Target setting

In Moving Ahead the Liberal Democrats warned that whilst target setting can be a valuable tool for raising standards and making government more accountable, the "process needs to be open, accountable and consultative, as opposed to the secretive, Treasury-dominated exclusive system being put in place by the present government."

The level of national target setting has become excessive and is adding to the bureaucratic burden already facing teachers, schools and the Local Education Authorities (LEAs) resulting from OFSTED inspections and an overload of national initiatives from central government.

Liberal Democrat research showed that a staggering 4,585 targets has been set by the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) and its agencies and non-departmental bodies since May 1997.

Despite the fact that "Ministers do not want target-setting to overburden schools", these targets require 306,480,472 separate measures to be monitored - many on a quarterly basis.

National targets

585 targets have been set at a national level by the DfEE and its subsidiary bodies.

• Local targets
  LEAs are required to set their own attainment targets.  25 targets have been set for each LEA in their educational development plans and three further targets have been set for each LEA on delegated funding.
• Individual targets
  Through the national numeracy and literacy strategies, there are 74 targets for every individual primary pupil.

At the individual level, the issue goes beyond the number of targets set and the inherent bureaucracy that accompanies such an inflated level of interference.  The effect of the key targets set for performance in English and Maths at the age of 11 is a source of greater concern.  A national target of 80 per cent attaining Level 4 in English and 75 per cent in Maths provides nothing for pupils who are struggling or their teachers to aim at.

The same effect has been proved by research into the effect of performance tables on the teaching of GCSEs when anything below a C grade is regarded as a fail.

National targets which take no account of local or individual variations, simply put pressure on teachers to place more emphasis on borderline candidates at the expense of those at either the top or the bottom end of the scale.

Benefits of removing all targets

• The responsibility for children's learning is put back where it belongs - in schools and in the home, not in the DfEE;
• Schools have the flexibility to set objectives and targets for pupils which account for local needs and circumstances; 
• Differences in cohorts can be sensibly accounted for and improvements can be measured through rolling averages; 
• The time teachers spend monitoring national targets and dealing with the resulting bureaucracy is reduced, and can be more appropriately targeted to teaching;
• Additional 'coaching' of borderline pupils is no longer appropriate thus assuring 'every child' a fairer amount of teaching time;
• Parents are encouraged to participate in the development of their child, as they are part of the process to establish the development plan.

How are failing schools addressed?

If it is apparent through the new system that pupils are not showing improvement they are pulled into discussions with the LEA.  If the discussions do not then produce a favourable change, current procedures for such schools are brought into action.

Home | How to contact me | Advice sessions | Parliament | Constituency | Liberal Democrats