WRITTEN EVIDENCE
Supplementary Memorandum by Professor
Ron Glatter, Centre for Educational Policy, Leadership and Lifelong
Learning (CEPoLL), Faculty of Education and Language Studies,
The Open University (CVP 02 (a))
I very much enjoyed attending the session yesterday.
The discussion seemed to me wide-ranging and well-balanced. Afterwards
I mentioned to Tony Wright that it had prompted two or three reflections
which I should like to convey and he suggested that I send them
to you. Here they are.
1. With regard to "voice", as Tony
mentioned this topic took up only a very small part of the session,
right at the end. I agree with Martin Ward that schools are now
taking more seriously the monitoring of levels of satisfaction
among students and parents, for example through surveys. However
the very heavy accountability regime to which public bodies such
as schools are currently subject has led commentators (such as
Onora O'Neill in her book A Question of Trust based on
her 2002 BBC Reith Lectures) to argue that they are forced to
pay more attention to government requirements than to the needs
and satisfaction of users. This is a tension that needs watching
and merits research.
2. An important issue that did not come up was
the role of schools as admission authorities. Currently this applies
to voluntary-aided and foundation schools, as well as to "independent"
state schools such as City Technology Colleges and Academies.
Since the government's policy is to encourage many more community
schools to transfer to foundation status, and also to expand considerably
the number of Academies, the prospects are for many more schools
to become their own admission authorities. Research suggests that
this could be expected to increase social segregation (see my
memorandum, second complete paragraph from the end of Ev 5 of
the volume of written evidence). It is also likely to create an
even more complex and confusing situation for parents who would
confront a wide variety of different admission criteria. This
would also be a very unusual arrangement from an international
perspective, since state schools in most advanced countries are
not generally given this role. There is a debate to be had about
whether it is ever appropriate for state schools to act as their
own admission authority, and also whether it can ever be fair
for some to be able to act in this way and others, with which
they are in competition, not to be allowed to do so.
3. There was extensive discussion in the session
about diversity of school types, which the government sees as
an essential concomitant of choice (though as I argued in my memorandum
the connection in practice between these two notions is far from
clear or straightforward). A key point here however is that there
appears to be no widespread demand among parents or the public
generally for such diversity—for example for specialist
schools (see on this the third complete paragraph on Ev 8). Decisions
about what specialist schools are to be available are taken not
by parents but (as Gordon Prentice suggested) by the "educational
establishment" centrally and locally. It is therefore a moot
point whether parents have a perception of increased or reduced
choice. As I suggested near the start of my memorandum, there
is a puzzle about policy-makers' intense and continuing interest
in between-school choice and diversity when there is so little
evidence of public demand for them.
I hope these further thoughts are of some use and
I look forward to reading the final report.
Professor Ron Glatter
January 2005
|
