Who is to blame for the crisis at Oxted School?
On Saturday we saw the 2nd of two Marches of concerned parents and their supporters into Oxted. This time it was from Godstone - about 3 miles away - the last march was from Lingfield, slightly further in distance but nearer on the train. What both groups have in common is that a proposal from Surrey County Council to change the catchments area meaning children from both areas are unlikely to be able to attend their nearest secondary school.
Oxted School is big, in fact the biggest in Surrey, well over 2000 pupils attend and there is little scope for any meaningful expansion. So who is to blame for this problem?
Central Government are probably first in the firing line as the proposal to change the catchments area stems from revised government guidance, but Surrey County Council must take a large share of the responsibility as they run the school system in the County and if Oxted School has reached capacity then it should be down to them to do something about it.
However this immediate crisis has come about due to growing demand (fuelled by more and more 'government sponsored' housing developments in the district) and the lack of an alternative choice in the south of Tandridge. The problem parents are facing is caused by the unresponsiveness of the current education system to changing needs. This will only be solved by making it easier to open new schools in response to local needs and the funding following the children. It should be open to parents, charities, or even the private sector to develop schools - alongside the county council. The key objective (as with the NHS) should be for a decent free education to be available for every child in the area in which they live. The exact system of delivery should be determined locally. This system works in other countries (who have better results than the UK's state sector) so there is no reason why it couldn't be applied in the UK.
Update: The BBC are reporting that a solution might have been found.
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Monday, 4 February 2008
Wednesday, 29 August 2007
Education & Crime
The Times reported today that the Government's £3 billion series of policies designed to boost the achievements of pre-school children has had no effect on the development levels of those entering primary school. Although there have been big changes in early years education, children’s vocabulary and their ability to count and to recognise letters, shapes and rhymes are no different now than they were six years ago.
I was particularly sad to note that this included the Sure Start Scheme, which is aimed at increasing the educational achievements of those in deprived areas. The tragic murder of Rhys Jones, shows just how important it is to improve the achievements and aspirations of young people living in deprived inner city areas. As a country we need to be tough on crime, tough on criminals, and be tough on its causes - poor educational achievement, indiscipline in schools, family breakdown, welfare dependency & gang culture. And to do this we need to take a long term approach and be honest that it may take a generation to fix.
I was particularly sad to note that this included the Sure Start Scheme, which is aimed at increasing the educational achievements of those in deprived areas. The tragic murder of Rhys Jones, shows just how important it is to improve the achievements and aspirations of young people living in deprived inner city areas. As a country we need to be tough on crime, tough on criminals, and be tough on its causes - poor educational achievement, indiscipline in schools, family breakdown, welfare dependency & gang culture. And to do this we need to take a long term approach and be honest that it may take a generation to fix.
Thursday, 31 May 2007
Echos of the 1990s, but still a long way to go.
I read George Osborne's speech to Policy Exchange earlier. It started with a contrast between the Conservative leadership contest of two years ago against the non-contest for Labour now.
The result has been sewn up for Brown for some years now, but the lack of contest, as Obsorne makes clear still means we have no idea of what he stands for.
However, without exception the 6 candidates for the Deputy's job all stand for the same thing - a lurch to the left. Even arch Blairite Hazel Blears is saying we need more public ownership. As Obsorne says, 'Labour is retreating into its left-wing comfort zone'. Today's attempt by the Brown camp getting a slap-down in is clearly an effort close the lid on this genie, but as we saw with a succession of Tory leaders, once a party decides to leaves the centre ground in order to shore up its core support it is very difficult for a leader to resist or reverse.
If Labour continue along this path then it will surely lose the next election, however that won't be enough for a Conservative victory.
I believe that for that to be assured three things are required.
1- Clarity over policy. i.e. a local choice over schooling, should be a genuine local choice;
2- Professionalism in conveying policy. Messages should be clear and free of spin;
3- Unity of purpose. An end to division.
The past fortnight has been an example in how not to do the first- as long as the lesson is learnt, the party should be able to move forward. Today's appointment of a professional Director of Communications will help achieve the second. On the third the party has been broadly united since Howard took over the leadership, however the ease in which division came is worrying.
The Grammer School issue must be a one-off for the party to win next time.
The result has been sewn up for Brown for some years now, but the lack of contest, as Obsorne makes clear still means we have no idea of what he stands for.
However, without exception the 6 candidates for the Deputy's job all stand for the same thing - a lurch to the left. Even arch Blairite Hazel Blears is saying we need more public ownership. As Obsorne says, 'Labour is retreating into its left-wing comfort zone'. Today's attempt by the Brown camp getting a slap-down in is clearly an effort close the lid on this genie, but as we saw with a succession of Tory leaders, once a party decides to leaves the centre ground in order to shore up its core support it is very difficult for a leader to resist or reverse.
If Labour continue along this path then it will surely lose the next election, however that won't be enough for a Conservative victory.
I believe that for that to be assured three things are required.
1- Clarity over policy. i.e. a local choice over schooling, should be a genuine local choice;
2- Professionalism in conveying policy. Messages should be clear and free of spin;
3- Unity of purpose. An end to division.
The past fortnight has been an example in how not to do the first- as long as the lesson is learnt, the party should be able to move forward. Today's appointment of a professional Director of Communications will help achieve the second. On the third the party has been broadly united since Howard took over the leadership, however the ease in which division came is worrying.
The Grammer School issue must be a one-off for the party to win next time.
Monday, 28 May 2007
Grammar Schools and Social Mobility
I have finally got around to reading fully the speech by David Willetts which has caused so much controversy in the national press.
While standing by my earlier comments that I believe that the number and type of schools an area has should be decided by local people, I actually think that many of the arguments Willetts makes against both reintroducing selection and against the comprehensive system are sound and it is a shame that much of the subsequent debate has been focussed on his comments on selection.
Grammar Schools were an effective solution to the problems faced between the 1940s and 1970s. This (still newish) century requires a different answer, because the situation is no longer the same.
Willetts makes the case that one (and perhaps the most important) reason why education matters is to provide social mobility, allowing the brightest working class pupils to do as well as their middle class peers - true equality of opportunity. This is what the Grammar schools used to help achieve. While people played by the rules of the Grammar/Secondary Modern game then all was OK, but following the introduction of Comprehensive Schools social mobility started to break down. Middle class parents increasingly used money (directly, by funding private education or private tuition, or indirectly, via moving house to be closer to a popular school and by funding after school activities), or their own educational advantages by helping at home. All schools (including the remaining Grammars) then tended to entrench advantage rather than promote mobility. Willetts backs this up with a wealth of evidence.
The case against introducing new Grammar schools today is that selection at 11 is now likely to be too late to help those from poorer backgrounds succeed and not be popular with the parents of the 80% of children that don't get a place there. There are better ways of raising standards - better discipline, streaming within schools , good management and leadership - all of which should make for better teaching. And only once there are enough good education options for all children will education outcomes by improved for all children (not just those of middle class parents).
How then do we proceed? Willetts (and I agree with this) says that 'supply side' reform is needed. However well designed no admissions system will provide a decent opportunity for every child unless parents have a genuine choice of schools, and outside of London and the bigger towns and cities, it also means a choice between schools which are locally accessible.
In my view this means that over-subscribed schools need to be able to expand and successful schools take over unsuccessful schools. And new schools need to be allowed to be opened, by local government, by groups or parents, charities, educational trusts and businesses. All schools need to have more freedom in how they are run and how they are structured and where they get their services (especially non-teaching - e.g., finance, maintenance) from. This will require a less centralised and bureaucratic approach and more local accountability. The roles for central government would be to set minimum standards (not detailed criteria) and local government would be as a service provider (including where there is demand, of schools) and a commissioner of services in the case of market failure.
However this is much easier to say than to implement - the challenges facing the next Conservative Government is to make all this happen, without introducing too much bureaucracy. Continuing with City Technology Colleges and City Academies are only one option, there are others, including if there were to be demand, Grammar Schools!
While standing by my earlier comments that I believe that the number and type of schools an area has should be decided by local people, I actually think that many of the arguments Willetts makes against both reintroducing selection and against the comprehensive system are sound and it is a shame that much of the subsequent debate has been focussed on his comments on selection.
Grammar Schools were an effective solution to the problems faced between the 1940s and 1970s. This (still newish) century requires a different answer, because the situation is no longer the same.
Willetts makes the case that one (and perhaps the most important) reason why education matters is to provide social mobility, allowing the brightest working class pupils to do as well as their middle class peers - true equality of opportunity. This is what the Grammar schools used to help achieve. While people played by the rules of the Grammar/Secondary Modern game then all was OK, but following the introduction of Comprehensive Schools social mobility started to break down. Middle class parents increasingly used money (directly, by funding private education or private tuition, or indirectly, via moving house to be closer to a popular school and by funding after school activities), or their own educational advantages by helping at home. All schools (including the remaining Grammars) then tended to entrench advantage rather than promote mobility. Willetts backs this up with a wealth of evidence.
The case against introducing new Grammar schools today is that selection at 11 is now likely to be too late to help those from poorer backgrounds succeed and not be popular with the parents of the 80% of children that don't get a place there. There are better ways of raising standards - better discipline, streaming within schools , good management and leadership - all of which should make for better teaching. And only once there are enough good education options for all children will education outcomes by improved for all children (not just those of middle class parents).
How then do we proceed? Willetts (and I agree with this) says that 'supply side' reform is needed. However well designed no admissions system will provide a decent opportunity for every child unless parents have a genuine choice of schools, and outside of London and the bigger towns and cities, it also means a choice between schools which are locally accessible.
In my view this means that over-subscribed schools need to be able to expand and successful schools take over unsuccessful schools. And new schools need to be allowed to be opened, by local government, by groups or parents, charities, educational trusts and businesses. All schools need to have more freedom in how they are run and how they are structured and where they get their services (especially non-teaching - e.g., finance, maintenance) from. This will require a less centralised and bureaucratic approach and more local accountability. The roles for central government would be to set minimum standards (not detailed criteria) and local government would be as a service provider (including where there is demand, of schools) and a commissioner of services in the case of market failure.
However this is much easier to say than to implement - the challenges facing the next Conservative Government is to make all this happen, without introducing too much bureaucracy. Continuing with City Technology Colleges and City Academies are only one option, there are others, including if there were to be demand, Grammar Schools!
Thursday, 17 May 2007
Education, Education, Education (and a bit of planning)
Last night I attended the AGM of the Hurst Green Society. This long established group campaigns hard to preserve the environment and amenities of the area . However, before the formal business took place there was an inspiring talk by the Headmaster of Holland Junior School, Andrew Jolley.
Holland School is clearly on the up becoming more and more popular with parents and from last night's talk it isn't hard to see why. I think that the aspect that impressed me most, wasn't that both parent and pupil satisfaction rates were well over the 90% mark (excellent that this is), but the evidence that those attending the school clearly feel proud to go there and are prepared to work because they want to perform well not because they will be punished if they don't. I also think that the range of outdoor activities ranging, from Helicopter rides to 'Extreme Reading'. was refreshing in this Health and Safety obsessed age.
On the subject of school policy I was disappointed to read this morning David Willetts's plan to ban new Grammar Schools under a Conservative Government. I tend to think Grammar Schools are unlikely to be the best form of education in the modern world, but really think this should be a decision for local people to make depending on local circumstances. The one-size-fits-all policy we have had in education since the 1960s has patently failed, and as shown by the example of Holland Junior School, where applications have risen strongly, on the whole local people are generally the best judge of what works best for their children.
Holland School is clearly on the up becoming more and more popular with parents and from last night's talk it isn't hard to see why. I think that the aspect that impressed me most, wasn't that both parent and pupil satisfaction rates were well over the 90% mark (excellent that this is), but the evidence that those attending the school clearly feel proud to go there and are prepared to work because they want to perform well not because they will be punished if they don't. I also think that the range of outdoor activities ranging, from Helicopter rides to 'Extreme Reading'. was refreshing in this Health and Safety obsessed age.
On the subject of school policy I was disappointed to read this morning David Willetts's plan to ban new Grammar Schools under a Conservative Government. I tend to think Grammar Schools are unlikely to be the best form of education in the modern world, but really think this should be a decision for local people to make depending on local circumstances. The one-size-fits-all policy we have had in education since the 1960s has patently failed, and as shown by the example of Holland Junior School, where applications have risen strongly, on the whole local people are generally the best judge of what works best for their children.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)