Conor Ryan: We may have too many – but targets do work

The chief inspector of schools, David Bell, recently expressed concern that innovation and reform in schools may be inhibited by an over-concentration on targets. His head of inspection, David Taylor, later told MPs that poor test results at 11 may contribute to some boys' sense of failure. And a Kent primary school headteacher was jailed last month for fiddling test papers to boost his school's results.

Ministers have had to accept that they set too many targets in their first term. And the Government's over-ambitious goals for the 2004 primary English and maths tests don't help to convince parents and teachers of the value of tests and targets. The goals were set to appease the Treasury before results had stalled. But scrapping targets or abolishing primary school tests would be a mistake. Indeed there is growing evidence that targets make the biggest difference to the poorest pupils.

Last year's primary test results disappointed ministers who missed their literacy and numeracy objectives. Yet a closer inspection reveals how some disadvantaged authorities, once slammed for their appallingly low standards, achieved remarkable improvements. Nationally, the proportion of 11-year-olds reaching level 4 in English rose by 12 percentage points since 1997. But the deprived East London borough of Tower Hamlets saw a 23 point increase, while the go-ahead Merseyside authority of Knowsley rose 17 points.

And while reporting of the Youth Cohort Study – the two-yearly government survey of 16-year-olds – focused on a dip in GCSE achievement among black pupils, the same study also showed the gap between different socio-economic groups narrowing significantly, with the children of unskilled parents improving most between 2000 and 2002. Were such improvements followed through at A-level, debate about universities lowering standards to widen access would be redundant.

Earlier this week Professor David Jesson of York University published his second value-added analysis for the Specialist Schools Trust. He compared actual and predicted GCSE results with test results at 11, an easier to understand approach than the Government's league tables, which grouped schools around a notional score of 100 and split comparisons between 11- to 14-year-olds and 14- to 16-year-olds.

Jesson's conclusions are further evidence that targets work: specialist schools, which must agree demanding targets to get extra funding, get better than predicted GCSEs. Talking to heads of those schools that add the greatest value, one is also struck by the importance they attach to making effective use of data and monitoring progress. Along with good teaching and leadership, they see these as the essentials of school improvement.

The wide range of such information available allows teachers to translate targets into realistic benchmarks for individual pupils. But the data explosion also offers an unexpected opportunity for greater creativity and innovation, since accountability is assured through inspection, published exam results and better informed parents.

What ministers have taken to calling the "informed professional" – the teacher – thus becomes more powerful. Being able to benchmark progress enables her to tailor the curriculum to meet the needs of her own classroom. With information technology, she should more easily be able to analyse data. And if the Government introduces more support staff, she should have help to deal with extra paperwork and administration.

Ofsted's inspection reports show how important effective use of data is to success. Indeed good schools suggest the problem is often not so much the targets, or even their ambition. Rather it is how they are presented by politicians – a lesson junior minister Stephen Twigg learned recently after he sent a fairly abrupt missive to heads about next year's targets.

David Bell also argues that the targets that teachers set for their own pupils are ultimately the most important. Sometimes they may not fit easily into local or national targets. But with published results and inspection reports, they will contribute to higher standards. After all, what matters most is that they improve opportunities for those previously written off by low expectations and a lack of ambition.

The writer was David Blunkett's political adviser from 1993 to 2001

education@independent.co.uk