Rescue Our Schools

Latest News

Something went very wrong this summer in our education system. Thousands of teenagers were subjected to extreme levels of stress as they were subjected to the new, and much harder GCSEs.

Meanwhile, more than a third of eleven-year-olds were labelled as ‘below the expected standard’ in SATs tests. This is not education, it is punishment.

We are calling for an urgent and independent inquiry into the mental health impact of GCSEs, SATs and the increasing focus on formal testing in schools.

This is the first step in questioning the whole system. PLEASE SIGN OUR PETITION HERE.

This year’s SATs results show that more than a third of eleven-year-olds ‘failed’ the tests: they will be told by next week that they are ‘not secondary school ready’. In what sense are we raising standards, as the schools minister Nick Gibb so predictably claimed? And what do the scores tell us anyway, except that the curriculum is becoming horribly narrowed and students and teachers often horribly stressed. Time to ditch SATs for good. They are damaging and pointless. Read the Independent article here.

The press might well be reporting on rising standards, as in this BBC News article, but we feel that eleven is too young for any child to feel a failure.

“At a time when their minds could have been stimulated and their knowledge expanded, their education has been sacrificed to a system which is in thrall to league tables”

Madeleine Holt, of More Than A Score and Rescue Our Schools.


It’s been a long, hot exam season. But this year has seen even more pressures than usual, with the introduction of the new GCSEs and A levels. Testing and high stakes exams have become the new normal for our children – from baseline testing for 4 year olds, through to memorising large chunks of text for students taking English GCSE.

This isn’t the educational experience we think children need.

RoS contines to campaign vigorously against baseline testing 4 year olds, and our long-standing concerns about SATs featured in our last newsletter.

We want to know what you think about the new GCSEs and A Levels, so we can direct our campaign efforts most effectively.

Here are links to two surveys: one for secondary school teachers/leaders, and one for parents.

They are very short, but include an option for you to comment freely on the new exams and the impact they have had for your children or pupils.

Please share the links on social media and with friends and colleagues.


More than thirty grammar schools are seeking a share of the £50 million Selective School Expansion Fund, and although it’s a condition of expansion that the schools produce an “ambitious and deliverable” plan to improve access for disadvantaged pupils many schools have provided no details of how they will increase their proportion of poorer pupils. Read the full post here


Have you heard of the Big Education Conversation?

Some 100 teachers, heads, parents, business and community leaders gathered at Manchester University to kick off the Big Education Conversation last week. The aim of BEC is to get everyone – students, grandmothers, business people, you name it – discussing what the point of our education system should be. The event saw three ‘provocations’ to get us all thinking: one from David Price, who edited Education Forward, out of which BEC has emerged; Mel Ainscow, Professor of Education at the University of Manchester and an authority on promoting equality in education; and Rosie Clayton, who launched the Reimagining Education project for Big Change. The event seemed timely as the media have got on board with a highly charged discussion about this summer’s GCSEs and A-Levels. Student stress has reportedly gone through the roof. What’s the point of these exams? Do high test scores really equal high standards? It’s time to ask some fundamental questions about what it is all about…

An expert report says government plans to test four-year-olds in maths and literacy are “flawed, unjustified, and wholly unfit for purpose. They would be detrimental to children, parents, teachers, and the wider education system in England.”
The report, by the British Educational Research Association (BERA) demolishes the case for so-called baseline assessment, which the government is due to start trialling in September. The scheme is due to cost £10 million to roll out.
The report demonstrates that testing four and five year olds as they start school cannot possibly produce valid and reliable results. The test is intended by the Government to produce a score by which children can be measured, and schools held accountable. BERA has shown that the test cannot in fact do what it is intended to do: it is useless, grossly expensive and clearly not fit for purpose. If it goes ahead, England will become the first country in the world to subject children to standardised testing at such a young age.

Rescue Our Schools believes that baseline testing will create stress for children entering school for the first time. It will encourage nursery and early years teachers to teach to the test, and spread to early years classes the testing culture which has done so much harm to primary and secondary schools. We support the campaign by More than a Score to challenge this cruel test.
If you a parent willing to speak to a reputable newspaper about baseline testing, please get in touch with us asap today at

We would like to hear from parents who struggle with getting their children to school due to transport costs. Read this example of a council who have no regard for this issue.

Suffolk County Council was happy to be seen as an ideological test bed when Free schools were the new show in town, even though they knew they would end up with a significant surplus of secondary schools and secondary school places. So they ended up providing transport in order for pupils to have a choice between catchment and free schools, as “choice” was the whole point of allowing the free schools in the first place. Now they claim to be providing ‘more than the legal minimum’ in school transport, and want to make savings. So the established catchment schools will be paying the price in lost pupils. Not to mention the lost opportunities for pupils who should be attending schools large enough to provide a broad curriculum.

The council have the results of their consultation on changes to school transport: an overwhelming “NO”. Yet they persist in the idea that getting children to school by bus is some kind of luxury. It’s not. It’s not only essential educationally, it’s the only practical and environmentally-sustainable way to get thousands of children to school in a rural county. Unless, of course their ultimate plan is that all people of school age live in the middle of town ….and villages become dormitories for the rich and retired.

It should be the council paying the consequences of the Free School experiment, not the schools or parents.

Following on from our concerns with the ever increasingly high bar set for GCSEs, what would our secondary education look  like if universities took the lead and scrapped selection at entry?

A good piece writted by Laura McInerney in Schools Week ponders this fact :

We don’t ask you to join many petitions, but we think this one is really worth signing up for.

Here is a great article written by Emily Gopaul about a subject very close to our hearts. Read the article here:

To foster a love of art in children, we must teach it at primary school

RoS co-founder was invited onto LBC radio last tuesday to speak about Michael Gove’s policy to increase the content of the GCSE syllabus. Listen here


We would love to hear your views and your stories if you have children taking these exams this year. How are they coping? What do you think about what they have to learn?

What should a National Education Service look like? The Labour Party are consulting now.

In their Manifesto for the 2017 General Election, the Labour Party committed to developing a National Education Service. Now the Labour Party has published a short consultation on the NES, and wants to hear from anyone interested in education (NOT just from party members!)

How is RoS planning to respond?
We are responding in two ways. Firstly, RoS is part of an alliance of education campaign groups known as Reclaiming Education, which has developed a group response which you can see here Secondly, we are also submitting our own response.

RoS’ Response
Last year, we at RoS published our own Manifesto – our priorities for the changes needed on a range of issues if our education system is to be fit for purpose in the 21st Century (that means meeting our children’s needs and the requirements of employers and society). We will be submitting our Manifesto in response to the Labour Party consultation, and explaining how the Labour Party proposals so far address – or not – our concerns. Our initial thoughts on this are set out below, but we would like to include more comments, views and examples from you, our supporters.

The consultation sets out ten principles and some specific questions. Here they are, together with our initial thoughts. Do you agree? Please let us know what you think.

The 10 Principles set out in the Labour Party Consultation
1. Education has intrinsic value in giving all people access to the common body of knowledge we share, and practical value in allowing all to participate fully in our society. These principles shall guide the National Education Service.

Yes, education has intrinsic value. But it’s vital that education covers not just knowledge but also the skills and cultural capital to use it effectively. We now live in an era where much knowledge is easily and instantly obtainable – but developing the ability to analyse, interpret and refine that knowledge, and acquiring creative and interpersonal skills, is what will make a difference to our work and home lives.

2. The National Education Service shall provide education that is free at the point of use, available universally and throughout life.

Education is a right, it should be available universally. We agree with the intention to increase access to childcare provision and the plans to change the funding model (current policy is penalising providers, misleading parents and making it hard for some to access childcare). As part of the Fair Funding for All Schools campaign we have always been clear that schools are struggling in the face of increased costs and reduced budgets. Further Education has seen its funding cut even further – yet is now supposed to be delivering more than ever. It is absolutely imperative that Labour commits to increasing funding for schools and colleges.

3. The National Education Service provides education for the public good and all providers within the National Education Service shall be bound by the principles of this charter.

We agree. RoS was founded in direct response to the 2016 proposals on forced academisation of all schools. Even though the headlines of that policy have softened, schools across the country have been forced into Multi Academy Chains with no clear accountability to parents or local authorities. In many cases these MATs have proved unable to meet the challenges facing local schools, but left parents (and councils) with no means of redress. Schools need to be rooted in communities, not hidden behind corporate branding.

4. High quality education is essential to a strong and inclusive society and economy, so the National Education Service shall work alongside the health, sustainability, and industrial policies set by democratically elected government.

Yes. Silo working in government departments risks losing people between the cracks, duplicates effort and wastes resource. But it’s easy to talk up joined-up working – actually doing it in practice means agreeing on the principles and compromising on control of the detail. We look forward to seeing what this means in practice – Young people’s mental health would be a great place to start.

5. Every child, and adult, matters, so the National Education Service will be committed to tackling all barriers to learning, and providing high-quality education for all.

Yes every child does matter. But at the moment, children with SEN are being left behind, and more children face exclusion. And schools are expected to pick up the pieces for failures in social policy (by providing breakfast for children whose parents cannot afford it, for instance).
Current and previous governments (including Labour) have been caught up in the mantra of ‘parent choice’. In our experience, what parents want is a good local school for their children. Adding choice just for the sake of it creates a distraction and diverts resources, without benefitting all children overall.

6. All areas of skill and learning deserve respect; the National Education Service will provide all forms of education, integrating academic, technical and other forms of learning within and outside of educational institutions, and treating all with equal respect.

This principle should explicitly include creative, personal and cultural learning. It should also include a commitment to independent expert review of the need for qualifications at 16 as well as 18 – and to implementing the results of that review.

7. Educational excellence is best achieved through collaboration and the National Education Service will be structured to encourage and enhance cooperation across boundaries and sectors.

We agree. Collaboration achieves so much more than competition. London Challenge proved this some years ago.

8. The National Education Service shall be accountable to the public, communities, and parents and children that it serves. Schools, colleges, and other public institutions within the National Education Service should be rooted in their communities, with parents and communities empowered, via appropriate democratic means, to influence change where it is needed and ensure that the education system meets their needs. The appropriate democratic authority will set, monitor and allocate resources, ensuring that they meet the rights, roles, and responsibilities of individuals and institutions.

Yes. We need a return to local accountability for all schools. Local authorities need to be able to plan effectively for school places and to be held accountable for supporting schools and promoting collaboration.
To use limited resources effectively, Labour will need to commit to making decisions which may be unpopular with some – but will ultimately benefit all. Grammar schools have remained in place for political reasons, not educational ones. It is time to end selection. Labour must also review the need for additional schools which are surplus to requirements and only provided to increase parental choice (such as free schools in rural areas), and enable Local Authorities to take action when required.

9. The National Education Service aspires to the highest standards of excellence and professionalism. Educators and all other staff will be valued as highly-skilled professionals, and appropriate accountability will be balanced against giving genuine freedom of judgement and innovation. The National Education Service shall draw on evidence and international best practice, and provide appropriate professional development and training.

We agree.

10. The National Education Service must have the utmost regard to the well-being of learners and educators, and its policies and practices, particularly regarding workload, assessment, and inspection, will support the emotional, social and physical well-being of students and staff.

We agree, but these are easy words to say – the policy detail is what will ultimately make a difference. Those policies must include 1) reducing political interference in matters that should be left to experts (such as appropriate assessment and curriculum detail), 2) including emotional, social and physical wellbeing of students and staff in the school inspection framework, and 3) breaking the link between assessment and school accountability. There are other ways of measuring teacher and school performance that do not result in teaching to the test and reducing access to cultural, creative and technical education.

The 10 Questions in the Labour Party Consultation
1. What should a National Education Service be for and what values should it and the draft charter embody?

The purpose of the National Education Service should be to enable all children, young people and adults to develop the abilities, knowledge and skills needed to become engaged, confident and healthy citizens, able to contribute creatively and purposefully in and outside work to the goal of a more cohesive society. In order to achieve this, it must ensure access to life-long learning for all, in order that people can thrive in an increasingly automated world.

2. What amendments, if any, should be made to the principles outlined in the draft charter for the National Education Service? 

Please see our responses to the individual principles.

3. What additional principles should be considered for the charter of the NES?
The following need to be added to the principles of the NES:
• The purpose of the NES
• Commitment to reducing micro-management by politicians in education matters (what happens in the classroom is for experts, not politicians).
• Comprehensive education for all – an end to selection at age 11.

4. What barriers currently exist to cooperation between education institutions, and what steps can be taken to remove them and ensure that cooperation is a central principle of our education system?

This is a complex question that needs more comprehensive consultation given the current state of the schools system, with MATs vying for business in some places and actively trying to discharge responsibility for schools in difficult situations. Fundamentally, the Labour Party needs to commit to ending the market in schools.

5. Through which channels and mechanisms should the public be able to hold educational institutions to account, and how should this vary across different educational bodies?

We want to see a return to local accountability, with a clear role for local authorities and elected councilors, and with parents and communities empowered to influence change when it is needed. Current arrangements – including RSCs, DfE, local authorities and Ofsted, are multi-layered and confusing, and yet there is no effective oversight of MATs. Labour should consult widely before setting out new policy on this area in order to ensure that the new system is fit for purpose.

6. What can we do to reduce the fragmentation of the education system, and to move towards an approach that is integrated and promotes lifelong learning?

This is another complex question that will require more careful consideration and options appraisal, given the current state of the schools system. Withdraw the market in schools so that neighbouring schools are not actively competing for pupils, and can instead concentrate on collaboration. Link establishments more clearly at local level, alongside implementing the changes needed to local accountability. Remove charitable status from private schools.

7. How do we improve the quality of early years education, in particular with relation to qualifications and staffing levels? 

Labour should look to the evidence from Germany and other European countries on early years and raising the age of school entry. Early years education does not have to take place in schools in order to be effective.

8. How do we achieve genuine parity of esteem between academic and vocational/technical education? How do we improve outcomes for those young people who do not choose to follow what is seen as the traditional academic route?

Government at all levels needs to be seen to be valuing vocational and technical education as highly as academic education, rather than always focusing on university entrance. This is a debate about the kind of society we want to live in, rather than simply a matter of talking about specific kinds of education.

9. What can be done to ensure that the NES has the staff it needs, in particular with reference to the ongoing crisis in teacher recruitment and retention?

Ask the teaching unions, the teachers, the education colleges, and put their recommendations into action! More broadly, remove the link between assessment and school accountability, which is distorting the curriculum, creating unnecessary work for teachers and school leaders and affecting morale. Increase funding so that childcare providers, schools and colleges have the resources they require rather than being expected to struggle on without the support staff, planning time and materials needed.

10. What steps can be taken, at both the training stage and during continuing professional development (CPD), to ensure that teachers and support staff have the knowledge and resources they need to teach the whole curriculum? For instance, with reference to mandatory, age-appropriate relationships and sex education (RSE) and personal, social and health education (PSHE).

Effective, evidence-based delivery of mandatory RSE /PSHE across the primary and secondary curriculum should be included in the school inspection framework. At local level, the new accountability framework for schools should facilitate links with public health and mental health (both providers and commissioners). More broadly, the NES needs to champion the intrinsic value of RSE/PSHE rather than treating both as an add-on. Similarly, the NES should clearly articulate and promote CPD as the means by which teaching staff can both access and contribute to the evidence base, and increase access to options such as sabbaticals.

What do you think?

Do you agree with our responses to the Labour Party NES principles and questions? If so, is there anything you would like to add? If no, can you tell us why not? Please let us know as soon as possible. Deadline is this Sunday.

You may prefer to submit comments and questions directly. If so, go to to view the comments and discussions so far, and to find out how to submit comments and feedback. The deadline is Sunday 24th June.