Most specialist schools are failing to fulfil the key objective of sharing their advantages with their neighbours, school inspectors say.

And the quality of teaching in the schools - which are to spearhead the Government’s secondary standards crusade - is no better than in non-specialist schools, according to a report from the Office for Standards in Education.

The Government justified its plan to expand specialist schools by saying they would share their extra resources with nearby schools and the community. But the new OFSTED investigation suggests most are failing to do this. Inspectors looked at specialist schools’ performance since they were set up in 1995 under the Tories.

Ministers want half of secondaries to specialise by 2005 in areas such as sport, technology or languages. They have pointed to higher standards in specialist schools to support their policy. But the report says that their rate of improvement at GCSE is only slightly higher than the national rate.

The 700 existing specialist schools receive on average an extra pound;84 per pupil per year. Though their GCSE results in 2000 were above average in their specialist subjects, inspectors said they should be doing better in the rest of the curriculum. In sports colleges, the proportion of pupils getting five A*-C grades was actually slightly below the national average.

OFSTED found “the community dimension was the weakest element of specialist schools’ work”.

The report said: “Most schools have found their community role challenging to define and pursue. However sports colleges have responded well ... the community role is one of their strengths.”

Chief inspector Mike Tomlinson said: “Success in specialist subjects is not yet having the expected impact on remaining subjects.”

Inspectors found four-fifths of the 46 schools surveyed were providing good value for money. They were using capital and annual grants to good effect, upgrading facilities and equipment, improving staffing and providing better professional development.

But some specialist schools were not linking spending to targets and had missed opportunities to attract or keep good staff.

Unions fear a two-tier system similar to grammars and secondary moderns. They argue extra resources should be available to all schools. John Dunford, general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association said, given teaching was no better, the performance of specialist schools must be down to funding.

He said: “Some excellent work is being done by specialist schools. With Ofsted finding the same quality of teaching as in other schools, there is clearly a link between specialists’ additional funding and their improved performance.”

Doug McAvoy, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers said:

“Their (specialists’) success should be spread to pupils in every secondary. The extra resources should be available to the many and not just the select few.”

Nigel de Gruchy, general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers claimed the report showed that the specialist schools scheme was a sham.

He said: “Overall their performance is only slightly better than the national average. The brutal reality is that many, if not most, of the schools have become specialist to gain the extra money.”

A spokesman for the Department of Education and Skills said: “Specialist schools know that when they seek renewal of their status every four years, they must prove that they are sharing their expertise more widely. Those that fail to do so could lose their status.”

Liz Reid, education director of the Technology Colleges Trust was not available for comment.