conservatives – The Equality Blog

Grammar schools given £50m diversity cash have only 2% poor pupils

The Governments drive to demonstrate its commitment to diversity in our schools has rather lost its way in recent years. For example, 16 grammar schools have won a share of a £50 Million expansion fund and yet, according to an analysis by the House of Commons Library, they have some of the worst records of admitting disadvantaged pupils.

The schools in receipt of the extra funding were announced last week and in order to qualify for the additional funding they had to submit a plan that would demonstrate how they would increase the proportion of poorer pupils in their schools. It’s worth remembering that grammar schools are not supposed to be for the privileged only, the private education sector is there to cater for those privileged enough to be able to pay for their children’s education.

However, figures on the schools’ admission of poor children has cast doubt on whether they were as committed to diversifying their intake as they claimed. These figures demonstrated that, on average, only 2% of pupils at the 16 approved schools were eligible for free school meals, which is generally considered the measure of child poverty in schools. For balance, it’s worth noting that, on average, pupils claiming free school meals at all schools in England is around 15%, with annual variations around this figure.

So, how do we tackle the lack of diversity in our grammar schools? Do we allow them to continue to be elitist institutions where entry is based on privilege rather than ability? To those who would argue that grammar schools have an entrance test and so are selective only on ability and not financial circumstances I would ask in that case how do you defend the position that only 2% of pupils in these schools come from a poor background? Is there a suggestion that poor pupils are not bright, are not academic, or not capable of learning at a grammar school level? Or, is this further evidence that the entry system to some of our grammar schools is flawed and based, in some cases, more on privilege that we like to admit?

If we are to ensure that our schooling system, both grammar schools and the academies, are to meet the needs of future generations then we need to ensure that school pupils experience diversity from a young age so they are adequately prepared for the work force of the future.

If we continue to endorse an elitist grammar system, where only the privileged can attended, then we further perpetuate the problems that we currently have in our society. As such, rather than challenge issues of inclusion, ignorance, acceptance and tolerance we naively allow the problems to carry on for a future generation to resolve.

What are your thoughts on this? Should grammar schools be forced to increase diversity in their ranks or should the grammar school system continue to be a stronghold of the well off in society? Answers on a postcard….

Too many firsts risk universities’ credibility, says think tank

Interesting article here from the BBC regarding grade inflation at UK Universities and Reform’s recommendations on how to tackle it.

The report is fascinating for several reasons, firstly, Universities are under increasing pressure with the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) to award ‘good’ degrees and have high levels of students satisfaction. Well, fundamentally, the concern with that is students will be very satisfied if they get a ‘good degree’ and those who get a third or a 2:2 might well be unsatisfied, especially as many higher education students have a perception that they are buying a degree for £30, 000. Furthermore, anyone who has studied marketing or customer service will tell you that an unsatisfied customer is more like to be vocal bout that than a satisfied customer, satisfaction becomes the expectation not the extraordinary. Hence, unsatisfied students will vocalise their unhappiness in students surveys.

Secondly, the report states that ‘since 1995 the proportion of 2:1 degrees rose from 40% to 49%’, which in its self is not a shocking rise, but has anyone pointed out that number of students accessing higher education since the mid nineties has more than doubled. However, for me, the really stand out statistic is that ‘in more than 50 universities the proportion of first class degrees has doubled since 2010’.

Universities have always been the guardians of their own standards. However, with increased importance being put on student outcomes has the pressure of students satisfaction been a factor in grade inflation? Previously, if University staff wanted to move up the pay scales then they focused on research which brought in money and prestige to the university. Now, that focus is rapidly shifting towards the learner or as University staff are now learning – the customer. Higher education staff across the country are currently being asked about their non-continuation rates, retention, attendance and the number of ‘good’ degrees they get. This is more like the further education sector, at this rate universities will be adopting performance management processes in line with schools and colleges.

If, as the report recommends, the government step into ensure only the top 10% get a first class degree this will throw a spot light on the actual quality of teaching and learning that goes on in our higher education classrooms. That in itself can’t be a bad thing as Universities have been the custodians of this for a very long time, whereas in schools and the further education sector OFSTED have had the final say on matters of teaching, learning and assessment.

The Office for Students may have some impact on this, however, their preferred quality inspection partner, the QAA, don’t observe teaching and learning during inspection… instead they look at data and if student satisfaction is high and the number of ‘good degrees’ are high then the quality of teaching and learning is ‘assumed’ to be good or better.

So, when your inspection regime exclusively fits around students satisfaction and the number of ‘good degrees’ awarded by an institution is anyone really surprised that Universities will do what ever it takes to make sure they have satisfied learners with good degrees? Interestingly, the report does not comment of ‘satisfaction inflation’. I wonder what the percentage increase since 2010 is on student satisfaction, I suspect that has likely increased in line with grade inflation as well.

However, that said, if the Government intervene and follows Reform’s suggestions whereby ‘the top 10% of students would receive a first, the next 40% a 2:1, and the 40% after that a 2:2. The bottom 10% would get a third.’ Then it will mean one year 70% is enough to be awarded a first class degree and another year it will not, which leads us to a point where gaining a first class degree is more about what year you join a programme, or more importantly an accident of birth. When you were born will determine if you can gain a first class degree, regardless of ability. Where is the equality in that system? It’s called a bell curve, where the top 10% get awarded the highest grades but that boundary changes with each cohort that takes the exam and has been criticised in GCSE’s for many years.

Don’t get me wrong. I want to see a degree as a highly valued qualification and a first even more so. A degree awarded at one institution should be comparable to a degree awarded another institution, regardless of the designer label that comes with some of our more prestigious higher education institutions. However, is artificially restricting the grade a students can achieve the right idea?

Take a look through the article below, I would be very interested in peoples thoughts on how the government should progress with this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-4454832

Universities and independent schools to run poorly performing state schools? The Conservatives have got it wrong on education again.

What on earth do universities and independent schools know about running state funded education?

One of the Conservatives key manifesto polices on education is to “ask universities and independent schools to help run state schools”. As a former state school teacher myself, and as someone who currently works in the further and higher education sector, I have to ask one question… what on earth do universities and independent schools know about running state funded education?

For a start, I can tell you they have never experienced an inspection regime like Ofsted and this will not change with university or independent school leadership, this is how state funded schools are judged. It’s a cut throat business, school and academy Principals come and go based upon the Ofsted rating they get their school, sometimes they don’t get very much time to prove themselves. Then there is the suggestion that Universities can help, however they are inspected by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) which is a desk based inspection where they look at policies and paperwork. Independent schools are inspected by the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) which is again a soft touch process when compared to the rigger of Ofsted. Neither QAA nor ISI reflect the hard process that is a full Ofsted inspection that can make or break a senior management team. Remember, leaders lose their jobs over poor Ofsted outcomes.

The differences in these inspection methodologies can be explained in the following analogy. Ofsted would physically check to see if a fire door works, to check if your learners are safe in the event of a fire, if that door does not open (it happens!) then the school would get an inadequate grade for safeguarding and fail the inspection. Whereas the QAA or ISI would simply ask, from an office, if you had a policy on fire door usage but not actually test the fire door itself.

Furthermore, independent schools, by their very nature, have students who come from supportive homes, if someone pays £8000 a year for schooling then they care about what it’s being spent on. In fact, in order to pay £8000 per year tuition fees parents need to have a good job for such a high disposable income. However, contrast that with a state funded school in a deprived postcode where parents don’t work, parent’s evenings have a turnout of 35% or less. Where children turn up having not had breakfast, every day. Where children look after brothers and sisters because parents are incapable through drink and drugs. Where children are victims and at risk, every day. Where they come to school just for the free hot meal as they don’t get one at home. This is modern Britain and this happens in deprived postcodes across the country, don’t kid yourself that it doesn’t.

So my question to the government is… how many independent schools (and universities) do they think have ever faced children with these challenges? Private schools throw money at problems and this Conservative government have reduced school budgets relentlessly, so where will the money come from. Independent schools make a profit, state funded schools do not. Yet, the government are asking for their help in running states funded schools… good luck. How can a private school in an affluent part of the country run a school in a deprived part of the inner city where gang culture rules, or deprivation is so high families have not worked in generations? What do they bring to the party?

The vast majority of this current Conservative government are amongst the 7% of the country who attended private school. As such, what do they know about the problems facing schools in deprived areas? The people making policy have never experienced poverty, never lived in a deprived area and have never seen the challenges faced by some of our poorest children. In fact, most of the Conservative government come from privilege and that’s who they want to trust our schools to. People who don’t understand the challenges faced by the very learners they will be working for.

On a final point, in my experience as an educator, when I have spoken to independent school teachers and leaders I don’t think they would survive in the cut throat business of state funded schooling and its inspection regime. I am not suggesting that they are not very capable educators and professionals but independent school heads last for years, decades in many cases, whereas in state schools they are like football managers and don’t last more than a few years before moving on, or being moved on.

University and independent schooling clearly has its place but what they know about the challenges faced by some of the poorest children in this country could be written on the pack of a postage stamp and I say that with every respect. The children they will have to work with do not attend university and do not attend independent schools because of massive economic or social inequalities. It’s is the polar opposite of what universities and independent schools are used to.

It’s about time the government listened to the teaching profession rather than their friends in high places.

Conservative government will stop free hot lunches for all infant pupils causing further inequality

For the Conservative government to make a manifesto promise to rescind the policy where by all infants get free hot lunches is contributing to further inequality.

For some school children in this country the free hot meal they get at school is the only hot meal they get that day. Far too many children in this country dread the summer holidays because a hot meal is, at best, sporadic and in some cases none existent. That is the inequality in our country, that not all children get a hot meal each and every day. So for the Conservative government to make a manifesto promise to rescind the policy where by all infants get free hot lunches is contributing to further inequality. Yet again, the hardest hit will again be the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.

In his analysis of today’s Conservative manifesto release, Sean Coughlan, Education Correspondent for BBC News, highlights “Head teachers across England have been making increasingly strident protests about schools running out of cash.” But, to stave of this criticism the Conservatives have responded by reshuffling about £1bn a year extra into the day-to-day running budgets of schools. However, it would appear that “most of this would come from stopping free hot lunches for all infant pupils – a policy only launched a few years ago.”

In reality, will schools use this money to continue to offer free hot lunches for all infants?In that case there is no benefit for school whatsoever, so no investment and they will continue to struggle. On the other hand if they use it for other purposes then the children loose out. I don’t imagine head teachers will see this as an acceptable alternative to real, hard investment.