There is a slightly strange article in the Telegraph today about what is said to be a good state school in Brixton. It is curious because the author sends her child to this school yet, ostensibly, the article is critical of the parents of children there. Although the school is in Brixton, the parents are generally middle class and in some cases quite able to afford private education. These parents apparently flatter themselves that they are being virtuous in sending their children to state schools. They believe in state schools because they, they think, they give opportunities to poorer parents. Yet in fact, poorer parents generally cannot manage to get their children into good state schools such as this one. The implication is that these parents are not really being virtuous at all. Yet the author herself is sending her child there. I find it confusing that she is implicitly criticising parents of children at the school when she herself is one of them. Perhaps all would have become clear if she had had more space in which to explain.
In any case, she describes a classic instance of something that I made much of in The Welfare State We're In: that the poor get the worst of the services - particularly the education - provided by the state.
Our local state primary school happens to be one of the best in the country, consistently praised by school inspectors, and it was one of the first schools to be awarded ''beacon'' status.Sudbourne Primary is a lovely school where children are encouraged to express themselves and be confident, yet have consideration for others. The school's website boasts proudly that it was where Tony and Cherie made their first official visit, the morning after the 1997 election, and you can see how the school has become a Blairite mascot. Despite its location, everyone's middle class there (well, nearly).
and further on she writes,
The strategies used to get a place at this school could put any office Machiavelli to shame. Renting or buying a second home close to the school entrance is fairly standard practice. But I've heard of far worse - including a parent a couple of years ago who asked her doctor to say that her child had special needs as there are some places reserved for pupils in this category.
and finally,
What can be less fair than what happens around good state schools in London? Such is the pulling power of the good one that the price of a family house close by has skyrocketed to figures way out of reach of ordinary Brixtonians. Many of the local children who might benefit from a place at this championed primary school don't even get a look in. It happens all over London.There are schools that may not be private, but are in effect only available to the privileged few. What's so egalitarian about that?
Quite.
The full article is here, but you need to register on the Telegraph website to see it.
Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Education
Comments (1)
TrackBack (2)
Comments
Warning: file(http://63.247.138.2/~bartholo/randomquotes.dump) [function.file]: failed to open stream: No route to host in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2005/07/places_at_good.php on line 308
Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Bad arguments. in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2005/07/places_at_good.php on line 308
I don't really see what's strange about it. I think it is embarrassment. People who want to support comprehensive education will, when push comes to shove, act in their own (or their child's) self interest.
We'd all like to think that there is a level playing field for schools and pupils, but the reality is that there isn't.
Schools in leafy suburbs, or nice areas of Brixton, are filled with middle-class parents, this allows them to deselect on SEN grounds, Poor Behaviour, and those parents are far better at manipulating the system. Think Tony Blair and Oratory School.
(There's a POV that says things might improve if the Blairs et al were forced to send their children to sink schools rather than dodge the effects of their own ineptitude).
So they get better results, better teachers (because more teachers want to work there) and the whole thing becomes a vicious circle. The schools who have to take the "rejects" really have no chance at all. The teachers at the "good" schools pat themselves on the back and claim it's down to them, but it's mostly down to intake. Any halfwit can teach children who sit happily in line and wait patiently to be told what to do.
It is a Prisoners Dilemma. Everyone wants the best for their children, and that may mean Private Schools even if you support "public education".
There are schools *here* I wouldn't touch with a bargepole - and I live in quiet rural Norfolk.
Incidentally, James, your book is wrong about modern schooling. It's actually worse than you say it is.
As a side note, the next years GCSE scam is out. It is called "DiDA" (Diploma in Digital Applications) and its a watered down ICT course almost entirely doing basic web pages and so on, noddy stuff. It replaces the GNVQ Scam, and like it, it is worth 4 GCSEs - in league tables only, not for (say) college entry.
Posted by: Paul at July 13, 2005 08:10 AM