Promoting an Education "Industry" in the Name of Providing Choice

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

Promoting an Education "Industry" in the Name of Providing Choice

Commons Committee Criticises Government on School Admission Selection

Words and Deeds:
Tony Blair on "Choice, excellence and equality" in Education

Tony Blair has been speaking increasingly in the House of Commons about providing "choice" for parents in educating their children, and which school to send them to. However, it is clear that as the crisis of education increases, parents are finding that, far from having choice, they find that, for instance, to send them into a Year 7 class (First form of High School, age 11), while there might be 40 places available in their local school, there are often waiting lists of over 2,000 pupils for that class. As a result parents are faced with a stark "choice". Where do the 1,960 other children go?

The choices, therefore, for these parents are to send their children to schools where there are places, which are often miles away from the family home, but which would entail extensive travelling and associated costs – or to send their children to private schools. The private schools, knowing this, are increasing their fees and increasing their intake of children on a large scale to accommodate these parents. But the cost to each family for each child can be from £7,000, although some schools can cost up to £10,000 per annum. And the fees are not the only costs.

Associated with every school are a coterie of medium to small businesses, often part of the monopolies, such as clothing manufacturers who provide set uniforms at expensive prices (school, cricket, concert and yet other uniforms!), sports equipment, music resources and text books, all of which can add up to hundreds and hundreds of pounds. This is not to speak of school trips and excursions and the like.

The issue of "choice" therefore becomes clearly a phoney one. Parents are in the position of consumers of education for their children, and have a choice between paying varying amounts or risking a difficult education for their child or even not having a place at a school at all. What then happens to these children?

Parents should demand that if there are, for example, 2,000 children on a waiting list for a local school, a school be built to accommodate these children. The number of places available should be determined by the number of children in a given area and not by what any particular local authority says they can or cannot afford. The state must provide the funding for building these schools, via requisitioning the monopolies, and not siphoning off public funds as guaranteed profiteering for the rich.

The same goes for providing resources in these and existing state schools. It is not good enough to talk about "failing" schools. In a modern society, education should be there as a right for all at the highest standard. No matter how many children there are in any area, a proper standard of education commensurate with the overall level of the whole society should be provided for each and every child.

To talk of "failing" schools in this way is to admit that the state has actively failed not only those so-labelled schools, but in the whole education system, and yet New Labour’s policy ensures that there are such schools. According to their logic, which precisely mirrors the free-market principle of survival of the fittest within a competitive education market, schools are constantly graded and listed in order of their desirability in national league tables. Standards and examination results are constantly reviewed and scrutinised and schools are talked about as though a part of the goods and services sector. By focusing on individual schools and "their" problems in this way, the government justifies its argument that some schools fail whilst others succeed and that the issue for parents is that they can "choose" from amongst these.

At the same time the government fails to take up its responsibility to ensure that children in society are educated and not left to fend for themselves. The issue should not be about a parent’s ability to pay or even to critically assess which school to send their child to. Neither should the government be allowed to get away with abrogating its responsibilities whilst at the same time engaging in a smoke screen of blame.

Further, it is illegitimate to talk of "problem children" as an issue, who then are destined to grow up to be adults with "anti-social behaviour". It has become the norm for all the major parties to discuss the issue of education and the nation’s children in terms of a seemingly inexhaustible list of blame including accusations of "bad teaching", "disruptive youth", "poor parental support", "drugs", "violence", "mismanagement of resources" and so on. The process of criminalisation by society which is being increasingly made an issue by Tony Blair and the government begins right there. The government cannot wash its hands of this "problem". It is its duty to provide a stable environment and conditions, whereby each child can develop its social skills and ability to learn so that it may take up social responsibility as a member of a collective in a society which meets the needs of both children and adults.

Finally, there is a question of the genuine choice in which every person in Britain should be engaged. Not this phoney choice of "Which school?", but: What type of education do we want? For whom? How do we achieve the very highest provision for all in our society based not on each person’s ability to pay, but on what is necessary for each human being to develop? As well as demanding that schools be built and resources provided, parents should take up the question of what kind of society do they want as part and parcel of demanding as a right the very highest level of education for their children and for all children in Britain today, irrespective of their social or class background.

Education is a right!

Defend the rights of all!

It is the government’s behaviour that is anti-social!

End the criminalisation of the youth!

A report from the Commons education select committee on July 21 said that the current policy was driven by "fashion and expediency rather than intellectual rigour". The MPs said that ministers had failed to deliver on David Blunkett's 1995 pledge to the Labour Party conference: "Read my lips – no more selection, either by examination or by interview, under a Labour government."

The cross-party committee drew attention to the gap between rhetoric and action, pointing out that the number of grammar school pupils has risen since 1997. They also noted that government-backed specialist schools will be able to select up to 10 per cent of their intake by "aptitude" in key areas. The report said that ministers had failed to show how it was possible to assess for aptitude but not ability.

"A government that permits the continuing expansion of selection, by ability or by aptitude, can only be understood to approve of both the practice of selection and its outcomes," said the report. "If that is the position of the present government it should be publicly stated. We believe it is time for ministers to engage in an informed debate about the role of selection in secondary education and its impact across the education system as a whole. The government needs to explain how it reconciles its insistence that there will be no return to selection with its willingness to retain and increase selection where it already exists. Without an honest and robust engagement with this issue the government's policy on selection will continue to appear ad hoc and without principle."

Responses to the Report

NUT general secretary Steve Sinnott said that the MPs were "right to be concerned about the possibility of selection by stealth".

"It is the government’s obsession with so-called choice that has rendered toothless the code of practice on admissions," he said. "Local authorities and schools are asked the impossible when schools are encouraged to define themselves by designation rather than their ability to work together. The range of schools proposed by the government will benefit those who can fight their way through a mass of varying admissions schemes yet leave those most in need of support to flounder."

Chris Keates, acting general secretary of the NASUWT, said that the current admissions system was "stacked against parents and pupils from low socio-economic backgrounds".

"It lacks clarity and is frustrating, non-inclusive and inequitable," she said. "The committee is entirely justified in asking the government to explain the contradiction between its aim of creating a fair and equal education system for all, with the continued development of an elitist system."

Dr Mary Bousted, Association of Teachers and Lecturers general secretary, said: "The government is hopelessly muddled in its approach to selection. For most parents the difference between selection by aptitude and selection by ability is mere semantics.

"There is no getting away from the fact that selection for some reduces parental choice for the majority.

"It is difficult to reconcile these contradictory approaches, and we will continue to suspect political sleight of hand until the DfES and the prime minister sort out their thinking in this crucial area."

Martin Ward, deputy general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, said: "SHA welcomes this carefully researched report, which is a valuable contribution to debate on this important topic.

"That 10 per cent of parents should wish to appeal over admissions is a matter of great concern to the Secondary Heads Association. It can be very hard for the schools that these children do attend to win the trust of the parents concerned.  A completely free choice of schools (like any other untrammelled freedom) can never be possible, and part of the present problem is that politicians of all parties have raised expectations of choice that cannot be fulfilled.

"There has been a decade and more of denigration of the education system that has given the impression that most schools are poor and that parents need to shop around for a decent education for their children. Though there are poor schools, the vast majority are in fact good – and the great majority of parents, who do use their local school, are satisfied with the education their children receive.

"SHA welcomes the report's support for its view that the government should concentrate less on reforming the system, and spend less time in creating elite schools.  It should concentrate instead on improving all schools and celebrating their success so that more parents will want to use their local school.

"Simply allowing popular schools to grow will risk them being overloaded and losing what makes them popular. A voucher scheme would not solve but exaggerate the problem, effectively allowing some schools to choose their pupils, but not necessarily giving any larger number of parents their first choice. Though there are surplus places nationally, in some parts of the country more schools are needed."

Phil Willis, Liberal Democrat education spokesman, said: "Now we know why this report was delayed until after Charles Clarke revealed his five year plan for schools – the admission system is in chaos, with those children with the greatest needs missing out.

"The increased plethora of admission arrangements and a weak code of practice has meant a near free for all. Concentrations of pupils with behaviour difficulties, special education needs or increasingly ethnic backgrounds means that many schools do not have balanced intakes.

"The secretary of state cannot have his cake and eat it – diversity and localism are incompatible objectives.

"It is time for the government to take heed – we need common local admission policies for all schools receiving state funding, backed by a statutory code of practice."

Words and Deeds:

Tony Blair on "Choice, excellence and equality" in Education

Extracts from the June 23 speech by the Prime Minister on public services

In simple terms, we are completing the re-casting of the 1945 welfare state to end entirely the era of "one size fits all" services and put in their place modern services which maintain at their core the values of equality of access and opportunity for all; base the service round the user, a personalised service with real choice, greater individual responsibility and high standards; and ensure in so doing that we keep our public services universal, for the middle class as well as those on lower incomes, both of whom expect and demand services of quality.

I am not talking about modest further reorganization but something quite different and more fundamental.  We are proposing to put an entirely different dynamic in place to drive our public services: one where the service will be driven not by the government or by the managers but by the user - the patient, the parent, the pupil and the law abiding citizen.  The service will continue to be free, but it will be a high quality consumer service to fit their needs in the same way as the best services do in other areas of life.

This is a vision which combines choice, excellence and equality in a modern universal welfare state.

[…]

By contrast, I believe the vast majority of those on centre-left now believe in the new personalised concept of public services.  It is true that some still argue that people - usually other people - don’t want choice.  That, for example, they just want a single excellent school and hospital on their doorstep.

In reality, I believe people do want choice, in public services as in other services.   But anyway choice isn't an end in itself.  It is one important mechanism to ensure that citizens can indeed secure good schools and health services in their communities.  And choice matters as much within those institutions as between them: better choice of learning options for each pupil within secondary schools; better choice of access routes into the health service.  Choice puts the levers in the hands of parents and patients so that they as citizens and consumers can be a driving force for improvement in their public services.  And the choice we support is choice open to all on the basis of their equal status as citizens not on the unequal basis of their wealth.  

[…]

So our policy was not simply smaller class sizes and more teachers - although we achieved both.  It was also literacy and numeracy programmes, building on best existing teaching practice, to raise basic standards systematically nationwide - 84,000 more 11 year-olds a year now up to standard in maths and 60,000 in English.  It was a radical recasting of the teaching profession to embed teaching assistants alongside teachers and give them a defined role - now more than 130,000 of them, double the number in 1997.  It was a reform of secondary education - including Excellence in Cities and the specialist schools and academies programmes - tackling failing schools systematically and embedding higher standards and a culture of aspiration school by school.  Substantial progress is now evident on all fronts: the number of failing schools is down, there is a new culture of achievement and expectation in our secondary schools, and 50,000 more 16 year olds a year now achieving five or more good GCSEs.  

[…]

In education, we want every parent to be able to choose a good secondary school.  So we are providing for every secondary school to become a specialist school, with a centre of excellence in one part of the curriculum; and to raise aspiration and achievement in areas where the education system has failed in the past, we will expand the number of academies significantly. We will also reform the curriculum so that students get a better and broader range of options for study beyond the age of 14, developing their talents and challenging them to achieve more.

In law and order, we will re-introduce community policing for today’s age with dedicated policing teams of officers and community support officers focused on local priorities, implementing tough new powers to deal with anti-social behaviour.  There will also be personalised support for every victim of crime as we introduce a new witness care service nationwide.

[…]

It is the same with choice, excellence and equity.  There is no reason except past failure why excellence need mean elitism - why there can only be good schools and universities if a majority are kept out of them; why there can only be real choice and diversity if a majority are deprived of them.  With the right services, expectations and investment, we can have excellence for the great majority, with choice and equity.  And we don’t base this on theory, but on what is now happening in practice.

In secondary education, specialist schools have shown significant improvements in results, and most secondary schools and are now exploring the best curriculum areas in which to develop real centres of excellence and boost their provision. We have made it far easier for successful and popular schools to expand where they wish to do so, including special capital grants for new premises.  New secondary school curriculum options, including junior apprenticeships for 14 to 16 year-olds, are giving pupils more choice to meet their aspirations, and we will take curriculum reform further. Academies are offering a wholly new type of independent state school, serving the whole community in areas where better provision is needed, and are proving popular.  I have opened two of the new academies in the past year; it is truly remarkable what is possible when investment, aspiration and inspirational leadership - not tied down by past failure - go hand in hand.

Conclusion of the July 7 speech by the Prime Minister to the Fabian Society, London

There are two choices:

We can continue in the way the education system has for generations: tolerating the failure of some children because of the achievement of a few; accepting mediocrity for the many as the price of advantage for an elite; even going back to selecting children for failure at 5, 11 or 16.

Or we can become a country which believes in every child and expects excellence for all; where the talent of every citizen is nurtured and encouraged, from the earliest years onwards; where no child’s education is written off because of who they are or where they’re from.

Our choice is clear.  New Labour is founded on educational opportunity and achievement for all.  We have made great progress so far.  But there is more to be done, and in tomorrow’s plan we forge ahead boldly.