NAHT(NI) Draft Literacy & Numeracy Response to DENI Consultation
Every School A Good School
A Strategy for Raising Achievement in Literacy and Numeracy
NAHT (NI) SUMMARY AND RESPONSE
Summary:
A/ Introduction
1/ Previous initiatives have not succeeded in bringing about the improvements “we all want to see”. Improvement has plateaued.
2/ Previous strategy (1998) contained many of the key elements necessary for improvement.
3/ NI audit Office (2006) and Public Accounts Committee highlighted urgent need for improvements, NI has dropped from “significantly above average” to “average” in PISA surveys of international educational performance.
4/ New strategy aims:
- to raise levels of attainment for all young people
- to narrow gaps between boys/ girls and most/least advantaged
- to narrow the gap between highest performing and lowest performing pupils and schools.
B/ The way forward: “THE THREE WAVES”
Wave One: Quality whole class teaching
Including in year 2, all children receiving a programme of phonics work “teachers should make the teaching of mathematical concepts as interesting as possible….”
Wave Two: Quality teaching plus additional support for identified pupils
Pupils, identified for additional support by class teacher or SEN System, given a structured programme delivered by teacher or classroom assistant
Wave Three: Quality teaching plus personalised support to meet the specific
needs of individual pupils
Normally provided by class teacher, may require support from other teaching and professional staff.
C/ Data and target setting:
- Increased emphasis on data used across whole school and to identify individual pupil weaknesses.
- More use of benchmarked data.
- Targets to be “reflected in PRSD objectives”.
D/ Targets
Baseline Target 2011 2020
5+A*-C GCSEs All pupils 53.7% 55% 70%
5+A*-C GCSEs FSM pupils 26.3% 30% 65%
A*-G English and maths All pupils 87% 90% 95%
E/ The role of schools:
Have a written policy re literacy and numeracy
Clear lead/ coordination taken in literacy and numeracy
All teachers are teachers of literacy and numeracy
Liaison between literacy/numeracy, SENCO and pastoral care system
Self evaluation of schools strategies
Set targets/ use benchmarking/ reduce gaps
PRSD to “reflect progress of individual teachers”
School library regularly reviewed, pupils involved in selecting book stock
` Primary school to identify pupils at an early stage needing support
In early years all children receive phonics programme
Where available, reading recovery skills for all staff
In early years systematic programme of remediation in number skills
F/ The role of Education support bodies
As before i.e. provide support, supply data, advice
Plus “Provide a challenge function to schools in respect of their performance”
G/ The role of teacher education, The Inspectorate and DENI are outlined
The DENI will
“prepare clear and practical guidance for all schools”
“provide additional resources… particularly focussed on narrowing the
gap in achievement in areas of social disadvantage”
Literacy and Numeracy taskforce will assist DENI in strategy, setting
targets and implementation
A Strategy for Raising Achievement in Literacy and Numeracy
NAHT(NI) Response:
NAHT(NI) recognises literacy and numeracy policy implementation as the core function of all schools. It is the rock upon which all else is built. NAHT (NI) can support the strategy as outlined, indeed most schools have most, if not all, of the components in place and the methodologies are supported by school leaders.
However, at a fundamental level there is little new in these proposals. Systems and policies already in place are restated and in parts enhanced emphasis is given to existing strategies. Setting targets, benchmarking, quality whole class teaching and targeted group and individual support are all part of daily practice in the schools of Northern Ireland. The prescription of a phonics programme for all pupils in the early years of mainstream schools is the only major new initiative contained in the strategy. However, it is one that is in place already in most (all?) schools.
That the strategies proposed are already in place raises some fundamental questions about the rationale for this new document. If schools are already implementing the strategies and the results have been deemed disappointing or worse, by the PAC etc, it is more likely that the causal agents are not to be found in the schools themselves but lie at a deeper level within the structures of education and, as NAHT (NI) believes, within the inadequate funding arrangements for our schools. With only 60% of the education budget delegated to schools, in contrast to the 80/90% in England and Wales is it not surprising that schools cannot provide the individualised teaching suggested in the proposals. It is wholly unfair to blame schools for the effects of government failure to address fundamental inequalities in the funding of schools. Are the proposals a “knee jerk “reaction to the lash of the PAC in the hope of deflecting criticism away from the DENI?
The proposals are rightly not prescriptive about the nature of the actual phonics programme to be used. Current practice varies across NI and is somewhat dependent on the training and resources provided by the ELBs and consequently different phonic systems are in use in different ELB areas. Any sudden move to create a uniform system would be fraught with difficulty; not least considerable resources in training and support would need to be deployed. In the absence of clear evidence of the efficacy of one system over another it would be foolish to impose a single approach.
NAHT (NI) Concerns:
1/ The response document supplied to schools with the consultation has created concerns about its impartiality. Some of the questions appear to have a political bias. If the DENI wishes to be “helpful” in supplying a consultation response form it must ensure that the form is impartial and focussed on the issues raised in the consultation.
2/ PISA analysis- does moving from above average to average really indicate a decline in standards or rather does it indicate a levelling up by other countries?
3/ Will the necessary resources be provided, primary school budgets are at breaking point and cannot sustain the levels of group and individual support proposed. The financing of reading recovery teachers needs to be reinstated and significantly enhanced. Research shows the long lasting effects of reading recovery schemes and is fully supported by NAHT (NI). However by its very nature it is individualised and consequently very difficult to implement in the large primary school classes characteristic of Northern Ireland. It is worth noting that class sizes in Scotland and The Republic of Ireland are significantly lower than here; again indicating the structural base at the heart of pupil success, or lack of it, in Northern Ireland.
Resources for ICT are currently limited to supplying small numbers of computers in classrooms. Primary schools will need many more computers to adequately provide for the teaching and assessment proposed in the consultation. Primary schools need dedicated ICT rooms/suites as well as computers in each classroom.
4a/ Early intervention requires time and resources in Nursery settings. The continued failure to provide management time for Nursery principals does not bode well for genuine commitment to supporting schools in delivering quality interventions.
4b/ Early intervention requires support from the Education Psychology service. This is often not forthcoming or delayed until the pupil has moved up through the primary school and, in any case, it is a rationed service.
5/ As stated above, the prescription of a phonics programme for all pupils needs careful implementation and not a blind adoption of any individual approach. Schools are already using a wide range of approaches to phonics and should remain in control of the pedagogical methodology, adopting tactics best suited to their pupils.
6/ Including literacy and numeracy targets in PRSD objectives should not be prescribed policy. It is acceptable where schools choose to do this as part of their processes but blanket target setting in this way is in contradiction to other policy initiatives such as local management and delegating power to school governors and principals.
7/ The use of data to inform school leaders in reviewing and planning for their schools is certainly worthwhile but the data must be soundly based. There is considerable doubt regarding the reliability of data extrapolated from small school populations. It takes only one or two pupil’s results to significantly affect the headline figures. ESA, Inspectors etc must take account of these statistical variations and the wide confidence limits that are implicit in the data currently used.
8/ Proposals for remediation in mathematical skills are well founded but there has never been funding for such schemes. Are there concomitant proposals to adequately resource mathematical remediation?
9/ Proposals to encourage schools to involve pupils in selecting books for the school library are laudable. However, most (all?) schools already do this.
It is worth noting that primary schools of less than 500 pupils do not have purpose built school libraries- yet another structural factor ignored by the proposals.
10/ The 2020 target set for GCSE performance by pupils in receipt of free school meals is hugely optimistic and without a major resource allocation will remain entirely aspirational. It most not become a rod to beat the backs of schools who cannot possibly reach it.
11/ NAHT (NI) has frequently raised concerns about the quality of training provided by CASS. It is imperative that ESA move to ensure that the training for implementing these proposals is fit for the task.
12/ The requirement by ESA to “provide a challenge function to schools in respect of their performance” is an unnecessary duplication of a role better served by the Inspectorate. NAHT(NI) accepts the need for accountability but is opposed to the concept that external agencies are better placed to challenge school performance than are the school inspectors and the school’s own Governing Body.
13/ The Literacy and Numeracy Task Force, to be effective, must include a majority of frontline practitioners. Will this be the case?
Response Summary
NAHT (NI) can generally support the proposals to improve literacy and numeracy skills of pupils. There is nothing new in them.
The spotlight of educational underachievement shining from the Public Accounts Committee should be directed at government and not at schools struggling to provide a world class service with grossly inadequate resources. NAHT (NI) believes the gaps remaining between the most and least advantaged and high and low performers are fundamentally structural. They arise from continued failure to adequately resource front line teaching. That average class size in Northern Ireland is among the highest in the Western World speaks volumes.
NAHT (NI) calls on the Minister and DENI to actively involve school leaders, those who have to deliver the improvements, in the planning process. Without proper funding, support and a strategic plan involving the practitioners the proposals will fall short and DENI will appear, yet again, before the glare of the Public Accounts Committee.
Aidan Dolan
Education Director NAHT(NI)
aidand@naht.org.uk
October 2008
Please Note: Members are encouraged to contact Aidan with any issues they wish to bring forward in light of this consultation before the 25th November 2008.
