The UK Government is very keen that parents can choose where to send their children in the State schooling system. The theory is that "better" schools will grow and prosper, and failing schools will close. Very simple.
In practice parents make their choices based strongly on League tables of exam results, and also the opinions of friends and relatives. Middle class parents strive very hard to get their offspring into what they perceive as good schools, driving them miles to school if necessary (like Tony Blair's children) and even moving house to get in a relevant catchment area. The school run jams up the roads and pollutes the environment, but this strays from my point.
School funding is primarily based on the number of pupils you have on the roll and I believe that the more classes you have of a given size (say around 30) the more money they have to spend on goodies like extra-curricular activity, school trips etc. Schools therefore compete aggressively for new admissions, even exceeding their official admission ceilings, and have practices that facilitate recruitment of more able children- er, selection. The latter will help them to achieve good exam results later on to keep their advantage.
What about the less well off children from council estates and the like? Parents cannot afford the school run and send them to the local school which inevitably becomes a centre for disadvantaged and poorly behaved children. My view is that bright babies pop up in all strata of society (as do plonkers!) and that it is generally primarily good education that enables them to achieve their potential, irrespective of their background.
I therefore think that such schools should be subsidised, based on suitable criteria and data, to compensate for disadvantage. This funding should be for smaller class sizes, better teachesr, more training for teachers, not to mention school trips etc. I also think that geographical catchment areas should be adhered to so that schools are more likely to have a mix of ability - good for social cohesion, good for a stimulating environment, good for the environment. This currently happens in London and major urban areas but not elsewhere.
Also league tables should be based on value added (increase in performance of kids between assessment levels) which shows where the good teaching is, and not on outright achievement, which reflects where the profile of natural ability is higher.
In short I am with the Labour rebels on this one.
3 comments:
Just "on this one?" I'm with them not only on Education, but also on the proposals re ID cards, Racial hatred, Terrorism, Police restructuring and How-To-Look-After-Your-Cat.
And I still work for 'em!!
I wouldn't have heard about this if it weren't for my digital Observer subscription... or your blog! I think the same thing occurs here with catchment areas - but how do you get around it? From a personal perspective, I'm sure I've done better in life because you got me into a 'good' school. Being totally selfish, if I were a parent and knew my kids would get prospects at a 'good' school created by this system, I'd see it working in my favour. It really does screw the smart-but-poor kids though. Are there scholarships they can get, or anything like that?
There are a few scholarships but they are expensive to finance and therefore rare. One of the problems in the UK is that parents often judge schools primarily by the percentage of pupils who get 5 A* to C GCSE passes. Ideally their judgements should also include assessments of the school's ethos, and the breadth and suitability of the curriculum; inlcude a visit to in-scope schools to meet the Head and see the facilities, make and reference to the plethora of factual information now available on the web. In your case we did this and the choice was between two secondary schools and quite straightforward; it was less easy at middle school level.
There is a tiered system of choice for schools so that, e.g. 2nd and subsequent siblings get priority to join their older sibling at a school. Parents/pupils lower down the priority scale for their chosen school get anxious and this often creates a stampede towards the 'good' schools, with questionable practise by parents to get their own way (e.g move house at great expense)and by schools to get the brightest kids (selection by indirect methods). The result is that weak schools get weaker, and of course these are usually located in areas of deprivation. Because of poor educational attainment school leavers end up in low paid jobs, drift into crime, etc etc with potential bad consequences for the whole community.
Research shows that a balanced ability intake produces good results for all levels of child irrespective of their location. This is a situation for the Government to strive for but it is easier said than done.
Post a Comment