The Daily Telegraph is all in a huff about the allocation of school places by lottery. In the front-page story they worry that middle-class kids are losing out because they cannot get into the best schools - schools their parents have paid for via expensive houses in good parts of town.
The Telegraph rants that "pupils applying for places this year could effectively have their futures decided "by the roll of a dice". As opposed to the much fairer system of allocating places according to how much you can pay for a house. They go on to point out that "Children can be forced to travel several miles every day after being turned down by their local school" - this happens whatever the selection criteria. Indeed, middle-class parents often subject their children to long journeys to attend "good" or private schools - but that's clearly not a problem. Neither is telling lies about where a child lives, or their religion, or their membership of the Scouts and Guides.
They quote Robert McCartney, the head of the National Grammar Schools Association:"There is something mildly offensive about a child's future being decided by nothing more than the roll of a dice." - as opposed to flawed 11+ exam. Incidentally, in a selective system students have to travel miles to grammar schools as they rarely close to their homes.
The English Education system operates on a "separate but equal" basis - but like its counterpart in 1950s America it is separate but not equal. More poor kids go to crap schools than rich ones. Where you are born and the family you are born into shapes your educational chances and that's not right. If children were treated in this way because of the colour of their skin there would, quite rightly, be an outrage. However, the size of a family's income is seen as a more acceptable basis for discrimination.
The Telegraph rants that "pupils applying for places this year could effectively have their futures decided "by the roll of a dice". As opposed to the much fairer system of allocating places according to how much you can pay for a house. They go on to point out that "Children can be forced to travel several miles every day after being turned down by their local school" - this happens whatever the selection criteria. Indeed, middle-class parents often subject their children to long journeys to attend "good" or private schools - but that's clearly not a problem. Neither is telling lies about where a child lives, or their religion, or their membership of the Scouts and Guides.
They quote Robert McCartney, the head of the National Grammar Schools Association:"There is something mildly offensive about a child's future being decided by nothing more than the roll of a dice." - as opposed to flawed 11+ exam. Incidentally, in a selective system students have to travel miles to grammar schools as they rarely close to their homes.
The English Education system operates on a "separate but equal" basis - but like its counterpart in 1950s America it is separate but not equal. More poor kids go to crap schools than rich ones. Where you are born and the family you are born into shapes your educational chances and that's not right. If children were treated in this way because of the colour of their skin there would, quite rightly, be an outrage. However, the size of a family's income is seen as a more acceptable basis for discrimination.
No comments:
Post a Comment