Academisation failing to boost miserable standards in the North

Before I left teaching I worked in a school 9 miles from Leeds City centre. It was in an old mining area. There were many, many year 10, 11 and sixth formers who had several been to the city centre. They technically live in Leeds, but had never been. They saw as 'otherly'.

It was ex-mining, mostly white working class. Very sheltered. The aspirations of students were low. It was hard to convince them to apply for university, or university beyond Yorkshire. Parents told them to go an train for a job, rather than study a subject they loved.

I live in the area still and to take my children to school, 1.5 miles away when I couldn't drive/walk (surgery) it used to take me 2 hours round trip on the bus. We have two bus companies and many journeys require me to buy two day tickets at £4.50 each. And take hours.

I used to work in London and live in Hertfordshire - travel then was much quicker, cheaper and easier.

The North East or London - deprivation in this day and age is not OK.
Too right.
DH has worked with kids who have never left their council estate in Portsmouth ......

But sadly those making the decisions do not give a shit frankly

TalkinPeace The reason I go on about it is because I work with children who really are disadvantaged. They tend to get forgotten when people want to paint a picture of London as swimming in money.

I find it actually unbearable. Their disadvantage is very real. They have very little voice and their reality is dismissed and overlooked. Somehow, I mange to care about them, accept the reality of their deprivation and that of children (and adults) in other parts of the country.

In quite a few of the schools I've worked in, the majority of children have never travelled on the underground, in one school, the majority had never even travelled on a bus. You have to think really hard about homework because children won't have access to glue and scissors, let alone IT. The North East or London - deprivation in this day and age is not OK.

Transport is interesting in London. Londonista's right. It took me two hours to get from one suburb to another the other day, discounting the walking.

It's all immaterial, though. The impact assessments (of Brexit) that have been leaked today suggest to me that whatever we think might be the answer to raising achievement across the UK, there isn't going to be the money for it. An £80 billion hit to public finances + drop in GDP of as much as 16% in the North East ... I think we're going to be looking at the situation, right now, as a relative Golden Age by comparison.

Sorry. I feel really bleak and sad about this. It's really sad to think of how this is going to impact on schools and children that are already disadvantaged.

I do wish Londoners would give over on the levels of deprivation they face.
According to this map dclgapps.communities.gov.uk/imd/idmap.html
which shows "indices of multiple deprivation"
the poorest part of London is Hackney 018B in Hackney Wick
it is the 586 out of 32844 most deprived locations

Portsmouth, Southampton, Thanet, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Hull
all have MUCH poorer areas
(the poorest 5 are in Blackpool, Essex, Blackpool, Thanet and Blackpool again)

London scores low on deprivation because it has

• transport
• jobs
• education options

The flipside to the huge inequality in London is that students do see success, and may get the idea that you can achieve these things if you work hard enough (this idea may be very well supported in some immigrant families). It's also much easier to expose students to all sorts of things in the capital.

In Bradford, or, say, Cornwall, do students see these opportunities at all?

I do think whatever the answer is, it has to start at primary level. I think by year 7, the gaps between the highest and the lowest achievers can already be too big. Setting means that the well motivated children who have ideas about what they can achieve are often in a totally different class to the children with low motivation and aspiration. If there were less gaps at 11, and students could be taught more subjects in a roughly mixed ability way, they might have more exposure to positive role models from their peers as well.

That's the easy bit to come up with, though. I don't know what we do in primary school to help all children reach a certain level by 11!

PS
Yes, London is massively dominant financially
but the Crossrail 2 has cost more than the infrastructure budget for the rest of the country.
Spending the HS2 money on HS3 instead would help rebalance the economy away from the South East
and reduce the support for Brexit

London Schools get twice the cash that Hampshire schools do -
and you are Northerners to us

londonista
It's not a central government plot and not beyond other regions to replicate.
Other regions are NOT allowed to integrate their transport - London has a unique legislative framework and when Newcastle tried to bring in similar, Stagecoach beat them in court.

Free buses for under 16s : no other Local Authority has the power to compel bus companies to do it.
Londoners have no idea how bloody lucky they are
Oyster Cards for example -
here we have seven bus companies in one city. No overlap on tickets, different fares everywher

I'd love to see this "free, integrated transport" you're talking about.

Buses are free for U-16s, which is down to the mayorality and TFL. It's not a central government plot and not beyond other regions to replicate. Tubes, which you have to take if your school is any distance away because good luck in 8am surface traffic, are not free.

And public transport is exactly that... public. It relies on a mass of people taking up a service and does not just exist to take you from the edge of a village to the door of your school.

This "Brexit resentment" referred to in thread, driven by a chippiness towards London is going to backfire spectacularly judging by today's figures saying that London will be least affected in all Brexit scenarios (economy down 1 to 4%) while the NE and WMidlands looking at 15%+ hits. So well done there.

On schools, I really worry under current government (and public) dynamic that the answer to making regional schools as good as London schools have been in last decade is not going to be any effort to make regional schools better, but a slashing of funding to make London schools worse.

London has some of the highest figures for deprivation in Europe
So does Portsmouth, Essex, Cornwall, Thanet

but they do not get the

• free integrated transport
• arts and culture funding
• infrastructure funding

I am from the North and our transport in that city is miles better than getting from outer London Suburbs into London which for me involves driving to park on a local road, walk to a tube station, various tube lines then walking at other end - about at least an hour (I allow 90 mins) for about 15 miles.! Obviously better than rural Cumbria but a lot worse than Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle.

It's not just London v The North, though, is it? It's areas of the North and Midland that are doing badly, and other areas of the UK that aren't. It would be good to look at a break-down of figures.

Before people get into the whole 'London, where the streets are paved with gold and everyone wears diamond shoes,' please bear in mind that London has some of the highest figures for deprivation in Europe. It's worth noting that the success of London schools is against a background in which there is seen to be an inverse correlation not so much between income and attainment but between income inequality and attainment. Many of the children in London schools are not just deprived in measurable terms but they live with deprivation in the midst of a very unequal city.

That said, I do wish that the solution followed by the government to seeing unequal educational outcomes across the UK had been to increase funding to schools across the UK - rather than handing out a real-terms cut to many schools.

Schools are just one small part of a London centric malaise which is what drove a lot of the Brexit resentment.

This is exactly what "Londoners" and other city dwellers don't appreciate. I can actually see our nearest city, just five miles away, if I crane my neck out of our velux window in the loft. Yet, my son has to leave the house at 7.15am to get to school due to piss-poor public transport, and that includes a mile walk from home to the bus stop and another mile from the bus stop to the school. Yet, they give the impression that we're all stuck on hill tops and valleys up North. In fact, I live in a huge village (5,000 people) which is on the direct A road into the city, and we still have crap public transport that costs about £400 per year. Londoners simply wouldn't put up with this kind of crap.

So long as Londoners get Arts/culture funding of 20 times that of everybody else
So long as London children get free bus transport unlike the rest of the country
So long as london gets integrated regulated public transport - unlike everywhere else
So long as 99% of DCLG staff work in SW1
So long as the vast majority of government decision making is centralised rather than localised
it will remain the same

Schools are just one small part of a London centric malaise
which is what drove a lot of the Brexit resentment.

I do think comparing "the north" with London is a bit unhelpful. Firstly, "the north" is a huge area, with a mix of rural and urban schools, and a mix of areas with lots of immigrants, mixed areas, and very white areas. There will be huge ranges in the levels of deprivation between schools and areas. In London, there are obviously differences but they will not be as big,

I have spent a bit of time in some rural schools recently, as well as working with children from rural schools doing activities in my previous job- I do think rural schools have a specific problem with a lack of aspiration in students. Their horizons tend to be smaller, even though there are less opportunities locally. It's harder for them to imagine moving to a city for university, and they don't have role models with a high level of education. As well as brain drain from the north to the south, I think there is brain drain from the countryside into cities in some cases.

I don't think the same strategy will work for students in Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds etc, as will work for students in, say, rural Cumbria. Strategies that have worked well in London could be transplanted into university cities. However, I think we need a strategy as a country to help students in rural areas, and I include the south west in this as well.

I think the variety of immigrant families makes London different. Many have an expectation that their children will do well. In other areas of the country, we know parents are less bothered because they cannot see the success education could bing. It is not on their doorstep. In London it is fairly obvious what success looks like.

We also know, and Michael Wilshaw has said this repeatedly, that the quality of teaching and aspiration is not as good in the North or the Midlands as it is in the South. There are excellent universities in these areas but the best graduates are not training as teachers and, if they do, they do not stay in the profession. One of the reasons they do not stay, is lack of decent managment in the schools. M Wilshaw has also pointed this out repeatedly.

The big question, is what to do about it. Northern schools are NOT worse off than some shire counties. Look at the mess Northmptonshire is in. Also, northern schools get a lot of PP money. This should be making a difference if it is well spent, but is it? Poor management probably means that it is not spent on what actually works.

Another stupid "investment" is HS2. Anyone with any sense will know that this will draw higher achievers down to London. The money should be spent on connectivitiy across the northern region. HS2 should be scrapped and a Northern HS rail link established.

Many northern grads cannot now afford to live in London, especially not those who are teaching. Greater incentives should be given to them to teach in the North/Midlands for at least 5 years.

Obviously making sure children who need extra suport are spotted pre school and great effort should be made in getting them up to speed. Sure Start was over-run with children who did not need it. Any new system must be for those who do. This means making tough decisions. Not everyone can or should access these schemes. Only those who qualify and these judgements need to be rigourous.

We need to spend money where is has most effect and we fail to do this. The LAs have been starved of money and so have many schools. My LA has always been near the bottom of league table for per capita spending, yet we have grammar schools and are a high achieving LA. I am not advocating grammar schools, but money does not solve everything. Good teaching and management can do a lot though.

Poverty certainly plays a part. Inner London has done very well because of more money compared to how it used to be. I suspect it is also helped by very hard working children from immigrant families, proximity to those is the high paid city jobs and also keenness of young teachers to work there near their university friends. family makes a big difference. I have a relative at a fee paying Yorkshire school which has something like 14 Oxbridge offers this year which is pretty good. So you might well find that the higher paid parents in the North will as elsewhere pay school fees.

Thing is, soursprout, the message has been that, if you try to say something like that - something so obviously and self-evidently true as that - you have been dismissed as a teacher who does not have high expectations for all your pupils.

The implications of that propaganda has been, I think, the opposite of progressive. It's stopped an argument for investment in the socio-economic conditions that surround struggling schools, and placed enormous pressure on people involved in education.

I really hope that we're seeing the beginnings of a fightback against this insane over-determination of the outcomes that are achievable through education.

admission I totally agree with more money and initiatives for schools in challenging areas, and I totally agree that the money and initiatives in London helped.

However, one of the 'jokes' people in education tell about London is that school improvement correlated with the opening of Costa Coffees in given areas.

That indicates, to me, that it is not schools alone that can raise attainment. And by that, I don't mean, 'Don't bother throwing money at the problem, it won't help,' I mean something quite different: yes, investment in education is utterly necessary but it won't be able to do everything.

Whether anybody likes it or not, it will always come down to money.
Not so long ago London was considered to be a problem in terms of educating children. There have been some fantastic initiatives in the London area (with a large amount of funding) and that is one of the primary reasons why now the London area is always held up as being good.
If schools in the north (well anywhere from the Midlands upwards) had been receiving for the last 10 years a similar level of school funding as have the Boroughs of London, then the story might have been different but we are where we are. The new National Funding Formula, still does not address this anomaly and with the latest costs being loaded onto school budgets there will never in my opinion be a time where there is sufficient funding to reduce the anomaly.
I do agree with other posters that there is a significant problem of motivation to make things better in the north. It could however start to be addressed by ensuring that all the initiatives are pushed to the north of the country and are not self-centred on London. The new Opportunity areas are a step in the right direction, in focusing on areas to try and improve the level of education in discreet areas.

Londonista1 There are no state grammars in the north east, though, and a lot more parents in London opt for private if they don't get the choice they want. I think the amount of school choice in London does help invest parents in the system, however.

I don't think grammars are necessarily a good idea, but I don't think they can be entirely blamed in this instance.

Some good reasons so far. Another would be the absence of grammars in London (other than in a couple of outer boroughs) means the state school cohort hasn't been top-sliced and there are larger groups of more able pupils with more engaged parents at most state secondaries, and that becomes self-reinforcing.

I guess it potentially shows that just schools on their own are not enough to make a change? And just making a school an academy doesn't necessarily make it better. I think we know that in the UK, being disadvantaged is a real problem in terms of attainment. I think part of that is due to expectations (from family, friends, teachers, and the wider community).

If you come from a community where low school achievement is normal and you don't really see a future for yourself, then it's less likely you'll be motivated to work really hard at school and close the gap.

I think it could be good to encourage really good teachers with a proven record of increasing attainment to move north- financial incentives for this might help. But, I also think that this is only part of the battle, and there is only so much schools and teachers can do, especially at secondary.

Maybe the answer is to invest in primary, especially the earlier years? Not just in improving achievement, but also in increasing aspiration and giving pupils the self belief that they can achieve if they work hard. This work would need to continue at secondary, obviously.

I think part of a failing of our education system/society is our need to label pupils as clever, average, and not clever, early on- from ability tables at primary school, to setting and grammar schools at 11.