STFLDTC BRIEFING PAPER 1 - EDUCATION POLICY

COALITION EDUCATION POLICY - BRIEFING PAPER ONE

by R Gregory

Education. They're obsessed with it. The two-buttons undone, Converse wearing Notting Hill coalitionistas are the political povos of the capital unable to send (buy) their offspring into the schools that their chums who opted for the city are easily able to afford. Their best bet is to go down the road of academies and free schools and hopefully twist a system that they already dominate even more in their favour. One thing is clear - academies and free schools are not for the working class communities, they simply will not happen in these areas. It is simply another middle-class scam to completely take over a system that serves them very well anyway. Let us consider the evidence.

David (1993) looked at the experiment that reduced state control and increased competition between schools through the 1988 Education Reform Act which established the principle of marketisation. David argued that the act created a 'parentocracy' which saw power shift away from the producers (teachers and schools) to the consumers (parents). Supporters of parentocracy argued that parentocracy encouraged diversity among schools and gave parents more choice. Supporters also argued that the move improved standards: not for everyone it didn't.

Despite the  claimed benefits of marketisation it has become evidently clear that the claimed benefits of marketisation has increased inequalities between pupils. All that has happened (and will continue to happen under Coalition proposals) is that middle-class parents are better placed to take advantage of the available choices.

Ball (1994) and Whitty (1998) argue that marketisation actually reproduces and legitimates inequality through exam league tables and funding formulas.

The legitimisation of inequality, and the justification of its existence is concealed under the facade of parentocracy. However, parentocracy is a myth.

The education may appear to be based on parents having a free choice of school but this is not the reality of the situation - it simply gives the impression that real choice is being exercised. In reality, as Gewirtz shows (2000), middle class parents have more economic and cultural capital and are better placed to take advantage of the choices available. As Leech and Campos go on to show (2001) middle class parents have always been able to buy into the catchment areas of the 'better' schools.

Academies and free schools will allow schools to develop the exisiting educational triage in such a way that pupils from poorer families will continue to be failed by the educational system. Free of any semblance of local authority control, these 'new' schools will continue to develop Bartlett's notions (1993) of 'cream-skimming' and 'silt-sifting' through applicants in a way that effectively allows them to discriminate against the poor, the disadvantaged and the troubled. The governors who have gone on record as seeing competition as a way to 'bring the right sort of parents into the school' are about to be legitimised as local gatekeepers of educational quality that will discriminate against the working class.

Recent studies in Chicago have shown that the two single most important factors in determining what makes a 'good' school is behaviour and parental involvement. As a teacher myself, I agree wholeheartedly with this. However, academies and free schools will arrive at this nirvana NOT through inspired teaching and leadership but through a biased selection process that will actively exclude those children from backgrounds who are most in need of sound education.

All research shows that the single most important factor influencing under-achievement in education is deprivation and poverty. Sending children from these backgrounds into 'rump' LEA institutions (who will, by the way, have had their best teachers creamed off by the new sector) is to condemn them to a lifetime of underachievement and disatisfaction.

How should we deal with poor schools and underachievement? The position of the STFLDTC may surprise some of our detractors:

• Raise the bar for entry to the teaching profession. Their are too many bad teachers in the system who simply do not know their subjects and are themselves the product of a weak system that has rewarded mediocrity.
• Allow good teachers to stay in the classroom - not the office (by promotion).
• Raise the entry age to the teaching profession - their are too many (very) young teachers who cannot (and do not) command respect or authority.
• Scrap a whole range of spurious educational techniques such as critical thinking, assessment for learning etc - they simply hide bad teaching.
• Restrict the use of ICT - wikipedia is not the most useful place for homework.
• Parachute good managers into bad schools. Sack bad managers.
• Sack bad teachers.
• Raise achievement for all, not the few.