The annual league table circus has come to town once again – although this year there is change in the air.
The secondary performance tables, against which SecEd has railed for years, already have a more professional air about them now that the inclusion of Progress 8 information has begun. Only 327 schools chose to have their Progress 8 information included for this transitional year, but it still gives us a taste of what we can expect in 12 months’ time.
The rankings, published by the Department for Education, show the progress that students in these schools have made across their best eight eligible subjects compared to the progress we expected them to make (based on prior attainment). A school’s whole-school Progress 8 figure is then compared to the national average, resulting in a +0.49 or -0.49 score, for example. All-in-all, it does seems a fairer system and the figures can be broken down to view just the Progress 8 score of disadvantaged pupils, for example, or by the three Progress 8 subject “baskets”.
Ministers being ministers, though, they cannot help but include some kind of attainment measure and so it goes with these tables too, which include “Attainment 8” – a ranking of the hard attainment figures for English, maths and the other baskets. We never learn it seems.
But overall, this is a change that should be welcomed and I for one hope that in 2017, when the tables are fully converted to Progress 8, the national media will respect this and revise their own obsessions with C grade boundaries, “pass and fail”, and raw attainment.
Of course, having said this, my long-held view remains: I would prefer that England followed the examples of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in banning the publication of school vs school league tables.
As I have said repeatedly for 10 years now, school league tables are divisive and undermine the professional judgement of school leaders and teachers. They certainly do not improve education standards or outcomes – they weigh education, but using flawed measures created by people with no educational expertise and who have their own political agenda to satisfy.
But this is not to miss the point that, anyway, no matter how well intentioned league tables are – no matter where they put their focus – they will always pervert education by forcing schools to focus on one area above another – thus bypassing professional judgement.
The use of the C grade as the supposed benchmark between “good” and “not good” has perverted the education system for years. The threat of severe and excessive intervention or punishment for schools not meeting arbitrary standards set by politicians has led to undue focus and attention being given to borderline students at the expenses of others.
There is now hope that this C obsession will change – but without doubt new perversions will be formed. This is because Progress 8 is not a perfect solution either. It could, for example, effectively create a compulsory EBacc, forcing schools to push students down this route when it is perhaps not in their best interests or is not what they want.
This is because under the three Progress 8 subject baskets, scores will count for English and maths, three qualifications from the EBacc list, and then three from the broader approved list, including non-GCSE and vocational qualifications.
This last fact is welcome, but remember that schools where students do not take a full eight eligible subjects will lose out in the rankings. So who’s to say that schools won’t also persuade students to take some EBacc qualifications as part of the third basket of subjects – just in case? If this becomes standard practice then the league table tail will be wagging the education dog once again and arts or vocational options will diminish.
Ultimately, data on schools is of course important. This year’s tables, for example, draw attention to the persistent gaps that continue to blight our system. Whatever you think about using the C cut-off, the fact that 61.8 per cent of girls but only 52.5 per cent of boys achieve five A* to C GCSEs including English and maths is disturbing. As is the fact that 64.7 per cent of non-Pupil Premium students reach this benchmark against 36.7 per cent of Pupil Premium pupils (the national average is 57.1 per cent).
Figures like these focus our minds. But these can be published without having to rank every individual school.
I have long said that we could simply publish national statistics to guide national priorities and then charge schools with publishing their own data locally for prospective parents. I feel the same about Progress 8.
So, I am happier now than I was, that is for sure – but we must still be cautious as this new system beds in, and be alert for the new ways that the league tables might begin to pervert educational priorities in England.
- Pete Henshaw is the editor of SecEd and has been writing about education for more than 10 years. Email editor@sec-ed.co.uk and follow @pwhenshaw