WWC0038

Supplementary written evidence from Professor Denis Mongon

Education Select Committee

Enquiry into Underachievement in Education of White Working Class Children

During the oral evidence I gave to the Committee, I undertook to provide additional material which confirms specific recommendations for action and illustrates existing, effective practice 

I summarise below what I would recommend under three headings:

• systemic change,
• school practice and
• community engagement.

1)      Systemic Change

a)      I don’t see any evidence that a market led approach will improve equity even when the pupil premium increases the ‘value’ of each fsm student by £1300.  Two wealthier families covenanting £10 per week each would match that.  In a market where attainment is the defining factor, savvy Headteachers will be tempted into game playing for those two families rather than the fsm student.  Since the evidence is that schools with a spread of abilities and social class do best, I’d recommend:

b)      Resist the expansion of secondary selection by academic ability.  It is at best a zero sum game in academic outcomes though sometimes not even that good.  It is always socially divisive and overall proven to be detrimental to students from poorer backgrounds.  The claim that grammar schools contributed or now contribute significantly to social mobility is not justified by the evidence. 

c)       Do not allow new schools to open unless their admissions criteria are demonstrably equitable.  Although that will mean tolerating some postcode selection because bussing is not acceptable, it would still create a better spread of admissions than at present.

d)      Encourage the better teachers and school leaders to work in the most demanding areas. 

i)        Cash might help and the suggestion made by one Committee member of paying off the student loan is a suggestion worth consideration.  However, the leaders in my research who bucked the trend were primarily motivated by ethics and professional pride not financial rewards.  I recommend considering inducements which are not cash based.  I would at the moment avoid ‘directing’ people, volunteers being far better than pressed folk in this context.

ii)       I wonder about an entitlement to 65 days leave (a third of the contractual working year).  This could be paid from national, not school, funds for any teacher or leader who works for four years in designated schools or areas.  The devil will be in the detail of a scheme like that. For example, it might be a useful requirement that the school be deemed good or outstanding at the inspection preceding the point at which the entitlement is taken.  The 65 days might be for personal or professional development and could be taken as a lump (i.e. one term) or one or two days per week over a year.  If used for professional development a contribution could be made to course fees.  A wider consultation would throw up some better ideas along these lines.

iii)     Some form of professional accreditation to add to the c.v. of teachers and leaders who work successfully for four years in a challenging school.  This could be in the form of accreditation by a Higher Education Institution of the work done.

e)      Remove the discouragements.  A friend moved for ethical and professional reasons from headship in an ‘outstanding’ school in a comfortable area to a then ‘satisfactory’ school in a challenging area.  The National College withdrew their designation as a National Leader of Education because they were no longer leading an outstanding school.  The logic appeared to be that the staff at the new school might not be outstanding and therefore unable to support that role, but how short sighted to remove the title from them.  They also feared that the next inspection would come ‘too soon’, i.e. too early for their impact to be visible.  We could surely work something out with Ofsted to protect leaders who make that kind of move for a couple of years if not three.  It also ought to be possible to guarantee them a three, possibly a four year contract. 

2)      School Practice

a)      This really is well rehearsed territory and we know what works – quality of leadership and high quality teaching, the former promoting the latter.  We have a massive problem ensuring that happens across the system and particularly in the most needful areas.  Since that is well known, this section is brief.

b)      I would (wouldn’t I?) claim that the most succinct summary of what the most effective school leaders do is in the Framework which I sketched out in ‘High Leverage Leadership….’, the book I co-authored describing schools and leaders who bucked the low attainment trend.  There’s a url to the book in my signature below.  A summary table of the Framework is inserted as Appendix One to this submission.  The book and the Framework avoid theorising and the descriptions of what works in those schools is based on observation, conversation and working alongside those leaders.

c)       A key part of the High Leverage Framework is the active involvement of the headteacher in their own and their staff’s continuing professional development.  International research shows that this is by a street the most important feature of the most effective schools.  We need to be far more systematic about ensuring that teachers and school leaders are developing their skills all through their career.  Collaborative work between teachers and schools (especially with external endorsement to avoid mediocrity) is emerging as a powerful approach.  Most of the teachers we have in situ will be there for a very long time so we need to make them as good as they can be or be prepared to offer them alternative careers advice.

3)      Community Engagement

I include in this section the bridging of the secondary curriculum into the world of work but will start with community engagement.

a)      Again and predictably, I recommend my own work, this time ‘School Leadership for Public Value….’ co-authored with Charlie Leadbeater and (again) with a url link in the signature below.  This book describes five approaches to connecting with community which successful schools appear to take.  Again, I’ve inserted a one page diagram which tries to summarise the approaches.  I would be happy to explain those in more detail to Committee members individually or together.  The important point is that you can introduce four of the five approaches in any order but the first, developing internal capacity (i.e. better teaching and learning, measured by educational attainments) has to come first.  That is the basic compact which any school has with its community and if it is not doing that well, then the rest is fine papering over broken plastering.

b)      For early years. I said at the Committee that I would reference work commissioned by Reading Borough Council from the Innovation Unit (www.innovationunit.org/ where I’m a Senior Associate).  The IU was set up by Estelle Morris within the DfES to encourage innovation and was outsourced as a not for profit organisation when it became clear that neither the Civil Service nor schools were very keen on proposing innovative work.  It now encourages innovation across a range of public services.  When I spoke about ‘experimenting’ what I meant was that we need to encourage some schools or areas to implement some of this excellent work in a disciplined way which would help to move it to a bigger scale.  I have asked the IU to provide you with a summary of its best examples.

c)       On curriculum bridging to community and the world of work, I said I would send in some examples and again I’ve asked the IU to provide me with a two page summary of some of the work it is doing – not least a project funded by the Education Endowment Foundation and based on successful community based project initiatives in San Diego.  There are other examples in which the IU is involved and which will be sent direct to the Committee.

March 2014

Appendix One

A FRAMEWORK FOR HIGH LEVERAGE LEADERSHIP

Mongon, D.  and  Chapman, C. (2012)

High Leverage Leadership: Improving Outcomes in Educational Settings,

London, Routledge

Appendix Two

A FRAMEWORK FOR CONNECTING SCHOOLS AND cOMMUNITIES