged’ families which are close to the threshold will then be averaged with those from more privileged backgrounds, driving the mean test performance of the truly non-disadvantaged towards lower values.”
It also suggested that the population of those on FSMs is not stable and any calculation or judgement is likely to be an underestimate of the real level of disadvantage within school communities.
“We find that it is a coarse and unreliable indicator by which school performance is judged and leads to biased estimates of the effect of poverty on pupils’ academic progress.”
Indeed, OFSTED inspection reports pre-2005 could sometimes also make the same point:
“The proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals is below average (6 per cent) and this is not an accurate reflection of the social circumstances of the pupils.”(2001)
TheBristol report concluded that:
“There is a need for more fine-grained measures for economic circumstances in order to explain differences in attainment more accurately. This finding has profound implications for policy because it suggests that children from low income families, regardless of whether they are eligible for FSM, under perform at school.”
Even putting aside these concerns about the reliability of FSM as an indicator of pupil disadvantage, the inter-relationship between FSM and the other pupil indicators used by OFSTED in its inspection reports is complex,as the NUT’s analysis shows. The correlation between both high FSM and SEN levels in many of the special measures schools may indicate that these schools may face even greater challenges than those which are reported as having high FSM only, for example, in terms of corresponding higher levels of challenging pupil behaviour and exclusions.
The NUT believes, therefore, that both inspection reports and judgements need to consider a far greater range of information about pupils’ socio-economic context than is currently the case, if they are to be fair to schools and useful for parents and the wider public. In this respect, it might be appropriate for OFSTED to look again at how it collects and reports on such data.
The introduction of shorter inspection reports in September 2005 reduced the level of detail OFSTED provides in its summary of the characteristics of the school, which previously prefaced the inspection report proper. Prior to this time, inspection reports, in this section, contained an account of the socio-economic context of the community which the school served and made reference to issues such as the levels of unemployment, single parent families, home ownership and the condition of housing stock. This can be demonstrated by comparing individual special measures schools’ inspection reports before and after 2005, for example:
“BillinghamCampusSchool is a community comprehensive school for pupils aged 11 to 16 (Years 7 to 11). It is about the same size as most other secondary schools. There are 955 pupils on roll, 447 boys and 508 girls. The school is now slightly larger than at the time of the previous inspection. It is currently under-subscribed as official admission numbers are reducing. A number of parents choose to send their children to other schools within the local area. Most pupils live relatively locally and are able to travel to school on foot or by school bus. The school is committed to playing an increasingly active role in the life of the local community, and of its pupils. The attainment of pupils on entry to the school in Year 7 is below average. Almost all the pupils are from white ethnic backgrounds. The percentage of pupils from other ethnic groups, or whose mother tongue is not, or believed not to be, English is low. Unemployment in the area is higher than average, particularly that for males. The school serves an area, which is recognised as suffering from social deprivation. At nearly 25 per cent, the proportion of pupils registered for free school meals is above average. Some 14 per cent of pupils are on the register of special educational needs, which is below average. At over 3 per cent the proportion of pupils having full statements of special educational need is above average. The number of pupils on the register is declining, but the number of those with statements is rising. The school is supported through the Excellence in Cities initiative and it hosts the new City Learning Centre..”(2003)