| Topic: | Response to Toby's Observer piece | |
| Posted by: | Iain Muir | |
| Date/Time: | 25/08/09 23:40:00 |
| Toby Young’s Observer article, Free Schooling, 23/8/2009 Sorry folks, another long post, not my fault, honest! Toby repeats a lot of the text from the original ActonW3 article but he added some interesting stuff....He compares the relative A level (3 A’s) 2008 performance of private (31%), selective grammar (26%) and comprehensives (7.7%) – What a surprise! He thinks it unfortunate that he cannot access a grammar as an alternative to Acton High School in LB Ealing (according to the Good School Guide there are only 36 LA’s with Grammars in the whole country, 7 in London) Toby’s Free schools will be funded by the LA on a per head basis, meaning less funding for existing schools, an echo of the long standing tory idea of voucher funding. Toby will be happy with a school with 300 pupils, presumably 2 form entry, 25 a class. This will finance the staffing. I imagine Toby aspires to a broad curriculum, Latin or Greek anyone? Toby gives the new academy at Burlington Danes, Wood Lane W12 as something he admires, described by the new head as a ‘comprehensive grammar’, ‘180 pupils in each year and they are individually ranked according to how they do in two annual tests. The results are put up on a notice board and pupils are divided into seven streams. There is a huge amount of competition to stay in your set or move up, (says the head)’ Healthy competition for 11 year olds or survival of the fittest?, How will teaching resources be allocated between the lowest and highest streams?) This will be an option for Toby’s children as it is not too far away from his home, it seems to match his objectives, why go to the effort of creating your own? Toby states the obvious in that there is a concern that middle class parents like him will take advantage for his Free School leaving state comps to struggle and decline. The solution is that the Free schools will be non selective and funding will reflect parental income (i.e. non selective, how will this be evidenced given Toby’s presumed high demand?, means tested by the LEA, can you see that working??) Toby thinks his big idea will bring opportunity back (from the good old days) to working class children ‘One reason why social mobility has ground to a halt is because working class children aren’t being pushed as hard as they should be. The great virtue of grammars is that they can help children from ordinary backgrounds get a foothold on the careers ladder and I hope comprehensive grammars can do the same’ For the younger readers most grammar schools had disappeared by the late 1980’s. They had been part of the ‘Tripartite system’ of secondary education classified by the 1944 Education Act and were designed to educate the top 25% of the school system based on the ’11 Plus’ exam. Three quarters of pupils landed in ‘Secondary Moderns’ with a mainly vocational curriculum, to suit the needs of industry and the service industry. They could resit at 13 but after that further education was a no no, Grammar schools did provide access for a number of working class children to academia and as Toby says wider career opportunities but they were essentially middle class in their ethos and aspirations, aping public schools in many ways. Hence their demise as equality of opportunity became more recognised. The Tory party have long recognised that their re-introduction, despite lobbying, would be not a vote winner. Finally, Toby refers to his father’s role in abolishing grammars and Toby’s belief that we now have ‘good comps in middle class suburbs and affluent rural areas which are comparable to old-fashioned grammars, and the rest....in effect, the old division has been preserved except access to the best schools is now determined by income than ability.’ I think this over simplistic, slightly London centric and ignores the Academy initiatives, I do not knock Toby for wishing the best for his children and admire his initiative in creating debate, but I think he is wrong and should work within the existing system to improve standards. Do you agree? Iain Muir |