By Helen Cowen

The government’s current emphasis on healthy eating, and consequent clamp-down on junk food in schools, means that the reign of the tuck shop and vending machine is over: these days, one is more likely to find an apple than a Mars bar in most law-abiding schools.   But give a child the choice, and many would still opt for the irresistible lure of refined sugar.  Their parents, too: take the tale of the Yorkshire mums serving junk food through the school gates a few years ago, or the worrying early rejection of healthier free school meals in favour of nearby fish and chip shops.

Children have always enjoyed breaking rules: there is nothing more appealing than an area marked ‘out of bounds’.  In my school it was ‘jumping the stream’, a scandalous bound across a narrow stretch of water at the bottom of a playing field: one small step for girl, one giant leap for your reputation.  Now some enterprising children have been discovered dealing fizzy drinks and chocolate bars on the bus and in the playground: a minor rebellion, you might think.  Yet the school has announced that it will exclude any pupil involved in the contraband activities, and confiscate their “ill-gotten gains”. 

Given the obesity problem in Britain, moves to promote healthiness are certainly desirable, arguably essential.  Fortunately, post-Jamie, school meals are now much more nutritious, and Pru Leith’s efforts as Chair of the School Food Trust are going some way to tackling the problem.  Yet this latest story doesn’t seem to really be about nutrition: the letter sent home to parents stressed the lawlessness of the children: “Sweets are not allowed to be sold in schools under food regulations, and we would not let any student subvert these necessary rules”.  Surely these ‘regulations’ are not there simply for arbitrary extra control, but for real health reasons? 

Perhaps the school should recognise the enterprising nature of the pupils involved.  The current push for skills for life and school experiences relevant to the world of work seems beautifully pertinent to this case.  Here are children actively engaging with markets, considering supply and demand, and commanding profits from their peers: the sort of thing they might be expected to do in a business or retail course.  Sir Alan Sugar, newly appointed Enterprise Tsar, would be impressed. 

It is crucial to fight the causes of childhood obesity, but schools should also arm themselves with a realistic understanding of child psychology in this war: naughty things are always more fun.  

By Helen Cowen

David Willetts, shadow universities secretary, asserted that “Going to university should be about academic ability, not where you were born.”  The director-general of the Russell Group, Wendy Piatt, identified what she sees as being the main hurdle: “The biggest obstacle to widening participation is educational underachievement.”  Common sense, but how can such problems be resolved?  Mr Willetts suggests the Conservatives would encourage universities to offer places to disadvantaged pupils with lower grades, and then coach them for the year preceding entry to the courses: perhaps one way of addressing Ms Piatt’s concerns.

Turning to schools, another headline this week reports that parent Mrinal Patel has been charged with fraud for using a false address in an attempt to secure a place for her five-year-old son at a leading state school in Harrow.  If found guilty, she could face a fine of £5, 000 or up to a year in prison.  The case must be set against the 162 places withdrawn by almost 50 schools this year on similar suspicions: she is not alone in her desperation.  The important question is perhaps not whether or not Mrs Patel is guilty, but why so many parents are prepared – arguably compelled – to risk so much in the quest for a place in certain schools.

The key  perhaps to both dilemmas is to raise the standards of education, rather than simply lowering the entry standards: for university and schools too.  The government may not be able to change where children live, or alter their home lives, but it can change their education.  The Conservatives’ plan leaves it too late: the playing field cannot be levelled at 17.  Mrinal Patel’s predicament points to one of the key factors in underachievement: unsatisfactory primary provision.  If some of the money spent on access programmes were redirected to improving educational opportunities at an early age, the dichotomy between ‘good’ – currently oversubscribed – schools, and ‘bad’ schools would diminish.  Educational horizons would be broadened early enough for children to fully explore what those horizons might offer.  As dentists are fond of saying: prevention is better than cure.

By Helen Cowen

CSPAR evidence: Significantly less research on the effect of class size has been carried out in England than in the US, however the largest study to date, the Class Size and Pupil Adult Ratio (CSPAR) project undertaken by researchers at the University of London’s Institute of Education, has shown a strong relationship between small classes and greater achievement. CSPAR analysed a sample of over 10,000 pupils from school entry until the end of Key Stage 1. The researchers identified a ‘clear effect’ in literacy and numeracy attainment, even after adjusting for other ‘possible confounding factors’. Pupils entering school with low literacy levels progressed the most. The researchers concluded that the effect was comparable to that reported by the STAR project, meaning that the impact of class size reduction is supported by both ‘experimental’ (STAR design) and ‘non-experimental’ research (CSPAR design) (Blatchford, P. et al., ‘Are class size differences related to pupils’ educational progress and classroom processes? Findings from the Institute of Education class size study of children aged 5-7,’ British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 29, 2003, pp 709-730; The Primary Review, Interim Reports: Research Survey 9/2, ‘Classes, Groups and Transitions: Structures for Teaching and Learning,’ 2008)

One reason for the former is fairly clear: the impact of the recession on families’ employment. Even though free school meal entitlement is an imperfect poverty measure (potentially counting, for example, self-employed parents  regardless of their income), there’s a strong relationship between entitlement and coming from a workless household. There are also other (though related) contributors to the increase in children on free school meals such as a rise in numbers of ethnic minority pupils since last year; also likely connected to greater unemployment and fewer job opportunities.

The reason for the latter concern, the rise in SEN pupils, is less clear, though likely to be at least partly connected to deteriorating conditions – such as home-life deprivation through unemployment.

Aside from issues relating to altered definitions of what usefully constitutes special educational needs, the registered increase is at least partially an indictment of current weaknesses in the education system.
In some ways, the increase in the number of children considered to have special educational needs is likely to be connected to difficult learning and teaching conditions. One of the aforementioned is home-life difficulties, which have a well-documented impact on children’s achievement. There are also many ‘in-school’ problems, such as distorting targets, over-sized infant classes and needless bureaucratic pressures leading to high teacher turnover to mention but a few. Unsurprisingly, children’s learning and achievement can suffer when teachers are thwarted from responding to pupil’s specific needs. Connected to this type of ‘frustrated’ learning are behaviour issues, with difficult behaviour a significant contributor to SEN numbers. Addressing learning hurdles therefore impacts on behaviour hurdles.

In both cases – extraneous and school-level challenges to learning – systemic turnaround isn’t the only thing that would help. A drop in prescription, for example, giving teachers more discretion, would impact on learning, as well as scrapping existing Sats and shrinking classes.

Concerns are sometimes raised about the ‘pathologisation’ of less severe learning problems when definitions of SEN become overly broad. However the bigger issue is that shifting school weaknesses onto children can mean that they are mis-identified as the problem, when in fact the problem lies in school arrangements.

So it is alarming to hear that Ofsted is maintaining its current regime but cutting its costs even further; a move which is predicted to undermine the quality of inspections rather than produce greater efficiency. Last week Ofsted announced that it would be making dramatic savings by halving the number of inspection contractors. Since 2005 Regional Inspection Service Providers (RISPs) have been contracted by the inspectorate to organise inspections on their behalf in each region. This move itself was a cost-cutting exercise, contentious because, amongst other issues, the RISPs are thought to be less stringent about both inspector training and recruitment criteria. Concern over the latest arrangements, highlighted by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (and reported in today’s Times Educational Supplement), is that the retendering process will likely be accompanied by a cut in inspector fees. The worry is that this will mean even less well-trained and less-experienced inspectors as pay cuts drive out the more experienced. Were this to be the case, the weaknesses raised to date with regards to currently practising inspectors – an over-reliance on superficial tick-box criteria and a lack of professional judgement – are set to become further entrenched.