Is expanding the most favoured schools the answer?

[Blu]

I don't understand the long-term logic of this plan.

Broadly speaking, schools seem to be able to achieve most when they have one or more of the following factors: a good strong visionary and determined Head, able to attract and retain experienced staff, resources (either from foundation or strong PTA or whatever), a core of parents who focus on and support the school and their children's success within it.

If the 'achieving' schools are expanded, will they have the capacity to still be good, if the small size is a factor in it's success?

Once expanded, what if the Head leaves, the govornors collapse and the school goes downhill? (schools do go and up down - a lot).

There will STILL be parents clamouring, unless certain schools are expanded to 15 times their current size!

What happens to the other schools, with a dwindling number of applicants because of expansion of other schools?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Surely investment in all schools, particularly those in areas which experience complex disadvantage and where the parents can't up sticks on to the doorstep of a favoured school where house prices are hiked up as a result, and there is little social housing available?

If David Cameron gets in, he is going to support the Labour gvt (Blair) in this, in his 'no opposition for opposition's sake' policy.

Load of bollo... rubbish. The answer is to improve the under acheivig schools , maybe by sending out staff from the achievig ones to show others how they acheive it.

hmm silk purse sows ears

the basic fact is that ont he whole kids in wealthier areas will do better htan underpribelged kidsl. so it no suprise that a school in say surrey will ahev better results than in towere hamlets

thats it realy.

( esept in croydon where primary results are set to tumble)

I am totally confused by the whole thing (am facing fact am clearly not very bright) because I just want decent LOCAL schools. Actually not specialised ones either.

Blu I'm with you on this, surely it will just increase the already giant divide between good schools and bad schools. And some poor kids will ahve no choice but to go to teh local sink school.

I don't know what the answer is though.......

Pa! DSs school is one which send teachers out to train other schools so phthrrrrrrrup! to Cod.

The fact that Cameron supports this is what sets the alarm bells ringing. .

Also, if schools are to close if fail for more than one year (think this is proposed), what happens to the pupils? Where do they go? What if more than one school in a borough fail in a year? If new system leads to more obvious sink schools, this scenarios is more likely, surely.

Prescott opposes it so it must be bad.

I think this whole crap about the government wanting all state schools to be "independent" is just a way for the government to abdicate all responsibility for the failing school system. which they shouldn't be allowed to do, it IS their responsibility goddamit. But it is such a political hot potato - they just want to be able to point to schools and say "look, we gave them free rein, if they are failing our children it isn't our fault, look at THESE schools [all in wealthier areas etc] that are doing very well, if THEY can manage themselves why can't all the others?"

derogation of responsibility. otherwise known as passing the buck

I don't understand the expansion thing either. My ds goes to a school which is v popular and oversubscribed but has no space to expand at all. Would the whole school be moved elsewhere then? And therefore be in a completely different catchment area?

Cod - obviously, as I put in my list, schools with highly motivated (which may or may not mean 'in wealthier areas') have one of the ingredients of success.

And given the importance of parental support for education, yes, there will be differnces between differnet schools results. But that difference should not be as a result of kids in certain areas being offered less good education than kids in other areas.

I have seen LOADS of non-selective schools in v disadvantaged areas do really well, and do well by their pupils. Including some in Tower Hamlets. I have worked in them on a long-term basis, doing projects. I have seen v run down schools in very run down areas improve as if by magic with the right head.

So I join Soupdragon in her 'phthrrrrrrrup!'

For once I'm in agreement with Tony Blair. I think the middle classes have been shafted for long enough.

High achievers are traditionally left to get on with it, bored and stultified while the teachers spend their time shoring up the less able ones to bring up sats results.

Way to go, PPH.

Spidermama - of course high achievers should get the support for them to achieve their maximum potential too - I'm just not sure how expanding achieving schools does that. Because a school with 4000 plus pupils is going to have widened it's catchment, have far more problems with management, anonymity of studenst etc etc.

It's rubbish isn't it?

Specialisation of all schools is crap unless you have a real choice where you can send your kids.

If all schools were good schools it wouldn't matter that we don't have a choice.

Expanding the better schools is all very well if you can physically get your child there. In our area the council are cutting the subsidies for the school buses, so where does that leave you if you don't have transport?

specialisation is a load of nonsense. For a start, how do you choose at 11 what your child will specialise in? Secondly, the specialism seems to make no difference to the school and the teaching - our nearest school is an Arts specialist school however their academic results are better than the next nearest school which has a Maths and Science specialism.

I couldn't agree more with PPH. Almost every proposal the government comes up with either absolves them of responsibility or shifts around the pupil mix in an attempt to raise the results of traditionally failing schools. It's maddening really.

foxinsocks - yes, we arts types do occasonally do reasonably well academically!

I think they have lost the plot.

It seem's they are clutches at straws clearly not a good idea for all.
Inclusion for some and not others don't like the sound of this at all.

It doesn't make sense and I think this is not the answer to our education crisis.

May be more support for schools that are struggling and opening up more special needs schools/units with right support and training is the answer. Specialised schools to meet their child needs. larsxx

Blu!

Of course, I meant no disrespect to arty folks but this specialist lark doesn't seem to mean anything - only to those in government who seem to think it's the best scheme they've ever come up with!

think it's a great idea.

The free market is just what should be driving our education policy and if it goes the same way as everything else, in 30 years time there'll be 3 schools in the country and everyone will get an excellent education.

I just don't believe specialisation will ever work in the state sector. There are a few specialised private schools but these are mainly art based (like ballet, music).

Specialism in state schools could only work where you had a choice of school and also where the general academic level meant you would want to choose between different schools (rather than being faced with a very poor school and a reasonable one).

Agree with you Blu. If you change the balance at one school it affects the whole area.

The most successful school in my area is an all girls' school - but the neighbouring school has a ratio of 2:1 boys to girls so to increase A would make B even more imbalanced.

Where I grew up, the most successful school is CofE (hate the principle of faith schools anyway) but as the school population in that area is 50% muslim it would segregate the population still further to expand the faith school places.

As Estelle Morris said on teh Today programme, schools need to be federated so the stronger schools can share their resources with the weaker schools, but opting out of LEA control would not allow that to happen.

I am so sick of politicians with no experience of the state system making decisions for the rest of us - Blair, Kelly, Adonis, Cameron, all educated in private schools. Comprehensive education NEVER MEANT MIXED ABILITY TEACHING. you can have banding and setting within a school. And you SHOULD be able to find your own way at 11 years old, discover your strengths as you go, and do well across the board, not have to choose which subject you want to follow from such an early age. They should concentrate on choice WITHIN school, standards, and resources shared AMONG schools. Boy are they missing the point - I just want good local schools to a predictably reliable standard with equal access to those living within a reasonably commutable distance.

It's woken me up to David 'Tory Boy' Cameron's true colours as well.

I don't like all this parent power stuff much, actually. The kids who need the most help imo are the ones whose parents are the most disempowered and so unable to push for them to go to the Oratory or equivalent. I've not heard much to convince me that these kids won't end up in the educational shite in a 'marketplace' that doesn't want them. Has anyone heard whether there are plans to prevent this happening?

Well said mil.

This parent power business. Heard someone on the JV show say something interesting. The parents most likely to get involved are the "pushy" ones. Now, they are only, really, going to be interested in their own child(ren). So, for the first few years of this new idea, these said parents will ensure that the budget is used to benefit their own child(ren) most. What then when their kids leave? Will much of the budget have been used up?

Most schools, it would appear, have trouble getting parents interested anyway. So how is this going to work? Confused.com