“To publish, or not to publish?”

To borrow from Shakespeare, this is the question facing the government on the topic of publishing performance tables for secondary schools this summer. But is the choice really this binary?

With so much disruption caused by Covid-19 over the past two years, there is a compelling argument that the government should follow the decision that it has already taken at key stage 2 and announce that it will not publish performance tables at KS4 and KS5 either.

After all, if the argument stands for primary schools, why not for secondary schools, too?

But if the government is minded to hold its current line, it might deploy several arguments in favour of publishing performance tables at KS4 and KS5 (assuming that exams go ahead).

GCSEs 2022: The question of secondary school league tables

It might argue that the comparison with KS2 is misleading because “results” at primary are used for different purposes; the results that students achieve at GCSE, A level and in vocational and technical qualifications are in a sense public in any case because they are held by students who will take them out into the world and use them to apply for courses and employment.

KS2 results, on the other hand, are largely for different purposes; for schools and trusts, and those who hold them to account.

So, while one might argue that the use of KS4 and KS5 qualifications in the “real world” means that they should be made available for public scrutiny in the normal way, perhaps the same doesn’t apply for primary results.

The government might also say that it’s a hard message for students and parents to say that their exam results are valid enough to take into the rest of their lives but not so valid as to be reported in relation to schools.

Perhaps most fundamentally, some might argue that in a publicly funded accountability system there is an important point of principle in publishing the outcomes that students achieve.

After all, enshrined in the Nolan principles of public life is transparency. One could view a decision not to publish performance tables as falling short of that principle.

Transparency at a price

But - and this is key - in honouring the principle of transparency, there is a difference between publishing data about results and publishing inherently comparative performance tables, particularly if the tables themselves risk misleading the public about school performance given the uneven impact of Covid-19.

Some will say, with justification, that the risk is that others will publish league tables in one form or another if the Department for Education doesn’t.

I accept this risk is probably a reality, but I also think that it’s not a sufficiently strong justification. Much better the DfE gets on the front foot and helps the school system, parents and other stakeholders to be incredibly cautious about how they use school data and particularly the comparisons they draw, in light of the uneven impact of Covid-19.

All the caveats in the world will struggle to strike this note of caution if data is published, as usual, on a website called “Comparing School Performance”.

If the government is serious about cautious use of data this year, it needs to go beyond a strategy of trying to shut the stable door after the data horse has bolted.

To be fair to the DfE, resolving the competing tensions outlined above is a hard task, but it’s not good enough to just plough on as if everything is normal.

As those working in schools know, we’re almost in April and the situation is far from normal. It is understandable that many leaders feel anxious about performance tables.

The terminology alone is anxiety-inducing, and it would be good to see the government recognise this more openly.

Three things the government could do

If the government is determined to press ahead with publishing KS4 and KS5 data, here are three things that it should consider:

1. Explaining the rationale 

If some information has to be published in the name of public transparency, then this should be explained with a proper rationale.

A blunt “business as usual” sentiment appeals to habit rather than mature policy.

2. Only publish what’s needed

Consider what data it is necessary to share with the public. In “normal” times there are literally hundreds of measures that could be published, only some of which are - a choice is made.

So, the question is: what is absolutely necessary and meaningful to publish in these unusual times? And at what level of analysis should each be measured (school, trust, region, national, etc)?

For example, it seems rather incongruous that this year, of all years, will see the launch of a new Attainment 8 measure for multi-academy trusts.

3. Urge caution

Make it a mission to create public caution about the use of the data. Discourage comparisons. As a minimum, do not publish results on a website called “Compare School Performance”.

If the newspapers do break ranks and publish league tables, the public will be in a much better place to be cautious if that has been the line from government. Build this into the design from the start, rather than relying only on post-hoc caveats.

While I hope that government is able to rethink its business-as-usual approach to secondary performance tables, I am more optimistic that in our maturing system schools themselves will demonstrate caution around results by not judging each other.

They, better than anyone, know what it’s been like on the ground for these past two years and will offer some much-needed empathy if the data machine starts whirring once again.

Steve Rollett is deputy chief executive of the Confederation of School Trusts