Underachieving Schools - by Mr Chips

Another week of A Level results, another week of comment surrounding league tables, the ‘dumbing down’ of exams, and widespread strategies and promised for education review and reform. The Tories have already stated a desire to reform league tables in order to give greater weighting to higher grades and more ‘worthwhile’ subjects. With regards to underachievement in this series of blogs, the news could not be more worrying. Recently we also have heard our society denounced as ‘broken’ from the opposition bench, with youth culture being slammed. Contrariwise we are now told that students who study ‘worthless’ subjects may have their results devalued when considering the achievements of other schools. I will return to the patronizing attitude toward modern day students in a later blog, with comment on the inevitable reaction to continuing success.

The focus this week is on underachieving schools. This again is a very vague definition, but is regularly thrown into journalistic pieces, especially at this time of year. A school which is deemed to be ‘underachieving’ must be considered objectively, we wouldn’t believe a ‘mild day’ to be in anyway the same when reported in the weather forecast in the UK and Australia, yet we consider underachieving schools to be as bad as each other regardless of location and resources. In recent years we have seen a growth of ‘specialist colleges’ whether they are in Science or Performing Arts etc. These schools therefore must have different targets to reach, but on an overall scale, these strong departments may mask weaker areas within the school. The league tables do not reflect the pupils and environs which the school has to adapt to. Inner city schools traditionally have to deal with students who are regularly exposed to gang culture, drug abuse and binge drinking, as well as many students who are not as bright as some in more affluent areas. Students may also not receive as much support at home, which will also affect their progress. This links in well with my previous blog on underachieving students who are less able. In many cases, the challenge of helping these less able students to reach their potential is far more taxing for an educator than simply feeding a bright students hunger for knowledge. I very much doubt that even the complex ‘progress tables’ for schools (only behind Duckworth-Lewis and the scoring for the Heptathlon in complexity) includes this when determining the rankings. Consequently many schools and, in reality, many educators are tarred with the reputation of being poor. This leads to an Ouroboros situation, where in schools desperate for enthusiastic, committed teachers, you have teachers who are apathetic, and feel undervalued in their jobs. On a level which many people could empathize with, consider the disappointment many would experience when someone fails to appreciate the effort put into a present or something similar. If one scales this emotional response when bearing in mind that people move houses to avoid your teaching, this is quite a body blow for someone in a profession which requires commitment and passion in the face of many challenges within the classroom.

In order to balance this argument, I have no issue with parents wanting the best education for their children, that is their right, and in many ways their duty if they are capable of it. Another right, is that of students to an education, and to learn. I am not an advocate of innumerable universities and degrees being awarded like swimming badges, however I strongly feel that as long as they are capable, education should be available to all until the age of 18. Why should a student who is keen on a subject considered ‘worthless’ by a politician in Westminster, have their educational life euthanized because schools are aiming for higher places in the league tables. Education is a gift bestowed only once in many peoples lives, and to have the gift rescinded is appalling. I truly believe that the very best should receive the best chance they can to make the most of their talent. This however should not be to the detriment of less able students who wish to make the most of themselves, and acquire skills and abilities (such as learning how to learn) which will aid them to make a positive start in adult life and avoid the slippery path which is all to easy to slide down. By ensuring this and not placing their educators under siege with league tables and damning reports, we can break the glass ceiling that all too many underprivileged students are trapped beneath, and given time this will improve the nation as a whole. An interesting and somewhat radical example of this is the ‘El Sistema’ scheme in Venezuela. Faced with many social issues (mostly centred around prostitution and drugs) the government of Venezuela created a system in which from a very early age, all children within the country would be exposed to music, usually by learning an instrument. Founded in 1975, this project has already produced one of the world’s best youth orchestras, and one of the world’s finest conductors in Gustavo Dudamel. Music education is something which is considered to be very elitist in this country and extremely exclusive. In Venezuela, it is still ensured that the cream rises to the top and talent is fulfilled, but also every child has something to concentrate their energies and time (through ensembles etc) into, and also with their friends, thus reducing the opportunity for them to go off the rails. I don’t bring this up to advocate some monstrous socialist revolution (however the results of El Sistema are beyond belief) but to highlight the importance when ranking schools of the process of education rather than simply the result. This should be given great importance in future ranking of schools and assessment of students’ educational life, rather than simply berating subjects, schools and educators based on results and prejudices.