Friday, 22nd July, 2011
The contradiction is, to this observer, breathtaking.
Last week, the Government said this: “Too many of our public services are still run according to the maxim ‘the man in Whitehall really does know best’…The idea behind this view of the world – that a small group of Whitehall ministers and officials have a monopoly on wisdom – has propagated a lowest common denominator approach to public services…”
“People should be in the driving seat, not politicians and bureaucrats,” said the Government, in its “open public services” white paper.
On Wednesday, it announced new decisions on what is to count in school league tables which clearly embody a view that, yes indeed, ‘the man in Whitehall really does know best’: certain qualifications are to be seen as valuable – no matter what pupils, teachers and parents think of them – and certain others are not.
These ‘others’ will continue to be funded by the Government, so that state schools will receive cash to offer them. But the results they generate are not to be published at the school level, because to do so would be to encourage schools to offer them. And the Government wouldn’t want to do that.
Confused enough yet? Well, I must admit that the latest developments on league tables have even this perhaps obsessive chronicler of their many twists and turns scratching my head.
Now, come back to that public services white paper. Now I am very sceptical about this document, having blogged about it here. However, it is useful in one sense as a reference point for a world-view being put forward by the coalition which certainly, I thought, had the benefit of clarity.
An idea which is central to the paper, and much other policy which has emerged from Government in the past year, is this concept of “transparency”. The argument runs as follows.
Whitehall collects huge amounts of data, across all public services. Ministers want to release as much of it as possible.
This would have two benefits, the theory went, I thought at least until Wednesday.
First, “transparency” is a good in itself. The public have a right to know as much about the public services they fund as is possible to provide, so releasing more and more stats on the different qualities of institutions must be a good thing.
Second, one of the key aims is to promote choice and competition. In education, by providing more and more data, the idea is that people get a more and more detailed idea of the quality of each school. In doing so, they get the chance to make more effective choices. And, is the implication, this forces schools to have a more and more tightly-defined regard for what the “consumer” – the parent or pupil – wants, and so, it is argued, the quality of education provided must rise.
An intriguing twist on this argument is that, third, in releasing huge amounts of data in different categories, effectively the Government democratises the use of these statistics for accountability purposes, the argument runs. In the old days, it is claimed, schools were judged by just one or two results formulae, laid down to very tight specifications by civil servants and ministers, meaning that they worried most about performing to goals which had been set for them not by the public, but by bureaucrats.
Now, with schools being able to be judged in any number of ways with the user of the service choosing what matters most to them, the entire process has been devolved, with accountability resting where it should: between institution and user, rather than between institution and policy-makers.
Much of this, I think, is actually very contentious and I hope I have questioned much of the above at some point or another. But it does at least have the virtue of being reasonably internally consistent; indeed, some would say that it is too simple, and too ideological. But, as I say, it is a view.
So, the Department for Education press release yesterday began: “The Department for Education today announced that only the highest quality qualifications will be included in new, transparent school league tables.”
GCSEs and iGCSEs would be included, but other qualifications would have to pass some kind of quality check in order to be released for publication, even though these latter qualifications would continue to be taken in schools and colleges, and funded by the state.
Um, so that would seem to violate the first principle that I thought the coalition’s reforms in this area were based on: complete transparency. If the government had data on something going on within a school, I thought the idea was that it would release it to the public.
Yet here we have a government which says it is committed to transparency seemingly, mind-blowingly perhaps given what I thought its philosophy was, proposing that pupils take a set of qualifications whose results will then be… kept secret.
Nick Gibb, the schools minister, is quoted as saying: “Parents want more information so they can judge schools’ performance. The changes we have made mean that parents will have a complete picture of their local schools so they can choose the right school for their child.”
Eh? No they won’t have a complete picture. It’s only “complete” if you believe that the non-GCSE courses which are now longer featuring in the rankings, but pupils will continue to take, are not any part at all of what counts in a school. That’s a value judgement made by a minister, rather than coming from decisions at the school or family level. (I also wonder exactly what evidence there is for the at-face-value plausible assertion that “parents want more information so they can judge schools’ performance”, but that’s another matter…)
And of course, just as strikingly, this move violates the third seeming principle, that publishing more data allows the public to judge what it values within what an institution provides, rather than the state. Yet here, the state is laying down exactly which qualifications are to be seen as high quality, and which are not. It is the officials and the minister – Nick Gibb is the one quoted in this release – who are acting as if they have the “monopoly of wisdom” here. For, if the individual chooses to work for a qualification which does not feature in the league tables, pupils, advised by their parents, will demonstrate that they believe it has some value. Mr Gibb and his advisers appear to be keen on telling them that they are wrong. It is a very un- free market approach, and very un-Tory.
So, as I say, my head is spinning with all of this. I can’t quite understand why a policy has come about which is so at odds with what I thought was the over-arching philosophy. However, I thought I would venture a couple of possible reasons.
The first is reasonably simple: the juxtaposition of this policy and the transparency/democratisation of accountability philosophy might not make much sense, but both of them potentially play well with the media, so, in the policy-maker’s mind, why not go for it? The “transparency” argument above will be accepted by many people, while the belief that this will provide headlines suggesting that ministers are getting tough with “dodgy” vocational qualifications also appears to have paid off in some newspapers. It’s a win-win, and while this might make for contradictory policy-making, who will notice?
I think that’s only part of the answer, though. The second explanation is a clear implication of the press release: the Government simply is going along with the finding – in the report on vocational qualifications by Alison Wolf which lays the groundwork for these changes – that pupils have been incentivised to go for certain vocational courses not because of the worth of the course to the individual, but because of their high rating in league tables for the school.
That’s an argument I’ve been making since at least the time my book came out, of course. And yes, this is indeed a side-effect of the current league tables. (The press release amusingly says “the Wolf Report demonstrated that the current performance table system creates perverse incentives,” as if this had been in doubt beforehand, or as if any performance table system would not create some kind of side-effect).
The TES rightly points out, on its front page today, that this is the final confirmation that the contribution of non-GCSEs to headline “GCSE” measures will be capped, which must be a correct decision, given the way “GCSE” league table findings are interpreted by the public and given the perverse incentives which have existed up to now.
But otherwise the remedy to this problem is bizarre. This particular perverse incentive was created not because of the mere existence of vocational qualifications in any league table ranking (though all league tables will create perverse incentives), but because some of them were – seemingly, to this observer – so over-weighted in the central indicators that there was a huge incentive for schools to push pupils towards them, with the need of the school to raise its scores at least a large part of that calculation in many cases.
If the Government changed this so the results for particular individual non-GCSEs were simply published separately alongside each GCSE in the tables, this particular perverse incentive, I think, would have gone. Although schools would still have to think about success rates for every type of individual qualification they entered – which can be a perverse incentive, I think, in that I don’t think a pupil wanting to take a course should be pushed away from it just because they are unlikely to get a C grade, though I guess some teachers would dispute this – at least schools would be relatively free to opt for courses they, and the parent and pupil, potentially valued. A course could still have its results published, but if parents and pupils did not value it, the “market” would kill it off in a way that might not have happened under the old system, when schools were incentivised to push pupils towards particular courses with high league table weighting.
As we are, the new league tables will not neutralise the incentives on schools to push pupils towards particular qualifications because of the benefit to the school, rather than to the pupil. It simply changes the type of qualifications which might be favoured, based on the “wisdom of Whitehall ministers and policy-makers” as to which type of courses should be favoured. To put it another way: ministers don’t seem to like qualifications assessed entirely through coursework, and I would agree that it is tough for these courses to co-exist and have credibility with a high-stakes accountability system in which teachers are being held to account for the results.
But simply removing such courses from high-stakes accountability, in the sense that the results of these qualifications are not published themselves, does not remove them from the effects of league tables. Ministers are incentivising schools to move away from them. Is this the best move for the child? Again, schools are not able to that decision from a neutral perspective, because of the mechanism of high-stakes accountability.
To put it another way, the press release says: “Teachers will still be able to use their professional judgement to offer the qualifications which they believe are right for their pupils.” But this will, still, clearly be influenced by league table considerations, as, mind-blowingly, even the DfE knows, since it also says in the press release that its league table changes will “ensure that schools focus on valued qualifications”. (Sorry, I made the mistake of looking at the press release again; it’s not good for my head).
So, ahem, clearly I still think there are fundamental problems with league tables and results pressures at lots of levels. But I’m especially surprised the government did not come up with a solution which at least is a better fit with its own logic. Not to have done so either smacks of the thinking behind the rankings getting so complex that everyone gets confused, or of a belief that the incentives within league tables can be harnessed for the greater good, even despite the clear inconsistency. Some will also claim that there is a vindictiveness in ministers coming out against non-GCSE exams and those which are assessed by the teacher, although I am not sure about this verdict myself: some of the arguments within the Wolf report about needing to look properly at the quality of courses towards which “non-academic” pupils are being pushed are powerful. But then again, if these are not good courses, why should the Government continue to allow them to be funded in state schools?
I wonder if this is not also another example of that mad pendulum swinging in education policy: Labour worried that league table pressures would push schools away from vocational courses unless they were given an incentive not to do so – so it over-incentivised them – and the Tories respond by using one of the easiest levers they have to pull – how schools are held to account – to wipe many of them off the official map of what counts.
The Government’s move may have demonstrated something useful, though. Sometimes, to hear supporters of league tables talk, publishing data is both a largely “neutral” act of transparency, and almost inevitable. To open up the statistics is simply a matter of letting in some sunlight into previously obscure areas of school practice, one would think sometimes from listening to the advocates of this movement.
In reality, the choices the Government makes as to what is measured, how, and what data is released, are hugely important. It remains, in this sense, a very centralised system, which I suspect is why civil servants and ministers like it so much. It clearly drives how schools act. But in this sense, it is not a “neutral” act, to be judged on the criterion that you either like the idea of releasing more data, or you don’t. Politicians should be held to account for the effects of their moves on data, not just the existence of them. To the extent that this move will stop pupils being pushed towards non-GCSE courses because of the high-equivalence factor, the politicians should be praised. But believe me, the problems and injustices are not going to go away, and the inconsistencies here are now glaring.
One final point. The press release also says: “The 2011 school league tables will highlight the performance and progress of disadvantaged groups compared with other pupils. This will create a powerful incentive to narrow the gap in achievement between richer and poorer pupils.”
I know what the thinking is behind this, and on the surface it seems commendable. But I can’t help cringeing when I read it. There’s a sense of a teacher reading this and thinking: “Oh yeah, helping disadvantaged kids do well. I’d never thought of that. I just wasn’t bothered before. Now, thanks to your wisdom, Mr Gibb, in putting another column on the spreadsheet by which I’m judged, I realise the error of my ways. I’ll try harder now. Thanks.”
I know one of the most persistent debates within education is about many teachers not having high enough expectations of pupils from tougher backgrounds. But it strikes me that if the main way of tackling it is for ever-closer monitoring through the statistics generated at the end of this process, we are in danger of missing an awful lot of tricks.
If the Government isn’t, through the way it trains teachers, develops them in the classroom, the messages it sends them in its rhetoric and the support it provides to improve the quality of the educational experience for all pupils and particularly those from disadvantaged families, trying to promote this, I don’t know what it is doing. If it had done that, and then effectively argued that teachers still need an “incentive” at the end of this process, you have to ask what has gone wrong along the way.
-There are other things to comment on in the league table announcements – including the fact that pupils taking the EBacc appear now to have to take seven GCSEs, raising question marks over how much time they will have to study much else, and the contentious, for me, move from contextual value added to value added and unadjusted progress measures as the main “fair” ways of judging schools – but I seem to have run out of space and time today….keeping up with developments in the rankings is a full-time job, it seems….