Gove Gone

[aquatic]

Academies and Free Schools may not be selective in the strict sense, but many appear to share the values of grammar schools. There are plenty of observations to that effect - here are just two.

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/academies-flout-admissions-rules-to-select-privileged-pupils-8444957.html

www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2014/07/selection-administrative-blunders-feeder-schools-and-faith-just-some-of-the-ways-in-which-schools-flout-the-admission-code/

[cleefarqhuar]

Jul 22, 2014 17:25:23 GMT aquatic said:

Academies and Free Schools may not be selective in the strict sense, but many appear to share the values of grammar schools. There are plenty of observations to that effect - here are just two.

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/academies-flout-admissions-rules-to-select-privileged-pupils-8444957.html

www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2014/07/selection-administrative-blunders-feeder-schools-and-faith-just-some-of-the-ways-in-which-schools-flout-the-admission-code/

This is not a criticism of the ethos of Free/Academy schools but is simply an indication that more thorough regulation to ensure compliance with the ethos is required

[jean]

Since the ethos of Free/Academy schools appears to be that they set their own, it's difficult to see where the regulation you advocate should come from.

[aquatic]

I disagree, cleefarquhar.

'Specialist Schools', under Labour, were allowed to select 10% on aptitude - an ambiguous concept, hard to distinguish from ability, which probably started (or continued) the rot, which has set in and will be difficult to eradicate.

I've used the word 'exclusive' as well as 'selective'. Some poor schools have sought 'academy' status to give themselves a boost - and some parents are gullible. Free schools, as far as I can make out, are the creations of pushy parents who think they know best, and have in many cases proved they don't.

[cleefarqhuar]

Jul 22, 2014 19:51:53 GMT jean said:

Since the ethos of Free/Academy schools appears to be that they set their own, it's difficult to see where the regulation you advocate should come from.

Whatever they set on their own, the guidance for Free/Academy school states quite clearly that they are not selective on grounds of ability
If they are to continue to receive Government money, then they must abide by the rules (they take a great risk if they ignore them, and as we have seen in Birmingham, the Government can sack the whole Board of Governors if it wishes)

[jean]

Jul 22, 2014 20:26:30 GMT cleefarqhuar said:

Whatever they set on their own, the guidance for Free/Academy school states quite clearly that they are not selective on grounds of ability

But they're very good at manipulating exactly how they are permitted to discriminate - that's what aqua's links show so clearly.

And just think for a moment about that weasel word aptitude.

[sweetjessicajane]

Just a brief item in today's paper - selection based on poverty!

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2702169/Schools-middle-class-queue-poorer-children-return-hundreds-pounds-funding.html




What I can't understand is there is all this "tinkering" but we still have bad schools - If all schools were good schools regardless of locality and management style people would just send their children to the local school.

[jean]

Most of the 'tinkering' has been aimed at allowing some schools to avoid having to take difficult pupils. Those that fail to achieve this can become what cleefy calls 'sink' schools, and the quality of their teaching or whatever can be blamed for their failure.

This bit, though, seems to be an attempt to redress the balance. It's not that all or even most children from disadvantaged backgrounds are disruptive, but most disruptive children are from disadvantaged backgrounds so bribing schools to take them would help to spread the burden more fairly.