Following publication of the National Audit Office report Improving Poorly Performing Schools in England, The Times and The Independent led their front pages with claims that one million pupils are being failed by their schools. This figure was obtained by adding the numbers of pupils in schools which are “under-performing” (DfES definition), “low-attaining” (DfES), “underachieving” (Ofsted), or in special measures or having serious weaknesses (Ofsted). The inclusion of low-attaining schools led John Dunford to comment, “The report is naive in failing to recognise that 25% of schools will always be in the bottom quartile.”

The authors of the report claim, “In 2004-05, 28% of primary and 20% of secondary schools had headteacher vacancies”. They actually meant – as a subsequent correction has acknowledged – that 28% of primary and 20% of secondary schools which advertised for a headteacher in that year failed to appoint. It is to be hoped that the NAO would be able to use statistics in an appropriate fashion.

The report also claims, “It is totally unacceptable for a school to go on providing a poor education beyond two years,”  but one of its five examples of good practice in turning schools around is a school which was in special measures for three years.

The report is very positive about Cardinal Hinsley High School, Brent, saying:

“Collaboration with other schools
This secondary school for boys went into Special Measures in 2002. The local authority and the Diocese organised a federation with a nearby Catholic school for girls. The headteacher of the girls’ school became executive headteacher of the federation and spent much of her time turning around Cardinal Hinsley, drawing in resources from the other school. Becoming a federation brought additional funding from the Department. Ofsted inspectors considered that the federation contributed powerfully to the school’s rapid progress and took it out of special measures in 2004.”

Overall, the report is longer on descriptions of the problem than solutions. It suggests that schools should “put teaching at the heart of the school’s self-evaluation” and “build effective leadership teams” whilst seeking “external support for school improvement”. Local authorities should “provide speedy extra support” to vulnerable schools. It is hard to imagine anyone who has worked in education disagreeing with these anodyne suggestions, or indeed learning anything from them.

For further information, please contact Peter Walsh, pwalsh@cesew.org.uk, 0207 901 4854.