Better Schools
No More Rhetoric
How To Build A Truly World-Class School System
Tim Clark MA, PGCE, FRSA
September 2025
Foreword
We are often told that we must aim to build a “World-Class” education system, yet few dare to define what that truly means—let alone how to achieve it. This fifth report in the Better Schools series, No More Rhetoric, is an uncompromising and evidence-led exploration of what is working, what is failing, and—crucially—what must now change in England’s schools.
Tim Clark’s report does not seek to win favour or echo political platitudes. Instead, it offers an honest appraisal of our current system and challenges us to move beyond slogans and structures toward substance. The analysis is extensive, from teacher recruitment and curriculum reform to behaviour, inspection, and parental responsibility. It does what few educational commentaries dare to do: it asks difficult questions and proposes actionable, realistic solutions.
What particularly strikes me is the report’s insistence on placing teachers—those who stand day in and day out at the front lines of learning—at the heart of system improvement. Without bold steps to value and retain these professionals, no reform, however well-intentioned, will succeed. As the report notes, over 40,000 teachers left the profession last year for reasons other than retirement, while only 50% of teacher training places were filled. These are not just numbers—they reflect a system in real difficulty.
The report also highlights a growing disconnect between perception and reality. For instance, despite claims of rising standards, England’s average PISA science score has declined every year since 2009, from 515 to 503, even as our global rank has paradoxically improved. This misleading use of metrics risks obscuring the very real struggles faced by schools, pupils, and teachers.
At Finito Education, we prepare young people to enter the workforce, and we see daily the consequences of inconsistent educational outcomes. We know that confidence, communication, literacy, and ambition cannot be developed in a vacuum— they require a system that equips students not just academically, but holistically. When that system fails to do its job, it fails everyone.
The role of the home and early years education is another essential strand of this report. As the PIRLS 2021 findings show, only 35% of English parents are highly committed to ensuring their children are ready to learn—compared to 65% in Singapore. No education system can thrive if over 80% of a child’s year is spent in a home environment lacking the support necessary for learning. Tim is right to call for stronger early intervention, and to recognise that education does not begin at five, but from birth.
No More Rhetoric is essential reading for policymakers, school leaders, employers, and anyone who believes in the transformative potential of education. It reminds us that world-class is not a ranking to be quoted in press releases, but a standard to be lived and delivered—systematically, inclusively and with integrity.
Let’s move past the politics and get to the heart of the matter: enabling every child to learn, every teacher to teach, and every school to succeed.
Ronel Lehmann, Founder and Chief Executive,
Finito
A. Introduction
The purpose of this report is to offer a realistic assessment of England’s current school performance and to then suggest specific remedies in order to build a truly world-class school system. It is not the intention to blame or criticise but to be honest and accurate, practical and realistic.
Three measures have been used by recent governments to imply progress in school performance – international performance measures [PISA and PIRLS], Ofsted grades and the academy programme. To take each in turn:-
1. International Performance Measures
a) PISA 2022 [Programme of International Student Assessment] assesses performance in maths, reading and science, usually every three years, for 15-year-olds, conducted by OECD. The latest report, published in December 2023, showed England’s ranking rise to 11th, up from 17th in 2018 and 27th in 2009. England’s performance was significantly higher than that of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Thirty-seven countries took part and performance in all dropped post-COVID except in Taiwan; maths performance, for example, was higher in England in 2016 than in 2022. The analysis of the data was undertaken for the DfE by the University of Oxford. Some of the findings were damning. The English cohort used in the assessments was not representative and did not meet PISA standards – English pupils had higher academic attainment than national average and there was an underrepresentation of pupils on free school meals. In consequence, “Caution is required when interpreting the analysis”. “Particular caution should be taken when considering the ‘rank order’ of countries.” [P20]
Many politicians and commentators confused international ranking with real-terms performance. In science, the clearest example, England’s performance has declined with every assessment although our ranking has improved: 515 in 2009; 516 in 2012; 512 in 2015; 507 in 2018 and 503 in 2022 [p70]; almost continual decline, yet England was ranked 16th in 2009 and 13th in 2022.
The growing attainment gap is also worrying. The gap in maths between England’s highest and lowest achieving pupils was significantly above the OECD average [p26] and, “Since 2012, there has been a widening in the distribution of reading scores in England” [p57].
One crucial point not highlighted by politicians as much as it should have been is, “A lack of teaching staff was reported to be the most common barrier to teaching both in England and across the OECD (54% of [English] pupils attended schools where the headteachers reported this hindered instruction “to some extent” or “a lot”, compared to 47% across the OECD).” [p13]
b) PIRLS 2021 [Progress in International Reading Literacy Study] has been collated every five years since 2001 for children in Year 5, aged approximately 10. The most recent report was published in May 2023, updated in Sept 2024. Fifty-seven countries took part. As with PISA, the DfE’s official research was conducted by The University of Oxford. Yet again, while England’s ranking rose, there were several exceptionally worrying trends. In 2016, 53% of children felt very confident in reading; only 45% in 2021 [P10]. Internationally, 46% of pupils said they very much like reading; in England it was an appalling 29%. Since literacy and the ability to read provide the access key to the rest of the curriculum, the fact that a majority of youngsters going to secondary school neither like, nor feel confident in, reading, is extremely worrying. But why is this? The obvious argument that it is the result of social media and modern communications is not substantiated by the fact that interest and confidence in reading is much higher in similar countries.
In the same year that the latest PIRLS results were published, the National Literacy Trust pointed out
that 29% of 11-year-olds left primary school without the writing skills expected for their age and 34% of 16-year-olds did not achieve a grade 4 or above in GCSE English and maths. Hardly results of which to be proud.
Ofsted Inspections
Some have chosen to use analysis of Ofsted inspections as proof of an improving school system, citing that 89% of schools [before overall grades were abolished] were at least “good”, a significant increase from 69% thirteen years earlier.
Sadly, such a comparison is simply farcical: the Ofsted Framework (ie the issues that inspectors are instructed to consider) has changed eight times since 2012, with two different Frameworks in 2012. What would earn a school “outstanding” in 2017 would not necessarily do so in 2019, and vice versa. A revealing example is the high performing boys’ grammar school, consistently graded “outstanding”, which was downgraded to “inadequate” in 2021 because of the misogynistic attitudes of the boys to the girls in the mixed sixth form. Had the boys suddenly become sexist? Of course not: in the past, the inspectors had simply not deemed it an issue for comment, focusing instead on the school’s phenomenal academic success.
Similarly, following the fundamental sea change in Frameworks in 2019 and the subsequent onus on “intent” rather than “impact”, some schools saw their overall inspection grades rise because of good ambitions and curriculum plans, despite very mediocre pupil progress and public examination results. Ofsted grades over time are simply not a consistent or meaningful measure of comparative performance – Ofsted has frequently changed what it analyses and deems important.
Academisation
At present, 42.7% of primary schools are academies or free schools and 81.9% of secondaries [gov.uk]
“It was naïve to assume that classroom quality would improve just because we changed our structure.”
Mckinsey, “How the world’s best performing school systems come out on top”. Quoted, policy maker, New Zealand.
Over the past thirty years, there has been much organisational change to the English school system: the national curriculum was supposed to bring uniformity but other policies led to greater independence for schools – Grant Maintained Schools, scrapped and replaced by Foundation Schools which, in turn, were replaced by academies.
The recent drive to force all academies to join MATS and the requirement for the national curriculum to apply to all state funded schools clearly begins to reverse the direction of travel, but there has been no desire by either Labour or Conservative governments to seriously question the national policy of academisation. There is absolutely no doubt that academisation has brought a tremendous energy, positivity and diversity to many individual academies and MATS, but what is also clear, is that these successful developments have not led to uniform, national improvement. Simply becoming an academy does not guarantee success. At the same time, there are many schools which have remained in the local authority sector and which have continued to flourish. My first headship, for example, remains an LA school and continues to be “outstanding” in Ofsted terms and to be one of the highest performing schools in the East Midlands, regularly outperforming its feepaying independent neighbours. This is definitely not a call for a return to local authority control: while that did provide some form of democratic
accountability, this was largely illusory since several LA’s underperformed and I am not aware of many, if any, LA officials being removed from office because their schools were underperforming. Systemic change, however, is not the answer – it is high quality teaching and strong, dedicated leadership that is needed.
We
tend to meet any new situation by reorganising, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization.”
Attributed to Gaius Petronius Arbiter, c. AD 60
Research published by the National Education Union [not a fan of academisation] in 2022 in response to the DfE’s “The case for a fully trustled system” found that, “maintained schools [ie maintained by a Local Authority] are more likely to improve their Ofsted rating to good or outstanding than sponsor-led academies”, and that “sponsorled academies are more than twice as likely to have their Ofsted rating downgraded”. An earlier four-year study by UCL, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, published in 2018 found that, “There is no positive impact on the attainment and progress scores of pupils in MATS when compared to equivalent non-MAT schools [ie standalone academies or LA maintained schools]…..pupils in larger MATS (those with 16+ schools) did worse, particularly in secondary schools.”
The report also found that despite government encouragement for schools to cooperate, the exact opposite has been the case: “the system is hardwired to encourage selfish behaviour…. At present, we see a chaotic system of winners and losers with
increasing incoherence and a loss of equity as a result.”
In 2018, The Education Policy Institute [EPI] published a report comparing pupil attainment in academy chains and local authorities. The key findings were clear:
• Overall, we find little difference in the performance of schools in academy chains and local authorities. The type of school – academy or local authority –is therefore less important than being in a high performing school group.
• Indeed, we find that both academy chains and local authorities feature at the very top of our performance tables, and at the very bottom.
Most recent figures show little difference between the systems, except for “sponsored academies” [underperforming LA schools required to become academies] which clearly remain underperforming.
DfE research [An analysis of the performance of sponsored academies, Jan 2019] does not show an overwhelmingly positive picture: “After academisation most groups of sponsored academies typically demonstrate improvement… In other groups there is evidence to suggest year-on-year improvement has arrested or been reversed”.
The DfE responded to these claims on 13th April 2016 [“10 facts you need to know about academies”] saying the figure of £66,000 was “grossly inaccurate” and “highly misleading”: “costs per academy have fallen significantly over the 5-year period, from over £250,000 in 2010 to 2011 to around £32,000 in 2015 to 2016.” The question is, however, could such a significant sum of money have been spent much more effectively and more directly on schools and pupils, rather than on administration and lawyers’ fees for dealing with land and property transfers etc? As I argued in 2010, all the benefits of academisation – greater independence, curriculum freedom, involvement of business – could have been achieved without the enormous cost required to change the legal status of schools.
Conclusion
When trying to assess the performance of English schools, it is essential to be honest, to forget political loyalties and to be objective. On 5th December, 2023, a Department for Education press release stated that, “Education standards have risen sharply since 2012”. The evidence, however, suggests that this is far from the truth. There have been some fantastically positive developments in many English schools over recent years, but the English school system as a whole, is far from being world-class.
And what of the financial cost of academisation?
In April 2016, Labour claimed it would cost £1.3 billion to academise all remaining schools, based on a Parliamentary written answer which shows the government paid £66,000 per school for earlier academy conversions. [BBC News, 3rd April, 2016]
B. Snapshots of three high performing school systems
Singapore
In Singapore, education is compulsory from 7 until 16, with transition at 12. There are numerous private kindergartens for children aged 3-6. The Compulsory Education Act 2000 made it a criminal offence not to enrol children in a school and to ensure attendance. Parents must apply for an exemption for homeschooling or religious education and these must meet a minimum benchmark. English is the teaching medium and is taught as the first language, in addition to a mother tongue. The system is clearly “ability driven”: “At the secondary level, we offer three courses designed to match students’ academic progress and interests.” [moe.gov.sg] A Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) leads to one of three tracks at secondary level – Express, Normal (Academic) or Normal (Technical). The terminology was replaced in 2024 by G1, G2 and G3. At least one co-curricular activity is compulsory and graded.
An Integrated Programme is being trialled from 2024 whereby the top 10% of the national cohort miss exams at 16 and aim straight for A Level/IB, permitting greater flexibility and broad-based, less structured learning.
The School Leaving Exam [SSLE] gives access to higher education: polytechnics (practical, handson subjects eg engineering or IT), academic universities or Institutes of Technical Education offering vocational skills. The latter are now highly valued in Singapore, with a real aspiration for “parity of esteem” between the three routes.
“Teachers form the core of Singapore’s education system. We are committed to nurturing and
motivating our teachers to grow and reach their personal and professional best…. Our teachers receive rigorous and evidence-based pre-service training at the National Institute of Education [there is only one teacher training institution] and have many opportunities for in-service development.”
Moe.gov.sg
Estonia
A small country of only 1.2 million citizens and just under 600 schools, Estonia has the highest performing school system in Europe in terms of international performance tables. It regained independence from the USSR in 1991.
Education is compulsory from 7 until 16. Pupils attend a “Basic” comprehensive school for all this time and at 16 can leave school or progress to secondary school for a further three years, either at a general upper secondary/gymnasium or at a vocational secondary school. There is a national curriculum but schools and teachers retain some curriculum autonomy. Streaming is rare – almost all classes are mixed ability. There appears to be little accountability. Free lunches are given to all pupils. Digital literacy is a key competency – all textbooks and assessments must be available free in a digital format. Perhaps surprisingly, the time spent at school in Estonia is relatively low, below both the OECD and EU25 averages. (Teaching time in England is above both.)
The Basic curriculum includes essential knowledge plus critical thinking and problem-solving. Progression from basic to secondary school is based on standardised tests, coursework and teacher assessments plus guidance from counsellors.
Student centred learning methodologies where teachers are more facilitators are common. Teachers require higher degrees, usually a master’s degree. There is a rigorous selection process and once employed, teachers are often required to undergo ongoing professional development. There is an emphasis on teacher autonomy in the classroom.
Schools are run by local government. Formal inspections were abolished in 2006. In their place, schools undertake self-evaluations every three years and produce follow-up development plans. Schools can request help with the self-evaluation and development planning. LA officers can carry out specific themed inspections if deemed necessary. School level performance data is available to the public.
Emphasis is placed on early years. Most pupils can read or write when they first start school because of pre-school, available from 18 months to 7 years old. This is not just childcare: there is a formal curriculum. Pre-school is not compulsory but over 90% of children participate at some level. A place is guaranteed. It is subsidised and the fees are low, and it can be free in certain circumstances. Preschool teachers must have at least a first degree. There are no tests, but a school readiness card describes children’s skills and the areas where they need to develop.
Canada
The most interesting thing about the Canadian school system is, that there is no Canadian school system! There is no Department of Education despite the country’s 14,600 public schools. Education is entirely a matter for the 10 provinces and 3 territories; it varies enormously. The province decides the curriculum and elected local district school boards run the schools. Only Alberta has some public charter schools (they have greater autonomy, reporting direct to the province, but only account for about 1.4% of school population). Compulsory school hours, required testing (Alberta has rigorous provincial exams) and staff salaries also vary from province to province. Compulsory school ages are usually from 5 to 17, but to 18 in Ontario and New Brunswick. French as a second language is available across Canada, but English is the second language in Quebec.
Despite the autonomy, there is much consistency. Most systems value critical thinking, essays and projects rather than test scores. Teaching time is above both the OECD and the EU25 averages. Teacher salaries are also above the OECD average. The system clearly has some successes. In 2021, nearly a quarter of the Canadian population had a college credential (24.6%), above all other G7 countries and almost double the USA (10.8%) although Canada lags behind many other countries in terms of graduate degrees. (Canada 32.9%; UK 41.3%, US 39.5%)
Pre-school is not compulsory (except in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia) but about 97% of Canadian children do attend.
Conclusion
It is very difficult to draw any conclusions from these three snapshots, other than that there is no single, ideal education system: different systems work well in different cultures and traditions. The only two common denominators appear to be the emphasis placed on the value of teachers and on the importance of high-quality early years provision. Everything else seems to vary, even basic matters such as compulsory instruction time, age of attendance or public examinations.
And what of the benefits of a great education system? The World Population review states that Singapore is the second most productive country in the world {3 Ireland; 5 Norway; 11 USA, 12 Denmark; 22 Finland; 28 UK} but lies only thirtieth when it comes to ranking the happiest countries in the world. [1 Finland; 2 Denmark; Canada 15; Ireland 17; UK 20; Estonia 34.] Interestingly, Finland appears happier than Denmark, having “strong feelings of communal support and mutual trust”, even though Denmark outscored Finland on GDP per capita. Also of note, in the UK, as in Sweden, Norway, France, Germany and Spain, older generations are, “Significantly happier than the young”. [World Population Review 2024 report, based on three-year averages.]
Considering the expense of public education, we must surely be able to answer the question, “why is education important?” Supporting the economy and society as a whole must be key priorities, but so too must be enabling citizens to lead full, happy and worthwhile lives in a fast-changing world.
C. How to achieve a truly world-class system
A successful school system is, by its very nature, a varied and multi-facetted organism; it would be impossible to cover every necessary attribute in a single report. Some important topics have been covered in previous reports (SEND in Report No 3; food and nutrition in Report No 4) and others may take time to develop, have less impact or may only affect a minority of pupils. This report, therefore, will focus on eight areas, all of which would have a profound and positive impact on all pupils, would be relatively easy to implement and would be, on the whole, cost effective.
The eight areas identified for improvement will equip England with a school system in which every youngster, regardless of background or ability, can thrive. Nothing here is new or revolutionary: it is simply a case of common sense and of prioritising what really matters – empowering teachers to teach and pupils to learn.
I have made a conscious decision in this report not to discuss the role of AI. It is impossible to predict to where AI will lead us in the next twelve months, let alone the next twelve years. It is quite possible that AI will not only revolutionise schools but, ultimately, lead to their demise.
Artificial Intelligence, once confined to science fiction and theoretical speculation, has burst into the mainstream with astonishing force….. If the last decade has shown us what AI can do, the next will likely redefine what it means to be human in a machine-augmented world.
As we stand at the threshold of an AI-driven era, the question isn’t whether artificial intelligence will change the world – it’s how, how fast and in which directions. Over the next ten years, AI will not only become more powerful, but more persuasive, more personal and more ethically consequential. sciencenewstoday.org April 23, 2025
For the time being, however, schools are here to stay. Furthermore, we must never forget that true education is about far more than just knowledge and skills: it is also about the growth of character, personalities and relationships. These are not “artificial” but fundamental human traits that our education system must foster and never make subservient to a computer.
“The hope in the future lies not in better human inventions but in better human relations.”
Victor C. Kitchen, AA and The Oxford Group, 1891-1975
01. The recruitment and retention of teachers
“The quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers.”
Mckinsey,
“How
the world’s best performing school systems come out on top”.
My first report was published two years ago in June 2023 and stressed that the biggest issue facing schools was the teacher recruitment and retention crisis; it also provided a number of costeffective ways of resolving the crisis. Since then, no concrete changes or substantial improvements have been implemented by either the current Labour government or the previous Conservative administration. Both have completely failed to tackle the single most important ingredient required for a flourishing school system – the adequate supply of highly trained, well qualified, effective and motivated teachers. In consequence, both governments must accept responsibility for depriving millions of youngsters of the education they deserve. Perhaps finally the penny will drop: the most important requisite for pupil progress is not an academy or a local authority school, it is not a selective school or a comprehensive, it is not a mixed ability class or a class grouped by ability – it is inspiring, dedicated and capable classroom practitioners, working in an environment in which they are supported, encouraged and valued.
Last academic year, over 40,000 teachers quit for reasons other than retirement (over 9% of the workforce) while, at the same time, only 50% of teacher training places were filled (only 16% in business studies, 17% in physics, 27% in DT, 36% in computing) and only 57% the previous year.
The current government’s promise to create 6,500 new teachers (but without saying how or from where) is simply a drop in the ocean. The previous government claimed that the number of teachers had increased (failing to mention that the number of pupils had also risen) but this was only possible by increasing the number of unqualified and of overseas trained teachers. The latter is not necessarily negative but, of course, it depends on where and how those teachers were trained. The aim must not be simply to have enough bodies to stand in front of classes – we need highly trained, effective and dedicated classroom professionals.
The most recent research into teachers’ attitudes is the annual survey by the DfE of teachers and leaders in English state schools: Working Lives of Teachers and Leaders: Wave 3. The study was undertaken between January and May 2024 and published November 2024.
Average weekly working hours:
School leader = 56.6 hours
Full-time teachers = 51.2 hours
being valued by policy makers like the government
[2023]
The dissatisfaction with school leadership and with external interference is striking.
“Half (49%) of teachers and leaders thought their workload was not acceptable and that they did not have sufficient control over it”, although this is a slight decrease compared with 2023 (54%) and 2022 (57%). “The tasks teachers and middle leaders most commonly reported spending too
much time on have been broadly similar year on year.” These included general admin, following up poor behaviour, data, planning, marking and pupil counselling.
What is so unforgivable is that there is nothing new here. In March 2018 [seven years ago!] the DfE commissioned CooperGibson Research to investigate, “Factors affecting teacher retention”. The conclusion? “Workload remains the most important factor influencing teachers’ decisions to leave the profession and most suggested solutions to addressing retention were linked to workload in some way”. (The Report also stated that the decision to quit was often driven by “the accumulation of a number of factors” – although for some it was “a trigger” – a performance issue, feeling undervalued, specific behaviour incident with pupils or parents/carers.) For the past twenty years or more there have been numerous surveys and initiatives aimed at reducing teacher workload, but none has had any measurable impact. Of course there is one point that is often missed: good and effective teaching is hard work, demanding and time consuming – it goes with the job. Perhaps if policy makers tried to do the job themselves rather than just telling the rest of us how to do it, we might see more expeditious remedial action. Sadly, post-COVID, many issues affecting workload have been exacerbated. The NFER Teacher Labour Market in England Annual Report 2024 found that, “Teachers now say that pupil behaviour is driving higher workload, and behaviour management and pastoral care are key priority areas for workload reduction.”
“500,000 children without a headteacher”
Headline, Daily Telegraph, April 29th, 2006 [!] 1,200 schools in England relying on deputies or agency staff to run them – workload primarily to blame.
Will recent pay rises make much of a difference to recruitment and retention? Unfortunately, probably not, for two reasons. Firstly, despite the pay rises, as NFER reports, “Since 2010/11, teacher pay has fallen significantly in real terms and lagged behind earnings growth in the wider labour market.” Even with the pay rises, teachers are not in the same financial position that they were in 2010. That said, it is clear that pay is not the key retention factor, as proved by the statistics above. Yes, teachers deserve higher pay, but what comes through clearly from teachers’ responses is that the most common factor driving them away is the inability to do the job well, be it because of workload, external pressures and interference, a lack of support and respect, worsening pupil behaviour or an increase in pastoral issues, all of which impact on classroom teaching.
Pay appears to be worse in academies, not helping recruitment and retention. NEU research [17/07/2024] found that for 2021/22, on average, classroom teachers in academies (primary and secondary) earned more than £1,300 less than their counterparts in maintained schools, yet MAT CEO’s and Heads have enjoyed significant pay rises.
No 8: “Empower teachers to exercise their professionalism and benefit from professional learning opportunities”
Effective and Equitable Educational Recovery, 10 Principles, OECD 2021
Recommendations
• [All discussed in previous reports] An attitudinal change: recognise that teaching is demanding and time consuming
• Undertake immediate research into practical, workable ways of significantly reducing workload AND then implement concrete and lasting change. {The biggest cause of teachers leaving the profession.}
• Require schools to have a workload and worklife balance policy and strategy.
• Provide all teachers with automatic legal protection, including against malicious accusations, regardless of whether they belong to a union.
• The fact that schools are private property and that parents and other members of the public do not have a legal right to be on school premises should be reinforced; those who abuse, threaten and assault school staff should face serious legal consequences.
• Support “assertive behaviour” approaches to tackle both low level disruption, disobedience and more serious bad behaviour; simplify procedures for suspension and permanent exclusion – the priority must be to create a disciplined and purposeful environment for the majority and in which teachers can be both effective and feel safe. Ensure all schools have effective behaviour strategies (see Reports 1 and 2).
• Improve school leadership so that it focuses on supporting teachers and teaching: the fundamental principle of school leadership must be to “enable teachers to teach and pupils to learn”
• Develop ways of removing pastoral issues from classroom teachers
• Involve teachers in decision making and the development of policy – establish an elected National Schools Council (see Reports 1 and 2) {The third biggest cause of driving teachers out.}
• Lessen the impact of external pressures –Ofsted, league tables {The fourth biggest cause of driving teachers out.}
• Consider further pay rises to make teacher pay competitive with other comparable graduate professions.
02. Curriculum Change
In July 2024, the government commissioned Professor Becky Francis to chair a review of the national curriculum and statutory assessment. Such a review has not been undertaken since 2011-13. Should, in future, the national curriculum apply to all schools, including academies and free schools, as is proposed in the current Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, such a report could have the most profound impact on the majority of our young people and on the very future of the country. It is essential that the review panel gets it right. There was, however, a ridiculously short “call for evidence” which lasted for less than two months and received only 7,000 responses, insignificant considering there are almost half a million teachers in England and roughly nine million pupils and sets of parents, not to mention employers and institutions of further and higher education. It is difficult to see how the findings will be “evidence led”, as is alleged.
There is no doubt that the current standing of the national curriculum is unsustainable. Introduced in 1988, it was intended to ensure that all youngsters received a broad and balanced education, albeit with a very traditional, academic slant. Following the explosion in the number of academies and free schools, however, we are now in the position where the national curriculum only applies to about 18% of secondary schools. This is an utterly ludicrous situation: the first school where I was Head would be publicly slated by Ofsted for not following the national curriculum, simply because it is a Local Authority school; the second school where I was Head would not, simply because it is an academy.
Logically, the national curriculum should apply to all schools or to none. The argument against the former, is that one of the key arguments in favour
of academies has always been that they should have curriculum freedom and, consequently, many have developed very effective alternative technical and vocational programmes of study. That said, curriculum freedom is still partly constrained by performance tables which highlight success in the EBacc [maths, English language and literature, science, an ancient or modern language, history or geography] and the EBacc-dominated Progress 8 and Attainment 8 measures.
The final Review is due to be published later this year, a timeframe far too short to permit the necessary consultation, research and modelling necessary to make the Review a success. All too often in the past, education reform has been rushed: when GCSEs were introduced in the later 1980’s, it took several years of tweaking before they were properly fit for purpose; when Curriculum 2000 [AS Levels] began, we had to start teaching the courses before books and resources were published. Education is too important to suffer from political posturing or grandstanding.
One aim of the Review is to “develop strong occupational pathways at Level 2” [aged 16, GCSE level] and to prepare youngsters “for future life and work”. This is an area where the final Report could make a phenomenal difference to youngsters’ prospects and also take advantage of the innovative work undertaken by some academies; it would be a significant improvement to see a much greater offer of technical, practical and vocational courses at GCSE level. There is no doubt that in the past the national curriculum has had a traditional academic slant but a greater breadth of choice, from 14 onwards, could do much to improve behaviour, attendance, work ethic and attainment. As well as successful academics, our schools should also be producing high performing
electricians, engineers, car mechanics and others, ready for further education, apprenticeships or employment, rather than churning out “failures” who lack the knowledge, skills or motivation to positively contribute to the economy. Since most youngsters take nine subjects at GCSE, there should be a wide offer of English, maths, the sciences, languages, humanities and performing arts as well as of high-quality practical, technical and vocational options.
The Interim Report quotes the previous government’s ambition that 90% of pupils should be studying the EBacc by 2025. In reality, only about 40% of pupils currently study the EBacc and fewer than 15% of state-funded schools currently meet the earlier ambition of 75% of pupils studying the EBacc. This surely proves that a “one size fits all” attitude simply does not work; that it is not appropriate for many pupils and that a broader curriculum from the age of 14 can only be advantageous for all – pupils, teachers and society as a whole.
The demand for a “relevant” and for an “inclusive and diverse curriculum”, in which, “all feel represented”, is probably the most sensitive and emotive of all issues raised by the current review. England is, of course, a multi-cultural and multifaith country, but, as the Report says, we must always recognise, “the importance of cultural knowledge stemming from the past”. Whatever our religious beliefs, for example, no-one can deny that the sixteenth century Reformation had a revolutionary impact on the country and its subsequent history; Anglo-Saxon and Norman invasions affected this country more than any subsequent migrations. These are not xenophobic statements but an understanding of the context in which we live. I am certainly not arguing that other
cultures and traditions should not be represented, they definitely must be, but it would be a very dangerous development if we studied certain topics, people or ideas because of race, colour, gender or some other characteristic. We do not study Shakespeare because he was white nor Jane Austen because she was a woman: we study them because they have significantly contributed to the “cultural capital” of the nation. As the existing national curriculum states, cultural capital is the study of, “the best that has been thought and said”. Youngsters, especially those from deprived backgrounds, who are denied access to such an education, will be put at serious disadvantage in later life; social cohesion will also suffer.
Recommendations
• To undertake a long-term curriculum review, involving a wide range of stakeholders.
• To reconsider the position of the national curriculum – should it be compulsory for all schools or perhaps just a permissive benchmark with some flexibility? Keeping it compulsory for only some schools, however, is simply nonsensical.
• A “rigorous and knowledge-rich” curriculum is essential for all. Without knowledge, we are dealing with make believe, fantasy and fiction. But knowledge should not be the end result: far more important is the ability to use and to apply knowledge - knowing historical facts, for example, is one thing, but the skills to analyse, evaluate, assess and to apply that knowledge to argue and debate are what make that knowledge useful and “powerful”. I can only hope that there is an end to the nonsensical knowledge versus skills debate and that there is a joint emphasis on both knowledge and on the skills required to use and apply knowledge, not forgetting the softer skills such as being able to undertake independent research, to work in groups, to present findings and to understand the views of others.
• The curriculum must be broadened at 14+ with the introduction of a greater range of meaningful, demanding practical, technical and vocational subjects. The debate over soft or hard subjects, academic or vocational, must be replaced by a determination to capture the strengths and interests of all youngsters, while still requiring a common core including, amongst other subject areas, literacy, numeracy and the humanities. This is not to permit “prizes for all”, but to enable all pupils, regardless of ability, to attain worthwhile qualifications that will help them secure employment, contribute to society and to make the most of their lives.
• The curriculum should be appropriate for a diverse country, but the emphasis should be on enabling youngsters to understand the country in which they live – the common denominator that unites us all. “British values”, English literature and British history should form the core of the curriculum in order to help foster community understanding and cohesion.
03. Pupil behaviour
“There were 440 injuries to staff in the South East caused by acts of violence between 2019 and 2024, according to Health and Safety Executive reports.
There were 5,504 suspensions for pupil assaults on adults in schools across Kent, Surrey and Sussex in 2023/2024.”
BBC South East, 19 August 2025
Latest data [gov.uk, 24th April 2025] for the spring term 2023/24 show an increase in both suspensions [temporary/fixed term exclusions] and permanent exclusions. The rate of the former increased from 263,904 in 2022/23 (3.13% of pupils) to 295,559 (3.5%) and the latter from 3,039 to 3,107 (both at a rate of 0.045 of the total school roll). “Persistent disruptive behaviour” accounted for just over half (51%) of all reported reasons. Perhaps most worryingly, 43,516 suspensions were for physical assault against a pupil, and 18,836 for physical assault against an adult. Similarly, 718 permanent exclusions were for physical assault against a pupil and 567 for physical assault against an adult. The BBC’s revelation that between 2019/20 and 2023/24 local authorities in the South East had paid damages of £64,555 for cases linked to assaults on teachers or teaching assistants cannot come as a surprise.
Exclusion is complex. The latest statutory guidance, August 2024, runs to 78 pages. Although parents are responsible for children during the first five
days of a suspension and for ensuring that they are not in a public place during school hours (failure to comply is an offence), schools are required to arrange alternative provision, which is often expensive and/or unavailable, where a suspension is for longer than five days. The requirement that a suspension cannot be converted to a permanent exclusion unless further evidence comes to light is ludicrous: in the past, it was possible to suspend a child for a few days while a full investigation was undertaken and then to decide whether to permanently exclude or to impose a lesser sanction. The bar for permanent exclusion also remains almost too high:
“The decision to exclude a pupil permanently should only be taken:
• In response to a serious breach or persistent breaches of the school’s behaviour policy; and [sic]
• Where allowing the pupil to remain in school would seriously harm the education or welfare of the pupil or others such as staff or pupils in the school”
But for all the understandable fear created by rising exclusion data, most schools remain safe and disciplined environments. There is no question, however, that in practically all schools, behaviour management has become more difficult since the pandemic and that there has been a significant increase in low level disruption which is draining for teachers and impacts on the achievement of all pupils. COVID and the subsequent school closures appear to have had a significant negative influence on the behaviour and attitudes of many pupils and parents; personal standards, self-discipline, respect for teachers, schools and authority in general
have all suffered, yet little additional support has been given to schools to help restore traditional standards.
Working Lives of Teachers and Leaders (November 2024) reports that 45% of teachers say that behaviour in their schools is either very good (12%) or good (33%), a sharp decline from the 84% in 2022 (42% saying both very good and good). Far more worrying is that over one quarter of teachers (27%) now say that behaviour is either poor (20%) or very poor (7%) compared to only 5% in 2022 (4% saying poor and 1% very poor). Although classroom teachers largely felt they were supported in dealing with disruptive behaviour, less than half of staff (49%) with responsibilities [Heads of Department, Pastoral Heads] felt that they were supported by their superiors.
Schools must be supported in adopting “assertive discipline” approaches which protect the learning and development of all pupils and which empower teachers to teach. Such approaches received legal support in 2024 with the outcome of the Michaela Judgement which reinforced the common law tradition that by sending a pupil to a school, the parents/carers accepted the rules and expectations of that school. “Schools should have rules and clear standards which are non-negotiable. If parents or pupils do not like those rules and standards then they have a choice.” The judgement was “a victory for all schools,” according to Katharine Birbalsingh, headteacher at Michaela Community School.
Below is the “assertive discipline” policy successfully adopted in my second headship which helped to create a purposeful atmosphere in lessons and reduced low-level disruption to a minimum.
One warning only!
No-one has the right to disrupt the learning of others
1. Warning
2. Sanction – move, detention, standing in the corridor for 10 minutes
3. “On call” – removed from lesson by senior staff, the rest of the day (or the next day) spent working in silence in the isolation room, a same night detention and an automatic letter home
Progressive – 3 “on calls” in a half term will result in a one-week suspension from school
This policy does not apply in instances of serious bad behaviour, for which there will be no warning.
Good school discipline and a positive atmosphere, however, cannot and must not be achieved through sanctions and rules alone. It is essential that pupils feel happy, safe and cared for, and that they actually want to be in school. Dynamic and engaging classroom teaching, in addition to genuine pastoral care and a wide range of extra/co-curricular activities - clubs, trips, sport, music, drama, the Duke of Edinburgh Award, leadership and charity opportunities - all help to engage youngsters in the life and ethos of the school. All such activities, however, have suffered as teachers feel more and more pressured: many simply refuse to give up additional time in the evenings and weekends when they are struggling with an increasing workload (although, amazingly, many still do give the necessary time and commitment to keep outof-hours activities alive).
Recommendations
• The rules on suspension and exclusion should be simplified and significantly more capacity to be provided in pupil referral units and alternative provision – no pupil must be permitted to disrupt the learning of others, nor to damage the safe, purposeful and disciplined atmosphere necessary for “teachers to teach and pupils to learn”.
• There must be statutory support for the concept that “no pupil has the right to disrupt the learning of others”, regardless of SEND or any other extenuating factors. Pupils with additional needs must be supported appropriately, but not at the expense of the rest of the class. Simplified procedures for removing pupils who prevent others from learning should be introduced urgently. This is not necessarily an exclusion or a punitive act, but a mechanism for enabling all to benefit from the most appropriate and effective learning environment.
• The Common Law tradition, reinforced by the Michaela Judgement, that by sending a sending a child to a school, parents accept the rules and expectations of that school, should be reinforced. Where parents persistently refuse to accept the rules of a school, such as on uniform, detentions, homework or start/finish times, the school should, ultimately, have the right to remove the pupil.
• Effective CPD should be delivered for Heads, senior staff and classroom teachers on classroom management and on creating and sustaining a purposeful atmosphere.
• A compulsory non-academic leaving certificate at 16 and 18 (see Reports 1 and 2) should be introduced, which places responsibility for behaviour and attendance on the pupil.
• Introduce a broader curriculum at 14-16 to engage more pupils.
• Commit to greater investment and increased capacity in mental health services, both in schools and in external agencies such as CAMHS (Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services) to facilitate more immediate diagnoses and effective support.
• Return to the concept of “truancy” with schools permitted to permanently exclude persistent truants.
• Additional, ring-fenced financial support for extra/ co-curricular activities.
It is beyond the remit of this report to comment on Youth Justice or on the behaviour of youngsters outside of school, but the point must be stressed that youngsters are only in school for 17.5% of the year. Can we seriously expect them to follow the rules, do as they are told and to be pleasant and polite in school if, in the remaining 82.5% of their lives, they can be rude, violent and anti-social and, worse still, not face serious consequences for their actions? Following recent anti-social disturbances in Broadstairs, Kent, a Council spokesman admitted that the police had, “limited power to act against under-18s”. [BBC 24th June] The most recent Youth Justice statistics (2023-24) are also frightening [gov. uk January 2025]:
• The number of proven offences committed by children saw a year-on-year increase for the second consecutive year, rising by 4%
• The number of custodial sentences rose by 21%
• The reoffending rate for children increased for the second consecutive year, to 32.5%
Although many children have always acted differently in school from how they behave at home (very often, behaving better in school), schools cannot operate in a vacuum: if we want wellbehaved, law-abiding youngsters, we must also consider our mores and expectations beyond the school gates.
04. Literacy and Numeracy
“Literacy is a bridge from misery to hope…a bulwark against poverty”.
Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General
Since 2010, a government drive to promote standards in reading pushed Systematic Synthetic Phonics. Subsequent governments have been keen to use international tests such as PIRLS to prove the success of the policy but, as mentioned earlier, the picture is not quite as rosy as some would make out – international rankings do not necessarily equate to real terms improvement. According to DfE research, the strongest predictor of PIRLS performance in Year 5 is the Yr 1 phonics check. This is worrying – it suggests that pupils do not actually progress in reading: if they do badly in Year 1, they will do badly in Year 5.
The difficulty of teaching English phonetically was illustrated by George Bernard Shaw who suggested that, following English rules of pronunciation, “fish” could be spelled “ghoti”: “gh” as in “rough”; “o” as in “women” and “ti” as in “motion”!
Quoted in A Wonderland of Words
There is no doubt that phonics is deemed by most teachers to be effective, especially for weak and middle ability children, but it has its drawbacks: it can be seen as dry and boring, and, for the most able and precocious readers, it is sometimes seen as too rigid and restrictive, even holding them back. As with all teaching, the aim must be to adapt what we do in order to help every child progress: sticking rigidly to one approach, simply to please Ofsted or the government of the day, is not great teaching. Many years ago, I asked an experienced primary Head whether she supported the use of
phonics. Her response: “I nearly always use phonics but, sometimes, depending on the topic or the children, I use look and say, and, sometimes, I do a handstand on the desk.” The point she was making is that teachers should do what is necessary to teach those particular children on that particular day. Truly great teaching requires knowledge, understanding, training and experience.
“Policies and government edicts on reading instruction create a certain environment – an experience that can be entirely disparate to the essence of what reading actually is and what it offers children, emotionally and socially… Phonics policy has conceptually separated reading for meaning from the process of decoding words… We all need to be wary of this distinction… For some children, without the emotional backdrop of the meaningful reading experience, simply seeing reading as decoding could damage their perceptions of reading.”
‘Phonics “first and fast”…. But at what cost?’
The British Educational Research Association (BERA)
This blog post by Katie Jackson, written on the 29th October 2018, could prove to be extremely prescient. Although it is clear that children have improved their skills at decoding words since the required emphasis on phonics and now do much better in assessments which test decoding, PIRLS 2021 reveals that the majority of children in England have lost both their interest and confidence in reading. If this is the result of official policy, then ministers, policymakers and inspectors are responsible for catastrophic and lasting damage to our education system.
by Shashi Tharoor
It is the fact that the emphasis on phonics may have damaged children’s joy in reading that I find most depressing. Reading should not be simply a mechanical exercise to communicate and to glean knowledge, but a pleasure in its own right. It is widely known that children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely to read at home and to have fewer books: it is essential, therefore, that all children have the broadest possible experience of good literature at school.
This sentence was written by a Year 2 girl: “Standing at the open window, he launched the fragile craft into the cool evening air”. [Quoted by Dr Brian Male in The Working Class, p68] There is much here that the young girl was clearly not formally taught and probably does not appear in many literacy schemes – starting a sentence with a present participle, consecutive adjectives, certain vocabulary (launch, fragile, craft). How, therefore, did she develop such an advanced style of writing? Simple: through reading. As Dr Male argues, we could arrange literacy lessons to teach participle phrases and double adjectives or, “we could just read to them instead. Read to them enough good quality literature that they are able to pick up the music of the language and use it unconsciously.”
Starting early is the key. I have never quite understood the suggestion by the previous government for maths to 18 for everyone. Although ministers stressed that this did not mean everyone doing A Level maths, they never fully explained what it did mean. Was it maths that was to be more conceptually difficult than GCSE level (but what of the one third of pupils who failed GCSE maths?) or was it to be practical numeracy (surely covered in the years leading up to GCSE?)? Was the suggestion that maths at GCSE was not of a high enough standard? If so, what has been going on in compulsory maths lessons for the previous eleven years, and what could possibly improve in a few lessons between the ages of 16 and 18 that had not been mastered in daily lessons between five and sixteen? Even more fundamental – who was going to teach the compulsory post 16 maths? There are currently not enough fully qualified and trained maths teachers to teach up to GCSE.
In Singapore, the country that tops the PISA tables for maths, the emphasis is on the early years. Children study maths for 4 hours, rising to 6.5 hours, in primary schools and then reduce the hours in secondary school to between 2.5 to 5 hours, depending on their ability stream. Weaker students are given more time. Problem solving is at the heart of the Singaporean approach, involving the application of mathematical concepts and skills. Singapore has used the same mathematical framework with limited changes since the 1990s. [National Library Board, nlb.gov.sg]
Since leaving office, Rishi Sunak and his wife, Akshata Murty, have founded the Richmond Project, a registered charity dedicated to improving numeracy across the UK. The mission, writes Murty in The Times, is, “To transform lives, by numbers…. Building confidence with numbers changes lives…. From starting school, through teenage years and into adulthood, if you find numbers a struggle, you’ll find day to day living a struggle.” The charity is to be welcomed, as is anything which encourages research and innovation into effective methods of improving numeracy. But it is in the early years where we need to focus; as with literacy, to be competent with numeracy is a key to unlocking the wider curriculum: post 16 is too late.
Several exciting online platforms already exist which offer highly effective approaches to studying mathematics for both teachers and pupils.
21c.digital for example, provides interactive lessons using AI generated avatars, accessible resources, targeted assessments, live analytical performance data and engaging online games especially designed to require pupils to utilise specific mathematical knowledge and skills.
Such research and pedagogical approaches should be supported and encouraged across all curriculum areas.
Recommendations
• Teacher training should focus on a range of tried and tested pedagogical approaches such as “adaptive” or “responsive” teaching, which enable a wider range of pupils to be engaged and to develop.
• Meaningful and high quality Continuing Professional Development for teachers – to be regular, challenging and effective.
• Greater emphasis on the enjoyment of reading and literature, not just on the mechanics of reading.
• The application of numeracy at the heart of primary maths.
• Further research into breaking down barriers to basic literacy and numeracy.
05. Modern Foreign Languages
In 2002 there were almost 500,000 GCSE entries for French, German and Spanish; in 2019, only just over 250,000. Most popular was French but Spanish numbers, whilst lower, have grown to overtake German [Ofqual]. The British Council has stated that Spanish is likely to overtake French as the most popular MFL. Although there have been slight increases recently, languages stopped being compulsory beyond 14 in 2004 since when numbers have declined significantly. The decline in MFL has been one key reason why many schools fail to get good numbers of pupils achieving the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) which requires a language at GCSE.
Subject Entries in Summer 2023
Entries in Summer 2024
Both DfE annual reports and Ofsted reports have noted a perception that MFL GCSEs are harder than other GCSEs. There is some truth in this. “On average, students receive a lower grade in their language GCSE than they do in any other English Baccalaureate subjects”. UOBLINGUIST, 20th June 2023. This was reinforced when Ofqual published the 2024 grading adjustment for GCSE French and German which meant that, “grade boundaries are now slightly lower than they would have been for this summer”. [AQA August 2024] In other words, pupils found the exams too difficult.
In September 2014 it became a statutory requirement to teach a modern or ancient language from the age of 7; in 2018, this first cohort of primary children transitioned to secondary
school and took their GCSEs in 2023. There was no noticeable improvement in either uptake or in standards in MFL at GCSE.
The decision to introduce languages at primary level was ill conceived, badly planned and lacked any insight or practical support. Nick Gibb, the School Standards Minister wrote that, “It has never been more important for young people to learn a foreign language than now. An outward looking global nation needs a new generation of young people comfortable with the language and culture of our overseas trading partners.” [August 2018] But, fine words don’t butter parsnips. The 2018 White Paper, published four years after MFL had been made compulsory in primary schools, called for an implementation strategy and stated the blindingly
obvious: “Evidence from inspection findings, research and teacher testimony indicates that policy decisions alone [sic] are insufficient to ensure that successful teaching and learning programmes for primary languages are in place”.
Despite the earlier rhetoric, there was no detailed implementation strategy, no uniform programmes of study or resources and little allowance for the fact that very few primary school teachers were experienced teachers of MFL or even proficient in another language! Three years later, Ofsted still reported that, “Staff expertise, curriculum planning, time allocation and transition are cited as barriers at Key Stage 2”. [Ofsted, June 2021, research and review series: languages] The insistence of MFL in primary schools was a completely missed opportunity, especially when the answer was so simple.
Remote learning is nothing new: as a little boy at a very small rural infant school, once a week we would sit on the floor in front of the big wireless and enjoy the BBC’s “Singing Together” (1939 to 2001). We were all provided with a song book (which changed termly) and would be taught to sing remotely, with the invisible host sometimes saying things like, “boys at the back need to sing more loudly!” Remote learning has also been central to the Open University since its inception in the 1960’s. With the subsequent advent of DVDs, AI, video games and the plethora of online resources, the provision of an exciting, engaging national online MFL programme would be simple to develop and to deliver. The two key ingredients for successful MFL teaching are to start early and to teach a little and often: such an approach offers both.
Recommendations
• MFL should be compulsory from Reception.
• National programmes of study from Reception to Year 6 inclusive, providing complete online resources utilising AI, interactive games, film clips and quizzes and study books should be devised for French, German and Spanish and provided to schools BEFORE teaching becomes compulsory. These should comprise a daily 30-minute lesson in each language. No teacher knowledge is required: indeed, teachers would learn with the children, although the online programme could obviously be supplemented by teachers who are linguists.
• It could be up to the individual school, MAT or local authority to decide which language should be studied. In Hackney, for example, it was agreed that all primary schools would teach some Spanish, partly in order to help with transition to secondary schools in the Borough.
• Emphasis should be on learning by active participation and by having fun (games, watching cartoons etc). Where MFL is taught well and by specialists in primary schools, it is usually well received by children. An engaging, effective and worthwhile educational experience should be available to all children.
• The aim should not be on preparing youngsters for a qualification, but on producing children who are enthused by MFL and who are confident at conversing in a foreign language, perfectly possible after six years of study. And this would be without any additional workload for classroom teachers: initially, they would only have to flick a switch.
• Emphasis should also be placed on the wider benefits of studying another language and culture – broadening horizons, breaking down barriers plus on the improved wider academic skills that go hand in hand with learning another language.
• MFL should remain compulsory up to 14. It is hoped that as pupils become increasingly confident, engaged and successful, more will then opt to study MFL at GCSE and beyond.
06. Inspection
Inspection remains a highly contentious issue: it is one of the key factors in driving teachers out of the profession [64% of leavers highlighted inspection as a case]. Yet parents surely have the right to know how their child’s school is performing and there are still some schools which are failing their pupils and/or their staff. Analysis of school performance is essential, but not in a way that leaves schools with few teachers to inspect.
In 2024, the new Labour government scrapped the single/two-word overall judgement of schools - outstanding, good, requires improvement, inadequate (serious weaknesses or special measures). Under Sir Martyn Oliver, His Majesty’s Chief Inspector, Ofsted then conducted the “Big Listen” and a further consultation on its initial proposals between February and April 2025.
Two areas of caution. The initial findings from Ofsted are calling for inspections to look specifically at disadvantage and inclusion, including vulnerable and SEND pupils. This is essential, but as argued under behaviour, regardless of a pupil’s needs, the concept of inclusion must not be permitted to impair the learning of others. Schools must make provision for all pupils, but this may mean making appropriate provision out of lessons or even off site if, by keeping individual pupils in mainstream lessons, it has a detrimental effect on the education of the majority. Ofsted’s initial response also recommends that the context of a school should be taken into account. This has its merit but, again, it is something which requires caution. Having been the Head of an academy sited on one of the largest and most deprived council estates in the country, I am fully aware of the appalling external factors that impacted on the lives of our pupils (drugs, knives, youth gangs, mental health issues, socio-economic factors) but these must never become excuses for under performance. A previous Labour government
introduced the notion of “contextual value added” which calibrated a school’s performance according to its socio-economic setting. This simply masked the fact that many pupils in schools in difficult and deprived areas were underperforming and it did nothing to help those schools to achieve what they were capable of achieving. Equally, we must never forget that it is not only urban schools that face situational difficulties – coastal regions, rural areas and small market towns, all present their own issues in terms of prevailing attitudes, traditions, expectations and limited career possibilities.
The most important proposed change is the introduction of a “report card”, commenting on various aspects of the school, with each area to be graded on a five-point scale ranging from “exemplary” to “causing concern”. The argument is that the report card will give a much more nuanced analysis of a school’s performance compared to the previous overall grade. Personally, I argue that this is to be welcomed – overall grades could hide much that needs improving or, equally, fail to appreciate much that a school is doing well. Of course, there is no reason why the two systems cannot be combined and the schools that achieve a fantastically positive report card, could still be labelled “good” or “outstanding”.
“Not everything that counts can be counted and not everything that can be counted, counts”. Albert Einstein
Nowhere is this more true than in schools. Einstein also said that the ideals that had shaped his life had been, “Kindness, Beauty and Truth”, none of which can be graded by bean counters. There will be some aspects of school which should be commented upon rather than graded.
Recommendations
• The introduction of a much more detailed school report card, see opposite.
• Far more emphasis placed on self-evaluation and development planning. There should be a uniform, national system for both, based around the report card. Both a school’s self-evaluation document and its development plans should be publicly available.
• The prime purpose of Ofsted should be to check the accuracy and validity of each school’s self-evaluation every three/four years. The outcomes of these monitoring visits should be made public. Where there are clearly failings or underperformance, formal inspection should then follow.
• Each inspection visit, even when only assessing a school’s self-evaluation and development plans, should result in concrete suggestions for improvement. This will require all inspectors to have had broad experience, a high level of training and an excellent record of successful teaching and/ or school leadership.
• Schools that do especially well with the grade card should still be labelled “good” or “outstanding”.
• Since dissatisfaction with school leadership is a key factor in driving teachers out of the profession, [“lack of support from superiors” 51%; “mismanagement of the school” 46%] there must be a mechanism whereby a certain percentage of staff can request a visit from Ofsted. Equally, a critical mass of parents should also be able to request a visit.
General area Specific topics
Performance data
Progress 8
Attainment 8
EBacc
Pupil destinations at 16/18
Teaching
Teachers and staff
Classroom teaching
Breadth of curriculum
Average class sizes
Pupil engagement
Lesson planning
Lesson resources
Use of homework
Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural Education
British values and cultural capital
Provision for identifiable groups: SEND, FSM, EAL etc
CPD
Qualified/unqualified staff
Workload
Recruitment and retention
Use of TA’s
Pupil behaviour and attendance
Pupil personal development
Behaviour in lessons
Behaviour around school
Evidence of bullying and response to it
Punctuality to lessons
Punctuality to school
Attendance
PSHE provision
RSE provision
Careers education
Leadership Head
Senior leadership
Middle leadership
Governance
Improvement/development capacity
Extra/co-curricular Out of lessons activities: offer and pupil engagement
Community involvement
Parents
Parental involvement
Grade Comment
07. Parents/Carers
The question of parenting is sensitive and difficult yet holds the key to the development of a truly world-class school system. We must never forget that children in day schools only spend on average 17.5% of the year in school: for 82.5% of the year they are beyond the school gates. To this must be added the earliest and most important years for child development which are spent almost entirely with the family. And this family environment is so crucial. The 2021 PIRLS report concludes that the, “Number of books at home was the second most powerful predictor of overall reading score, with higher numbers of books associated with higher PIRLS scores.” [P7] By the time children reach compulsory school age at five, it is very often too late – schools are left trying to repair any damage that has been done. In May 2025, for example, Essex Caring Communities Commission recommended the establishment of “school-ready task forces” aimed at halving the proportion of children who are not ready for school aged 5, after teachers complained that infants were not able to blow their own noses, take themselves to the toilet, sit up straight in a chair or to hold a pencil. [BBC News, 11th May]
In 2021, PIRLS reported that parental commitment and support of pupil achievement in England is significantly lower than in Singapore. [P141] Only 35-44% parents show high or very high support for pupil achievement, expectations, commitment to ensuring pupils are ready to learn and to school activities. Some 16% of parents show low or very low support for pupil achievement and commitment to ensuring pupils are ready to learn. Whereas in England PIRLS reports that 40% of parents are highly or very highly involved in school activities, this compares to 56% in Singapore. Even more crucially, only 35% of parents in England are highly or very highly committed to ensuring
that pupils are ready to learn, compared to 65% of parents in Singapore.
A current discussion surrounds the provision of school breakfast clubs. The food charity the Magic Breakfast has calculated that secondary pupils who had breakfast achieve, “on average, two GCSE grades higher than children who rarely eat breakfast” and that a nutritious breakfast boosts children’s reading, writing and maths “by an average of two months’ progress” compared to pupils with no breakfast. There can be absolutely no doubt that children who arrive at school hungry will not concentrate, behave or perform as they might were they to have benefited from a good breakfast. That said, these conclusions miss the key point: it is not so much that breakfast determines outcomes, but rather that the child who comes from a home which does not insist on a proper breakfast is very likely (but not always) to be the home where the parents/carers have not checked the child’s bag or uniform, not ensured that they arrive at school on time and not supported them with their homework the night before. The absence of breakfast is surely, very largely, indicative of a home which denies the child the love, care and attention that all crave and require?
It is impossible to overestimate the importance of children’s home environment in their future development – socially, mentally and educationally. “Research consistently finds that family characteristics, parenting and the home environment have a more significant influence on children’s development than childcare. These factors are also more important than family income [sic].” Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society, January 2024
Good education starts at home and is largely dependent on developing values that should be nurtured from birth. But where and how do new parents learn to become good, effective parents? Where do they learn not only about the nutritional and health needs of a baby, but about the cognitive and emotional development of a youngster? If they themselves came from a home that was ambivalent about, or even anti, education, how are they to learn the importance of school attendance and of the need to support their children through their school years? Of course, some will argue that this is not the responsibility of the state and that we do not want a “nanny state”, but when things go wrong, it is the state and the taxpayer who pick up the bill. So many educational and societal problems could be resolved by ensuring that far more parents are equipped not only to love and to care for their children, but to have the knowledge, skills and understanding to help them flourish.
Recommendations
• All would-be parents should be required to attend formal parenting classes, provided by government departments such as Health and Education, to cover issues including health, child behaviour, cognitive, emotional and social development, education and schooling, and how to ensure that children are “school ready”. Receipt of benefits, or the possibility of higher benefits, could be dependent on attendance and engagement.
• Far more support from social services/NHS/ DfE should be made readily available to parents who struggle with their child’s behaviour, mental health or cognitive, emotional and social development.
• Far stiffer penalties should be imposed on parents/ carers who do not ensure the regular school attendance of their child – the current fines of £80 for term-time holidays are futile and meaningless.
• “Parenting” should be a compulsory unit in the Key Stage 4 and Key Stage 5 PSHE programme, including topics such as the financial costs of bringing up a child and the legal responsibilities of a parent.
08. Pre-school
One common denominator amongst several leading school systems is the wide availability of effective pre-school provision. It should be noted, however, that in both Singapore and Estonia, compulsory formal schooling does not start until the age of 7, two years after the starting age in the UK. Currently, there is no national programme for pre-school provision in England, with wide variations between basic child minding, play groups and more formal pre-school establishments. Although there can be no argument about the importance of the first few years of a child’s life in its future social and cognitive development, any move towards compulsory pre-school attendance would be unacceptable to those parents who willingly choose to stay at home and to spend such crucial formative years with their children.
The most coordinated attempt at a national preschool programme was the “Sure Start” initiative, introduced in 1999, which aimed to offer “one stop shop” centres which would provide health services, parental support and early years learning and childcare. The centres were initially to be based in areas of disadvantage, but with a later aim of extending them to all areas. Tony Blair described Sure Start as, “One of New Labour’s greatest achievements.” From 2010, successive governments cut relevant funding with the result that many centres have closed and, to date, no commitment has been given by the current government to fund or to restart the programme.
There is no question that “Sure Start” was expensive [at its peak in 2010, when there were over 3,000 Sure Start Children’s Centres in operation, total spending was £2.7 billion per year at current prices. IFS 2025], but there has been ongoing debate as to whether the programme was successful in achieving its educational aims of improving
attainment, behaviour and future life chances, as well as over the question of value for money. In 2024 the Institute of Fiscal Studies, in research funded by the Nuffield Foundation, reported that “Sure Start greatly improved disadvantaged children’s GCSE results” and that children living near a Sure Start centred performed 0.8 grades better at GCSE than those who lived further away. For children eligible for FSM, GCSE performance improved by three whole grades (eg three D grades became three C grades). The report also argued that Sure Start’s “benefits modestly outweighed its costs”, with a return of £1.09 for every £1 spent. “Sure Start achieved its aims, then we threw it away”, Paul Johnson, IFS Director, 15th April 2024.
On 22nd May 2025, the IFS produced an updated report on the short- and medium-term effects of Sure Start and concluded that when a broader analysis is undertaken (fewer hospitalisations, fewer youngsters in the criminal justice system and more youngsters gaining employment and therefore paying tax and National Insurance) for every £1 of net spending, Sure Start, “may eventually generate around £11 in benefits for the children who attended”.
Of course, there will be those who dispute the above, not least because Sure Start was a partypolitical creation. There are arguments that the centres provided no immediate benefits –developmental scores among 5-year-olds who lived near Sure Start centres showed no statistically significant improvement. This raises fundamental questions: can later improvements, say at GCSE, be attributed solely to Sure Start or to the effectiveness of a child’s subsequent schooling and/or to other targeted support? Were the improvements in GCSE results uniform across all subjects – academic, technical, practical - or only in certain subjects?
Another criticism is that Sure Start sometimes failed to reach the most deprived pupils, while middle-class children were often the beneficiaries of its services. [Ross Clark, The Spectator, 9th April 2024] It should also be remembered that, over time, Sure Start changed direction: initially it aimed at the most deprived but then broadened to encompass the majority of children. Paul Johnson noted that the research is clear about the benefits of the first phase of Sure Start but not the second which was, “an entirely different programme” and much less effective. What is more, although Sure Start was a national policy, there was no common approach: actual delivery was decided locally. It is, therefore, difficult to pinpoint specific policies which improved outcomes because approaches varied from place to place.
Perhaps the best assessment of Sure Start comes from Alun Francis, Chair of the Social Mobility Commission: “Overall, while there is definitely more to be learned from Sure Start than we thought, it is not a panacea. It is not the whole programme that worked but parts of it. And we still need to be much clearer about which aspects were most valuable. Moreover, even a reformed Sure Start will not be enough on its own. It would need to be accompanied by policies for families – and a recognition of the changing and complex nature of their make-up today.” TES, 3rd May 2024.
Since the demise of Sure Start, one policy supported by all main political parties has been the move towards universal childcare, increasing the number of hours of free childcare available to working parents. Although one successful aim of the policy has been to enable more parents, especially mothers, to return to work, the educational benefits of only providing greater
childcare are disputed. “The claim that expanding the offer of universal childcare will create a more equal society by reducing attainment gaps between more and less advantaged children is not supported by available evidence… The connection between early formal childcare and social equality remains, as such, largely speculative.”
Civitas, January 2024
Recommendations
• The priority of pre-school provision needs to be agreed: is it to get more adults to return to employment or is it to improve children’s attainment and life chances? Is it primarily for the benefit of children from deprived backgrounds or for all children? These are obviously not mutually exclusive aims but they do require different approaches and policy priorities.
• Objective research must be undertaken to identify the most effective aspects of Sure Start.
• Research is needed to identify the most effective methods of pre-school pedagogy, covering social, cognitive, physical and behavioural development.
• High quality pre-school education, not just childcare, should be available for all who request it. Provision could be means tested to make it available to all, regardless of income, but without being prohibitive to the taxpayer. Since the most effective way of supporting SEND pupils is to identify and to provide for their individual needs as early as possible, this could enable far more SEND pupils to benefit from subsequent mainstream schooling.
Conclusion
The English school system has been through a great deal of change over the past forty years. There is no doubt that a tremendous amount has been achieved, but there has also been a phenomenal amount of waste - of money, time and effort. The big question is, after four decades of churn, has England built a world-class school system?
Sadly, despite numerous beacons of excellence and examples of outstanding practice, the answer has to be a resounding “no”. Standards have not risen uniformly or dramatically and the attitudes of young people have not significantly changed for the better. This is not to criticise the teachers and Heads who have persevered through a time of such change; on the contrary, the dedication of so many teachers is what has kept the system going, despite the burgeoning workload, declining pupil behaviour and respect for the profession, and continual interference by those who have never set foot in a classroom as teachers.
Yet it is teachers who hold the key to creating a system of which the country can be proud. Political parties of all persuasions must recognise that the current teacher recruitment and retention crisis is the single biggest problem facing our schools – only if and when we have an adequate supply of highly trained, well qualified, motivated, dedicated and effective classroom teachers and school leaders, will the system flourish. The tragedy is that this can be achieved fairly easily and without massive expense on the part of the taxpayer. We simply need to create a system in which “teachers can teach and pupils can learn”.
The government that finally embraces such an approach will create a truly world-class school system.
Previous Reports:
Food, Glorious Food
https://issuu.com/finitoworld/docs/better_schools_ report_food_glorious_food_
Better Schools Report June 2024 SEND
https://issuu.com/finitoworld/docs/148_better_ schools_report_pt3
Better Schools Report January 2024
https://issuu.com/finitoworld/docs/better_schools_-_ pages
About the author
Tim Clark was a secondary teacher for 32 years and a Head for 18 years, firstly at a selective grammar school which he led from “good” to “outstanding” and latterly at a difficult comprehensive academy, sited on one of the largest and most deprived council estates in east London, which he “transformed” (Ofsted 2017).
In 2019 he moved into education consultancy and professional development training, specialising in school improvement and leadership development. He has supported schools in all sectors, primary and secondary, state and independent, both in this country and abroad, most recently in Spain and Nigeria. In 2020 he co-authored an influential report on Ofsted.