In class yesterday we discussed Summerhill. I left class with a lot of questions so I went online and found government inspection reports of Summerhill.
The first report that I read was the 2007 report which was generally positive. Most of the issues raised in the 2007 report were logistical in nature (parent first aid permission forms were not filled out in some cases, some staff did not have complete employment history records on file) http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/CARE/SC024584
After watching the video I wasn’t surprised to discover that the school had a lax policy on smoking and older students are allowed to smoke if they choose to. It was also interesting to read in the report that younger students were discouraged from bringing personal electronics to school because they didn’t have outlets in their rooms.
The 2007 report was an interesting overview and description of the school, however, a report filed in 2000 proved to be much more interesting in terms of uncovering some of the controversies surrounding Summerhill http://www.selfmanagedlearning.org/Summerhill/RepMain.htm#Acc
The 2000 report addresses six complaints lodged against Summerhill, of which three were dismissed. Of these six, three were logistical rather than philosophical.
Of the three philosophical complaints, one was focused on assessment and not accepted by the school. Below is what the inspectors had to say about assessment –
Complaint 6 concerns the assessment of pupils. The school’s view is that the ‘formal’ assessment and testing of children should only be carried out with the child’s permission. The complaint alleges that this ‘inhibits pupils’ progress’ as the staff are unable to diagnose ‘pupils’ educational problems’. Our interviews with staff indicated that firstly they did keep records on children. They are, however, reviewing their procedures to see if they need to improve arrangements. We believe that this review is desirable and hope that the school can develop its procedures while keeping to its educational philosophy.
The school has a Special Attention List. This is used to track all new children and any with problems. There are also records on individual children. Baseline assessments of children’s literacy, oracy and numeracy skills are made on newcomers to the school. Teachers keep a record of academic progress and write termly reports on children attending their classes. The school has recently re-instated the procedure whereby houseparents write reports on children in their care. However the school does not send reports to third parties outside the school without the child’s permission.
The other factor that staff stressed is that this is a very small boarding school which is a tightly knit community. They feel that they are aware of any problems and that they can adequately deal with them. However they are clear that they are not prepared to coerce children into being formally tested against their will. They give feedback in class on children’s performance and see this as appropriate for assisting children with their learning. It appears that self-assessment by children is encouraged and this seems to be the mode valued by the children.
Set against the school’s policy on testing is the evidence of GCSE results. The children are clearly able to take such examinations and get good results. The conclusion by Ofsted that pupil progress is necessarily hindered is not supported by the factual evidence of GCSE passes (even though the school stresses that its main aim is not to produce high levels of passes at GCSE). Indeed, we are convinced, by the substantial evidence we saw, that several students have succeeded in academic terms at Summerhill, whereas they were previously failing academically in the state schooling environment.
The Ofsted inspectors appeared to assume that successful education necessarily implies entry for the maximum possible number of GCSE subjects and that anything less reflects ‘underachievement’. The Summerhill approach is that GCSE entry follows the pupil’s own informed purpose and choice, whether it be one of intrinsic interest or instrumental necessity for entry to higher levels of study or employment. If pupils successfully achieve these self-defined goals can this be accurately or fairly described as ‘under-achievement?’
Most children who choose to be entered for GCSE examinations leave Summerhill at the end of what in the state sector would be described as year 11 at the age of 16. National league tables are based upon GCSE examinations that are taken in that year (i.e. the academic school year in which pupils celebrate their sixteenth birthday) as in the state sector that is overwhelmingly when they are taken. In line with many independent schools this is not the case at Summerhill, where often examinations may be taken earlier or later to suit the needs of the individual. It is thus reasonable to compare the accumulated results attained in whatever year by Summerhill School leavers with national figures based on year 11 results.
These results are analysed in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1 – GCSE RESULTS ANALYSED
Numbers are too low in any one year to have statistical significance. When aggregated over the four years prior to the Ofsted inspection (i.e.1995-98) a total of 35 pupils produced 198 entries of which 144 or 73% were at the higher grades of A*-C. The average number of subjects per pupil passed at grades A*-C was 4.2. The national benchmark of number of pupils gaining five or more grades A*-C was 46% at Summerhill over this period. This compares favourably with the average figure for all maintained secondary schools of 42.7%.
The national trend is one of slight improvement year on year through this period. The trend at Summerhill is more sharply upward with the average number of graded entries per pupil rising for each successive year from 3.1, to 4.3, to 5.25 to 7.5 in 1998. The proportion of total entries being awarded higher A*-C grades rose from 72% in 1995 to 78% in 1998. The proportion of leavers attaining 5 or more A*-C grades moved similarly from 25% in 1995, to 33%, to 42%, reaching 67% in 1998. Although there were only 12 school leavers post GCSE in 1998, and to be fully statistically significant around 20 would be required, it is nonetheless interesting to note that the national maintained sector figure for 1998 was 44.4% compared to Summerhill’s 67%.
It should also be noted that 63% of the 35 pupils in the aggregated group did not have English as their first language and that a significant proportion of these could barely speak English at all on arrival at Summerhill.
Gender has been disregarded in this analysis as the four-year total would not have generated statistically significant groups and figures prior to 1994 were not available. |
It can be stated with confidence that, even by what Summerhill would see as the narrow academic criteria of success emphasised by Ofsted, these GCSE results do not support the judgement made in the 1999 Ofsted report that the education of the Summerhill students has been adversely affected because the school has “… drifted into (our emphasis) confusing educational freedom with the negative right not to be taught”. On the contrary, in terms of examination success, the trend over time is clearly upward.
It could possibly be argued that given the level of parental support and economic status conventional attainment at GCSE should show a bigger differential from the maintained sector average than is the case. This would involve failure to recognise the level of trauma, damage to self-esteem and even health that the parental questionnaires indicate as being the prior experience of schooling for a significant proportion of Summerhill pupils. When seen in this light the GCSE results could be said to constitute a noteworthy achievement for pupils and teachers especially as the school would not claim that they represented its highest priority as an outcome.
On the issue of assessment and testing we have to conclude that the case presented by Ofsted and by the Secretary of State is not supported by the evidence. Rather it seems that Ofsted inspectors arrived at Summerhill with a predetermined template as to how schools must operate assessment, irrespective of the philosophy, character or circumstances of a school.
