What does the the Education and Adoption Bill mean for Kent?

Morgan-freeThe Education and Adoption Bill is currently passing through parliament and is a new law aiming to convert failing schools to academies. The government believes academies are the best way to improve under-performing schools, so schools that fail to maximise pupils potential may be managed outside local authority control. There’s a good article defining what an academy is here.

This new bill has a couple of issues for Kent and the selective education debate.

1) Grammar Schools are unlikely to be defined as coasting

The definition for ‘coasting‘ has just been published, and is not based on Ofsted ratings but instead looks at a number of other factors. There seems to be no provision for the differing academic intake of grammar schools in selective regions like Kent. The intake of a grammar schools and good exam results, means it’s unlikely that this type of school will ever fit this ‘coasting’ criteria.

However if the desire of the bill is to raise standards, then it would seem better to set the academic bar higher with a grammar school. Surely it should look at whether grammar pupils are progressing as they should, but based on higher grades? Looking at whether 60% of pupils fail to achieve 5 GCSE grades A*to C exam results is not a good measure in a selective school where good grades are the norm.

Secondary moderns in our selective region perform poorly and are more likely to be converted into academies. It is a rather sad state of affairs that selective region secondary moderns are more likely to be ‘coasting’ than schools in comprehensive areas. 13% of schools in comprehensive regions get the underachievement definition, but it’s up to 18%  in selective regions like Kent. Selective regions have more failing schools than non-selective regions. See more on this here.

None of the 122 grammar schools in selective areas would be classed as coasting under the new definition.

If the idea of the law is to push schools to improve then the definition of ‘coasting’ needs to be different in a grammar school. I think it would make sense if the government tweaks the definition to take account of these differences. Without this it will lead to yet more inequality between the two school types.

Academies admission policy can not be changed by a grammar school ballot

The fact that academies are outside council control has put grammar schools in a flutter. A grammar school could convert to an academy then decide to make its own rules and stop being selective. I am not sure that many would do so in practice. If they judge success by exam results then it seems likely they will stay selective.

But this causes more concern for those who dislike selective education..! My concern is that grammar schools will convert to academies and stay selective. The grammar school ballot can not change an academy’s selective admissions policy, but this is currently the only way for comprehensive education campaigners to change things. So if many grammar schools in Kent convert to academies no one in the community would be able to petition for comprehensive education.

At present there is a rather bad law that allows parents to appeal to change selective schools, but with these law changes we might end up with more academies, and less power to campaign against selective education.

There is much debate about whether academies are a good thing or a bad thing, I’m honestly not sure. This law is going to go through though, and it is certain that there will be many more academies in Kent. My daughter’s school is one of those likely to get the ‘coasting’ definition. Like all parents I want schools to improve, but I’m also concerned that this law’s ‘one size fits all’ policy doesn’t work in our region. I am not sure the government has fully considered the implications for selective counties like Kent.


3 thoughts on “What does the the Education and Adoption Bill mean for Kent?

  1. I raised the issue with an anti academies group in 2010 that grammar schools becoming academies would make ballots imposible, which has now happened.

    We now have coasting to contend with, which as you correctly state won’t affect grammar schools.

    Grammar schools and secondary modern schools shouldn’t be regarded as a comprehensive system, children are still storted into sheep and goats at 10 which is damaging to childhood friendships, communities, self-esteem and opportunities beyond the school gates.

    Parents in particular I feel are on their own. We are blamed for putting our children through the 11+, even when we knew no better than to want the ‘best’ for our children, and ignored when we make a stand.

    As you imply elsewhere, understanding education has been a baptism of fire. I will go further and say it’s been a waste of my childrens’ childhoods. I have fought selection since 2008 when I could have spent quality time with them.

    Where do you want to go with this? I want to fight with other parents to end rejection at 11+, for an excellent comprehensive school for all children. I don’t approve of opening more grammar schools because they are selective.

    Very best regards, and good luck.


    1. Thanks for the reply. I’ve been thinking where I want to go with this… I think a good start would be getting a change to the grammar school ballot legislation. That one bit of legislation gives parents a say in selective schools, but every time it’s tried it fails. The method is flawed and the heavy handed change it asks for is very unlikely to win parents approval. Two select committees have said it doesn’t work, so there’s certainly a case for pressure via MPs to get it changed. That’s one idea… but great to hear support from another parent. Hopefully one day things will change. 🙂


  2. No problem, always good to be amongst likeminded people.

    I agree changing ballots would be a start. I assume we both realise parents have been scapegoated by the rhetoric of choice by all parties.

    No parent is going to choose a ‘bad’ school, which to my mind supports the continuation of academic selection, especially in deprived areas where getting into grammar school is regarded as keeping up with the Jones’.

    I hope we can challenge the notions of a good school, a bad school and a coasting school. My child achieved straight As at GCSE in a secondary modern school (located next to a grammar school).

    What is bad is the fact that grammar schools and secondary modern schools sustain selective education and the perception of good over bad, which has far reaching consequences for families and community cohesion.

    I accept there are schools that under-perform but language should be chosen carefully. In 2010 all academies were seen to be bad. Now the focus is on sponsored chains being bad. There is no positive language to describe secondary modern schools that converted to academy status as outstanding schools in order to stand a better chance of competing with nearby grammar schools (those able to achieve 100% A*-C GCSEs due to their intakes).

    The biggest issue for me is the erroneous notion that a child’s ability is innate, fixed, and can be determined by a glorified quiz before they reach puberty.

    We need to be mindful not to conflate ending selection with bashing schools. I will leave that to the Govenment.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s