WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:05.620 Thank you very much indeed. I shall try and talk fast and help you catch up. 00:00:05.620 --> 00:00:08.260 No, no, no, people are riveted to their seats. Don't speed up. 00:00:08.360 --> 00:00:13.140 I can tell. It's great to be here. 00:00:13.540 --> 00:00:17.880 And this is the first conference I've spoken to since leaving government, 00:00:18.020 --> 00:00:23.280 so I feel I should be saying something more controversial probably than I actually will. 00:00:23.700 --> 00:00:28.000 I wanted to start. It's an interesting day, isn't it, to be talking about this 00:00:28.000 --> 00:00:33.920 on a day when a rather dramatic change to the performance tables has just been announced. 00:00:34.380 --> 00:00:37.760 And I'll come back to that in a moment. 00:00:37.860 --> 00:00:40.480 I thought it'd be worth just, though, starting with a little bit of history. 00:00:41.200 --> 00:00:45.960 And I've called this an indefensibly brief and partial summary of the history of this area of policy 00:00:45.960 --> 00:00:48.580 because that's what it is. 00:00:49.500 --> 00:00:52.960 But I think it's just worth thinking about it in this sort of way. 00:00:52.960 --> 00:01:03.980 I think we started post-war with a system which was essentially a low-accountability, high-trust system of curriculum and qualification development. 00:01:04.640 --> 00:01:08.100 Post-war, universities were very firmly in the driving seat. 00:01:09.440 --> 00:01:15.020 The setting of qualifications was a matter in which government took very little interest. 00:01:15.020 --> 00:01:31.640 Qualifications were set for a very small minority of children at 16 and an even smaller minority at 18, of whom a small proportion or a proportion went on then to study in university. 00:01:31.640 --> 00:01:39.820 and it's worth reminding ourselves of what it was like having a high trust, low accountability system 00:01:39.820 --> 00:01:59.061 because occasionally people talk about it as if it would be good to go back to a system which had high trust and low accountability Actually this was a system which served the overwhelming majority of children very poorly indeed Most children left school with no educational qualifications whatsoever 00:01:59.421 --> 00:02:03.261 which we got away with as a country in some respects, 00:02:03.261 --> 00:02:06.441 in that there was a plentiful supply of low-skill employment, 00:02:06.921 --> 00:02:09.701 but in many other respects we didn't get away with at all, 00:02:09.701 --> 00:02:15.361 as can be seen from the decline of many industries in this country. 00:02:15.821 --> 00:02:23.641 I think we moved then to a period of low accountability and low trust in the system. 00:02:24.201 --> 00:02:29.961 During the period of the 60s and the 70s in particular, increasing curriculum innovation, 00:02:30.241 --> 00:02:35.941 a much greater recognition that more children needed to come out of school with qualifications 00:02:35.941 --> 00:02:38.781 which were recognizable. 00:02:39.481 --> 00:02:42.221 A great deal of curricular innovation around that, 00:02:42.301 --> 00:02:46.441 the development of Mode 3 CSE as one particular example 00:02:46.441 --> 00:02:48.841 of that sort of practice. 00:02:48.981 --> 00:02:53.801 The fact that there was the raising of the school leaving age in 1972, 00:02:54.221 --> 00:02:58.561 driving much greater demand for qualifications 00:02:58.561 --> 00:03:03.681 for a much higher proportion of young people at the age of 16, 00:03:03.681 --> 00:03:08.241 but increasing mistrust in the system, the black papers, 00:03:08.401 --> 00:03:10.621 the period leading up to the Ruskin College speech, 00:03:10.721 --> 00:03:15.781 the period through the 1980s where government made more and more noise 00:03:15.781 --> 00:03:22.141 about taking some control of the so-called secret garden of the curriculum 00:03:22.141 --> 00:03:26.381 whilst doing actually not very much practically about it. 00:03:26.381 --> 00:03:33.321 And then a moment of serious discontinuity in 1988 with the Education Reform Act 00:03:33.321 --> 00:03:39.241 Government sprung into action in the most muscular way imaginable, moving 00:03:39.363 --> 00:03:45.243 from taking very little interest or responsibility for what was to be found in the curriculum 00:03:45.243 --> 00:03:50.943 to taking very little account of what anybody else thought of what was in the curriculum 00:03:50.943 --> 00:03:54.223 and implementing dramatic change very quickly. 00:03:54.743 --> 00:04:00.403 From that point onwards, the increasing development of strong accountability measures, SATs, 00:04:00.563 --> 00:04:07.523 Ofsted, League Tables, and other things, which unquestionably drove significant change in 00:04:07.523 --> 00:04:17.643 the system and also raised the profile of education as a public area of public policy, 00:04:18.083 --> 00:04:23.363 dramatically changed people's understanding of the role of government in relation to education 00:04:23.363 --> 00:04:28.903 and created a settlement which, to some extent, we still have with us today. 00:04:29.903 --> 00:04:34.683 Occasionally, people talk as if what we ought to do is move to a system of high trust and 00:04:34.683 --> 00:04:42.663 low accountability, free schools, free the teachers, give control of curriculum and assessment 00:04:42.663 --> 00:04:47.183 back to awarding bodies. Actually, I think that's the wrong direction to go. I think 00:04:47.183 --> 00:04:50.583 the question we should be asking ourselves is not how do we get rid of accountability, 00:04:51.403 --> 00:04:56.843 but how do we retain high levels of accountability, but develop greater trust in the system so 00:04:56.843 --> 00:05:03.563 that some of the perverse effects of the current accountability system are reduced. And that, 00:05:03.563 --> 00:05:10.483 to me seems to be the challenge. I think we should welcome accountability not as a necessary evil, 00:05:10.643 --> 00:05:15.803 but as a wholly desirable good in the system. It is a good thing to be accountable for what 00:05:15.803 --> 00:05:20.763 we all do. It is a good thing to be accountable in relation to what children actually achieve. 00:05:20.883 --> 00:05:46.464 That is after all the purpose of an education system But even if you don accept any of that I think we should all accept that there is no closing of the Pandora box Once you have a process of getting data and information out into the public domain you can row back from that and you will not build greater trust in the system by trying to hide information from the public 00:05:46.924 --> 00:05:50.924 So it seems to me the question for schools is, well, how best do you respond to that? 00:05:50.924 --> 00:06:07.444 And for a very large number of schools, particularly those close to the floor targets or close to what will be the floor targets in future years, it's the floor targets which are the driver of behaviour in schools, overwhelmingly the floor targets which drive behaviour in schools. 00:06:07.444 --> 00:06:11.664 We've had some reference to that in the earlier debate, 00:06:11.904 --> 00:06:15.524 and I agree that there has been a very significant rise 00:06:15.524 --> 00:06:18.824 in the last five to ten years of tactical means 00:06:18.824 --> 00:06:24.804 of driving up performance against that 5A star to C, 00:06:24.884 --> 00:06:26.824 including English and maths, measure. 00:06:26.904 --> 00:06:28.004 There's no question about that, 00:06:28.044 --> 00:06:30.524 and if you visit schools all over the country, 00:06:30.584 --> 00:06:31.964 you'll find a range of practices, 00:06:32.164 --> 00:06:36.784 which 10 to 15 years ago you did not find in schools. 00:06:36.784 --> 00:06:39.344 you see much greater use of early entry, certainly. 00:06:39.884 --> 00:06:45.004 You see much greater focus on people who are at the borderlines in English and maths, 00:06:45.084 --> 00:06:49.164 with a particular focus on what's increasingly called the marriage of English and maths, 00:06:49.204 --> 00:06:52.864 who's close in English but missing in maths, 00:06:52.904 --> 00:06:55.844 who's on track in maths but not in English, and all the rest of it. 00:06:55.924 --> 00:06:59.704 That is an absolutely ubiquitous focus of practice. 00:06:59.704 --> 00:07:03.464 There's more people introducing the new key stage three 00:07:03.464 --> 00:07:07.004 since key stage three tests were abolished, 00:07:07.004 --> 00:07:08.444 having a two-year key stage three 00:07:08.444 --> 00:07:09.804 and a three-year key stage four. 00:07:09.804 --> 00:07:12.724 Lots of people experimenting with practices 00:07:12.724 --> 00:07:18.604 like doing intensive GCSE in year nine with 00:07:18.726 --> 00:07:25.966 five hours a week of GCSE study leading up to the taking of GCSE at the end of year nine, 00:07:26.086 --> 00:07:28.346 people doing the same in year 10 and the same in year 11, 00:07:28.486 --> 00:07:35.046 so that children are banking GCSEs year by year as they go. 00:07:35.706 --> 00:07:46.406 And that increasing use of tactics is just one way in which assessment really is driving behavior in schools. 00:07:46.406 --> 00:07:49.346 and the question of how do you put learning first 00:07:49.346 --> 00:07:55.646 in a context where you are feeling under the cosh 00:07:55.646 --> 00:07:59.506 to raise your performance is a really important question. 00:08:00.326 --> 00:08:03.486 I think it's important, though, to realise and recognise 00:08:03.486 --> 00:08:05.826 that having some tactics to raise achievement 00:08:05.826 --> 00:08:07.966 is not inherently a bad thing. 00:08:08.386 --> 00:08:10.246 It makes a difference to those kids 00:08:10.246 --> 00:08:12.506 if they come out with decent qualifications 00:08:12.506 --> 00:08:16.386 as opposed to not coming out with qualifications. 00:08:16.886 --> 00:08:19.906 But I think we have to start asking ourselves in schools, 00:08:20.406 --> 00:08:23.606 and this applies actually not just to hard-press schools 00:08:23.606 --> 00:08:27.426 in challenging circumstances, but right across the system, 00:08:27.426 --> 00:08:30.486 what is our underpinning strategic aim and objective? 00:08:30.666 --> 00:08:33.066 What is our strategy for achieving that? 00:08:33.386 --> 00:08:37.186 And how do we make sure that the tactics are in the service of that? 00:08:37.826 --> 00:08:40.746 And I think that the tactical approaches I see in schools 00:08:40.746 --> 00:08:42.666 fall into broadly three categories. 00:08:43.926 --> 00:08:45.686 The first is the merely tactical, 00:08:45.886 --> 00:08:48.406 the things that do not really benefit children 00:08:48.406 --> 00:08:53.426 but do benefit league table performance. 00:08:53.766 --> 00:08:55.286 I put into that category 00:08:55.286 --> 00:08:58.846 the practice of repeatedly rehearsing 00:08:58.846 --> 00:09:01.606 key stage two tests again and again and again 00:09:01.606 --> 00:09:03.266 for weeks at a time 00:09:03.266 --> 00:09:15.747 and then not doing any English and maths after the end of the SATS tests I would put into that category entering a whole cohort for BTEC science when we know perfectly well on the basis of all the data 00:09:15.867 --> 00:09:21.047 that even able scientists doing BTEC science cannot progress to succeeding at A-level, 00:09:21.247 --> 00:09:25.127 if that's the preparation that they have had. 00:09:25.207 --> 00:09:27.007 These are things which do not benefit children, 00:09:27.607 --> 00:09:32.727 but do benefit schools in terms of their league table position. 00:09:32.727 --> 00:09:37.207 Secondly, there are those things which are done for motivational reasons. 00:09:37.327 --> 00:09:41.987 There are things which are not necessarily of themselves beneficial to students, 00:09:42.087 --> 00:09:47.687 but do raise their motivation in order to do other things to engage better with schools. 00:09:47.847 --> 00:09:53.487 And finally, there are those things which do have advantage to schools in relation to the league tables 00:09:53.487 --> 00:09:58.947 and which benefit students in terms of their progression. 00:09:58.947 --> 00:10:04.967 And I think that there's a great deal of thinking about those things in very many of our schools at the moment. 00:10:05.187 --> 00:10:11.327 And thinking about your science curriculum in terms of who can achieve three sciences and triple science 00:10:11.327 --> 00:10:16.947 and pushing as many to do that as possible, which children may not be able to succeed there 00:10:16.947 --> 00:10:22.287 but could succeed in two sciences, and putting as many of those who aren't doing three into that route. 00:10:22.287 --> 00:10:27.327 and thinking about other curriculum choices for those young people 00:10:27.327 --> 00:10:32.167 for whom science is a struggle but who can achieve more 00:10:32.167 --> 00:10:35.607 by being put onto some different program. 00:10:35.987 --> 00:10:41.867 And that's just one example of how getting the tactics right 00:10:41.867 --> 00:10:45.167 and putting it in the service of students and their progression 00:10:45.167 --> 00:10:49.287 is an incredibly important thing to get right. 00:10:49.287 --> 00:10:57.967 I think that for schools, there is a real risk that they feel that they are 00:10:58.088 --> 00:11:04.708 prisoners of some of these tactical approaches which have become widespread practice. 00:11:05.368 --> 00:11:13.008 And there is a need to think much more long-term about the options that they are presenting 00:11:13.008 --> 00:11:14.888 children with. 00:11:15.128 --> 00:11:19.108 And I'll come in a moment to implications for other people. 00:11:19.488 --> 00:11:25.148 There is no doubt that for some schools, if their intake has very weak literacy and numeracy, 00:11:25.148 --> 00:11:27.008 there is a big challenge. 00:11:27.008 --> 00:11:39.828 And if you believe that every child can achieve and succeed, there's no doubt that you have a bigger challenge if your school's intake is of that sort than for many other schools. 00:11:40.288 --> 00:11:56.828 I feel that there is a risk in the system at the moment that two people are relying on a year 11 charge and not enough people are focusing from year 7 onwards on how do we raise basic underpinning levels of literacy and numeracy. 00:11:57.008 --> 00:12:18.768 We need to have a system in which people feel rewarded for deep learning, authentic teaching of subjects, a focus on those vocational qualifications which are rigorous and demanding, and not on those which are worth a lot in league tables but actually don't take children very far at all. 00:12:18.768 --> 00:12:27.208 I think actually today's announcement goes a very long way in the right direction in terms of rebalancing the incentives for vocational qualifications. 00:12:27.848 --> 00:12:32.448 It is right, actually, I think, that most of these qualifications count as one. 00:12:32.528 --> 00:12:35.948 They are taught in the vast majority of schools in one option block. 00:12:36.468 --> 00:12:40.808 It is right that there should be external assessment in these qualifications. 00:12:41.148 --> 00:12:56.250 It is right that they should be tested against measures of the progression of students who succeed in those qualifications qualifications And it seems to me that the list that come out of the department is pretty close to being about the right list of qualifications 00:12:56.510 --> 00:13:01.090 I don't know what debate there's been about that during today. 00:13:01.590 --> 00:13:07.390 There is no doubt that for schools there's a challenge here, 00:13:07.390 --> 00:13:14.010 particularly those schools which feel very hard-pressed to shift their practice. 00:13:14.970 --> 00:13:18.050 I think there's quite a deep challenge to awarding bodies as well, 00:13:18.750 --> 00:13:24.570 which is actually qualifications have been very seriously complicit 00:13:24.570 --> 00:13:30.690 in promoting some of what has happened in recent years. 00:13:30.690 --> 00:13:35.950 And I think in some quite technically complex ways, 00:13:35.950 --> 00:13:48.950 I think that there has been too much of a grip of assessment theory on the design of qualifications and less thought about educational underpinnings. 00:13:49.950 --> 00:13:58.950 I think that a great deal of what has been done to boost reliability has actually had the risk of undermining validity. 00:14:00.090 --> 00:14:04.810 And you can't have, quite clearly, a reliable qualification which is not valid. 00:14:04.810 --> 00:14:10.130 so this is self-defeating if you get to the stage of having qualifications 00:14:10.130 --> 00:14:12.410 which reliably assess the wrong thing. 00:14:12.830 --> 00:14:15.050 That is not helpful to anyone. 00:14:15.230 --> 00:14:19.290 So it seems to me that awarding bodies need to be a serious part 00:14:19.290 --> 00:14:22.110 of breaking out of the current situation. 00:14:22.110 --> 00:14:26.070 We need to have qualifications which do a better job 00:14:26.070 --> 00:14:28.170 of sampling from a whole subject domain 00:14:28.170 --> 00:14:31.570 and less driven by assessing 100% of the specification 00:14:31.570 --> 00:14:34.770 in every round of qualifications. 00:14:34.810 --> 00:14:37.330 which do continue to put 00:14:37.451 --> 00:14:40.651 conceptual depth above procedural accuracy. 00:14:41.091 --> 00:14:45.231 I actually did because people have started talking about older O-levels. 00:14:45.671 --> 00:14:50.491 Before I left the department, I sat down and did an old O-level maths 00:14:50.491 --> 00:14:56.051 from the 1970s, an O-level which was in place before the introduction of GCSEs, 00:14:56.051 --> 00:14:59.691 one of the early GCSEs, and the current GCSE, 00:14:59.991 --> 00:15:04.111 in order to try and satisfy myself as to what was going on. 00:15:04.111 --> 00:15:07.651 and you may rightly say that's not a very scientific way 00:15:07.651 --> 00:15:11.031 of satisfying yourself about anything very much. 00:15:11.491 --> 00:15:16.171 But what it seemed to me is the older O-levels very rigorously, 00:15:16.311 --> 00:15:18.111 the older O-levels in particular, 00:15:19.131 --> 00:15:23.151 very rigorously assessed narrow procedural competence in mathematics, 00:15:23.811 --> 00:15:26.311 and that's not a foolish thing to do, 00:15:26.591 --> 00:15:29.511 though it's an increasingly less important thing to do 00:15:29.511 --> 00:15:33.111 in an age when everybody has electronic calculators. 00:15:33.111 --> 00:15:41.511 They did not assess in as much depth as current GCSEs the conceptual aspects of mathematics. 00:15:42.391 --> 00:15:47.131 And so I think we do have a sort of baby and bathwater situation here. 00:15:47.271 --> 00:15:51.231 A call to revert to old O-level, I think, is insufficient. 00:15:52.171 --> 00:15:57.331 It is right to say there must be rigor, there must be depth, there must be proper subject teaching. 00:15:57.331 --> 00:16:00.331 That is absolutely as it should be. 00:16:00.331 --> 00:16:05.791 but we do need to think about a curriculum and an assessment of the curriculum 00:16:05.791 --> 00:16:08.811 which recognises changes that have happened, 00:16:09.011 --> 00:16:15.191 as well as expecting very high standards of subject understanding. 00:16:16.211 --> 00:16:20.091 I think awarding bodies must stop the way that they currently market their qualifications. 00:16:20.971 --> 00:16:35.252 If you go around saying to schools this is a more accessible specification you are promoting a culture in which it is seen to be either desirable or acceptable to say to schools do this because it easier 00:16:35.432 --> 00:16:41.132 Even if you do not use those words, that is what schools are hearing, and it's not right, 00:16:41.132 --> 00:16:48.892 and it should stop. And awarding bodies should stop trying to put into the regulator a specification 00:16:48.892 --> 00:16:54.392 which just barely meets the specification requirements 00:16:54.392 --> 00:17:00.032 and start priding themselves on the depth and quality of their assessments 00:17:00.032 --> 00:17:03.592 and look to exceed the requirements of the regulator. 00:17:04.312 --> 00:17:09.132 And I think I'm calling here from schools and from awarding bodies 00:17:09.132 --> 00:17:10.772 for some moral courage here. 00:17:10.912 --> 00:17:13.872 You are not prisoners of the accountability system, 00:17:14.392 --> 00:17:17.712 nor are you prisoners of the incentive structure in which you work. 00:17:17.712 --> 00:17:20.812 you can make choices here, 00:17:20.812 --> 00:17:25.212 and I think it's important that every actor in the system does. 00:17:25.952 --> 00:17:31.292 And that's not to spare policymakers from all of that as well. 00:17:31.412 --> 00:17:36.992 I think it's right to say that we do need to think hard 00:17:36.992 --> 00:17:40.212 about how at the next stage of its development 00:17:40.212 --> 00:17:45.012 we make sure that those people who are courageously acting 00:17:45.012 --> 00:17:49.252 to promote deep learning and making sure that they're successful 00:17:49.252 --> 00:17:52.012 in the accountability system because they're doing the right thing 00:17:52.012 --> 00:17:52.972 for children and young people, 00:17:53.272 --> 00:17:58.012 how to make sure that we really genuinely reward those people better. 00:17:58.012 --> 00:18:05.692 I don't think that those who call for a move away from performance measures 00:18:05.692 --> 00:18:10.092 based on the success of children and young people are right. 00:18:10.092 --> 00:18:14.632 That cannot be the way to raise achievement and performance 00:18:14.632 --> 00:18:16.692 in the system. 00:18:16.814 --> 00:18:24.034 I do think some of the changes from today about performance table equivalences will absolutely help to get this right. 00:18:24.334 --> 00:18:29.634 I think it's important that there is a really clear content specification for every GCSE. 00:18:29.634 --> 00:18:39.074 I think it was a mistake to move away from having content specifications for GCSEs outside the core subjects. 00:18:39.074 --> 00:18:47.634 I think we should try to make sure that awarding bodies are regulated in ways which promote bar-raising activity 00:18:47.634 --> 00:18:53.714 and don't reward people who just put in a barely adequate specification. 00:18:54.354 --> 00:19:00.974 I think awarding bodies have become a bit too reliant on a process of iteration between the regulator and themselves 00:19:00.974 --> 00:19:03.854 to get their qualifications above the line. 00:19:03.854 --> 00:19:15.194 I think it's possible to conceive of a system where the answer to an inadequate specification is just no and come back next year, rather than a long period of iteration. 00:19:15.374 --> 00:19:18.854 I think that would change the incentive structure on awarding bodies overnight. 00:19:19.594 --> 00:19:23.074 I think we're right to start emphasising progression measures. 00:19:23.274 --> 00:19:29.014 I think progression within school and progression beyond school are fundamentally important things. 00:19:29.014 --> 00:19:32.614 and we should look at the ways in which accountability measures 00:19:32.614 --> 00:19:36.074 can absolutely genuinely put those top of the list. 00:19:36.214 --> 00:19:38.294 Maybe our floor targets should have something to do 00:19:38.294 --> 00:19:41.654 with the progression of children through school 00:19:41.654 --> 00:19:46.434 and not just focus quite so much on absolute attainment. 00:19:47.954 --> 00:19:51.734 And government policy must continue to give serious attention 00:19:51.734 --> 00:19:53.034 and priority to teaching and learning. 00:19:53.134 --> 00:19:55.774 Whoever it was who said having a great teacher 00:19:55.774 --> 00:20:00.474 is the most important thing is absolutely right, of course, 00:20:00.474 --> 00:20:14.735 about that In 2013 and again in 2015 the participation age will get raised in education for the first time since 1972 two generations where nothing similar has happened 00:20:14.735 --> 00:20:20.655 It is and ought to be seen as a paradigm shift in our education system. 00:20:20.875 --> 00:20:27.595 We are saying that every young person should be in some form of education or training until at least the age of 18. 00:20:27.595 --> 00:20:33.915 that does give us an opportunity to rethink a huge amount of what we've done up to today. 00:20:34.075 --> 00:20:40.255 I think we should try very hard to articulate what it is that we think everyone by the age of 18 00:20:40.255 --> 00:20:46.435 following at least 13 years of education, what should they know and be able to do? 00:20:46.435 --> 00:20:51.995 What are the skills, qualities, experience, knowledge and understanding that they ought to have 00:20:51.995 --> 00:20:55.395 in order to be successful in the rest of their lives? 00:20:55.395 --> 00:20:59.635 and can we design an accountability assessment and curriculum system 00:20:59.635 --> 00:21:05.275 which does a better job of giving all young people that than the one we have today. 00:21:06.095 --> 00:21:10.975 I think part of the key to that is thinking much harder about destinations 00:21:10.975 --> 00:21:14.855 than we have yet done in the education system. 00:21:14.855 --> 00:21:16.515 We have got very focused. 00:21:16.655 --> 00:21:20.575 I run now a group which includes independent schools and academies. 00:21:20.575 --> 00:21:38.275 One of the things which is overwhelmingly clear in independent schools is the extent to which they focus on university destinations and A-levels as clear measures of performance as compared to the maintain system, which continues to focus overwhelmingly on GCSE performance. 00:21:38.655 --> 00:21:45.815 There is a moment where we could think about how we change the way our accountability system works. 00:21:46.335 --> 00:21:49.675 And at huge speed, that is all I wanted to say. 00:21:49.675 --> 00:21:50.455 Thank you very much. 00:21:50.575 --> 00:21:51.575 Thank you.