The Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) has broadly agreed with the main architecture of the 2006 Order, namely:
• the end of the 11+, and selection at 11
• the pupil entitlement and movement towards a skills curriculum
• the delay (to 14 and 16) of critical educational pathways

However, ATL has been sharply critical of the “laissez faire” approach of Government to implementing change.   The failure to spell out potential transfer arrangements at 14 and 16, future school funding arrangements, and good practice models for inter-school partnership risks leaving parents with the same “high stakes” decisions at 11 – with or without selection.

Amongst the points ATL has made in respect of Post Primary policy are:

Entitlement Framework:  ATL supports the entitlement framework, and supports the improved currency and cultural value of “applied” education.  ATL supports moves to break the link between “vocational” education and “low achiever”. 

Pupil Profiles:  ATL supports the concept of pupil profiles as providing parents and schools with a useful and “fear free” standardised report on the progress of their child. ATL does not support the profile as a selection tool, and considers that this would put an intolerable burden on teachers. ATL awaits ongoing CCEA research on the matter with an open mind and will lobby for adequate training for teachers, and for appropriate evaluation and moderation methods.  

Admissions: ATL considers that putting Admissions in place in advance of the “collaboration agenda” risks “putting the cart before the horse”.  In advance of collaborative arrangements being clearly put in place, what will pupils be admitted to?   With LMS and open enrolment remaining in place, funding mechanisms will continue to stimulate inter school, “dog eat dog” rivalry rather than collaboration.  

“Middle Schools”, Admissions and transfer at 14 or 16: ATL also considers that “Pathways at 14” will, inevitably, increase transfer at 14, and 16. ATL supports “middle schools” as a useful medium term ambition and is concerned that little thought has been given to transfer arrangements at 14 and/or 16.  Too much remains at stake at 11. More fluidity and movement between schools at 14 and 16 will ease the “crunch” nature of decisions at 11. “Middle” or “Junior High” schools can act as an institution means of delaying critical decisions.

Other issues impacting on Admissions: Other issues which need to be tackled simultaneous to Admissions include:

• Planning to facilitate the likelihood of transfer at 14 or 16
• Inflexibility of PFI / PPP / Strategic Investment Board led estate planning – locking schools into long term private procurement and facilities contracts at a time of maximum uncertainty makes no logical sense. PFI style contracts also reduce and impact upon professional control of space
• Mainstreaming funding to drive collaboration, between schools and with Further Education Colleges.  Whilst the Vocational Enhancement Programme is interesting and welcome, it remains a programme with a short term “project funded” approach pertaining
• Requirement for Planning, for ”sticks and carrots” – and for “capacity” (including partnership or “collegiate” management posts) to facilitate partnerships
• Need for clear viability criteria (now recommended under the Bain Review), so that less viable secondary schools can opt to become neighbourhood “middle schools”, opt to merge, or opt to close quickly to avoid blighting children’s education, and avoid de-motivating teaching staff
• ATL has concerns over “post code” criteria, unless catchment areas are sufficiently large to facilitate balanced intakes.

Balanced Intakes: ATL’s broad policy on admissions is that balanced intakes have been proven as the best means of providing for better overall educational performance. It has long been generally accepted academically, if not acted upon by policymakers, that overall school performance improves with socially balanced intakes. The following is a good summary, although the references are only a small selection of what is available.

Sullivan and Whitty (2005) comment as follows (in 'Life Chances and Educational Achievement in the UK: A Research and Policy Overview' in 'Maintaining Momentum: promoting social mobility and life chances from early years to adulthood' Eds Delorenzi, Reed and Robinson London: Institute for Public Policy Research)
 
'There is consensus that school composition effects are important and that schools with a high proportion of students of low social status or low prior academic ability are at a disadvantage (Coleman 1966, Henderson et al 1978, Mortimore et al 1988, Rutter et al 1979, Smith and Tomlinson 1989, Summers and Wolfe 1977, Thrupp 1995, Willms 1986)...Levacic and Woods (2002) find the concentration of social disadvantage in a school relative to other local schools has a strong impact on GCSE improvement over time. These school composition effects may be due to the influence of peer groups on aspirations and behaviour, or they may be due to other processes, such as schools with low proportions of 'able' students finding it hard to attract good teachers.'

External/internal influences on pupil performance: Another point on which academics are largely united (and which, again, does not feed into policy formation) is the proposition that most (ie up to 85%) variation in educational performance can be traced to factors outside of school and educational provision. Indeed, the logic is that public spending on education would be better directed at other social policy areas.
 
Martin Johnson, ATL’s Director of Education Policy, in a chapter in the International handbook of Urban Education (forthcoming) comments:
“School improvement was as much a grass roots movement as a Government policy, but it provided support for two policy themes. First, it supported the contention implied in the earlier reform that autonomous schools could produce better pupil performance. Second, it underpinned the rejection of an apparent determinism which explained pupil failure in terms of social factors, as summed up by the Labour Secretary of State for Education, David Blunkett – ‘poverty no excuse’. Whilst fatalism and low expectations were, and possibly remain, a feature of some schools, it seemed by the mid-nineties that the pendulum of rhetoric had swung excessively, leading to the title Schools making a difference: let’s be realistic (Thrupp, 1999), and ‘... improvement methods would make a difference. A little difference.’ (Johnson, 1999, p.166) Limitations on the utility of the school improvement model became clear (Mortimore, 1998, MacGilchrist this vol.).

One was the reliance on high quality leadership and management, when there was continuing concern about that quality which led to the establishment of a National College for School Leadership. The second was the recognition that school improvement placed heavy demands on a workforce already feeling overstretched. Thirdly, improvement research corroborated earlier findings (Coleman et al 1966, Hanushek 1992) and showed that 85% of the variation in pupil performance is due to factors external to the school (Teddlie and Reynolds 2000). 

Of the remaining 15%, the classroom effect was shown to be the most substantial. This finding coincided with the determination of the Labour Government elected in 1997 to move to the third phase of reform, a programme to develop the teaching force and the quality of pedagogy.”

References on “Balanced Intakes”
Coleman, JS (1966) Equality of Educational Opportunity  (Washington D.C.., Government Printing Office)
Henderson, V., Mieszkowski, P. and Sauvageau, Y. (1978) Peer Group Effects and Education Production Functions, Journal of Public Economics 10, pp. 97-106
Levacic, R. and Woods, P. A. (2002a) Raising School Performance in the League Tables (Part 1): disentangling the effects of social disadvantage, British Educational Research Journal 28, 2, pp. 207-26
Levacic, R. and Woods, P. A. (2002b)  Raising School Performance in the League Tables (Part 2): barriers to responsiveness in three disadvantaged schools, British Educational Research Journal 28, 2, pp. 227-47
Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D. and Ecob, R. (1988) School Matters (London., Open Books)
Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P. and Janet, O. (1979) Fifteen Thousand Hours (London., Open Books)
Smith, D. and Tomlinson, S (1989) The School Effect:A Study of Multi-Racial Comprehensives (London, Policy Studies Institute)
Summers, A. A. and Wolfe, B.L. (1977) Do Schools Make a Difference?, American Educational Review 67, pp. 639-52
Thrupp, M. (1995) The school mix effect: the history of an enduring problem in educational research, policy and practice, British Journal of Sociology of Education 16, pp. 183-203
Willms, J. D. (1986) Social Class Segregation and Its Relationship to Pupils’ Examination Results in Scotland, American Sociological Review 51, pp. 223-41
 

Further Information:  Mark Langhammer (Director), ATL,10 Cromac Quay, Ormeau Road, Belfast BT7 2JD.  Tel: 028 9032 7990  or by e-mail to mlanghammer@atl.org.uk