School systems: comprehensive, selective or what?

"We trained hard... but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation." - Petronius Arbiter, 210 BC

Brightest pupils 'don't need private schools'

State sixth-formers are just as effective as independent schools at bringing out the best in bright pupils, according to research. Professor David Jesson tracked the progress of the top 20% of pupils in GCSEs. He counted how many went on to gain three top grades at A-level and checked which type of school or college they attended. The analysis showed little difference - 71% for state school sixth forms and 74% for sixth-form colleges against 75% at independents.

(Daily Mail, 4 December 2006)

Social class still counts at school

A study by The Sutton Trust, has shown that independent schools can raise the performance of children from working class homes but those from richer backgrounds continue to have an advantage. The study reports that pupils at private schools attained more that their peers in state schools and were more likely to gain places at elite universities.

Across all school types children from the lower social classes attained less highly than those of similar ability from richer homes. The study, following the progress of 300 bright pupils who were educated under the Assisted Places scheme introduced by the Conservative government in 1980, found that they were more likely to drop out of, or to fail at, university, almost one in 10 compared with one in 17 of those from state schools.

Part of the reason, according to the report, was that many assisted children felt isolated and out of place in their new schools. The scheme was abandoned when Labour came to power in 1997.

(Telegraph, July 10 2006)

Schools face new rules to balance ethnic mixture

Schools are to be required to balance the social and racial mix of all their pupils under new government rules designed to end backdoor selection. In plans described as a 'minefield' by headteachers, schools will also have to carry out detailed research into applicants to ensure they "attract all sections of local communities".

At the same time they will be banned from asking about the financial, employment, or marital status of parents before a child is admitted, to ensure fairness. Heads will also be barred from inquiring about a child's "behaviour or attitude" at primary school when deciding on admissions.

Ministers were given a warning last night that the rules their proposed new admissions code would create extra red tape for staff and divert resources from teaching. John Dunford, of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: "These proposals are inconsistent and I think they will place impossible demands on headteachers."

(The Times, 4 May 2006)

Implications of Government proposals on parental choice

Alan Smithers, Professor of Education, and director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at the University of Buckingham, discusses the implications of the Government's plans for independent schools and parental choice:

It is unclear how the Government's preferred solution of parental choice across independent trust schools would actually work. The hope seems to be that, through measures such as choice advisers and free school transport, many parents who do not now make choices will be enabled to do so, and that sponsorships and partnerships will raise the number of good school places. The Government appears to be taking its inspiration from such schemes as the Chicago Public Schools Choice Programme, where there is solid evidence that parental preference has had a major impact on reducing racial segregation.

Research from Sweden, however, is not so encouraging. There, the National Agency for Education conducted a review of reforms that have seen that country moving towards something like what is envisaged for England. This revealed that, while school development could be enhanced, "school choice reinforces segregation both ethnically and in terms of performance".

Why the diametrically opposed findings? In part, the difference stems from the starting points. In Chicago, the sharp racial division between schools broke down as ambitious black parents sought places in high performing "white" schools. But, in Sweden, where schools were initially more homogenous, the highly educated exercised their right to choose to a greater extent and converged on the same schools. As a result, the agency said, "a clear division not only of pupils but also schools into 'better' and 'worse' is today a reality".

There is another important difference between Chicago and Sweden, and that is how they have dealt with the inevitability that the supply of school places will not exactly match the wishes of parents and, therefore, some schools will have a lot more applicants than they can take. In Sweden, academic selection is ruled out, but it has crept in - for example, schools may offer diagnostic tests and counsel prospective parents on the likelihood of their child's success and/or encourage special tutoring as a condition of getting a place. So the way is open for schools and parents to manipulate the system. In contrast, Chicago decided that the places in oversubscribed schools should be settled by ballot, contributing to a more even spread of pupils.

The debate in England has tended to centre on the potential for increased academic selection by trust schools controlling their own admissions. Less attention has been given to what the National Union of Teachers has memorably called "all sorts of fancy footwork". An admissions code, whether mandatory or not, will be vulnerable to those lightest on their feet.

If the Government's objective is social justice, the transparent fairness of settling places by ballot has much to commend it. Even this, however, would not be enough, because there is nothing in the proposals to encourage schools actively to seek out disadvantaged pupils so that they get into any ballot. Without this, places in the best schools would still be shared out among parents like those who apply for them now.

The current policy is to close failing schools and replace them with expensive new academies. The investment is in structures. Over time, a splendid new school is likely to become popular with parents and the children from its immediate neighbourhood are likely to be squeezed out.

The Policy Exchange think-tank has come up with the very interesting suggestion that it would be better to attach the money as a large premium to the pupils from the failing school so that other schools would actively seek to recruit them. This idea could be broadened to differential funding for the disadvantaged.

Whatever their other merits, parental preference and self-governance for schools will not, of themselves, do much to uncouple achievement from background or close the gap between schools. To bring this about, there would also have to be genuinely fair admissions and, probably, recruitment incentives. The passage of the Schools Bill would be a lot smoother if the Government could persuade its supporters that the proposed reforms would benefit most of those being let down by today's system."

(Independent, 12 January 2006)

Comprehensive 'experiment' still regarded as a failure

Thirty years of comprehensive education have failed to convince majority opinion that abolishing grammar and secondary modern schools was a good idea, according to a survey by YouGov for The Telegraph.

Only one in three respondents - including only one in three of parents with children attending a state school - believes, looking back, that successive governments were wise to adopt the comprehensive principle in the 1960s and 1970s. Moreover, an overwhelming majority reject the notion that pupils in state schools should invariably be taught in mixed-ability classes. More than 80% approve of streaming, with pupils allocated to sets in some subjects according to their ability in those subjects.

At the same time, YouGov's findings show little appetite for a return to the old system of 11-plus examinations. Fewer than a third of those questioned - and only a quarter of those with children at school - want state schools to be left free to admit whomever they want, including a right to return to the 11-plus.

Tony Blair's proposed middle way, with state schools allowed to decide which pupils to admit but in accordance with government guidelines and without any recourse to the 11-plus, also finds little favour. A large proportion of respondents want local education authorities to retain a substantial role in admissions. Another large proportion wants to move in the opposite direction, with every state school being given total control over its admissions policy.

The overall impression from YouGov's findings is that people are unimpressed by the Blair Government's performance in education but are far from agreed on whether further structural changes are desirable, and if so
what kinds of changes.

(Telegraph, 19 December 2005)

Two-thirds oppose state aided faith schools

Faith schools, a central plank of the Government's education reforms designed to increase parental choice, are opposed by almost two thirds of the public. A Guardian/ICM poll published in August 2005 shows that most respondents are against ministers' plans to increase the number of religious schools amid growing anxiety about their impact on social cohesion.

The survey reveals that following the July 2005 terror attacks, the majority of the public are uneasy about the proposals, with 64% agreeing that "the Government should not be funding faith schools of any kind".
The Government is due to publish proposals in the autumn which will make it easier for independent schools, including Islamic, Christian and Jewish institutions, to opt into the state sector, accessing millions of pounds in funding.

The Department for Education and Skills has already given the Association of Muslim Schools £100,000 to make the transition smoother for more of the 120 independent Islamic schools.
Barry Sheerman, chairman of the Commons education select committee, warned that religious schools posed a threat to the cohesion of multicultural communities. "Do we want a ghettoised education system?" asked Mr Sheerman. "Schools play a crucial role in integrating different communities and the growth of faith schools poses a real threat to this. These things need to be thought through very carefully before they are implemented."
There are currently around 7,000 faith schools in England, 600 secondary and 6,400 primary. The vast majority [6,955] are Christian, with 36 Jewish, five Muslim and two Sikh schools.

At the moment the schools must meet stringent criteria including teaching the national curriculum and have buildings "which are fit for purpose" before they are accepted into the state system, but this process is being reviewed. Once in the system the schools receive capital funding and their day-to-day running costs are met.

(Guardian, 23 August 2005)

Faith-based primary pupils are a year ahead, say researchers

Pupils at faith-based primary schools are a year ahead of children at other schools, research by the Nation Institute of Economic and Social Research has found. In a 2002 study by the National Foundation for Education Research, the value that certain schools add to pupils' learning between the ages of 11 and 16 was examined. It concluded that faith secondary schools have a negligible effect.

But Professor Sig Prais from the institute said the study failed to appreciate how far ahead many children who attended faith schools were by the time they entered secondary school aged 11. An analysis of Key Stage 2 maths scores from primaries in the London borough of Barking and Dagenham, where results are similar to the national average, found pupils in religious schools far out-perform other children.

On average, using 2003 results, children at the borough's seven faith primaries scored 67.6 out of 100, compared with 53.9 at other schools. It meant faith school pupils had a grasp of math equivalent to a child aged 12.6, compared to 11.6 elsewhere. The gap was biggest among children in the bottom 10% at both types of school. Even the worst performers at faith schools had a "maths age" of 10.9, compared to 9.2 at other primaries.

Terry Sanderson, vice-president of the National Secular Society, said: "There are very simplistic conclusions. Parents have to jump through hoops just to get their children into a church school - it means these children are well ahead of their peers before they go to school, never mind when they leave.

(TES, 29 July 2005)

English schools now specialist