I do agree with a lot of what you are saying, and it was this article and others extolling the virtues of Manchester, not me. Yor reference to the 'left behinds' is interesting, as the very best schools have the least numbers of these by their very nature. It is very important to note that all schools are assessed on the level of improve…
I do agree with a lot of what you are saying, and it was this article and others extolling the virtues of Manchester, not me. Yor reference to the 'left behinds' is interesting, as the very best schools have the least numbers of these by their very nature. It is very important to note that all schools are assessed on the level of improvement they achieve in their students, whatever level they start at. Therefore any high school will fail to gain outstanding status unless they can demonstrate this, not just the final exam results. Also, a high achieving school will carry many of the 'left behinds', along with them and be able to support them better from a position of strength rather than weakness, including re-directing them towards more vocational, practical or art driven qualifications. Excellent schools should never be the preserve of the 'middle classes', and this description is very fluid these days, as well as sometimes being used as a term of derision. Personally, I would regards myself as 'working class - with aspiration and ambition'. I didn't do as well as perhaps I should have done at school but definitely benefited from attending one with a very strong ethos, management, and standards. We simply don't have enough of these in Stoke and many of them cannot easily be differentiated from each other with respect to their student outcomes, student experience, discipline, and overall standards, even the newer ones. New buildings do not always make good schools, there is far more to it. Stoke's latest high school is perhaps a good example of the 'build it and they will come' approach to dealing with the need for more places. No effective consultation, no impact assessment on other schools, and an 'off the shelf'' academy trust to run it. We could do better, and need to if a sustained recovery for the city is the aim. Dragging Stoke up by its neck from the gutter of decades of failure in its education is, I feel, the only way to get significant change for the better. It's far from being about only academia, good schooling is an absolute necessity for life, whatever career route is taken.
I can only speak from my own experience, both as a high school governor (12 years service), and the father of 3 children who all went to Uni. I do struggle with the concept of gentrification if applied to Stoke, as I don't see it? My grandparents were all in the pits and pots, my parents had 'average' jobs, but the motivation to achieve more than the last generation was always there and encouraged. I didn't go to Uni, it was much harder in my day, but I didn't want it enough at the time. My own children did, and I helped them as much as I could, primarily by getting them into the very best school I could, rather than the one nearest to me. Funding is always a hot topic for schools, but the best will not sacrifice their own standards and morals merely to bring money in. It's quite telling that in my time as a governor all the biggest battles were with our city's LA. The new academy trust 'companies' are perhaps a different proposition, the trust I worked for was non-profit but other models I believe are not. At no time can I recall a child being forced to do a low value course like childcare (it wasn't even an option), but I know it does happen in some schools. Extremism is a whole separate topic, which can infect schools where community, pastoral, and inclusively issues are present, along with poor management control and training. Stoke undoubtedly has a problem with bigotry and racism, passed down from problem parents. The widespread outcry in support of the recent racist fuelled riots being proof of this.
I do agree with a lot of what you are saying, and it was this article and others extolling the virtues of Manchester, not me. Yor reference to the 'left behinds' is interesting, as the very best schools have the least numbers of these by their very nature. It is very important to note that all schools are assessed on the level of improvement they achieve in their students, whatever level they start at. Therefore any high school will fail to gain outstanding status unless they can demonstrate this, not just the final exam results. Also, a high achieving school will carry many of the 'left behinds', along with them and be able to support them better from a position of strength rather than weakness, including re-directing them towards more vocational, practical or art driven qualifications. Excellent schools should never be the preserve of the 'middle classes', and this description is very fluid these days, as well as sometimes being used as a term of derision. Personally, I would regards myself as 'working class - with aspiration and ambition'. I didn't do as well as perhaps I should have done at school but definitely benefited from attending one with a very strong ethos, management, and standards. We simply don't have enough of these in Stoke and many of them cannot easily be differentiated from each other with respect to their student outcomes, student experience, discipline, and overall standards, even the newer ones. New buildings do not always make good schools, there is far more to it. Stoke's latest high school is perhaps a good example of the 'build it and they will come' approach to dealing with the need for more places. No effective consultation, no impact assessment on other schools, and an 'off the shelf'' academy trust to run it. We could do better, and need to if a sustained recovery for the city is the aim. Dragging Stoke up by its neck from the gutter of decades of failure in its education is, I feel, the only way to get significant change for the better. It's far from being about only academia, good schooling is an absolute necessity for life, whatever career route is taken.
I can only speak from my own experience, both as a high school governor (12 years service), and the father of 3 children who all went to Uni. I do struggle with the concept of gentrification if applied to Stoke, as I don't see it? My grandparents were all in the pits and pots, my parents had 'average' jobs, but the motivation to achieve more than the last generation was always there and encouraged. I didn't go to Uni, it was much harder in my day, but I didn't want it enough at the time. My own children did, and I helped them as much as I could, primarily by getting them into the very best school I could, rather than the one nearest to me. Funding is always a hot topic for schools, but the best will not sacrifice their own standards and morals merely to bring money in. It's quite telling that in my time as a governor all the biggest battles were with our city's LA. The new academy trust 'companies' are perhaps a different proposition, the trust I worked for was non-profit but other models I believe are not. At no time can I recall a child being forced to do a low value course like childcare (it wasn't even an option), but I know it does happen in some schools. Extremism is a whole separate topic, which can infect schools where community, pastoral, and inclusively issues are present, along with poor management control and training. Stoke undoubtedly has a problem with bigotry and racism, passed down from problem parents. The widespread outcry in support of the recent racist fuelled riots being proof of this.