From Peter Shreeve, assistant district secretary IW, National Education Union, Carisbrooke:

I WRITE in reply to the letter ‘Education madness?’ (CP, 29-11-19).

Let’s start with the national curriculum. Academies and private schools do not have to follow the national curriculum. This is not equitable. Should we not give the same freedom to all schools, including our maintained schools?

Second, we assume performance tables are an accurate and reliable indicator of school effectiveness. However, the Progress 8 measure that is used to compile these tables is inherently flawed.

Using the grade a child achieved in primary school in two subjects is not a safe starting point against which to assess their GCSE attainment five years later.

In addition, studies show tables can disadvantage schools in economically and socially deprived areas. Many good schools fall in the bottom half of the tables simply because they serve poorer communities. There is a well-established link between poverty and attainment, yet performance tables fail to reflect the hard work that schools put in to try and compensate for the poverty that many children experience.

Finally, Ofsted. In short, Ofsted measures education services and those that care for young people. Fine, if it’s fair.

But, should schools be penalised with a low Ofsted grading, if a school:

• Cannot attract enough high-quality teachers?

• Suffers funding shortages affecting provision and capacity?

• Serves an area with disproportionately high numbers of SEND or disadvantaged pupils?

This list could go on. What is the impact of low grades on the recruitment and retention of staff and the pupils who remain?

A focus on accountability and Ofsted has led to a huge intensification of pointless work. We need a better way of supporting schools, when we hold them to account, as present accountability methods do not actively measure and support school progress.