schools – The Equality Blog

School exclusions ‘fuelling gang violence’ – Barnardo’s

Councils across England are obliged to make every effort to reduce their NEET (Not in Education Employment or Training) numbers which identify how many young people in the region are not actively involved in education, employment or training. In the main, Councils will work closely with schools to identify pupils who are at risk of not being involved in education, employment or training when they leave school whilst supporting the schools intervention strategies. Worryingly, where schoolchildren are excluded from education there is a significant rise in their likely hood to become NEET.

However, a recent report by Barnardo’s highlights a worrying trend that excluded schoolchildren are at serious risk of becoming involved in knife crime, the children’s charity has warned. Barnardo’s says excluded children are also at risk of “being groomed and exploited by criminal gangs”.

The charity said 47 councils, about one in three in England, had no spaces in pupil referral units (PRU), which look after excluded children. The government said a review of school exclusions and their impact on children was ongoing.

The research, which was carried out in collaboration with the All Party Parliamentary Group on Knife Crime, shows a 56% rise in exclusions in England since 2014. The group’s chairwoman, Sarah Jones, said knife crime was at its highest level on record and “our schools are on the front line”. She added: “Exclusions are rising and in many cases there is literally nowhere for those children to go. This is heartbreaking.” She said excluded children were “marked as failures”, and added professionals often talk about the “PRU to prison pipeline”.

Barnardo’s chief executive, Javed Khan, said: “We know children excluded from mainstream schools are at serious risk of being groomed and exploited by criminal gangs.” He urged the government to reduce the number of pupils excluded from schools and to improve alternative provisions so “vulnerable young people get the help they need to achieve of positive future”.

A government spokesperson said: “Permanently excluding a child from mainstream school should only ever be a last resort, and we support teachers in making these difficult decisions where they are justified.” They added the government was undergoing a review of exclusions led by the former education minister Edward Timpson.

The spokesperson said: “We are transforming alternative provision to improve outcomes for these children which helps them to flourish, backed by our £4m innovation fund that has created nine new projects around the country.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46027265

League tables changes ‘toxic’ for poor white schools

Interesting article here by Sean Coughlan, BBC News education and family correspondent, highlighting the challenge of school league tables for schools with predominantly poor, white, British students.

As a former school manager I can confidently say that schools in economically challenging parts of the country – where there pupils are predominately disadvantaged white students – are both rewarding and challenging environments to work in. However, when being compared to a school in leafy suburb somewhere where the students come from financially better off communities it is certainly a challenge.

What the league tables don’t reveal is just how much progress that school actually has made, instead it is vilified for not being at the standard of a school in a more privileged part of the country.

The same can be said of recent comparisons between poorly preforming schools and the local privately educated and independent schools. There were calls for private schools to take over failing state funded schools but as mentioned in my previous post what on earth do private and independent schools know about the needs of learners from deprived areas?

This has noting to do with class or money, instead it has to do with privilege which is something entirely different. It is not uncommon to find two parents who are, lets say both doctors, at an independent school that charges £13,000 fees per year. For the pupil they have very clear role models there who can support them through their studies, attend parents evenings and pay £500 so ‘Sebastian’ can go on the schools annual skiing trip to the Black Forest in Germany. Now compare that to an inner-city school in an economically deprived part of the country. That pupils role models at home might both be unemployed, there could be a long history in the family of low skills, low wages and long term unemployment. That pupil might not get the academic help at home and parents might not even attended parents evening… lets not be naïve here – I worked in a school where parents evening attendance was as low 38%. Admittedly, I am using two extreme examples here that are clearly poles apart but when asking an independent school to run a poorly performing state school the leadership will have to get to grips with the fact that the pupils they have to work with are already highly disadvantaged and might not be saved by good intentions alone. What happens when the schools outcomes don’t improve? Will they then be jettisoned by independent schools?

League tables should compare like for like – so an inner-city school in an economically disadvantaged part of the country should be compared to other inner-city schools which are situated in an equally economically disadvantaged part of the country. However, people might argue that will lead to lower standards in inner city schools as well as those in deprived parts of the country, a two tier system so to speak. But, don’t we already have a two tier education system in this country? Its called the haves and the have not’s… It’s certainly not a system based on equality for all.

What do you think? Should we be using league tables to compare all schools or should we be comparing similar situations to see what is working and what is not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-44196645

Ethnically mixed schools lessen hostility

Interesting article here from Sean Coughlan, BBC News education and family correspondent, highlighting research from the London School of Economics and the University of Bristol which indicates those who attend ethnically mixed schools harbour less hostility to those from different backgrounds.

Now, as an experienced teacher and manager in education I can confidently say that this is no surprise to those of use who work in state funded education. However, if learners benefit from an ethnically diverse schooling, as the research here indicates, what does that say for selective education? It’s well known that private, Grammar and faith schools select on the basis of a range of specific criteria and that these schools are not as diverse environments as those found in state funded education. As such, through selection, are we not hindering the ability of students from selective backgrounds to effectively engage with a diverse work force when they leave education.

Will this actually lead to greater inequality and hinder integration in business, industry, military and Government? After all, in the UK, senior roles are often fulfilled by those from a selective education, just take a look at the make up of the current Cabinet and our senior policy makers in the Civil Service. As such, it is concerning to think that our future leaders of industry, policy makers and business elite may not be adequately equipped to deal effectively with a diverse workforce.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-44196646

Grammar schools and faith schools get green light to expand

It’s well known that Grammar Schools do little for social mobility and the Government announcing its decision to green light the expansion of both Grammar and faith schools is concerning for various reasons.

Firstly, the Academy process has yet to prove its worth in comprehensive education. In fact, we have no definitive proof that the forced academisation of schools has made any improvements whatsoever. What we do hear about is how much Principals, Executive Principals and CEO’s are earning per annum rather than their actual impact on learner outcomes. As such, Government policy on education is yet to demonstrate competence.

Secondly, often, our Government policy makers were privately educated, or at best went to a Grammar school. Very few attended what you and I would call a normal comprehensive education and yet they are making the policy, in this case expanding they type of schooling they perceive to be the best, in this case ‘selective’. In fact, just 7% of the population attend independent fee-paying schools but half of the current Conservative cabinet were privately educated. That said, that’s better than the military where 71% of top military officers were privately educated as were 61% of doctors, anyway I digress.

Sure, outcomes are better from Grammar and faith schools but they will be when you consider that Grammar schools select only the highest achievers – they are guaranteed success. In fact, I spoke with an Ofsted inspector recently who said the worst teaching he had ever witnessed was at a Grammar school… two hours of didactic, teacher led regurgitation which saw learners passively write word for word in their books.. no engagement, no active learning, nothing. But, the head teacher waved the 98% A-C outcomes in front of the inspector and his hands were tied… outstanding school. However, faith schools are effectively being selective in their own right which not only harms integration it is allowing ‘back door selection’ where some parents can ensure their children don’t mix with those outside of their perceived community.

Clearly, this is a divisive topic but what is clear is by expanding selective education we are damaging social integration and furthering a two tier education system. How does selective education further Government aims of improving equality, diversity and inclusion?

Interesting article here from the BBC regarding the Governments decision to allow further Grammar and faith schools.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-44067719

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.

Children do better at school in more equal societies.

Below is an interesting article from the The Equality Trust which argues that ‘People with more education earn more, pay more taxes, are more productive, and happier.’ However, I would argue that to gain a good education you need a social support system that both encourages education and supports the time it takes, if you take into account college and university.

Children do better at school in more equal societies.

Controversially, the article goes on to suggest that ‘Well educated people contribute more to society; they’re also more likely to volunteer and to vote.’ Again, we can challenge this by asking how do they define a contribute to society? If they mean a financial contribution then perhaps they are correct but what about other forms of contribution?

Finally, the article highlights that ‘Although good school systems make a difference, the biggest influence on educational attainment is family background’. Unfortunately, this leads to the conclusion that ‘…disadvantaged children do less well at school and miss out on the benefits of education.’

This is where equality, or the lack of it, is easily highlighted. For disadvantaged children do less well at school is a national discrace and there are many articles that highlight this but less that actually offer solid solutions.

I understand that the government need to make electoral promises about improving educational opportunities for the disadvantaged but we have had very little impact from successive governments to make any real difference.

School comparisons are unjust and based on inequality

Often a good education depends upon where you live.

Inequality in education is not just about the opportunities afforded to learners but starts before they have even started school . How a school is measured by the government is equality important as we need fair comparisons. Interestingly, the new Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) which is being introduced for higher education does compare like for like institutions, as such further education colleges that offer some higher education provision are measured against others and will not be compared with traditional red brick universities such as those in the Russell group, which would be grossly unfair.

When you talk about inequality in education you can’t help but discuss the postcode lottery that is the modern comprehensive education system. Often a good education depends upon where you live and this leads to unfair comparisons.

I often hear people say how a private education is better than a comprehensive education, which as a teacher frustrates me greatly. Should a good education come from income? Of course a good education can not be guaranteed but if you live a certain part of a town or city then your children may be restricted to poorer performing schools.

If you examine local demographics then most successful primary and secondary schools tend to be where parents live who own their own homes and are subsequently employed, not always – I don’t want to generalise – but statistically it is more often than not, particularly in the North of England. Frustratingly, you start to see that a good education does in fact come in areas of less deprivation and subsequently a poor education comes in areas of greater deprivation.

If you take North East Lincolnshire, for example, and in particular the town of Grimsby, where I am from and have taught for many years, you have a typical east coast town where the major industry, in this case fishing, was eroded beyond recognition during the nineteen nineties so called Cod Wars and the town is now an area of economic deprivation, as is much of the east coast.

The successful secondary schools in the town, based on Ofsted inspection reports, are those on the periphery of the town, in this case Waltham Toll Bar, Healing and Humberstone – all academies. In fact, you are hard pressed to find a council run school in North East Lincolnshire as all have converted to become an academy. That said, the success of the academies programme is still open to much debate and the jury is definitely out as to whether they are a success or not (currently, as many are failing as are successful). However, in Grimsby, these three secondary schools, whose catchment areas are all villages on the outskirts of the main town, are the more successful with league table achievement in 5 GCSE’s including English and Maths, and now the new Progress 8 measure (basically, progress in a learners best 8 subjects rather that final outcomes). These academies are in areas that are the most affluent in the town and it does beg the question whether a good education is really down to pupils attending a school in an affluent area? The remaining secondary schools in Grimsby, again all academies, are, in the main, in the requires improvement category of Ofsted reporting. As such, if you live in central Grimsby you are more likely, statistically, to get a worse education.

That said, what do we mean by a worse education? In reality, we are talking only about achievement of GCSE qualifications in year 11, not any holistic education pupils might get over their time at the school. As such, in Grimsby, according to Ofsted reporting, you will only get a good or better education if you attend a school in a more affluent part of the town.

But, surely, if schools in more affluent areas achieve better results, and you will find this across the country, then why are schools from less affluent areas compared in league tables to schools from more affluent areas? Why is a school in a deprived city centre part of Grimsby, or Bradford, or Barnsley compared to a school in the Tower Hamlets, for example. Of course the learner demographics will be wildly different. Subsequently, staff in schools from deprived areas are being asked to work harder, in more challenging circumstances, than colleagues in the schools in more affluent areas. The problem is compounded by the difficulties in recruiting teachers – why would a teacher want to work in the more challenging school (especially if they had the choice)? Why would a head put their reputation on the line in a more challenging school? Lets be honest, school leaders are getting less and less time to make an impact, one poor Ofsted report and they are on the scrap heap.