My bolding. Really? Not around here, they weren’t.
Every attempt at getting schools to measure themselves against one another, including league tables, is an encroachment of the idea that they are or should be in competition with one another. It’s hard to think of major government ‘initiatives’ which haven’t had this principle in them in some way or other.
Please let’s agree that you don’t want schools as different as Oxford, Thames Valley and Aston universities. Please?
And you’re putting words in my mouth. There’s bad teachers at ‘outstanding’ schools (I could name names quite easily). There’s brilliant teachers at schools which, while not in dire straits, are never going to be great by numeric measures because of the huge challenges facing many of the kids.
:: must not hit submit before thinking ::
The other thing I wanted to add…I did the rough sums a while back of how much it would cost a parent to attend open days/evenings at three ‘desirable’ schools near to where they lived, based on the places I teach. As a proportion of Incapacity Benefit (which seemed a decent measure of a low-income family’s expenditure). Living in Ipswich it would be about 10%, spent on bus fares. In some places, it would be the entire week’s budget, because there’s no way to get to anything other than the local high school other than with a car or taxi.
My point? Introduce opportunities to go further afield, and the poor will be least able to take them.
And it’s where the government consistently goes wrong. As long as schools are viewing them as my kids and your kids they’re completely forgetting that they’re our kids. This runs through the principle whereby heads of successful schools will often do whatever they can not to take pupils with SEN or who have been exlcuded from other schools because it will potentially drag their school down. The concern is for their KS3/GCSE results, not the education of the children in question.
This CANNOT be right, and until there is some incentive for schools to give a shit about pupils they don’t teach directly the system will never be able to fulfil its true potential.
I’m conscious we’ve moved a long way from the original question, but I think this just shows that any discussion about education in this country comes down to selection, admissions and (effectively) the unfairness of the class system.
I looked after a large number of schools and they all loved them.
And there’s nothing wrong with that. It works fine in the charitable sector. The aim should be to do the best for the children. And if that means showing up a school as a failure then that’s good: parents won’t send their children there.
We already have that: Eton etc. Surely the trick is to make better use of the better schools and not force everyone to the lowest common denominator?
I disagree: it will be the unmotivated, not the poor. The poor but motivated will find a way, by tightening their belts, by persuading a friend to take them, by charity, by persuading Social Services to foot the bill, or some other means. Granted it was a decade ago, but I saw it when I worked for a County Council: competition to get into the grammar schools was cut-throat and motivated parents tried everything. Ironically, the results from the secondary schools were almost as good.
I’ve never worked in an area that was inflicted with the unmitigated disaster that is the Comprensive system, so things may well be different there.
Choice is good.
IIRC Ivylass is making considerable sacrifices to have her son privately educated.
one of Norman Tebbit’s better mottos. I don’t see why someone who doesn’t make an effort should get something. There are plenty of means of help out there, it’s up to the person to take advantage of them.
You’re brushing the problem under the carpet by saying this. Where should a family turn for help if they’ve got no means to visit any schools? Add to that, for instance, no public transport. And how do they look after the other kids? And so on.
Are you talking about a child actually attending a school? If so, we’re not on the same topic - I’m asking how a family in these circumstances can even begin to find out how to exploit the system best. Are you really telling me that middle-class families don’t find it easier to find out about which schools offer the best opportunities for their children?
No. you appear to be saying that the poor would not be able to take advantage of choice in schools, and I am telling you that this is not true. While a middle-class family may well find it easier, there are plenty of resources available to the poor: public libraries (which nowadays often have internet terminals, facilitating research), social services, charities, etc.
I was saying that poorer families will in many cases find it more difficult. And you’re agreeing with that. So you’re happy for children from those families to be at a disadvantage, as long as it’s not too great a disadvantage? (And maybe it’s just because of where I’m from, but I’ve got a rural perspective on this…no good the library having internet access if you can’t get there)
I wanted to indicate that it was not possible for all families. I’ve not changed that.
Nice.
You’ve provided hopeful statements.
Minority, maybe, but not a ‘very small’ one. And are you saying that all systems should be based around London-centric problems, and everybody else should cope however they can? That’s how may discussions about ‘city academies’ and the like end up being seen by large parts of the country.
Absolutely. I wish that anybody who argues about ‘choice’ could at the same time explain how to deal with places where simple geographical matters make this a problem in itself.