North East schools respond to the Schools White Paper

North East schools respond to the Schools White Paper

The Schools White Paper was released this week, setting out the government’s plans ‘to make sure every child can reach the full height of their potential.’

The White Paper comes at a time when the education system has been under enormous pressure, with schools going above and beyond to ensure students can access both education and vital support.

There are a number of encouraging announcements in the white paper, in particular the ‘rigorous commitment to using, building and sharing evidence’ and ‘a focus on enabling collaboration between teachers, schools and wider children’s services’.

However, while these measures are welcome, other measures included in the White Paper seem to lack the ambition necessary to ensure all schools and students will receive the support they need. Several measures risk putting more pressure on schools, with unnecessary micro-management and continued use of high-stakes accountability measures. Additionally, the announcements fail to address the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on areas such as the North East.

In response to the White Paper, Schools North East sent out a survey to all schools in the region, looking at some of the key announcements. The survey responses represent a cross-section of 10% of schools in the North East, representing all stages, types, and Local Authorities.

As well as the White Paper, the government also released the long awaited SEND review Green Paper. We will be working with schools in our region to ensure the North East voice is heard in this consultation.

Levelling up mission for education

The Schools White Paper reiterated the previously announced new targets for schools in the government’s ‘Levelling Up’ White Paper earlier this year, to ensure that 90% of children leaving primary school in England are reaching the expected standard in reading, writing, and maths by 2030. This week’s White Paper also set out a new target for secondary schools, to see the national average GCSE grade in both English language and maths increase from 4.5 in 2019 to 5 in 2030. 

The charts below show support for these targets.

Responses recognised the importance of having high aspirations for children, however many responses (including those supportive of these new targets) argued that it was still important to take into account the context schools work in, which impact on educational attainment and progress but are beyond the control of schools alone.  Many respondents pointed out that the White Paper contained very little of direct relevance to the NE in terms of such support.

These targets fail to take into account the complex needs of some learners, whether this be pupils with SEND, or from disadvantaged backgrounds. Many disadvantaged students in the region also begin at a lower starting point than their less disadvantaged peers, and without a plan to address the fundamental difficulties faced by many schools with entrenched disadvantage before children even start nursery, it is not clear how these standards will be achieved, especially at primary school. Responses wanted to see a focus on the individual needs of students, rather than headline figures.

Additionally, responses also discussed the longer term historical trends. For many schools, it simply wasn’t clear how current measures and investments would achieve increases in grades. The target is seen as unrealistic given that schools have been trying to raise standards for years and are nowhere near the new target.

As well as this longer-term context, the lack of consideration of the impact of the pandemic on education was a concern. The impact of lost learning will take years to be measured and recovered, and this will only take us back to pre-pandemic results. Pupil attendance remains a challenge in delivery of ‘catch-up’, and schools are working hard to address emotional well being and mental health issues to support pupils to learn.

Finally, this focus on grades was seen as having a likely impact on the ability of schools to develop a broad and balanced curriculum. There were worries that the narrow focus on maths and English may lead to ‘teaching to the test’, and work against the curriculum focus in Ofsted’s inspection framework.

Minimum school week

Schools will also be asked to offer a minimum school week of 32.5 hours by 2023. Of those responding, half did not currently meet this target. However, those not currently with 32.5 hours a week were often only missing out by about 50 minutes a week (10 minutes each day). They questioned how schools being ‘open’ would be defined, and what they would be expected to do to make up the additional time.

Schools have different structures to the school day, with varying lengths of lunch breaks, or staggered start and end times. Schools do this to cater to the needs of students and to their communities. Those with slightly below the expected school hours were not seeing poorer performance, and questioned what impact this change would have. Concerns were raised about micromanaging, with responses questioning if the required hours would impact on the flexibility schools have to structure the school day.

Academisation

The Schools White Paper sets out the aim of all schools to be in, or in the process of joining or forming, a ‘strong’ MAT by 2030. Some responses were supportive of this, discussing the importance of a simple and stable system, avoiding some of the confusion associated with a ‘mixed-economy’. Others considered this inevitable, and were encouraged to have some clearer direction on academisation (especially for those already in a MAT).

However, the majority questioned whether this was necessary. Responses questioned what the evidence was that this would improve outcomes, and how Local Authorities (LAs) forming their own trusts was any different than having maintained schools.

A significant concern, amongst both those more supportive of this policy and those less so, was how a ‘strong’ MAT would be defined. There were real worries about the standardisation of MATs, with responses arguing that good trusts should not be defined by size, but by what collaboration and school-to-school support they facilitate, as well as their ethos. Schools wanted to see more conversation on how different trust structures work. Schools working in the special and alternative provision (AP) sector were particularly keen to see discussions about how different structures can support the needs of individual and groups of students.

These concerns were expressed especially strongly by rural schools, maintained schools, and those in smaller or single academy trusts. These schools are worried about the loss of identity and autonomy if they are forced to join a larger MAT. There is currently a lack of recognition that schools not in large MATs achieve excellent results, and that MATs shouldn’t be seen as the only answer to ensure high quality teaching.

Online resources

The White Paper announced that the Oak National Academy will become a government body, with a sole focus on supporting teachers to deliver the very best lesson content. The majority of responses (over 80%) had previously accessed resources provided by the Oak National Academy.

Most responses were broadly supportive of this measure, to ensure schools have additional resources should they need them. However, support for this measure depended on how it will be implemented, with schools saying that they need flexibility.

Those that had accessed resources from the Oak National Academy have had a variety of experiences, with some finding excellent support from the available resources, while others have not found it suitable to their students. Schools made it clear that while these resources can help, an experienced teacher who knows the needs of their students and is confident to use a variety of strategies in a lesson and respond to how the children are reacting, altering their approach where necessary, must remain at the heart of curriculum planning.

As such, schools were wary that the Oak resources may be seen as a ‘standard curriculum’, and as with the ‘Levelling Up’ targets this may push schools into a one-size-fits-all curriculum. Schools have spent the last few years, especially during and after the pandemic, developing a curriculum that meets the needs of their settings. For Oak resources to be effective, there must be choice and flexibility in the system so as not to undermine the progress schools are making.

Teaching and tutoring

The charts below show how realistic schools see the White Paper’s announcements on tutoring and teacher training.

In both cases, responses were concerned about the capacity in the system to deliver these measures. Schools recognised quality tutoring for small groups of students as an effective and evidence-based approach. However, the National Tutoring Programme (NTP) has been difficult to access for many schools, with the North East lacking the infrastructure to effectively use the NTP to meet the challenges of ‘catch-up’, especially in rural areas.

There are currently serious challenges around staff workload, making it difficult to find capacity for quality tutoring, and delivery of teacher training opportunities. In order to make these ambitions feasible, it is crucial that more is done to address the crisis in teacher recruitment and retention. More needs to be done to retain early career teachers, by de-pressurising the system and allowing teachers to get on with the job of teaching.

In terms of supporting students, the White Paper sets out the following: ‘Schools will identify children who need help, provide targeted support via a range of proven methods such as small group tuition, and keep parents informed about their child’s progress.’

Almost all schools said that they already did this, and were only limited by time, funding, and workload. Additionally, there are the immediate challenges created by the pandemic, of continuing absences and increased gaps in learning that need addressing.

Again, schools supported small group tuition as an evidence-based approach, but that the infrastructure in the North East needs to be built up, with full and accessible funding. Use of the NTP has been hampered by this lack of infrastructure and the bureaucratic system in place to access the various sources of funding. Schools have preferred to use their own staff and the interventions they already have in place.

Ofsted

Two thirds of responses supported the target to have Ofsted inspect every school by 2025. Many schools said that it is right that those outstanding schools that haven’t been inspected in several years should now be inspected.

Responses felt that it was important that all schools should be part of the routine inspection programme. However, schools wanted to see Ofsted’s role change, to ensure that it carries out inspections in a collaborative manner. Schools are coming out of the pandemic, and Ofsted is adding unnecessary pressure to the system if it uses pre-pandemic measures. There are worries that Ofsted will return to being data driven, rather than being a force for real school improvement through support and the sharing of best practice.