by Mithran Samuel
The link between social background and educational performance is part of the DNA of the UK's education system, and England's in particular. Recent data on social mobility suggests this problem is getting worse. So it's refreshing that all three mainstream political parties see closing the results gap between less and more affluent pupils as a priority. Not only is there some consensus on this goal, but also on at least one of the means to achieve it, namely "freeing" schools from "local authority control". Yet the link between means and end is at best unclear and at worst the converse of the truth.
Inequality greater today
The Conservatives are the market leaders in the "freer schools means less inequality in education" argument, as exemplified by a policy statement and speech by shadow children's secretary Michael Gove yesterday.
Gove is a clever chap and the first half of his speech is closely argued - detailing how the gap between pupils on free school meals and their peers increases as they go up the school system, and how this inequality is greater among today's 11-year-olds than their predecessors. He also points out that the gap in economic opportunities between those who do and do not succeed at school has widened radically over the past 30 years, making educational opportunities more important than ever.
Excluding other factors
But then his argument begins to go awry, moving, with a sleight of hand, from talking about pupils to schools, namely those schools - most of which are in deprived areas - where less than half of pupils gain five good GCSEs.
There are two problems with this. Firstly, it immediately focuses attention on the role of schools in educational performance to the exclusion of all other factors: family income, decent housing, parental education and parental engagement to name but a few.
Secondly, it ignores the crucial issue of school intake: how poorer pupils, particularly in urban areas, are doubly disadvantaged by being concentrated together in certain schools, which thereby face far tougher challenges than counterparts blessed with the sharpened elbows and aspirations of middle-class parents and pupils. League tables reflect the fact that for schools, the playing field is far from even.
Where does the buck stop?
Gove then claims that the buck for these "failures" must lie with councils (fingering some Labour authorities in the process), and the solution lies with freeing schools from local authority bureaucracy, citing the apparent successes of academies and city technology colleges who have enjoyed such freedoms.
Again, two problems arise. Firstly, this plays into the myth that councils still run schools, ignoring the reality of the last twenty years in which authorities have lost a range of powers over school budgets, staffing arrangements and, crucially, admissions. Obviously, councils still have a massive role - in SEN, school improvement strategies and managing school places - but in no sense do they control schools.
Secondly, it ignores the exacerbating impact on educational inequality of giving schools control over their admissions. In a report last year, the Institute for Public Policy Research found that schools that controlled their own admissions were massively overrepresented among the top 200 comprehensives in league tables, making up 70% of this group, and just 31% of all schools across England. And such top-performing autonomous schools have an average of just 5.8% of pupils on free school meals, despite 13.7% of pupils in their neighbouring areas being eligible. Thus they rationally use their admissions freedoms to select in pupils who would tend to boost their league table position.
There is also evidence of academies - which have most freedom over their affairs - having much higher exclusion rates than other schools, a phenomenon criticis have said is another way of boosting league table position by keeping out more challenging students.
A holistic vision
The government to its credit has recently toughened its line on admissions, however it continues to promote academies as a route to reducing inequality in education.
A better vision can be found in Every Child Matters, and through the government's faltering efforts to eradicate child poverty: a holistic vision of children in which how well they do at school is just one of a range of important factors as well as a consequence of the stability, comfort and safety of their family life; and crucially, a vision in which children's services, including schools, are co-ordinated and integrated, in a way that benefits all children, not fragmented along the lines of the free schools proponents. And who might the main integrating agency be in this vision? Why, the villain of the piece, the local authority.
Since schools are responsible for education don't you think it's reasonable for them to expel pupils who put other children's education at risk? Just a very few disruptive pupils can destroy the whole experience for the majority. There are lots of parents who expect schools to focus on children who don't disrupt and who do realise why they are there. What worries me about this otherwise very good piece is that you are expecting schools to sort out social problems, something they are not truly equipped to do. The bigger question is what happens to kids when they are expelled; how can their behaviour be influenced so that they can look to meeting their potential. I agree about schools' intake and imposing their own criteria... but even if this was eradicated would we truly have a level playing field given that we have such concentrations of well off and poor areas.
We haven't mentioned private schools here, and the way they skew school intake. Not much point levelling the playing field if anyone with a few quid can just opt out. At just £6,000 a year many are taking this option.