| Topic: | Re:Comprehensive Schools - Conclusive Evidence | |
| Posted by: | Michael Sterne | |
| Date/Time: | 22/02/12 00:38:00 |
| This is all described in very full detail by Fenton Whelan in a book entitled, "Lessons Learned: How Good Policies Produce Better Schools", ISBN 978-0-9561688-0-1. One point he makes very clearly is that the amount spent on schools is not nearly as significant as the other factors set out by Tom Pike. Finland, one of the highest scorers in the PISA comparisons, is a relatively low spender on education. As for David Giles's "None of this is particularly new, profound or surprising" let's examine some of the points he quotes. “2. Avoid early tracking which hurts students moved on to lower tracks, without raising student performance as a whole.” In other words don't stream students but teach in mixed ability classes. The longer report provides good evidence of the harm done by streaming, as does Whelan. David Blunkett, when Secretary of State, was particularly emphatic about the need for streaming. Michael Gove has also criticised mixed ability teaching. There seems to be a bipartisan determination to damage British education. “3. Manage school choice to avoid segregation. Over the past 25 years, more than two-thirds of OECD countries have increased parental school choice, particularly via government-dependent private schools. Financial incentives could encourage the best schools to take disadvantaged students.” England has a highly segregated education system. Seven percent of children attend private schools. We still have 164 grammar schools and they will now be allowed to expand. The government is developing free schools, studio schools and university technical colleges, which will increase segregation still more. David Giles’s naive claim that because we have comprehensive schools we have no segregation doesn’t stand up to a cursory examination. Parental choice as promoted by New Labour and the Coalition and the increase in the number of faith schools, many of which are highly selective, have significantly increased segregation. “4. Allocate funding according to student needs, and invest in early ages. Most OECD countries under-spend on early childhood education and care, investing nearly 2.5 times more in tertiary. In addition to targeting spending at disadvantaged students and schools, giving schools more autonomy coupled with accountability can help.” Britain has greater differentials between expenditure on younger and older students than most OECD countries. We deem it natural to spend least on younger children, more as they get older and most of all on students in tertiary education. As for autonomy, far from increasing autonomy, the academies programme is decreasing it. Head teachers in local authority schools have a statutory right to control the management and curriculum of the school. Head teachers of academies have no such right. In the growing number of academy chains they are very circumscribed indeed. Michael Gove talks a good talk about the need to be more like Finland, South Korea, Singapore and Alberta with their emphasis on high quality teaching and professional development. He ignores, though, the inconvenient evidence about the way schools are organised in those countries (and province). This is not a party political issue. Britain dropped down the PISA rankings during New Labour’s period in office. Michael Gove is continuing those policies that may have caused the problem. |