To: Mrs E. Morris

Secretary of State for Education
The Houses of Parliament, London

From: Barry Dawson

Bidston Avenue Primary School
Tollemarche (sic) Road, Birkenhead
  


I write as Chair of the National Primary Headteachers' Association, which has members across
many Local Authorities. I hope that you will consider the views presented below and that we 
could meet and expand on these important issues. We do want to "achieve success" but hope 
that the Government does not feel that the primary sector is now happy and everything is in 
place simply because SAT results have improved. We would like you to consider the following 
points which we feel are important in helping us to raise standards further in the future 
but not simply against the criteria set by the testing regime. 

At the root of the problem with primary education has been the lack of resources. As an 
organisation we presented to the ’94 Education Select Committee and submitted papers on this 
issue and have continued to argue for a better funding system, which will help all children 
to achieve. We have been most concerned at the disparity of funding between local 
authorities and within local authorities. We have also sought justification for the disparity 
between secondary and primary funding which has meant the primary sector has been seriously 
underfunded. We are monitoring the Funding Group which is considering this issue and hope 
that there will soon be a rational system of funding that funds schools directly, fairly and 
fully so they can deliver a first class service. This is at the root of the problems in 
education. The disparity across LEAs must be ended and this will be achieved by a simpler 
allocation mechanism built on transparency and sound principle based upon what is needed to 
provide a first class education. 

You will have identified improvements in primary education as a result of the increase in 
funding put in directly by the Government. We approve of increases to the standards fund and 
the greater flexibility to spend it. The primary sector has delivered on results with a 
marginal increase in funding. However, we need an increase in resources for these 
improvements to be guaranteed and continuous. Short term funding is no good and causes 
problems for management and creates temporary contracts, which do not give staff the chance 
to develop proper careers. It also makes it difficult to spend resources efficiently. What 
we would like to see is funding without strings although we agree with high expectations and 
accountability. There are enough accountability measures and with school evaluation models 
being established the Government need not worry that money will be used effectively. 

Teachers must feel more valued and their problems appreciated in relation to curriculum 
delivery. There must now be time to consolidate and improve what has already been introduced.
QCA has produced very good materials and these are being used by schools. Planning is being 
developed around the literacy strategy and important links made with other subjects. This 
needs to be encouraged and support given to schools via QCA. We need to have a curriculum 
that encourages children to be creative and to think as well as have basic skills. We would 
like research and encouragement to achieve this. The growth in after school clubs is not the 
answer for the delivery for foundation subjects. We need to look at the structure of the 
school day andlook at the best way to deliver a wider more creative curriculum. The school 
year is also unhelpful to the delivery of the curriculum and needs to be reviewed. 

We are deeply concerned about the Government's relentless drive to increase the levels 
achieved without sound research and evidence that what is being asked is reasonable in terms 
of children's learning and valuable. We support testing and assessment which informs 
teaching and gives a guide to the performance of schools but the current push to increase 
the number of level 5s at KS2 is misguided. We do, as educators, want to give children the 
best skills, knowledge and attitudes to prepare them for adult life. Jumping through SAT 
hoops is not the measure of education. The Government is encouraging dubious practice which 
will result in children getting a narrow curriculum i.e. that which can be measured. The SAT 
tests are one measure of success of pupils but any judgements must always be qualified and 
they should be used with other measures of achievement before schools can be judged. 
Obviously the younger the child the less reliable the result. 

The Science test results now average 90% where Maths and English are lower. If the National 
Curriculum was properly constructed the distribution of levels in each subject would be 
similar. Schools are judged by their performance on these tests and the value added factor 
is now being used to judge and even to allocate resources under the achievement award scheme.
This reliance on using data from key stage I tests is particularly unsound. Many changes 
take place between key stages. All schools know that the high results in Key Stage I will 
not be replicated in key stage 2 results. Testing young children is fraught with difficulties,
which make results unreliable. 

Success in our eyes is, yes, giving children basic skills, but also opening doors and 
stimulating imagination and creativity. It is about giving them strategies for learning but 
not in the narrow range of SAT. These tests are an indicator but are not the only measure 
yet they are changing the way schools work. Yes, schools are achieving better results but is 
it not achieved at the expense of the rest of the curriculum and above all children's 
attitudes to learning. OFSTED would be very disappointed to find cramming in Year 6 yet this 
is what happens. There is even a contradiction between the Government and OFSTED over what 
is expected. Please put SATs in their rightful place as one indicator, an important one, but 
not good enough to publish in misleading league tables, which do not give the whole picture 
of endeavour in schools. Why are we at odds with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland over 
this issue? 

With regard to the role of OFSTED the big stick approach is and never was needed and we are 
glad that there are moves to school self evaluation models that are ratified. This at least 
shows there is some trust in professionals managing schools. OFSTED should concentrate on 
Local Authorities and schools where there is evidence that children are being disadvantaged 
by poor practice. 

Achievement awards and beacon school status is now being given to schools who raise their 
levels. The achievement awardscheme is good in principle i.e. reward good practice. But the 
current scheme is divisive as it gives financial reward to schools who may already be 
privileged in some way or who are encouraged to focus on getting children through tests. We 
would like to see effort recognised for all children not those lucky enough to be in schools 
in receipt of awards. At the very least the money should be given to the school for the 
children not the staff and reward all teachers with a decent pay award not through the back 
door. 

Class size must be reduced. The Government’s initiative to keep classes below 30 in KSI is 
fine but thirty is not a number the Government should be proud of when teachers who have 
been on exchange to other countries like Sweden, Canada and Denmark are able to teach classes 
that are much smaller. There must be a phased programme to reduce class size in primary 
schools including KS2, where class size can be well over 30. The Government should not 
dictate to schools about organisation but give funds so that schools can organise in the 
best interests of children in school now. Under the present scheme one more child in a year 
group will lead to mixed age classes and a total change in the structure of the department. 
Clearly this is not helpful. We are delighted with the extra resources but we need more and 
we need the flexibility. 

The primary curriculum is much more demanding and equates to the secondary curriculum and so 
teachers need the same level of support. We do need technicians and more classroom 
assistants. Again we are pleased the Government is supporting initiatives for more assistants 
but they tend to be short term and with strings attached that hamper management and lead to 
using resources in particular year groups when they would be better elsewhere. We do not 
agree with undermining the profession by expecting classroom assistants with only basic 
training to take on the role of teacher. They should be there to support not to lead. 

Children need to have stimulating purpose built environments. The capital programme needs to 
be continued and resources increased so we can rapidly improve our schools. We are still 
catching up on the backlog of neglect left by the Tories and we need to look ahead to what 
school environments should be like and make it happen. Few schools can cope with the 
inclusion of children with disabilities because there has been no investment in the past to 
help. We are shamed when we visit other countries. 

In ICT there needs to be a great increase in funding. Yes we are getting more hardware but 
the costs of repair and replacement are increasing dramatically. This should have been a 
phased well-funded project. It has moved too fast and is causing stress and wasted energy, 
which is frustrating schools and diverting them from other work. 

There also need to be research into good software. The QCA schemes are helpful and form the 
basis for moving forward. Sadly the picture is disparate across the country depending on the 
LEA and the way funds have been distributed. Every school or group of schools now needs 
technicians. This has been funded in the secondary sector, it is now an essential in the 
primary sector. 

The NOF training programme for teachers has been a disaster with many providers unable to 
deliver. This money would have been better given to schools to find their own training and 
use creatively without the strings but yes with the expectation that it would be spent 
wisely. Another lesson for the Government. 

We do want to have a profession where we can share ideas and be innovative but we do not 
want to see extra resources put into centres of excellence at the expense of children in all 
schools.Teachers in centres of excellence must work with the same resources as other schools 
if they are to be influential. We already have a grossly unfair funding system and it must 
not be exacerbated. There should be research and a sharing of good ideas. QCA has a major 
role and have been helpful. Organisations like ours are very interested in being part of the 
profession's move to have more say in education and pull the profession together. For too 
long education has been a political football the result being immense change at an 
unreasonable pace with inadequate resources. To facilitate this the Government should give 
resources to the profession. It is not about terms and conditions of employment, it is about 
what we can do by working together to provide a first class education system. 

In the current climate it is hard to be creative because we are working so hard without the 
flexibility to reflect and be innovative. The pressure to deliver higher percentages 
regardless is hampering the profession and discouraging teachers. If you are serious about 
achieving success then this stress must be recognised. 

We are concerned that the government is now turning attention to Key Stage 3 and 4 and hope 
that you do not feel that everything is wonderful and running smoothly in the primary years. 
Please listen to the profession and support in the ways suggested. 

I hope we will be able to expand on these views and many other issues. We are doing our best 
to deliver and achieve success but we could be more successful given the right level of 
support and a listening Government. 

Yours sincerely
Barry Dawson
Chair of National Primary Headteachers' Association