Accountability in the School System – an illustrative example from England. A Workshop Presentation

1. Accountability in the School System –an illustrative example from England.A Workshop Presentation 10th OECD - Japan International SeminarTokyo, 24th June 2005 Professor David HopkinsHSBC iNET Chair of International Leadership

2. Intelligent Accountability “Accountability is in some ways the foundation of public services today. Without accountability there is no legitimacy; without legitimacy there is no support; without support there are no resources; and without resources there are no services…… …intelligent accountability serves two functions: it helps the system learn from itself, and it shows the public that they are getting value for money” David Miliband at the North of England Education Conference, Belfast, 8 January 2004.

3. Then and now Now Pre-1997

4. Now: balance of internal & external accountability

5. Advantages of this approach • Encourages ownership of targets & improvement • Self evaluation focuses attention on weak spots • Differentiates better between different schools e.g. • Firm floor targets for poor performers • Continued stretch for high performers (>50% 5A*-C) • Promotes assessment for learning & personalisation But there’s a danger of drift – need to retain whole-system view

6. What’s changed? • Pressure eased on our blunt levers • OFSTED inspections focusing on core issues, not observing every lesson • Increased precision using VA data • A more sophisticated, but more complex system, with more options at every step, but greater reliance on local judgements • Better incentives for success, designed to encourage system-wide improvement • Better solutions to failure: academies, fast-track to closure But this needs to bite on different types of schools

7. 100 90 Option 6, N = 3313 80 70 Low Achieving N = 483 60 Underperforming Actual 5+A*-C % 2003 50 N = 539 40 Progressing N = 1495 30 High Performing 20 N = 696 10 Leading the System 0 N = 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Estimated 5+A*-C % from pupil KS3 data Segmentation of the Secondary School System Below 30% 5+A-C 5+A*-C >=30%, lower quartile value added 5+A*-C >=30%, 25-75th percentile value added 5+A*-C >=30%, upper quartile value added

8. Accountability by segment:Poor performers

9. Accountability by segment:Under performers

10. Accountability by segment:Progressing

11. Accountability by segment:High performers

12. Conclusions • The new system is better at driving improvements in the top half of the market • better stimuli from VA data • better incentives to perform and help the whole system • but we need something similar for primary schools • We have better solutions at the bottom end • Better intelligence about the problems: SIP & OFSTED • More options for dealing with failure quickly • But communications need to strike a balance between encouragement and tough messages that failure is unacceptable • CVA allows sharp focus on underperformance that is being tackled directly through SST and DfES networks • But we need some clear triggers for ratcheting up (or down) our approach to a school – SIPs must know what problems to look for and how to tackle them & we need access to that information • How will the accountability system need to adapt in the future?