How the truth about state schools is twisted by journalists who go private - read Fiona Millar's and Melissa Benn's excellent piece in this week's New Statesman
http://www.newstatesman.com/education/2009/03/state-school-private-children
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
21st century schooling
The left of centre pressure group Compass is holding a competition for policy ideas on how to live in the 21st century. We have submitted our aim to end selection on ability and aptitude.
Read the submission from Comprehensive Future on the Compass website http://www.compassonline.org.uk/
Read the submission from Comprehensive Future on the Compass website http://www.compassonline.org.uk/
EDM on ending selection
David Chaytor MP has tabled an Early Day Motion (867) calling for an end to selection. We are keen to get as many MPs in support as possible. Please contact your MP urging his/her support.
Find on http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=37944&SESSION=899
Find on http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=37944&SESSION=899
Tuesday, 22 May 2007
Selective criticism
If the Conservatives are now convinced that grammar schools really are bad for Britain, why is David Cameron not calling for existing selection to end? Could it be because the majority of the remaining 164 grammar schools in England are in Tory-held constituencies? If, as he and David Willetts have argued, selection by ability was wrong, why is it still right in some parts of England? It is an absurdity that we have outlawed selection via the back door and - as Alan Johnson said, at the recent Fabian/Progress deputy leadership hustings - via the "attic window", but still allow it through the front door in 36 local authorities in England. If David Cameron really is a conviction politician, he could easily take the position that being opposed to selection does not automatically mean that you want grammar schools to close. In a post-selection world, there is absolutely no reason why the remaining 164 grammar schools in England (there are no grammar schools in Wales or Scotland, and they are on the way out in Northern Ireland) should not remain pretty much as they are now. They would have the same buildings, the same governors, the same headteachers and staff, the same resources, the same curriculum, uniform and largely the same funding. The only real change would be to the academic profile of the pupils attending the school.
What Cameron, Willetts and others apparently now accept is that the familiar claim that grammar schools offered an "escape from poverty" to bright working-class children otherwise denied real educational opportunity relied heavily on highlighting individual successes, without establishing how representative they actually were. If this is historically accurate, then what is the situation today? The truth is that the surviving 164 grammar schools are, in the main, schools for the middle classes.
In England, in 2005, the proportion of children eligible for free school meals (an imperfect but commonly used indicator of social disadvantage) was much lower in selective than in non-selective schools in every one of the 36 local authorities that retain at least some grammar schools. In the 15 boroughs with around 20% or more of their pupils in grammar schools, the average percentage of children eligible for free school meals in those schools was 1.8% - compared with an English average of 18.1%.Like Tony Blair, David Cameron talks a good deal about choice. The idea of "choice" in education is all too often ill-defined. Parents can exercise a preference in terms of schools: few can exercise any real choice. A selective system of schooling does not lead to diversity of provision; it simply leads to division.
Selection is not the creation of choice, rather it is the denial of choice for the many. A selective system (be it based on ability or aptitude) does not help promote a diverse system of schooling; it simply helps perpetuate division in society as a whole. There now appears to be cross-party consensus that selective schools are not escape routes from poverty, do not offer good value for money and do not help raise standards overall. It is now time to address, once and for all, the archaic and socially exclusive policy of academic selection.
I doubt whether David Cameron has the stomach for it, but what about Gordon Brown?
What Cameron, Willetts and others apparently now accept is that the familiar claim that grammar schools offered an "escape from poverty" to bright working-class children otherwise denied real educational opportunity relied heavily on highlighting individual successes, without establishing how representative they actually were. If this is historically accurate, then what is the situation today? The truth is that the surviving 164 grammar schools are, in the main, schools for the middle classes.
In England, in 2005, the proportion of children eligible for free school meals (an imperfect but commonly used indicator of social disadvantage) was much lower in selective than in non-selective schools in every one of the 36 local authorities that retain at least some grammar schools. In the 15 boroughs with around 20% or more of their pupils in grammar schools, the average percentage of children eligible for free school meals in those schools was 1.8% - compared with an English average of 18.1%.Like Tony Blair, David Cameron talks a good deal about choice. The idea of "choice" in education is all too often ill-defined. Parents can exercise a preference in terms of schools: few can exercise any real choice. A selective system of schooling does not lead to diversity of provision; it simply leads to division.
Selection is not the creation of choice, rather it is the denial of choice for the many. A selective system (be it based on ability or aptitude) does not help promote a diverse system of schooling; it simply helps perpetuate division in society as a whole. There now appears to be cross-party consensus that selective schools are not escape routes from poverty, do not offer good value for money and do not help raise standards overall. It is now time to address, once and for all, the archaic and socially exclusive policy of academic selection.
I doubt whether David Cameron has the stomach for it, but what about Gordon Brown?
Friday, 18 May 2007
Comprehensive Future welcomes new Tory policy on selection
Comprehensive Future (CF) has welcomed David Willett's public statement that selection at 11 is not the route to increased social mobility. We now have cross party consensus on this issue. So it is very wrong to allow the situation to remain that across the country thousands of children in England are given a message of failure at 11 because of selective schools. Ending selection would raise aspirations and encourage young people to stay on in education. We have proposed that Government should require plans be drawn up to end selection at 11 in the many areas in England where it remains. Money should be made available to fund the changes. Parents could be given the right to petition and ballot against the change if they so wish, instead of the current situation where parents have to ballot to end selection.
Faith schools - back door selection?
According to Oona Stannard, the director of the Catholic Education Service (CES), it is "spurious to suggest that to take away a religious community's right to firstly educate its own children and to instead give preference to others, for example, by introducing a 30% non-faith quota for Church schools, would aid social cohesion."
Really? As someone whose teaching career has been solely in the VA RC sector, I would argue that it is neither spurious nor contrary to the mission of the Church. Indeed, I would go further and challenge the CES to publish a complete list of Catholic schools - particularly secondaries - where it is already customary that between 20-30% of the intake is from other faith (or non-faith) backgrounds.I personally welcomed the Lord's amendment to the Education and Inspection Bill on admissions to schools with a religious character, along with other possible changes to the government's code on admissions. At the time I argued that such a proposal would signal a positive move towards greater social and educational inclusion. A truly "Christian school" would be one that seeks to be open to all - and which pays particular attention to the needs of marginalised and poorer communities.
What is needed is a mature, open and honest debate about the type of educational system various faith groups would be happy to support and indeed help shape in the twenty-first century. Should it be an inclusive, comprehensive system that intrinsically values and caters for all pupils regardless of their spiritual, economic or social capital? Or should it be a two tier, elitist system that perpetuates privilege, does not help promote the common good and is contrary to the message of the gospel?
If you are interested in this topic then why not attend Comprehensive Future's parliamentary seminar (Faith schools - selection by the back door?) on Tuesday May 22nd (5.30pm in Portcullis House).
The event will be chaired by David Chaytor MP and the speakers are Sarah Tough, author of the recent IPPR report on school admissions, Rev Jan Ainsworth Church of England Chief Education Officer and Professor Anne West who will talk about her latest research.
If you are interested in attending email me at: mike-ion@hotmail.co.uk
Really? As someone whose teaching career has been solely in the VA RC sector, I would argue that it is neither spurious nor contrary to the mission of the Church. Indeed, I would go further and challenge the CES to publish a complete list of Catholic schools - particularly secondaries - where it is already customary that between 20-30% of the intake is from other faith (or non-faith) backgrounds.I personally welcomed the Lord's amendment to the Education and Inspection Bill on admissions to schools with a religious character, along with other possible changes to the government's code on admissions. At the time I argued that such a proposal would signal a positive move towards greater social and educational inclusion. A truly "Christian school" would be one that seeks to be open to all - and which pays particular attention to the needs of marginalised and poorer communities.
What is needed is a mature, open and honest debate about the type of educational system various faith groups would be happy to support and indeed help shape in the twenty-first century. Should it be an inclusive, comprehensive system that intrinsically values and caters for all pupils regardless of their spiritual, economic or social capital? Or should it be a two tier, elitist system that perpetuates privilege, does not help promote the common good and is contrary to the message of the gospel?
If you are interested in this topic then why not attend Comprehensive Future's parliamentary seminar (Faith schools - selection by the back door?) on Tuesday May 22nd (5.30pm in Portcullis House).
The event will be chaired by David Chaytor MP and the speakers are Sarah Tough, author of the recent IPPR report on school admissions, Rev Jan Ainsworth Church of England Chief Education Officer and Professor Anne West who will talk about her latest research.
If you are interested in attending email me at: mike-ion@hotmail.co.uk
Wednesday, 28 March 2007
Backdoor selection
According to the London Evening Standard many so called 'top' state schools could face compensation claims for cherry-picking the brightest pupils. Parents will challenge the widespread use of "backdoor" selection techniques that are favouring middle-class high-fliers.
Never mind back door selection - it is selection via the front door that we need to tackle first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
