Work in progress – please do not quote without permission of the authorsFab-Q M5-1uk
The Tortoise and the Hare? The views of English and Scottish Teachers about Quality Assurance and Evaluation (QAE)
Linda Croxford, Sotiria Grek, Farah Shaik
Centre for Educational Sociology, University of Edinburgh
Paper presented to the European Conference on Educational Research (ECER) Network 23 Symposium[1]: “Fabricating Quality in European Education (FABQ): Teacher Professionalism, Quality Assurance Regimes and Performance: a comparative study”, held in Göteborg, 10th-12th September 2008.
Introduction
QAE systems have made a considerable impact on teachers throughout Europe and beyond, indeed teachers are said to be subject to a ‘global assault’ from neo-liberalism (Compton and Weiner 2008). However there are differences in the translation of neo-liberal principles and QAE practices in different national systems. The UK does not have a system of education, but rather the constituent nations of the UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) have separate systems, whose distinctive histories and traditions are now clearly recognised through political devolution. In this paper we illustrate some differences betweenEngland and Scotland. The paper presents findings from the survey of teachers and headteachers about their perceptions of the quality of education, of different aspects of QAE, and the effects of QAE on teachers’ professionalism. We explore the extent to which teachers perceptions vary between Scotland and England, and the features of QAE that influence their perceptions.
QAE systems in England and Scotland
Over the past 20 years neo-liberal government policies with their global consensus about reshaping economies and schools have imposed an increasingly draconian structure of quality assurance procedures – derived from business practice - inschools. Although these policy pressures have influenced all UK systems, they took their most developed form in England, but were tempered to some extent by the different political climate and historical context of education in Scotland.Historically, the Scottish education system developed separately from the English system, and since the Conservative government that spearheaded QAE systems in the early 1980s had very little electoral support in Scotland, it was perceived to lack political legitimacy for policies that changed the Scottisheducation system, and thus education policies diverged. However, in 1997 the New Labour government came to power with strong electoral support in Scotland, and introduced similar policies in both England and Scotlandthat intensified QAE systems. Since 1999, formal devolution of power to the new Scottish Parliament provides scope for greater divergence of policy and practice, perhaps even more strongly since the election of a nationalist government in Scotland in 2007, which disrupted the Labour alliance in governing the UK and Scotland. However this divergence exists within the overall context of British (and European) expectations of accountability. A brief overview of historical development of QAE systems in England and Scotland (below) shows strong similarities but also significant differences.
a) National testing
The first major difference in QAE systems in England and Scotland is their approach to national testing of pupils in primary schools. In England, the conservative government passed the 1988 Education Reform Act (ERA)which, together withassociated changes,introducednational key-stage testingand the publication of test results per school. Thisgovernment attempted to introduce a similar form of national testing in Scotland, but had to modify their approach in the face of concerted opposition from parents and teachers groups. Consequently, the system of national assessment of the 5-14 age group introduced in Scotland is at the discretion of teachers, and merely confirms whether a pupil has achieved the level the teacher judges them to have achieved. This system is not conducive to comparisons of performance between teachers or schools, and is a hindrance to the development ofQAE systems in Scottish primary schools.
b) Publication of school performance indicators
A further difference relates to publication of school performance data, which started in both countries in 1992 with the aim of encouraging parental choice of schools.The data are formed into League Tables by the newspapers so that they can report which local schools are apparently doing better or worse than others. Although tables showing performance in national examinations in secondary schools were published in Scotland, as in England, initially test results were not published for primary schools in Scotland[2].After devolution, the publication of performance tables was discontinued in Scotland, but is still a major plank of policy in England.
c) Targets for improvement
Target-setting represented a ratcheting-up of accountability by the New Labour government in 1997 in both England and Scotland. Comparator schools were identified as “benchmarks” for comparing performance and setting targets for school improvement.
d) Use of performance data to manage the education system
The collection of data about pupils and schools has been a feature of QAE systems since the 1990s, and has gained momentum in recent years (Grek and Ozga 2008). In England the national testing regime has created a considerable body of data, and schools have been recording progress on attainment targets. More recently, schools have been expected to develop pupil-level data management systems and there have been attempts to use the data at a national level to create a National Pupil Database, and a national Pupil Achievement Tracker (PAT). In Scotland, by contrast,the use of data has been more low key. Since 1992 secondary schools have been required to evaluate their performance in national examinations using Standard Tables and Charts (STACS) (Cowie et al 2007). Far less attention is paid to data in primary schools.Data management systems vary between local authorities, but since 2001, the Scottish Exchange of Educational Data (ScotXed) has facilitated electronic exchange of pupil-level data between schools, local authorities and Scottish government for agreed purposes However, no attempt is being made to create a national pupil databases for Scotland.
e) School self-evaluation
School self-evaluation has been an important thrust of QAE in Scotland since the early 1990s, but did not become a priority for English QAE until 2004. In Scotland the methodology of self evaluation was developed by the HMI Audit Unit (building on the work of John Macbeath), and brought together in How Good is Our School?(HGIOS)Self-evaluation using performance indicators (HMI 1996). This approach to quality assurance was subsequently adopted by the New Labour administration as the Quality Initiative in Scottish Schools (HMI 1997), and forms the basis for the statutory responsibilities set out in the education legislation of the new Scottish Parliament. Interestingly, the approach to self-evaluation adopted in Englandsince 2004 as part of the Intelligent Accountability agenda makes no reference to the Scottish system – despite the fact that several European countries have copied the HGIOS system (Croxford et al2007)
f) Role of local authorities
In Scotland,local authorities retain greater powers over school staffing and budgets than is the case in England, and have a greater role in QAE. In 1992, the powers of the local authorities in England were deliberately reduced by the conservative government so that they could not mediate the power of central government over schools. In both England and Scotland, local government reorganisation in 1996 led to the creation of smaller local authorities, and led to considerable variation in staffing and resources of data management and quality assurance roles. However, in 2000 the Scottish Parliament increased the responsibilities of local authorities for ensuring “continuous improvement” in their schools. HMI were tasked with inspecting the education functions of the local authorities, and used this role to ensure that local authorities put in place more appropriate quality assurance procedures. In 2008 the Scottish Nationalist government has formed a “Compact” with local authorities which will further enhance their power and responsibility.
g) Inspection
Her Majesty’s Inspectors of schools (HMI) have been responsible for inspecting and advising on the quality of school education since the mid-19th century. In England, the style of inspection changed in 1992 with the creation of the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted), anda “Framework for Inspection” which established links between inspection and performance on nationalassessments. Thereafter the style of inspection included very public “naming and shaming” of so-called failing schools. In September 2005 a new system of short notice inspections came into being. Under this system the senior leadership of each school are required to complete a Self Evaluation Form (SEF) on a continual basis, which requires them to be aware of strengths and areas for development. Inspections are generally every three years with a school's performance is judged by the accuracy of self-evaluation combined with evidence and strategic policies for development and improvement.
In Scotland, the system of inspection did not change to the same extent in 1992, and there was no equivalent to the creation of Ofsted. HMI have been very influential in developing the QAE system in Scotland, focusing on school self-evaluation. The quality indicators defined as part of their policy document How Good is Our School?(HMI 1996) are used as the basis for inspections – which appears to be a similar approach to inspectionas the new system in England.
Teacher professionalism in Scotland and England
All of these developments have had consequences for teachers’ work and their professional autonomy and capacity in both of the systems under review here, and help to explain the responses to QAE discussed below. Neo-liberal principles have enhanced managerialism at the expense of professional control.Managerialism legitimises particular versions of ‘how to manage’, for what purposes, in whose interests, and with what knowledge (Newman 2000). It is the antidote to professionalism ensuring that public sector professionals are disciplined, regulated and accountable.Teachers in England are rendered accountable throughthe publication, in league table form, of the results of the national annual tests of 7-16 year olds which are a very powerful device because they inform parental choice. Parents have free choice of school, and resources follow the pupil. The market in education produces, in some cases, selection by schools of ‘safe’ pupils, and a strong emphasis on traditional pedagogies that reassure parents. (Gewirtz 2000) This example shows how direct regulation through performance management also produces teacher compliance in more indirect ways: teachers self-regulate to reduce their own risk and that of their pupils-this may also happen in relation to Inspection, where results are also public.
In Scotland, there are a number of features of the landscape that dilute the market effect In addition to the impact of political devolution, it is important to recognise the continuation of a professional partnership in policy making for the teaching profession between the Local Authority employers, central government policy makers and the organised profession, particularly in relation to pay and conditions of service issues. Put briefly – and perhaps too crudely – the factors noted above tend to sustain a more autonomous profession and more consensual policy development than is the case in England: this is not to overlook the impact of shared policy pressures on teachers in both countries-and, indeed, the data below suggest that differences may be being eroded byQAE pressures.
Teachers views of QAE
Teachers in England and Scotland were surveyed in early 2008, to ask their views about evaluating quality. The survey was developed for the FABQ project, in collaboration with research partners in Denmark, Finland and Sweden, to explore teachers’ perceptions of the quality of education, of different aspects of QAE, and the effects of QAE on teachers’ professionalism. Postal questionnaires were sent to a random sample of primary and secondary schools in England and Scotland, with an additional internet version advertised through teachers organisations and local authorities. In line with many recent attempts to gather teachers’ views by survey, the numbers ofresponses were very low and disappointing, and we cannot know to what extent the respondents are representative of teachers as a whole. (Details of the survey are shown in the appendix.)Nevertheless, the dataprovide an interesting picture of how QAE now affects the professional experiences of teachers in England and Scotland.
Below we summarise some of the views expressed by teachers in the survey, focusing on similarities and differences between England and Scotland, and between senior managers and other teachers. Additional analyses - using a series of multinomial logistic regression models - examined the extent to which views of different aspects of QAE varied by school sector, length of experience as a teacher and role within the school. The aim of the statistical modelling was to identify the extent to these factors were associated with differences in the viewsof respondents. In the text below we indicate factors that were found to be statistically significant (at the 95% confidence level), but we do not include full details of the statistical modelsfor reasons of space (please contact the authors for more information).
Views of change over 20 years
The past 20 years has been a period of considerable change in school education, so the survey asked whether respondents felt the quality of education had improved or declined over this period. Their views are summarised in Figure 1, and reveal a notablypositive perspective: 62% of respondents believe that the quality of education has mostly improved over the past twenty years, and only 16% believe it has mostly declined. (17%say it has neither improved nor declined, and 5% say they have no experience or opinion). The statistical model confirms that headteachers are most likely to believe the quality of education has improved, butrespondents from the primary sector are least likely to do so. Teachers with less than ten years teaching experience are most likely to say they have “no experience or opinion”, but apart from this the length of time in teaching does not have a significant effect on perceptions of change. There are no differences in perceptions in England compared with Scotland.
Figure 1
A further question asked whether respondents thought that public respect for the teaching profession has changed in the last 20 years. Responses to this question were far more negative, with three quarters of respondents saying that there is less respect now, and only five percent suggesting there is more respect. (Chart not shown). Respondents in England were a little more likely to say that there is more respect for the teaching profession now, as were new teachers who had been in the profession less than ten years. Those in the primary sector were more likely than others to say that respect for the teaching profession had mostly declined.
Overall, we have a picture of change over the past 20 years, in which the teaching profession has had to adapt to new QAE systems, in which the majority of respondents believe they are delivering higher quality education, but receive less respect for what they do.
Views of national testing and league tables
As described above, it is now 20 years since the 1988 Education Reform Actinitiated the major investment of time and resources in National Testing and the publication of school performance indicators in England. The survey asked teachers to what extent these aspects of QAE contribute to high quality in education; their responses concerning National Testing are summarised in Figure 2, and show considerable differences of opinion. School managers and teachers in England were most likely to say that National Testing reduces the quality of education (46% and 30% respectively) – but, on the other hand, a substantial proportion believed that National Testing improves the quality of education (31% and 33%). By comparison, managers and teachers in Scotland were most likely to say that National Testing has no effect on quality (46% of both groups) which is probablya reflection of the much less rigorous form of national assessment in Scotland. We analysed the extent to which views of national testing varied by school sector, length of experience as a teacher and role within the school, but there were no significant differences other than the England/Scotland contrast.
Figure 2
Perceptions of the effects of the publication of school performance data (eg League Tables) on the quality of education are summarised in Figure 3, and reveal considerable agreement between teachers in England and Scotland. Almost half of all respondents believed that the publication of performance data reduces the quality of education, 45% said it had no effect, and just a small minority believed that publication improved quality. On average, headteachers and respondents from the primary sector were the most likely to say that the publication of school performance data reduces the quality of education.
Figure 3
The effects of the publication of school performance data were explored by other questions in the survey, and there was strong agreement among respondents about the negative effects:
- 87% of all respondents agreed that “There is a real danger that the public ranking of schools may lead to manipulation of data”.
- 86% agreed that “Public ranking of schools leads to ‘teaching to the test’” – in fact the proportion of senior managers in England who said this rose to 93%.
- 85% agreed that “Publishing school performance tables does not improve teaching”.
- 74% agreed that “Publishing school performance tables is harmful for staff morale”.
There was a little more variation in views as to whether “it is necessary to publish school specific performance indicators to enable parents to exercise choice”. While 68% of all respondents disagreed with this statement, there were substantial minorities of respondents who agreed that publication is necessary to facilitate choice. Agreement with this statement was highest among English teachers, which is perhaps not surprising given the greater prevalence of choice in the English system. This view was also higher among those who had been teaching for less than 20 years. Headteachers were the most likely of all respondents to disagree with this statement.