Methodology
MORI conducted six focus groups among parents. These incorporated a regional spread,
a mix of gender and social class. Ten participants were recruited for each group
from the People's Panel. Where this wasn't possible they were recruited face-to-face
by MORI interviewers from the immediate locality of these groups.
Summary of Main Findings
School Performance Tables
With few exceptions, parents were aware of performance tables in
their current form, having seen them in local or national newspapers. Awareness was higher
among parents in social classes ABC1. Parents were not aware of the Secondary School
Performance Tables booklet, published for each local authority. The booklet is available
free of charge but the parents were not aware of this.
Performance tables were generally welcomed and parents tend to look
at performance tables out of curiosity, or for reassurance to see how well their child's
school is doing. In general, they were described as a factor, among many others, which are
taken into consideration when selecting a school.
There is cynicism evident among some parents about the reliability
of performance tables. Some parents were cynical about statistics generally. Others argue
that performance tables are manipulated by some schools, who only enter for exams those
pupils they are confident will pass GCSEs.
Value Added Measures
The concept of added value measures in performance tables showing
pupils' progress, was new to most parents. With few exceptions, parents had not heard of
'Value Added' in this context and moderators in all groups provided an explanation.
Indeed, a minority of parents found the concept somewhat confusing at first.
On balance, more parents than not felt that value added information
would improve the current performance tables, and usually saw value added tables as being
fairer to schools and giving a better picture of their true overall performance.
Nonetheless, parents are unlikely (on present levels of
understanding) to make much use of them because of the difficulties they encountered in
attempting to decipher the information in its current form.
In terms of the value added measures, parents preferences are split
between the bands (A to E) and the numerical score. Many felt that the overall score was
meaningless or found it difficult to grasp, while others, mainly those in social classes
ABC1, like to see the score because it gave them more information than the banding. Often
these parents were also interested in knowing how the score was calculated, although they
were in a minority. A few suggested that it would be better to have a score out of 10 or
100.
The value added indicators which allow for comparisons between
pupils with different starting points at Key Stage 3 were generally felt to be useful,
although some parents found the information difficult to interpret due to limited
knowledge of Assessment Levels and Key States. It was suggested that the columns should be
labelled 'low ability', 'medium ability' and 'high ability', given that only a small
minority of parents were aware of the Levels that a child is expected to achieve.
There was a mixed response to average value indicators by gender.
Those that were positive about value added information generally want to see this
information, and in a smaller number of cases parents had spontaneously mentioned results
by gender, prior to seeing value added tables. Those that were negative tended to be
parents who found the tables and, in particular the scores, difficult to comprehend, and
were lost without the 'band' column.
Despite the mixed response to the value added measures and concerns
about being overloaded by too much information, there was no clear consensus for any of
the individual indicators in the Pilot tables to be removed. Indeed, there were
suggestions for adding information. Some parents felt that non-academic factors should be
taken into consideration to produce a fairer picture and place academic attainment into
context.
Views on Potential Formats for Value Added Measures
When shown example formats, without exception the five bands a to E
proved the most popular. Parents easily relate to this style, either from their own school
days or their children's. For this reason, parents agree that it is an appropriate rating
style in this context.
Using 'stars' was criticised for being difficult to read and akin to
ratings for a hotel. Single ticks were criticised for not providing value added
information for all schools - given that some parents found the 'scores' difficult to
grasp it is important to provide a 'band' for each school. Multi ticks were criticised for
similar reasons.
Difference from 100 was rejected outright by those who were
generally hostile to the way in which the score is represented - given that this band is
based on the score - and by others who are not comfortable with numbers. It was possibly
the least popular of all five examples formats.
Parents were provided with explanatory text and a verbal explanation
of value added measures during the focus groups. On balance, the majority found a verbal
explanation more helpful.
Perhaps because value added measures were a new concept for the
majority of parents, there is little clear evidence of difference of views by class or
stage in education - most parents need time to get to grips with the concept under
discussion and to comprehend the tables.
For further information, contact: Janet Dallas, Room 253, DfEE,
Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3B (Tel: 020 7 925 5730, Fax 020 7
925 5179).
