Article
The choice choice
When schools select pupils by asking parents to produce their marriage certificates or by requiring them to buy overpriced uniforms, it is not just wrong but against the law. So said the schools minister Jim Knight yesterday. He did not, however, explain that the law in question was one forced on a reluctant Tony Blair in 2006 by Labour rebels, who were worried about where his drive for parental choice was heading. They feared that the independent state schools he was promoting would cherry-pick brighter and better-off pupils, condemning the rest to sink institutions. The MPs thus made their support for Mr Blair's plans conditional on a toughening up of the code on admissions.By writing to schools to demand that they comply with the new law, Mr Knight is sending a clear sign that the Brown administration understands the risks of covert selection more clearly than Mr Blair ever did. What is less clear, however, is whether there is also a change on the wider question of choice. By accepting that expressing a preference is not the same as making a choice, the minister showed he has grasped a reality blindingly obvious to any parent whose child has been turned down by an oversubscribed school. The drive to create academies continues, however. It creates new options for some, but jars with the concerns about selection. Even though academies are notionally bound by the admissions code, that is hard to police as they are their own admissions authorities - a status that ends up producing less socially representative schools.
If the government's position on choice remains unclear, there are no such doubts about the Conservatives - they plan to use independent providers to build up spare capacity so more parents can shop around. Their modernising spokesman, Michael Gove, rightly points out that families in poor areas are currently the least likely to be able to convert their preference into a real choice. But as with the academies programme, though on a greater scale, his plans risk more covert selection. Unlike in Labour, many in his party would see that as a good thing, as last year's grammar-school row showed. The political difficulty for the Tories is justifying the spending necessary to fund at least 200,000 extra places at a time when the school rolls are actually declining. The cash would come from an earmarked fund for investment in existing schools, meaning they would miss out on improvements.
Parents may continue to question whether choice in schools can ever be more than an illusion. But if the government continues its subtle shuffle away from the Blairite educational agenda then by the next election there could be real choice at the ballot box.
Related Content
User Comments
geof24
18 January 2008 8:18AM
Heads are not stupid. Their jobs depend on results. Family-based selection is the easiest way to get results.
SpursSupporter
18 January 2008 9:23AM
There is no real choice in that all the available places have to be filled including htose at the poor schools. The only 'choice' is the scramble amongst parents to get their kids into the good schools. It's no surprise that the poor and the inarticulate come off worst in this process.
If the poor schools can't be improved to bring up their standard, and that doesn't seem to be happening. then the only way to get choice is to have spare capacity so that there is some true choice. In many places, I'd see this as a vote-winner for the tories.
LauraFox
18 January 2008 3:53PM
Sir, All students deserve the best: an education tailored to their level of ability and potential. But humans do have a wide variation of General Intelligence. Most of us, 80%, have an IQ between 80 and 120. But note that these numbers are not proportional to abilities, such as speed, or precision. They are just a distribution on a chart. The cognitive difference between IQs of 80 and 120 is HUGE. The brightest dogs reach IQs of 70, whilst an IQ of 120 is enough for Oxbridge. Moreover, 5% of us are below IQ 80, and 5% above IQ 120!
Mix abilities classes traumatise the less bright, and bore the brightest, and retard the country's development - with consequences for all, rich and poor, bright or not.
When only 20% of students went to University it made sense having Grammar schools for the top 20%. But now, when 50% go to Universities, it does not anymore. The middle 80% of students could go to the a normal school, if separated by ability in at least 3 classes (ideally 4). Most schools have enough students for this.
But the bottom 5% need specialised teaching, as do the top 5% - the former for their chances of an independent life. And the latter for the country's future chances in a competitive world. I understand that most schools would not have enough of these students to create classes, but if just 3 or 4 schools co-operate they would.
General Intelligence is mainly genetic, but with adequate, tailored education, all can make the most of its natural potential. Classes must be separated by ability/potential. This is best for all, including the less bright.
janfrank
18 January 2008 7:14AM
I remember - a long time ago - one school in which the headmaster insisted that pupils wanting to enroll had to show their "long" or full birth certificate (which shows the names of both parents at the time of birth) rather than the "short" certificate, which is an official extract which shows only the mother's name.
That was in the days when being born in or out of wedlock was considered to be a grave issue. Has nothing changed in all those years?