A year or so ago, I attended a headteachers’ conference where one of the speakers said something thatstuck with me.
He told his audience to make sure that they “don’t get good at a bad game”.
I think this phrase sums up the concerns thatwill be raised by a 91 story today which shows howa multi-academy trust exploreddifferent ways in which it could boost its Progress 8 scores.
Exclusive:MAT accused of acting on ‘off-rolling’ plan
Background:
Document:
It would be naive to think that schools and trusts are not massively focused on hitting targets.
Many wouldargue they have to be. This is, after all, the way in which the accountability system has measured success and failurefor decades.
And schools and their trusts can belauded or penalisedaccordingly for the outcomes they achieve.
Unnerving
But there is something unnerving about the way in which this GORSEAcademies Trust addresses the issue.
The trust’s chief executive Sir John Townsleysays this report, seen by 91, was a theoretical discussion and that none of the “unacceptable” practices thatwere discussed by its staff as a way of improving resultswasactually implemented.
However, Leeds City Council has described the report as a “deeply disturbing document” andhasaccused GORSEof now following through on a plan to removelow-achievingpupils from school rolls.
What is perhaps most alarming about this report is the way in which it frames education.
It says from the outset that staff should set aside ethical considerations when coming at this problem -these would be a matter for the trust board at a later date.
It then outlines a series of ways in which it could boost its results.
This includesthe removal oflow-achieving “anchor” students- those who are weighing down the scores -from a school’s roll and even goes into detail about how this can be achieved.
What about pupils’ interests?
The report also considers other options to maximise results thatmightraise eyebrows.
This includes setting out -under the heading “How easy are BTECs?”-how ensuringpupilsdo BTEC coursework under “skilled supervision” maysee them achieving higher grades for the trustthan they would withGCSEs, which have a larger exam component.
It alsoexplores the use of the European Computer Driving Licence even though the report acknowledges concerns about the qualification’s credibility.
But it all seems to be about the trust. There is almost no mention of what is in the pupils’ best interests, their wellbeing, or what the trust wants education to achieve for its students.
Regardless of what GORSEdid with this document, the fact is thata trust with a successful track record for school improvement identified practices -which its own leader has since described as “unacceptable” -as possible ways of achieving further success.
Doesn’t that suggestsomething has gone wrong with our education system?
