Former education supremo hits back

Question 1: Why, five years into a ten-year, £360 million contract, is Bradford back to square one in terms of its primary league table position?

Answer: Not so - since 2001 there has been considerable success in narrowing the gap between Bradford's results and the national results by 2.4 per cent in English, 4.3 per cent in mathematics and four per cent in science. This year there was a failure to continue that closure and, indeed, achievement slipped nationally.

Over the five years the gap between Bradford's results and the national results have narrowed at Key Stages One, Two, Three and Four in all but one measure (KS1 mathematics). While the league position is the same as five years ago the levels of achievement have improved. This year, though, we failed to improve at a rate equal to or better than the national rate of improvement.

It is also worth noting that this year's result at L5+ were, apart from science, up on last year, and for English and mathematics were the highest achieved.

And by now you should have grasped the gist of the complexity in moving faster and maintaining sustainability year after year after year.

Question 2: How can Education Bradford turn things round to meet the achievement goals over the next five years?

Answer: More accurately, the question should be: Can the progress made be sustained?

Yes it can - inroads are being made into the fundamental causes of under-achievement. But as you can see above it will be a long, hard slog and it is essential that communities recognise and support the changes of attitude needed.

Education Bradford reported to the Council in November on the results for 2006 and explained very clearly that the major issue is the lack of progress made by pupils in primary schools and the actions we are taking. These were provided to the T&A in the statement of December 6 and in more detail in the report that went to the Young People and Education Improvement Committee on November 8. The T&A has that report and had a reporter present at the meeting.

Let me remind you of the steps being taken: "Ensure schools have identified and provided for the lower attaining pupils in their schools; provide targeted support to schools that have multiple issues; provide half-termly challenge to schools below expected progress; school improvement officers to focus on the progress that all pupils are making; develop effective assessment procedures; establish an assessment team and implement the national recommendations for target-setting; support the national roll-out of the amended literacy and numeracy frameworks; improve the development of basic skills of reading and numeracy in the Foundation Stage and to build a firm foundation for the development of calculation skills through Key Stages One and Two and continue to implement the science development programme."

Question 3: Why haven't long-term problems like the achievement levels of so many inner-city Bradford schools been addressed by now?

Answer: See above - progress has been made.

Question 4: Will the worsening primary school standards, relative to other LEAs, erode the achievement gains made by the district's secondary schools in future years?

Answer: We have made some progress by addressing certain issues like leadership and management, as demonstrated by the number of schools that have come out of categories, but there is an ongoing issue about the quality of teaching and learning having stalled. It's an endemic problem that won't respond to any quick fix but it is a joint responsibility to see there continues to be change for the better.

With 28 secondary schools (excluding special schools) across the district, monitoring and support can be more easily focused. Significant progress has been made in building robust capacity among their head teachers and management teams as well as their governing bodies.

158 primary schools make this task more challenging and the link to life long achievement that much more fragile.

There is nothing to support the view that secondary school standards will be eroded. In fact the evidence is to the contrary. This year's best ever GCSE results were achieved by the pupils who finished Key Stage Two in 2001. Despite not having improved as much as we should have this year the results are still higher than they were in 2001. Our secondary schools have shown that they can accelerate progress from the ages of 11 to 16. However, it is also true that if the Key Stage Two results were as high as they should be the GCSE results would also be higher.

Question 5: What is your response to the call by some Bradford MPs, councillors and teaching unions to terminate the contract now?

Answer: Pure political posturing and humbug, fuelled only their ignorance (perhaps Education Bradford could not have put it quite so succinctly or indeed so bluntly!) - and, given the past history, Mr Rooney's cheek is absolutely astonishing! (Again referring to times before Education Bradford's coming!)

There is a need, however, for all parties to face up to their responsibilities and to resist the blame culture. A considerable number of our schools, for example, are coping with staffing difficulties and while most of the teaching unions are working to resolve these constructively, not all of them are.

Question 6: Is Education Bradford committed to seeing out the contract?

Answer: I am confident in the ability and present commitment to Bradford district of the present management team to stick the course and prevail. But they do need the support of those who understand the complexity and challenges and should not be subject to and have their energies drained by continual sniping and ambushing.

Question 7: You have admitted yourself that Education Bradford is not doing a good enough job and this year was a missed opportunity. Is Education Bradford or its parent company Serco putting in enough recourses to do what is necessary?

Answer: You will recall that the Ofsted report published in January 2005 confirmed progress but highlighted concerns about future financial capacity and earlier this year the Minister and the DfES, to their credit, provided some extra support for two years linked to targets.

Similarly the Schools Forum gave extra financial support but this Council, to its shame, during the last budget process refused - for either political posturing or spite. I forecast at the time that it would be children and young people of Bradford district who would pay heavily - and, sadly, so it is proving.

The Audit Commission review, commissioned by the DfES and the Council, confirmed that Serco invested £8.5 million in the first five years of the contract. It was clear that, in order for cuts not to be made to essential service for school improvement, an additional payment of £1.5m a year should be made to the contract. The Schools' Forum agreed to £825,000 a year being paid from the Dedicated Schools Grant. The Council voted for £630,000 to go to education but to activities deliberately chosen that were not part of the contract. Schools, having kept their side of the bargain, are understandably annoyed at this decision.

When the contract was let, it was done so at a level of spend some £5.4m less than the actual spend by the Council. While some contract variations have narrowed that gap the payment is still considerably below the level spent by the Council in the year before the contract.

In addition there are major items of expenditure that have only been increased by inflation that should have come from the DSG. For example, increased expenditure on pupils with SEN who are educated out of the authority in other LA schools or independent schools should fall to the DSG. Similarly, increased expenditure of provision for excluded pupils should be met from the DSG. The difference between the contract payment and the actual expenditure for these functions is some £1.8 million a year. This money is therefore not available to support school improvement. There has also been a considerable growth in the cost of SEN transport that has not been reflected in the contract payment. There are also other items of expenditure that have been discussed with the Council, but not resolved, in excess of a year.

The scale of the challenge in Bradford should not be underestimated. For example, there are 40 schools below floor targets in English at Key Stage Two, 57 below in mathematics and 34 in both subjects. In addition, more than 100 schools had results that did not show the progress expected of their pupils in English and more than 90 that did not make the expected progress in mathematics.

Question 8: How can Education Bradford justify receiving annual cash bonuses on this record?

Answer: The contract is extremely complex with a range of incentive targets to meet. They have to work very hard to achieve any incentive payment and it only reflects the successes achieved - do we want failure?

Priorities are incentivised to support the focus of their work, but the achievement of those payments is fundamental to their viability and therefore delivery capacity.

Incentive payments are met when targets set by the Council are met or exceeded. These include targets other than those for end-of-key-stage results. Any income from incentive targets is an integral part of Education Bradford's budget and is needed for the provision of targets.