Report Cards for Schools - how will they work and what should they include?

Ed Balls has not only scrapped SATS for 14 year olds, he has also announced the introduction of new School Report Cards. These, he claims, will "strengthen accountability to parents and local communities by making broader information and achievements more readily available to parents in a simpler, easily understood format."

But what exactly are these report cards and how will they work? It's hard to argue with something that provides more information to parents, particularly as much of what we already have can be difficult to navigate. But no one seems quite sure exactly how the new system will be put into practice. It took me a while to find out that the aim is for the cards to apply for both primary and secondary schools.

That goes for the Department for Children, Families and Schools (DCFS) among others. They say that the Government will "learn lessons" from other countries which have progress reports, but don't go into too much detail. This may be wise; they don't expect to bring the Report Cards in until 2011. They also specifically mention New York City, which already has annual report cards for each school, as being a place they are "particularly interested in". In fact, a single grade is given for New York public schools - A, B C and D are passes, with F a fail.

British report cards can't work in exactly the same way, for a variety of reasons. For example, in New York, standardised tests are used to compare pupils' results. With the scrapping of Key Stage 3 tests, there are even fewer standardised tests available here to use for comparison (I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm simply interested in what it means for this new development). As Buckingham University's Anthony O'Hear told me this morning "I'm very sceptical about introducing this at a time when we seem to be abolishing any objective tests of schools' attainment." The New York system also gives "rewards" (i.e. money) to those schools which attain A and B grades. Could this happen here too?

It's also unclear what these report cards will contain. The DCFS says they "could" include Key Stage 2 test results and GCSE results, as well as take up of what the DCFS describes as "healthy school lunches" (a bit nanny state, don't you think?) and levels of pupil absence. All will be revealed in the future.

In the meantime, let's list what we would the Report Cards to include. As parents, we presumably want them to be clear and comprehensive. For example, instead of just including GCSE results, they could report whether those results include English and Maths, how many children got A grades, and how many took vocational qualifications. They could also include details of attendance and exclusion, and even useful pointers like how long the teachers at a particular school have been there or the levels of staff turnover (too high a turnover is never a good indicator). All this information, not just the exam results used for current league tables, should says Dylan Wiliam, Professor of Educational Assessment at the Institute of Education, "make it hard to play the system."

Let me know your suggestions...

Read School Gate on:

What you don't want to read on your children's report

Political bullying in school - and why I'm almost envious

Do our children need male primary school teachers?

Why class size matters

The plethora of post GCSE examinations

Comments

[Joe Public]

Pupils with illness or disability may have more time off school but may well be far more academically advanced will be judged lower because of absence or even what food they eat?

Sounds like a system to find new politicians, children that are less productive, do not know their subjects but tell teacher what teacher wants to hear will rise to top of the class.

Testing is the only way to judge and to give children a target to aim for. We need more testing not less and we need papers returned so that parents and teachers can point out mistakes. We all learn from them !!!

[Whimsey]

PDEV, from the end of the second world war, secondary education (ie, from 11 years onwards) in the UK was divided into two types of schools. In the last year of primary school all children in the state sector took an exam called the 11+, and if they passed, they went to a grammar school (ie, academic focussed, leading to university), and if they failed they went to a Secondary Modern school (ie, 'vocational' for those who would grow up to do non-professional/middle class jobs, such as plumbers, secretaries, that sort of thing).

I believe that, overall, around one third of children passed the 11+ and two thirds failed it.

Since deciding a child's entire future fate at the age of eleven came to be regarded as utterly outrageous, in the l970s, the 11+ exam was very largely abolished across the country. Instead, the two-tier system was merged into a single comprehensive system, and no exam was needed to get in - it was completely unselective on any basis other than where you lived. You simply went from primary school to whatever your local/nearest comprehensive school was, where all the children were educated.

Most comps had some form of setting/streaming in place, so that there were more academic sets/streams and less academic sets/streams and (theoretically at least, though how much it happens I don't know!) children could be moved up or down sets/streams based on their in-school performance. I'm not sure if sets/streams were subject based - eg, you could be in a top set for a subject you were good at, and a bottom set for something you were rubbish at.

It's a huge debate about whether schools should or should not select on the basis of academic performance. It's absolutely undeniable that deciding a child's fate at 11 is iniquitous. Yes, children CAN move into grammars after their GSCE (basic schools exams taken at 15/16 by all children who can manage them, which is most), to take A (advanced) level exams and be groomed for university entrance, but this depends not only on there being sufficient extra places available in the grammar schools, but whether or not a secondary modern school can get its 'brightest kids' through their GCSEs with good enough grades to be considered for grammar school and A levels. Arguably, becuase secondary modern schools are NOT academic in structure and teaching method, this won't be easy - certainly not as easy as it is for the highly academic grammar schools to get their pupils high exam grades.

The huge plus of the grammar school system, however, was that it was a way of identifying and 'rescuing' those 'natrually bright' children from lower class backgrounds, and, ironically, the upper eschelons of the Labour party (anti-grammar school!) are widely populated by working class children who 'made good' courtesy of having been to a grammar school, and steered into university. (As well as giving them an excellent academic education, the 'hidden agenda' of the grammar schools was to 'culturally embourgouis' working class children, by putting them into a school that was largely populated by the children of the professional middle classes, and so helped to 'socially educate' them into becoming middle class themselves, with MC behaviour and aspirations.)

Without doubt, grammar schools remain an incredibly good way of transforming a working class child into a member of the professional/middle class - there is no doubt about that.

But the other downside of grammars (ie, apart from deciding a child's fate at 11 years old), was that they can be seen as inherently elitist, and that therefore the secondary moderns can be seen as inherently 'sink' schools for 'thickies' who will never amount to anything. (Doomed to be 'hewers of wood' - this is, by the way, simply a Victorian expression to indicate someone doing a menial job necessary to the comfort of 'everyone else' - all those 'manual service industries' from plumbing and electricitan to cleaning your house and typing your letters and serving you in shops etc etc)

Finally, there were - and still are - huge questions over whether the actual structure of the 11+ exam itself is a good way of identifying academically able children. The 11+ exam was/is a very 'IQ' oriented exam, based on verbal reasoning, maths and non-verbal reasoning - it isn't subject based (ie, no 'Write all you know about Henry VIII', that sort of thing)(which, ironically, is the kind of exam that is required to get into private school!), because it is supposed to be 'subject independent' and able to identify 'raw intelligence', irrespective of someone's previous educational exposure or class background. But whether it is, is highly controversial (eg, try doing a verbal reasoning test when you have a rubbish vocab!)

Now, for some reason, and I actually haven't the faintest idea why, there are a few areas of the country where the old grammar/secondary modern system survived. I don't know why, and on what basis, but there are 'islands of grammars' dotted around the UK, and where they exist the grammar schools are, as I said about our own, absolutely fantastic.

BUT, it's a high risk game, living in a grammar school area. If your child gets through the 11+ successfully then Hey Presto - the gates of academia open to you, they get to go, as mine does, to a fantastic school, and are virtually dead certs for university. BUT BUT BUT, if your child fails the 11+, then, sorry, they dumped down to a secondary modern....(they don't call them secondary mods any more, as it's not PC to call them that, but they are, all the same). (Some are really not bad at all, academically, and do a pretty damn good job of ensuring their top children - who, after all, are only JUST 11+ failures! - do well academically)

So, in a nutshell - if you have aspirations for your child that require a university degree, the grammar school system is brilliant if your child gets in, disastrous if they don't.

[Pdev]

Whimsey, What is the difference between a Grammar and the other state high schools? What criteria are used to enter either type of schools? Some high schools here are selective in that they have entrance tests to choose students. The number of these selective high schools differ in each State. However many non selective high schools get excellent results also but do not screen out lesser performing students in the later years which happens with many exclusive private schools in an effort to keep their published results at a high average.

[Whimsey]

PDEV - well, I can say I'm deleriously happy with the state school my son is in, as it's a grammar! He's getting a fantastic academic education, in a school that is first class, with incredibly nicely behaved boys, who all do loads and loads of sport and extra-mural activities (from army cadets to running their own businesses to community service to giving classical music concerts etc etc etc - you name it they do it!).

And it is all totally FREEEEEEEE.

So, yes, I'm incredibly happy with the education my son is getting.

I just WISH all schools here could be like that - and I don't mean the academic level, because children who are not academic can thrive brilliantly at all sorts of other achievemetns which they can earn a good living at and make great citizens from doing. I mean the ethos, the behaviour, the character, the calibre of the school, the staff and its students.

If we could replicate my son's school across the country, the educational system here would be unbeatable!

So, million dollar question - why don't we?

[Pdev]

Whimsey, you seem to be a poster on almost every subject on this blog. Can you tell me how old your children are and what type of school they attend? I do not know as an Australian if I am getting a realistic view of UK education from these posts but they seem in the main fairly negative. Is anyone happy with the state system or are many of the posters using the private schools?

[Whimsey]

MoT, I'm convinced that's why secondary schools want the child along at parents evenings - they blah on about how it's good for the kid to hear about how they're doing, but I know it's only so that when the parents plonk themselves down and say brightly 'so, how's Jack doing in History?' the teacher doesn't have to stare panic stricken and think 'Jack who?'....!

The open session at primary school sounds excellent!

[mumoftwo]

Our daughter's primary has just started an 'open' 3.30-4.00pm session once a week, where you can go and have a cup of tea and biscuits and talk though any issues. This is in addition to a regular parents everning. Of course, this is much easier at the primary stage when they have one main teacher than in secondary schools where students are taught by many different teachers and the child may not be immediately recognisable to the teacher!

[MM]

One statistic that would be interesting to know would be teacher and pupil turnover. There would be no point in asking what the stated reason for leaving was, but I think that the statistics themselves would say a lot.

[Whimsey]

I think you are talking about pupils' report cards, rather than having one for the school overall!

I agree that it would be very nice to get far more feedback on your children at school than just the occasional report card. I'd appreciate a quick couple of lines in the back of the exercise book written by the teacher, at the end of each half term. But since most teachers are drowning under marking anyway, I expect that's quite impossible.

Even better is a face to face, but, again, takes up too much time.

One thing I know some schools have is a regular 'open session' where the teachers are in their classrooms for half an hour at the end of the school day, once a month or whatever, and parents can turn up ad hoc for a five minute chat, and if none turn up (not all parents are keen even on parents evenings, which I find inexplicable, even some quite dedicated parents don't think it necessary), then the teacher can just get on with their endless marking.

[Alistair Owens]

A dynamic report allows more timely adjustment to be considered. If a child is struggling it can be enormously helpful to arrange extra support at school or home as the trend is discovered. This is a huge improvement to the historical end of term or year reports or indeed SAT’s when corrective action can be a little late.

The biggest issue ahead of us lays in the manner the information is passed. It has to be timely and meaningful, avoiding masses of needless data entry that bewilders the recipient and exhausts the teacher.

There are a number of existing school database systems, but I have yet to see one that is simple to understand. Let us hope that reason prevails and the format of any new reporting system is developed jointly by teachers and parents and not by an IT guru who produces analysis paralysis. If it is overly complicated a huge benefit will be lost in the detail.

Alistair Owens keen2learn

[j]

Fiddling while Rome burns. How about making all state schools equally good so there is nothing embarrassing to report and we have no need for experts to teach normal parents how to play the system of their own country's education system?

just a thought..

[Glen Thomas]

I heard Ed Balls this morning say that the grading would be 'simple and comprehensive'. Doesn't he know that a measurement of a complex, multifaceted organisation can be either complex and useful, or simplistic?

If single grade cannot properly measure a pupil (most get 10 GCSEs), how can it usefully describe anything about a school?

Thinking about what Mary said, about not knowing that bullying was rife in teh school she sent her children too, and she'd wished she'd known. Perhaps every school needs it's own forum - not run by the school, obviously! - but set up independently where parents could post up their thoughts (brickbats and bouquets), and other prospective parents could ask questions. That might be invaluable! (Might possibly run into libel issues, of course....!)

I think putting in the school's lunch policy would be one of the few useful (ie, trustworthy!) things they could include. I'd definitely like to know the kitchens were up to more than reheating turkey nuggets.

I'd like a lot more transparency on the contracts the school has, as well, and what the governors have signed up to.

Again, though, the 'senior management team' of a school is usually completely occluded from public view, and even parents don't have a clue what they do, and haven't a chance of influencing their decisions etc. Personally, I think schools are run as a cosy cabal by the governors, but maybe I'm just too cynical, and they are doing their best.

Oh, one thing I DEFINITELY want to see on the school report card, and that's an up do date annual report on finance. I want to know what the school's income is, what the per capita is, what the expenditure is, now and planned, etc etc etc. Again, most parents haven't a clue, and only get the usual round of 'begging letters' whenever funds are running short, or a new project requires donations

[whimsey]

I suspect that the only really useful information to prospective parents would be in the unofficial report cards. What is said 'in public' is often quite useless.

The issue of bullying is a case in point. I'm sure any official report card would show even the wort of schools apparently squeaky clean, with all sorts of 'guidelines' and 'policies' and 'child welfare pastoral departments' etc, etc in place.

If you think about how much 'hogwash' gets spouted even at one-on-ones with teachers at parents evenings, where it's rare for a parent to be told, to their face, just what a monster their darling offspring is, then I doubt, sadly, that a school report card will be any more truly informative of a school's culture? The entire purpose of the card will be defensive, with Ofstead etc in mind, and be blah-blah content-free. Even the exam stats will be presented in the most flattering ways.

I know I'm sounding very negative, but I suspect in the end that the only real way to find out about a school is to ask, and ask, and ask all the people you know with children there, and see what they think, and then, judging by what you think of the parents and their children, draw your own conclusions.

Maybe, too, try watching the behaviour of the children as they come out of school, or hang around in the local newsagents, to see what kind of hassle they give the shop assistants, etc etc? However, that may be a distorted view, of course, as the 'bad ones' tend to be more visible than the nice kids.

One objective piece of information I'd like about a school is what happened to the children when they leave, eg, the unis they went to, the subjects they read, what other qualifications or careers they went for.

[Mary]

I would definitely like to see bullying in there, if it's something that can be collated. Our school seems to have an endemic problem - if I had known about it, I wouldn't have sent there.