Categories: uncategorized
Date: 25 June 2008 21:45:49
Ok, proper post for today having informed the world of the computer problems. Excuse me if I have a rant about the way that the department for f***ing around with things they don't understand is behaving at the moment.
In the UK there is uproar because ministers are threatening to close all schools which don't get atleast 30% of pupils coming out with atleast 5 A-C grades. The BBC has this interesting article which highlights alot of the "at risk" schools are actually good or outstanding. It kind of highlights the fact that if you just look at the statistics you might not be getting all of the facts.
Focusing on this corner of the world, which has a disproportionately high number of schools on the hit list, I want to put forward an ickle common sense, (as have lots of other people locally).
Kent still has a selective system. This means that the majority of "able students" are in the grammar schools, thus leaving the others with a disproportionate number of students who are less academically able. Therefore, to choose a figure of 30% and apply it across the board becomes problematic, because it is automatically going to be far easier for the grammar schools to get atleast one third of their children achieving well, compared to what in a long ago age would have been described as secondary moderns and are now largely high schools.
Additionally, if you look nationwide at the list you find alot of the "failing schools" are in areas with a large amount of social housing and in postcode areas where there is measurable social exclusion and deprivation. Closing the schools which are within these local communities and forcing the children to travel out, (when parents may not be able to afford it if transport is not subsidised), is not going to help these communities. Rather it is another sign that the powers that be would rather get rid of the remaining services in these areas rather than seek to deal with the root causes and wider issues.
I am currently rereading Kathy Galloway's book A Story to Live By , (p42)where she talks about "whole communities which are excluded from participation in the environmental debate because they are percieved to be: symbolically undesirable, politically irrelevant, economically redundant, aesthetically unattractive and environmentally unfriendly".
The closure of these schools would, largely, be another kick in the teeth and removal of an amenity from these disenfranchised communities. It is another fight they are being forced to engage in to simply be able to survive.
Let us not kid ourselves, these parents want the best for their children and their communities - contary to the myths the Daily Mail and New Right would have us believe. Every child deserves a local school where they can recieve good quality education, and the BBC report highlights that using Ofsted data, (which seems a reasonable measure in this case), the children in these areas are on whole recieving this. Yet, because this government has such a narrow view of how to judge the success of education the successes of these schools are not being recognised. If these schools are forced to divert energy into fighting closure the children will suffer.
That is not to say that I don't think we should be working to get the success statistics higher in these areas. However, you cannot and must not judge educational achievement on success statistics alone. If we have got to that stage (as I fear we have) we may aswell turn of the lights and go home now remembering there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
Rant over - angry of East Kent.