Author: Sal
Review of Achievement In Island Education Presented To IWC Panel
Thursday, 5th November, 2009 at 5:36 pm, Isle of Wight
Education, Island-wide, Isle of Wight Council, News, Opinion Piece
Last night the Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel met at County Hall for their bi-monthly meeting.
As well as discussions about the Schools Reorganisation, the Annual Review of Achievement was presented to the Panel.
We spoke with Cllr Welsford (Ventnor East) today – who sits on the Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel – and he told us of his concern regarding the discrepancy between the Island’s Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 results.
He told us that, on a national level, the Isle of Wight is in the top 10% for KS1 results but also in the bottom 10% for KS2 and that the Island is at the bottom of the tables for GCSE results.
Given the report states that “three-quarters of maintained schools (primary, middle and high) inspected were judged as ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’”, we wonder how it is that KS2-KS4 results are falling so far behind the national average.
Steve Beynon: Frank and honest
Last night Steve Beynon ventured that one factor for the huge gap between KS1 and KS4 results could be that middle schools are more secondary focused and therefore do not add so much at the primary KS2.
Cllr Welsford said that he was enormously encouraged that at last, both sides of the two-tier versus three-tier debate could engage in a frank and honest debate about the issues which needed to be faced, regardless of the reorganization.
He went on to tell us that Steve Beynon was at pains to point out that he did not blame middle school heads or teachers for this situation and accepted that the local authority had until 2007, failed to adequately manage the problem which was now being addressed.
Improvements are being seen
Despite the low KS2+ results mentioned in the report, it does also state that some improvements are starting to be seen in the schools.
Let’s hope that the proposed changes can address the current failings of the education system and ensure that our children receive the education they deserve.
Who is on the panel?
Members of the Panel include Cllr George William Cameron (Chairman), Cllr John Frederick Howe, Cllr Roger Mazillius, Cllr Chris Welsford, Cllr William Wyatt-Millington as well as co-opted members, Mr David Miller and Mrs Sara Sheath (Parent Governor Representatives) and Mr Tony Blackshaw and Mrs Ursula Topp (Diocesan Representatives).
It is interesting to note that despite the key role that the Diocesan authorities are playing in the reorganisation, they have failed to attend any Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel meetings since the decision was made. Cllr Welsford told us that he asked last night why this was and members expressed their desire to see them attend in future.
Report available online
If you have some time on your hands you can read the document yourself on the IWC Website (PDF).
Related posts:
- Latest Island Education Plans Published (IWC PR) (UPDATED)
This has just been published by the IWC. Isle of... - Conservative Party Policy Ignored as Pugh and Wells Seek to Destroy Island Education System
Standards Not Tiers, now in their 4th year as a... - NEXT PHASE OF EDUCATION REFORMS UNDERWAY
Isle of Wight Council is organising a series of meetings... - One Island Programmes Target Education Services
A key part of Isle of Wight Council’s latest round... - Cllr Anne Bishop Adjudication Panel Decision In
After a long wait. The findings have been published....
Email This Story To A Friend
It is good to hear that the two sides are discussing the issues and trying to find a resolution.
Transition from one school to another is disruptive and is known to set school students back by a year each time it happens, so one transition is better than two.
This is known because the NFER (National Foundation for Educational Research) has shown this time and time again.
Two tiers are better than three but the big mistakes of the reorganisation plan are:
1) closing small, successful, primary schools in favour of travel to big schools away from home, because they are cheaper to run.
2) setting up huge academy-style secondary schools which again waste money and time to transport students. Why do it then ? Because these big schools are cheaper to run and someone else can be contracted to run them.
If they do well, then the Council will take the credit. If the don’t do so well then it’s nothing to do with the Council and they will find another provider.
Small and local is beautiful and has been shown to work.
Large and distant is alienating and time-consuming for the customers. But who cares ?
Economy rules. Quality fails.
(Report comment)
Readers might find this extract from the TES (04/03/05, Seventh heaven without year 7 – Sounding Off) interesting. It’s a bit academic now (the decision having been made)but the argument in favour of two gentle transfers versus one harsh one, as well as smaller locally based secondary schools (ie middle schools)rather than vast centralised ones, is one supported by many parents including me:
(Report comment)
This is the quote:
John Cannon, a Head of Department in a large urban comprehensive school on the mainland says that year 7 behaviour has got so bad that perhaps a return to the Middle School system would be an option to be considered.
In the two-tier system children are required to transfer from primary school to secondary school at age 11. This is usually a massive culture change and has led many secondary schools to introduce “zoning” for year 7 children to try and address the problems that have led to a steady deterioration in classroom behaviour. However, John Cannon believes that the use of “zoning” may miss the point somewhat.
He says that whilst it is true that many youngsters do mimic their older peers and that zoning addresses this problem, the main reason for year 7 “hell” is puberty and the age of transfer arriving at the same time.
Mr Cannon goes on to say “the argument also forgets that secondary schools are much larger than primary schools and that the pool of difficult disaffected pupils coming together in one place “goes nuclear” with the sudden surge of rebelliousness multiplied many times over.”
The dip in year 7 performance at Key Stage 3 is often blamed on dull teaching and the transfer itself. Mr Cannon sees the more likely culprit to be hormones.
Another interesting point is that by zoning pupils in year 7 teachers are being forced to teach more than one subject (as they often have to in Middle Schools) which not something that most want to do. After all most became Secondary School teachers to specialise.
Mr Cannon suggests that: “perhaps somebody should carry out the ultimate experiment. Why not leave groups of 11 and 12 year olds in small primary schools and see if they stay sweet and pliable, being taught in one class room by one all purpose teacher? Sounds like an argument for bringing back middle schools to me…”
(Report comment)
These were amongst the main reasons for setting up Middle Schools/tertiary system in the first place. I well remember these same arguments being aired in the Sixties and I remember the success with which the Middle Schools transcended these difficulties and saw off the problems. I’m sorry that decision-makers on the Island would appear to be either too young or too blinkered to share this memory.
(Report comment)
The fact is that on the island the decision-makers have put financial concerns before educational concerns.
(Report comment)