REPORT OF THE LONDON EDUCATION CONFERENCE 2014
Institute of Education
Saturday 8 February 2014
“FROM STRENGTH TO STRENGTH – BUILDING ON SUCCESS IN
LONDON SCHOOLS”
Chairs:
Christine Blower, General Secretary NUT and Russell Hobby, General Secretary NAHT
MORNING PLENARY SESSION
The theme of the morning session of the conference was ‘Leaning the Lessons of
London’.
The session was chaired by Christine Blower, General Secretary of the NUT.
Keynote Address: ‘How London Schools Rose to the Challenge’ – Professor Tim
Brighouse
Tim Brighouse was the Chief Education Officer for Birmingham from 1993-2002. Tim
finished his full time career as Commissioner for London Schools in 2007.
Tim Brighouse gave the background to London Challenge. The initiative began in 2003
with a focus on secondary schools. Primary schools were incorporated in 2007 and the
programme was ended in 2011.
The challenge had four factors incorporated into the work plan: the London teacher;
the London school; the London leader and the London pupil. It focused on the following
key interventions:

Stimulating the intellectual curiosity and respecting the professional skills
of teachers and school leaders.

Encouraging Boroughs to be both collaborative and healthily competitive.

Promoting co-operation and school partnerships at local level.
Report of the London Education Conference - Institute of Education - 8 February 20141
1

Developing ‘bottom-up’ change, the ‘butterfly’ effect, using such changes
to reflect and speculate on school improvement and using language to
change culture.
Tim Brighouse described how his experience in Birmingham supported and informed his
work on London Challenge. It was important that theories of ‘school improvement’ were
based on schools’ experience of what worked. One of the theoretical influences that
steered the programme was ‘Evidence-Based Policy: A Practical Guide’, by Nancy
Cartwright and Jeremy Hardie.
School improvement initiatives had to be based on a moral purpose. The London
Challenge also took on board that the schools involved operated in different contexts.
In conclusion, Tim Brighouse emphasised that the London Challenge was very
successful: “More good things happened and fewer bad things happened”.
Tim’s presentation is available at: http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/19037
Keynote Address: ‘The Legacy of the London Challenge’ – Professor Merryn
Hutchings
Merryn Hutchings is Emeritus Professor, Institute for Policy Studies in Education,
London Metropolitan University. She recently directed the DfE-funded evaluation of the
City Challenge programme in London, Greater Manchester and the Black Country, and
has carried out subsequent research for Ofsted about the legacy of the Challenge
programmes.
Merryn Hutchings posed the question of what more could be done to benefit from the
lessons of the London Challenge. She emphasised that the legacy of London schools
was the significant levels of student attainment that had been achieved. Primary and
secondary schools in London now performed better than schools in any other regions of
England, as judged by national test scores. London schools with a higher percentage of
pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) had achieved above the national average of
GCSE 5 A*-C grades, including in English and mathematics.
Other pupil groups also did better in London than elsewhere in the country. These
groups were:

pupils not eligible for FSM;

white pupil groups;

minority ethnic pupil groups;

pupils both with and without SEN; and

pupils with English as an addition language (EAL).
Ofsted judgements for primary and secondary schools in London were also very positive
in comparison to the rest of England.
Report of the London Education Conference - Institute of Education - 8 February 20142
2
Merryn concluded that the London Challenge was the main factor responsible for
London’s success. In interviews, school leaders had identified the following changes
initiated by the Challenge:

London schools were more outward looking, establishing new partnerships
at local level.

There was a strong focus on teaching and learning in London schools.

There were higher expectations of pupils.

The development of coaching skills was a positive contribution to the raising of
achievement in schools.

Teachers’ energy and enthusiasm contributed strongly to the success of the
London Challenge schools, alongside their activities and involvement in school
improvement.

London schools had become more comfortable with external scrutiny.
Merryn argued that the lessons of the London Challenge which could be more widely
applied included:

Establishing processes to identify schools with the greatest support needs
alongside providing advisers to provide support.

Ensuring a balance between challenge and collaboration between schools.

Monitoring the school improvement support strategies co-ordinated by academy
chains.

Recognising that school improvement takes time.
strategies could be counter-productive.

Reviewing the geographical distribution of Teaching Schools and National
Leaders of Education.

Providing more recognition of the importance of the ethos of schools.
Focusing on short-term
Q&A
In discussion following these presentations, the following points were made:

The successes of the London Challenge needed to be taken on board by the Labour
Party.

Building Schools for the Future contributed to the London Challenge success story.

The loss of teacher training institutions in Higher Education (HE) needed to be
reviewed. This important training needed to be balanced with Teach First initiatives.
The professional development of teachers was central to the success of London
Report of the London Education Conference - Institute of Education - 8 February 20143
3
Challenge and it was suggested that one INSET day a year should be given over to
teachers observing others teaching.

More research needed to be undertaken on the impact of FSMs on pupil
achievement, and the impact of EAL students on school improvement.

Lessons needed to be learnt from local authorities such as Tower Hamlets where
schools were successful despite a high deprivation ranking.

Rigid Ofsted judgements ran counter to supporting and motivating improving
schools.

Peer coaching was central to classroom observation practice and to the overall
success of schools.

Private tuition in London was a significant factor in raising school achievement.
It was suggested that every pupil should have access to this and that it should be
centrally financed. Private tutors could also be shared between schools.

Cross-borough and local government support was central to the London Challenge
success story. It was suggested that the Greater London Authority (GLA) could be
the ideal democratic body to co-ordinate school improvement in London schools.
In conclusion, all the data indicated that London schools were doing better, despite
negative Government education interventions.
Merryn’s presentation is available at: http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/19037
AFTERNOON PLENARY SESSION
The theme of the afternoon session of the conference was ‘Moving Forward – Building
on Success’. The session was chaired by Russell Hobby, General Secretary of the
NAHT.
Keynote Address: ‘What London Schools Can Learn From the Best Education
Systems’ – Professor Peter Mortimore
Peter Mortimore is a former teacher and HMI. He has been a Professor of Education at
the Universities of Lancaster, London and Southern Denmark. He was Director of the
Institute of Education from 1994-2000.
Peter Mortimore began by outlining some of the difficulties posed by studying other
countries’ education systems which were rooted in the context of their national history,
culture and customs. There were barriers caused by language and understanding as
well as the limits of access. However, the observation of how schooling and society are
linked could help aid understanding of one’s own education system.
Peter outlined some of the features of the London education system. These included
pioneers such as Alex Bloom, the work of the London County Council, ILEA and the
London Challenge. He noted that although the establishment – politicians and the media
– were based in London, they were more likely to send their children to private rather
than state schools.
Report of the London Education Conference - Institute of Education - 8 February 20144
4
Peter then went on to identify some of the strengths and some of the ambiguities of the
English education system.
Peter commented that some of the best teaching he had witnessed anywhere in the
word had been in the UK. As well as the generally high quality of teaching, schools were
generally well led, he said. There was also efficient local management of schools, with
most well served by their governing bodies and there was generally good local
government. Furthermore, most schools were housed in reasonable buildings and
possessed good facilities and equipment. He stated that he had never seen such high
quality art work displayed around schools in any other country. Many English schools
managed to combine both a zest for improvement with a sense of fun and there was a
strong tradition of creativity - music, art, sport, school trips and assemblies.
Among its more ambiguous features were school funding: Peter questioned whether
there a fair distribution or whether extra resources and greater powers were given to
favoured types of school. The National Curriculum suffered from political interference; we
had a plethora of testing and assessment; our faith schools divided communities; and
we had costly inspections that could dominate schools’ focus.
The weaknesses of England’s education system included the over-dominance of
Westminster; a lack of affordable pre-school care; the competitive, market model of
schooling; the impact of private schools which educated just a small proportion of
children who went on to dominate politics and the professions; divisive school selection;
the fact that our children were among the most stressed and unhappy in the world; and
that we seemed to have an obsession with measuring ability.
On this last point Peter stated that we suffered from a national obsession with sorting
people by ability. He questioned how ability should be determined – was it through IQ
scores or a broader definition that took into account, for example, intellectual, social,
emotional, physical and artistic capabilities; the skill in using luck; the capacity for hard
work; resilience and a sense of strategy.
He stated that education systems tend to cope well with pupils coming from relatively
advantaged backgrounds whereas pupils from poor family backgrounds do less well
everywhere (although exceptional individuals bucked the trend). The achievement gap
was one of education’s greatest challenges. Some countries – like Finland - are good at
reducing this gap just as England had been from 1950-2000.
Peter went on to discuss what England could learn from more successful education
systems. He outlined the key features of such systems as being:
•
Pre-school is good and school starting age is six or seven;
•
There is much less testing and few league tables;
•
There is less pressure on pupils, teachers and parents;
•
Trust is highly valued;
•
School is seen as preparation for democratic life;
Report of the London Education Conference - Institute of Education - 8 February 20145
5
•
Life-long learning is encouraged by slower pace and built in catch up points; and
•
Their societies appear less selfish.
Discussing possible ways forward, Peter stated that immediate measures should be
taken to ensure all schools have common funding, powers and governance; league
tables were abolished; selection was outlawed; and faith school admissions were
opened up.
In addition, we needed to explore ways to ensure all schools have a balanced intake;
and a more even spread of teachers. Finally, it would be necessary to work towards the
integration of private schools.
Peter concluded his presentation by stating that England has excellent teachers but a
muddled system; it has strengths but also weaknesses and English school pupils appear
less happy than their counterparts. While remedies are available, politicians will ignore
them unless we can persuade the public to demand change.
He added that we must maintain our enthusiasm for education – while its impact might
be limited, it still represents the best hope of creating a better society.
Peter’s presentation is available at: http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/19037
Peter Mortimore’s latest book – Education under siege: why there is a better alternative – is published
by Policy Press and is also available as an e-book: www.policypress.co.uk
Panel Debate: ‘From Strength To Strength – Maintaining A World Class Education
For London’s Children’
Panel Members:

Rushanara Ali, MP For Bethnal Green and Bow and a member of the Shadow
Education Team

Jennette Arnold OBE, Chair Of The London Assembly’s Education Panel

Melissa Benn, author and campaigner for state education

Emma Knights, Chief Executive, National Governors’ Association

Cllr Peter John, Leader of Southwark Council and London Councils’ Executive
Member For Children And Young People

Dr. Dame Jane Roberts, Chair of The Advisory Committee Of The Compass/NUT
Inquiry Into ‘A New Model Of Education’

Caroline Ezzat, London Teacher

Peter Mortimore, Former Professor Of Education at the Universities Of Lancaster,
London And Southern Denmark
Report of the London Education Conference - Institute of Education - 8 February 20146
6
The Chair, Russell Hobby, explained to delegates that workshops had been asked to
formulate a question and nominate a participant to put this to the panel. Members of the
panel would be selected to respond to specific questions.
Q1: How can we encourage Ofsted to promote collaboration and federation?
Jane Roberts stressed that there needed to be greater trust in teachers and schools but
said that there was an inherent tension between the need for autonomy and the need for
an independent body to provide oversight. Achieving this balance was difficult.
Caroline Ezzat said that head teachers spent a lot of time stressing about Ofsted and
that this was counterproductive. She added that Ofsted inspectors often appeared to
make judgements before arriving at a school, often based on flawed data. Ofsted
therefore could lack credibility; there was a need for informed feedback from inspectors.
Q2: How do we create a developmental rather than punitive environment in terms
of work in the classroom – removing stress?
Melissa Benn emphasised that there had been a significant shift towards a more
punitive approach within education. She also noted that university-based initial teacher
training (ITT) was under attack with the shift towards School Direct and Teach First. The
advantage of university-based ITT was that it allowed teachers to develop an
understanding and critical approach towards the processes of learning, as well as an
awareness of wider education policy.
Melissa added that the right-wing narrative that small class sizes were not important had
gained too much acceptance and should be challenged. Large classes meant it was
harder to provide children with individual attention and could make the class more
difficult to manage. The provision of quality education should be seen as an argument
about resources; there was a need for better pay, funding and smaller class sizes.
Rushanara Ali stressed that Labour was committed to a strong and supported teaching
profession and believed that all teachers should be qualified; this was the way to raise
standards. She also said that London could be used as an example to inform
improvements in education elsewhere.
Q3(i): How do you think we can encourage collaboration on school improvement
in an increasing fragmented system?
Q3(ii) Do you think the Greater London Authority (GLA) should/could have a role
in this?
Peter John said that the public assume and expect their local authority (LA) to be
responsible for school planning and school improvement, in part because of its local
democratic mandate. For this reason LAs would continue to have a role in education
provision. He emphasised that many London Boroughs were working collaboratively on
education. However, he also said that he was in favour of powers being devolved from
the centre to a more local level and on this basis would accept a role for the GLA if this
became a possibility.
Jennette Arnold noted that the GLA already had a range of responsibilities that
included fire and housing and that the London Mayor has the power to intervene in any
area that he or she believed affected the lives of Londoners. Ken Livingstone had
showed an interest in a role for the GLA in education as had Boris Johnson.
Report of the London Education Conference - Institute of Education - 8 February 20147
7
Jennette added that the GLA had a unit that had been charged with the promotion of
free schools and it was important that there should be transparency around its role and
activity. Jennette said she was in favour of a strong middle tier and a role for the GLA.
Q4: If we are working to develop the curriculum to include skills that equip pupils
for the 21st Century, such as emotional resilience and the ability to research
effectively, what role does assessment play in this? And do schools have to
sacrifice exam results if we are going to teach wider skills?
Peter Mortimore said that there had to be a match between curriculum and
assessment. There was also a need to look at ways of effectively assessing levels of
skills.
Emma Knights said that the NGA was trying to encourage governors to challenge
teachers. She said that there was some reluctance on governors’ part to get involved in
these issues because teachers are rightly seen as professionals. However, she said that
governors could offer the role of strategic focus and vision for the school. There is space
to do other things outside of the requirements of assessment, and governors could
support teachers to do this by offering a broader vision about what the school does. She
stressed that school should be seen as “fun and interesting”.
Q5: What could be the routes to retain teachers in the teaching profession and
keep them teaching in London schools?
Caroline Ezzat said that workload was a considerable burden on many teachers. More
flexible working would be beneficial to teachers, especially later in their careers when
maintaining a full teaching timetable could become difficult. She also said that the level
of remuneration was a particular problem in London where living costs were very high.
She suggested that, like police officers, teachers could be given free travel in the capital.
Melissa Benn stressed the need for respect. The Government’s approach to teachers
was “schizophrenic” – on the one hand denigrating them while on the other praising the
current generation as “the best yet”. She also said that opportunities for CPD were an
important factor in retaining teachers.
Q6: To what extent do current Government policies positively affect the crisis in
school places?
Rushanara Ali said that as local authorities had the responsibility to find school places,
they should also have the powers to build schools. Either local authorities or an external
body needed the power to build schools where school places were needed.
Melissa Benn said that the free school argument was being lost. She also said it was
important that local authorities could co-ordinate admission arrangements and numbers
in different schools.
Panellists also engaged in a discussion about academy performance and relationships
with local authorities.
Melissa Benn stressed that it was important to challenge the notion that academies are
better schools or that their pupils performed better in national tests and examinations.
Jane Roberts noted that success in Camden was built on collaboration rather than the
introduction of academies and that London Challenge was the strongest part of this
improvement. She also suggested that the limited notion of performance based on exam
Report of the London Education Conference - Institute of Education - 8 February 20148
8
results should be questioned and that there was a need for a system that takes other
things into account.
Peter John raised the issue of academy chains refusing to work with LAs. He said that
the Harris Federation had repeatedly refused to meet with Southwark and did not seem
interested in the local authority.
Rushanara Ali said in response to Peter that this was something she would take back
to the Labour Party.
Q7: Given the benefits of free school meals for all in terms of attainment, family
finance, behaviour and removal of stigma demonstrated by the policy adopted in
Newham, Southwark and Islington of universal free school meals in primary
schools, when will all boroughs in London have free school meals for all pupils
(including the foundation stage)?
Peter John said that he was proud of delivering free school meals for all primary
children in in Southwark and that all parties should include the policy in their manifestos.
Conference Workshops
In addition to the plenary sessions nine workshops on a range of themes were also held
during the day:
Workshop 1: Great Schools Need Great Teachers
Workshop Leaders: Marva Rollins, Head teacher Raynham Primary School; Leon
Kuforiji and Rachel McGreal, teachers at Raynham Primary.
Chair: James Kempton, Associate Director, CentreForum
Workshop 2: Competition or Collaboration? – Examining the Evidence on
Academy Status and Partnership
Workshop leaders: Henry Stewart and Fiona Millar, Local Schools Network
Chair: Alex Kenny, NUT National Executive member for inner London
Workshop 3: The Road to Federation
Workshop Leaders: Eleanor Howarth, Research and Information Officer National
Governors’ Association (NGA) and Ben Plant, Chair of Governors at the Federation
of Grazebrook and Shacklewell Primary Schools.
Chair: Emma Knights, Chief Executive, NGA
Workshop 4: Aspiring to Succeed – Heads Are Doing it for Themselves
Workshop Leader: Sally Bates, Head Teacher of Wadsworth Primary School in
Nottinghamshire
Chair: Kathryn James, Director of Education, NAHT
Report of the London Education Conference - Institute of Education - 8 February 20149
9
Workshops 5 and 10 (this workshop was run twice in two different sessions): Year
of the Curriculum
Workshop Leader: Dave Peck, Chief Executive, Curriculum Foundation
Chair: Rosamund McNeil, Head of Education and Equalities, NUT
Workshop 6: Let’s All Have Lunch! – The Campaign for Universal Primary Free
School Meals
Workshop Leaders: Ade Sofola, Strategic Manager, 4 in 10, Ogechi Okoli,
London Policy and Campaigns, Save the Children UK and Andrew Bazeley, Policy
Officer at the London Borough of Newham
Chair: Fiona Twycross, Labour London-wide Assembly Member and member of the
Assembly’s Health and Environment Committee
Workshop 7: Engaging Parents, Engaging Children
Workshop Leaders: Annette Wiles, Policy and Research Manager, PTA UK and
Marcia Clack, Family and Community Engagement Manager, Phoenix High School.
Chair: Bob Stapley, London Region Secretary, NUT
Workshop 8: Stop Meddling with the Middle
Workshop Leader: John Fowler, Policy Manager, Local Government Information
Unit (LGiU)
Chair: Melissa Benn, education campaigner, writer and author
Workshop 9: The Crisis in School Places – Searching for A Solution
Workshop Leaders: Cllr Peter John, London Councils’ Executive Member for
Children and Young People, Kevin Courtney, NUT Deputy General Secretary
Chair: Jennette Arnold OBE, Labour London Assembly member for North East
London and Chair of the London Assembly’s Education Panel
Copies of workshop presentations and materials can be downloaded from:
http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/19037
Report of the London Education Conference - Institute of Education - 8 February 201410
10