SEA’s
Approach to Secondary Provision
1.
The Socialist Education Association has for most
of its life been committed to comprehensive secondary
education; and been a major force in the Labour Party
pressing for as fully a comprehensive a system in
England as now exists in Wales and Scotland and even,
hopefully, in Northern Ireland.
2.
We are appalled that the present Labour
Government has refused to complete the comprehensive
revolution which, the Labour Party, prior to the 1997
election, was committed to. The Government’s
massive majorities in the first two terms gave
them no excuse for not doing so.
Now that the Tory opposition claims to be
abandoning its commitment to Grammar Schools, there is
no reason why the Government could not finally insist
that every child in England at 11+ be given the right to
attend a comprehensive school.
3.
Instead, the Government has facilitated more
selection at 11 through the ability of specialist
schools to select according to ‘aptitude’ and has
promoted the idea of parental choice of the school their
child enrols at. The
effect of greater choice is a more competitive climate
between schools, greater segregation of pupils and less
social cohesion. We know that at present in England this
leads to a great deal of unhappiness for both children
and parents.
We have inherited and created a great variety of
schools which are perceived by some to be of unequal
value and the present Government has positively fostered
this perception.
This is not so in Scotland and Wales where it
appears that the great majority of parents are satisfied
with their local school.
4.
Schools alter over time; heads and staff come and
go, there is a fresh intake of pupils every year and the
nature of catchment areas changes.
Some admissions authorities have developed
schemes to balance the intake of schools to try to
ensure a broad range of pupil ability in each school.
Sometimes this is achieved by ‘banding’ by ability
and sometimes by having an intake based on random
selection. These systems have merit, especially in
dealing with the ‘sink school’ syndrome. However, it
has to be recognised that there are disadvantages too,
such as pupils being separated from friends they made in
their primary school or from siblings or being forced to
undertake long and time-wasting journeys. We welcome the
introduction by the Government of the statutory Code on
Admissions and the increased powers given to Local
Authorities.
5.
This leaves us with the problem of schools which
are perceived to be failing their students in some way.
In terms of academic achievement, value added
figures are the only reliable guide to performance. The
problem may be because of lack of resources, proper
discipline, inspiring leadership or of good teaching.
None of these should be tolerated.
It is not adequate to classify a school as
failing; the situation must be immediately dealt with.
Every child deserves the best education we can
provide. Underperforming
staff should be given further training and local
authorities placed under a duty to provide the necessary
resources and support. Local Authorities should have the
power and flexibility to intervene. Government and Local
Authorities should ensure that adequate funds are
available to enable improvements to take place. School
funding should
do more to compensate for the problems faced by some
pupils as a result of poverty and inequality of
opportunity.
6.
Academies have become the Government’s panacea
for the secondary sector. Private sponsors have
been given enormous influence over childrens’
education for a relatively small input. The funding
given to academies from the public purse, both for
building and running costs is totally disproportionate
to other state schools. We call on the Government
·
to fund all secondary schools to the same level
as academies
·
to integrate all academies into the local
authority system
·
to end the involvement of private sector sponsors
7.
Specialist schools have become a fact of life
throughout England. We believe, however, that their
popularity has resulted solely from the additional
funding made available to them and that it can be
harmful to children if they are choosing a school at 11
based on a particular subject specialism. All schools
should offer as wide a range of subjects as possible
being taught at the best standards. We do not have a
problem with schools having ‘areas of expertise’
which can be shared with other schools. This, however,
should not be seen as their defining feature.
8.
When in opposition, Labour vigorously opposed the
‘opting out’ provisions which enabled schools to
become grant-maintained. Whilst grant-maintained status
has been abolished, Foundation status which has replaced
it is little different and the more advantageous funding
has been retained. Even worse, we now have Trust schools
which place considerable powers in the hands of sponsors
and sets the schools apart from the Local Authority
group of schools. This is another example of
collaboration and partnership working being limited or
destroyed by Government attempts to promote competition.
9.
Federations and collaborations of schools can
bring benefits to those taking part and we call for an
independent study on the success or otherwise of those
that have been operating over the past few years.
10.
Private education has a malign effect on state
schools by ‘creaming off’ more able pupils and
reinforces social segregation. It deprives state schools
of the ‘social capital’ which is so important in
raising aspirations. We call on the Government to
realise the target set by Gordon Brown of achieving
parity of funding between state schools and independent
schools and, as a first step, call on the Charity
Commission to introduce a strict test of public benefit
in order to retain charitable status.
11.
Whilst the structure of schooling is important
we need to give equal consideration to curriculum
content. The curriculum offer in many comprehensive
schools is too academic and insufficiently related to
everyday experiences.
Tomlinson suggested changes from years 10-14
without reforming the syllabus for years 7-9 and even
those changes have been mauled by the present
Government. Adding
on to this two or four years of a totally exam
structured curriculum accentuates the problem and
exacerbates the alienation felt by many young people. We
need to move away from traditional academic subject
based approach to learning to one that is
integrated and focused on the issues facing society and
individuals.
12.
Some
schools have tried to escape this by having themes
during the first three secondary years but still
covering the National Curriculum but this has to be
abandoned in year four.
If this government is serious about extending the
compulsory school age to 18 as they should be, they do
need a fresh look at the whole secondary curriculum and
the SEA has advocated this for some years.
13.
The government is going ahead with its 14-19
diplomas. We regret this piecemeal approach to reform
but welcome the idea of a 14-19 phase. This begs the
question, however, as to whether the current structure
of a break at 11 is correct and we believe it
appropriate to examine whether areas which have a 9-14
middle school system are better able to deliver on a
14-19 programme. We also need to look at how best to
integrate the provision of education for the 14-19 age
range and commit the NEC to developing a discussion
paper on this.
This
discussion paper is based on contributions from Bob
Tutton, Malcolm Horne and Tony Pearce. It has been
revised in the light of comments at the September 07 NEC