I am a piano teacher, so I have a lot of experience working with children. Thirty-odd years ago I was a pupil at Sir Thomas Rich's School. Since then I have written a PhD thesis (in music); consequently, I am used to reading articles and books critically. I owe much of this achievement to the education I received at Rich's as a painfully shy and timid boy. My experience there gave me the necessary self-belief to fulfil my academic potential to the highest level. For me, attending a single-sex grammar school was crucial; my abilities would have been overwhelmed in a large comprehensive school, and my achievements would have been little more than mediocre by comparison.
I do not have any children of my own, which perhaps puts me in a better position to assess the proposals dispassionately, without the concern of what I perceive to be best for my own child. However, I do care passionately about education, because the state of education has a considerable bearing on the society of today, and can have a profound influence on society in the future.
Since Gloucester is blessed with many good schools, I assumed that I would disagree with much of the County Council's plans to reorganize secondary education. However, I did expect at least a well-reasoned and cogent argument explaining why the Council thinks that change is necessary. Instead we were presented with their 'Review of Gloucester Secondary Schools'.
* * * * *
The initial consultation period for this review has now finished. At these meetings, the document has been thoroughly discredited by countless people. It is riddled with inaccuracies, inconsistencies and contradictions. It is confusing; it is biased; it is devious. It is irredeem-ably flawed in every respect, and is an insult to the intelligence of all decent people living in Gloucester, including those in favour of change. Moreover, it is a highly insidious document, apparently designed to conceal the true intentions of its perpetrators by presenting much information in an incoherent manner, whilst not providing all the necessary facts to make an informed judgement. It is truly a document of obfuscation and misinformation.
First one wonders why the Council is starting with Gloucester, which has some of the best schools in the county and, indeed, the whole country. Many people believe that the main aim of the County Council is to get rid of the grammar schools and probably the single-sex schools, apparently in favour of the 'bog-standard' comprehensive system (to use the ugly turn of phrase now seemingly favoured by politicians). This is despite the recent statement by the government accepting that this was a mistake in many areas, and saying that all surviving grammar schools would no longer be under threat of closure. How can the County Council reconcile this anomaly?
Admittedly, the review does say on page 12 that a grammar school provision should be retained, but at an unspecified level. However, this seems merely to be an ill-conceived attempt, of no great sincerity, to appease those in favour of keeping the grammar schools.
In the early 1970s education in Gloucester was under the control of the City Council, which opted to retain the grammar schools. This explains why there are still grammar schools in the city, but, for example, Chosen Hill School, which was (and still is) in the county, has lost its grammar school status. (It does seem strange that a review of Gloucester Secondary Schools, should include three schools which are not within the city boundaries.) It appears that the County Council is now trying to complete what it was unable to do thirty years ago. Of course, some councillors do oppose the proposals, but they have little influence against the Cabinet. Some executive officers also appear to be principal protagonists in this affair.
It seems that the majority of councillors are not really interested in education; all that concerns them are political ideologies that went out of date twenty-odd years ago, after the first round of 'universal comprehen-sives' around the country proved less than successful. I have already said that education will influence future society; if the concept of comprehensive education for all is indeed the best option, then society should have improved noticeably over the last thirty years. How many people would say that this is so?
The various options given in the review are so completely mutually exclusive that any combination would be almost impossible to effect. It seems likely that the County Council is hoping this will produce such a wide variety of suggestions that there will be no apparent overall consensus of opinion. Rather than sticking to any of the options given, this would then allow them to push through their own 'rationalisation' of the data, probably involving the closure of all the grammar schools, and all the single-sex schools. I believe there is proof of this in the review, albeit carefully hidden.
* * * * *
Looking at the review in more detail, three statements deserve immediate quotation. First on page 3: 'some [schools] have academic achievements rivalling those of the best in the country'; then on page 4: 'taking Gloucester schools as a whole, value added for pupils
is around the national average', which means that it is better than in about half the country; and finally on page 6: 'most of the 13 schools are popular with parents'. It beggars belief that anyone should want to change such a favourable situation.
It would be impossible to cover all the inconsist-encies here, so I shall just highlight some of the more glaring ones. Near the beginning it says: 'These issues have led the County Council to ask the question: does the current pattern of secondary schools provide the right circumstances for all pupils to succeed?' This basic premise is flawed in two ways. First of all, they give no criteria for measuring success, indeed, they do not even evaluate what constitutes success. Success means very different things to different people. Secondly, to create an environment for all pupils to succeed is an impossibility. It does not matter how hard you try, there will always be some pupils who will not want to learn, and will refuse to grasp the oppor-tunities they are offered: it is an unfortunate fact of human nature. You can never achieve a system that is ideal and fair for everybody because life is not perfect, life is not fair.
When the fundamental question is, in itself, flawed in this way, any conclusions drawn from a study of it will inevitably be similarly misconceived.
Another reason given (on page 3) for needing a review is that 'pupil numbers are predicted to fall from about 2005'. This is a highly contentious matter: some statistical reports suggest that, with proposed housing developments, pupil numbers will, in fact, rise. It seems that the County Council has simply taken the projected figures which best suit their purposes. If numbers fall, they have a good excuse to close schools, thus making it easier for them to justify closing the grammar schools. Yet even their own figures do not support this. The table they give shows that, despite numbers falling from next year, by 2009/10 the total number of pupils will be 23 more than in 2000/01, although the number in the 11-16 age bracket will have fallen by 158, which (out of a total of around 10,000) represents a fall of a mere 1.58%.
From the figures given, I have also calculated that, in years 7 to 11, by the next academic year class sizes will have increased by an average of 1.65 pupils in four years. Yet for some time, the government has been committed to reducing class sizes. Therefore, rather than talking about reducing capacity, surely the County Council should be taking the opportunity (assuming the given figures to be correct) finally to conform with government policy. Certainly, if there is any chance of numbers remaining stable, or even rising, during this period, the closure of any schools would be most foolhardy.
Concerning the distance some pupils travel to school, comment is made of the fact that about 600 secondary-age children travel out of Gloucester, and about 1,600 travel into Gloucester from other areas. Surely 1,000 more children travelling into Gloucester simply emphasises the quality of the schools. Of course, these figures might be very different if the County Council had not already closed grammar schools around the county: a significant number of pupils travelling into Gloucester to attend the grammar schools is largely the result of the Council's past policy.
On page 10 of the review, there is a section headed:
'Local schools as the natural choice', which goes on to imply that the County Council wants the majority of pupils to attend their local secondary school. (The observation that this would significantly reduce congestion on the roads is merely the obligatory politically-correct reference to environmental issues; in reality, the effect would be minimal. Indeed, the average distance travelled by pupils, which the Council wants to reduce, is already below the national average.) Yet on the very next page the desire for pupils to attend their local school is contradicted by saying: 'we would like to see every secondary school with a subject specialism'. If this were the case, pupils would want to attend the school specialising in subjects that interest them, which would probably not be their local school. This situation would considerably increase the amount of travelling undertaken by pupils. The County Council really cannot have it both ways! How can they explain this contradiction?
However, there is a more insidious factor behind their wanting pupils to attend their local school. This could only be achieved if all the grammar schools were closed, as it would be impossible for pupils below the necessary standard to attend their local school if it were a grammar school. This was highlighted in the final meeting at the British Energy Conference Centre, when one of the panel actually said that the Council wanted the majority of pupils to attend their local comprehensive school as their first choice. He even stumbled and had to correct himself to include the word 'comprehensive'. Here, it seems, is tangible proof that their real aim is to close all the grammar schools.
Further evidence appears on page 8, where they only list three negative points as being their perceived 'im-pact of a sizeable selective sector'. They do not bother to include positive effects such as more pupils having the opportunity to be educated to a higher level which is more appropriate to their abilities. Moreover, a recent government report concludes that having selective schools does not have any significant detrimental effect on the achievements of pupils at non-selective schools. This is what many people have been saying for years.
The fact is that higher-ability pupils often need a more academic environment, with a high proportion of people of similar intelligence, to inspire them to work that much harder in order to realise their full potential. This can only be achieved within a grammar school. (Having a higher than average intake into these schools, as is the case in Gloucester, has to be beneficial in preventing the atmosphere becoming too competitive and overbearing.) If the school has a much wider range of abilities, it can make these pupils think that they do not need to work so hard, because it is too easy to be top of the class. Similarly, people of lesser ability, rather than being 'inspired' by the more intelligent pupils, might easily be discouraged from working very hard because they know they will never be that good. Everybody is different, so one cannot generalise, but this view is almost certainly more valid overall than the pie-in-the-sky idea that mixing up abilities will automatically raise the standard at the lower end. The opposite is far more likely to happen. The important thing is having the choice, as is the case currently in Gloucester.
Catering properly for pupils of higher ability should also be mirrored by catering properly for pupils with special educational needs. The report comments on the fact that there is a high proportion of such pupils at one school, as if this were detrimental to the school. Many children with certain special needs will rightly benefit from mainstream education, but a significant number with more severe or disruptive disabilities need to be educated in an environment which caters for their specific special needs. Yet the County Council seems determined to close down many of the SEN schools.
In short, everyone benefits from an education which is appropriate to their own abilities. It is not a matter of 'horses for courses', but rather 'courses for horses'.
* * * * *
Moving on to a consideration of the options available, on page 12 of the review it says: 'for the purposes of simplifying options, we have put schools into clusters'. Who are they trying to fool: us or themselves? This does not simplify matters; it causes so much confusion and contradiction that it renders the whole procedure practically meaningless.
On page 11 it says: 'We should aim for the removal of between 450 and 900 places overall to match the supply of places with the number needed'. (Presumably the use of the word 'overall' means that these figures include sixth-form places.) Of course, the whole reasoning behind reducing numbers is probably wrong; however, the options proposed should work within the parameters of this statement of intent. Looking at the proposals for Ribston, Crypt, Central and Barnwood Park (what they call cluster 1), the option to close all four schools and create two new mixed comprehensives would result in the loss of 1400 places all together (1065 in years 7 to 11, and 335 in the sixth form). This is way over the maximum of 900 places already specifically stated, making this option completely redundant. So why is it included?
It gets worse! Of the other three options for cluster 1, the minimum number of places to be lost is 565 (of which 540 are from years 7 to 11), already more the lowest number of places specified to be removed over-all. Even these figures have to be questioned, because two of the options involve the creation of a new mixed 11-18 grammar school, which they say will have 600 places: 120 per year. This size intake would fill the total capacity with years 7 to 11, leaving no room for a sixth form, an essential element in an 11-18 school!
Turning to the options for the third cluster (Rich's, Denmark Road and Oxstalls), of the three which involve losing places, the minimum is 520 (all in years 7 to 11). So the lowest total number of places that can be lost from groups 1 and 3 is 1085, well over the maximum figure of 900. The two options for cluster 4 would result in the loss of 145 or 150 places, creating a minimum number of 710 places to be lost from groups 1 and 4 combined. This leaves little room for losing more places in the other two groups. In cluster 2, the option to reduce the intake at Chosen Hill, Churchdown and Brockworth would result in the loss of 450 places, which when added to any of the options for group 1 comes to more than 900 places. Put all four groups together and you can get absurdly high figures. There are surprisingly few combinations that will result in fewer than 900 places being lost. Notwithstanding the folly of reducing the number of places anyway, the figures proposed simply do not add up.
The review does attempt to get round this by saying on page 13: 'Some option combinations will lead to more places being removed than we actually want to remove. This means that new places may have to be provided, probably by developing additional comprehensive provision.' This statement is so vague, flippant even, as to appear practically meaningless; but what it does say is that the Council wants more comprehensive schools, and that it is giving itself the option to do more or less anything it likes. However, the point is that, within the terms laid down in the review, substantial alterations cannot be made in more than one group. So, for those people who endorse change, the suggestions they come up with will almost certainly be impracticable within these terms. Perhaps the most significant factor is that it would be impossible to close down all the grammar schools within these specific parameters, as the minimum number of lost places would be 1085. Since this appears to be the Council's principal aim, the options and figures as presented lose all sense of credibility.
There is allowance made for a grammar school presence to be maintained with at least one mixed grammar school. This would be very much more elitist, with just 800 places compared to the 3,000 at present, and would still, of course, result in the destruction of all four existing grammar schools. I cannot help thinking that the Council would prefer to find a way of removing even this from the equation.
Two of the options for cluster 3 are either to close Oxstalls and re-open it as a new school with a different status (they do not say what this status might be), or to close Oxstalls and transfer Churchdown to the Oxstalls site. A major factor here is that the County Council cannot simply close the site at Oxstalls, because it has some of the best sports facilities in the area, which are also used by various organisations. Presumably a school has to be kept open there to maintain the economic viability of the site. However, within the stated terms of the review, it would only be possible to implement the proposal to move Churchdown to the Oxstalls site if there were no changes in any of the other groups, as it would in itself lose 860 places.
As for the options which reduce the intake into several schools, including popular ones already heavily over-subscribed, this would only increase the number of parents and pupils who are unhappy at not being offered a place at their first-choice school, thus creating more dissatisfaction with the system.
Finally, there is the proposal to create a sixth-form college. This is utterly preposterous. It would be disastrous for more than half the schools which would lose their sixth forms. Many of the excellent staff, for whom A-level teaching is an important and satisfying part of their work, would look elsewhere for jobs. Music and drama would suffer incalculable damage, as they rely a lot on the more advanced and mature sixth -formers to take the lead in concerts and productions, and to encourage younger children to achieve a higher standard. Sport would similarly suffer, with no top level to which to aspire. The children in the lower school would lose people they can look up to, and who can create a sort of link between themselves and the staff. The sixth-formers themselves would be put into an isolated environment, and lose the opportunity to have an element of responsibility, which any effective prefectorial system can provide.
Under the present system, many pupils entering the sixth form already change schools, in order to find the best courses to suit their needs. This option to move schools provides further choice for pupils, catering not only for those who prefer to remain in the same establishment, but also those who want to find a new environment. Having a large sixth-form college would take away this choice, which could easily have a detrimental effect on those who are looking for stability at an age which is frequently characterised by instability.
Moreover, if the County Council is really so concerned about the environment, nothing is more guaranteed to increase congestion, particularly if it were sited at the Docks.
* * * * *
The County Council says it wants ideas and suggest-ions from people. Before this can be done, it is necessary not just to isolate any problems, but, more importantly, the causes of these problems. The only credible problem cited in the review is that two schools (Central and Oxstalls) are to some extent failing and are relatively unpopular with parents. However, this seems to be contradicted somewhat by the recently published tables giving the 'value added' between the ages of 11 and 14, one school having a rating of 101, and the other 99.7. (100 represents the average; 101 indicates one term ahead of this.) Moreover, Oxstalls has just come out of 'special measures' a term early, representing a noticeable improvement, and should be congratulated on this. It is a pity that the County Council does not seem to appreciate this achievement.
With reference to failing schools, one of the bullet points in the presentation given at the beginning of the consultation meetings asks: 'Is the problem with the system, or just individual schools?'. The Council does not seem able to decide, otherwise the question would not be asked. However, the answer surely is neither. It is primarily a social one. There will always be children who do not want to learn, and there will always be parents who do not support their children, and who support their children's schools even less. Unfortunately, there will always be a disruptive element within society.
To some extent many of the difficulties result from the gradual breakdown in recent times of discipline and respect, which are essential to the stability of any organised society. This does not apply just to children; it seems to be increasingly endemic throughout society today. Self-discipline and respect are not on the whole innate qualities. They have to be learned, but without being subjected to violence or oppression, and instilled into the consciousness until they become instinctive. Unfortunately, the current social and legal structures within our society tend to militate against teachers trying to do this.
You do not help so-called 'failing' schools to improve by tearing apart all the good ones in the area. I am sure that the two schools put into this category must feel very unhappy that they are being labelled as the cause of such draconian measures. Surely the best way ahead is to channel more resources into these schools. Use the falling numbers (if that really be the case) to reduce class sizes in these schools to 25 or even 20. That would surely help to control the disruptive elements, and give some protection to the more vulnerable and easily-led children, who do still want to learn. It would also have the advantage of keeping all the current facilities available if numbers do increase. If necessary, bring in specialist head teachers, who have experience of turning round schools, although that may not be warranted. But do not waste money on pointless reviews: money that would be used far more profitably if it were put into the schools where problems occur.
Curiously, the review does not even address what is possibly the greatest weakness in the geographical distribution of the schools. Of the two main areas of housing development in Gloucester, Quedgeley has Severn Vale School, but the Abbeydale and Abbeymead area does not have a local school as such. (Although Central and Barnwood Park are reasonably local, both are single-sex schools.) This scarcely equates with the County Council's avowed, if ill-conceived, intent for pupils to attend their local school: hardly possible if none exists. (The Council's vague statement, on page 11, that 'the geographical distribution of places might need to be changed' is never followed through.) Hucclecote School could conceivably have performed this function, but the Council contrived to close this down years ago, as it did with Longlevens and Colwell: all very good schools by all accounts. It seems that the County Council has always specialised in closing down good schools; it appears keen to maintain this reputation.
* * * * *
The benefits of tradition should never be underestimated. I am talking here about tradition, not nostalgia or sentimentality, although both these feelings play an important role in society. Tradition creates continuity and stability; it generates confidence and trust, and helps to engender pride. Its value cannot be quantified or measured in some table or statistic. It stimulates a sense of allegiance and obligation to an institution, a feeling of belonging to something worthwhile in society which has withstood the test of time. It takes decades, centuries even, to build up a meaningful tradition, and yet, it seems, mere moments to destroy it.
The girls' grammar schools have traditions stretch-ing back about 120 and 80 years respectively. Sir Thomas Rich's School was founded in 1666, when Charles II was on the throne, before the building of the current St Paul's Cathedral. The Crypt School is even more ancient, having been founded in 1539, in the reign of Henry VIII. This was two years before the founda-tion of Gloucester Cathedral itself: before then it was a Benedictine Monastery in the diocese of Worcester. We all know what Henry VIII did to the monasteries. Let us not allow a similar desecration of our schools.
* * * * *
Has the County Council really thought seriously about the disruption to the education of thousands of children? They say that this will be kept to a minimum, but you cannot make such sweeping changes without creating massive disruption. Already it is causing concern. Many parents must be distraught. Those with children in year 6 (and younger) have to be worried that their first-choice school may not even exist in two or three years' time. The younger children at secondary school must be terrified that their GCSE work will be irrevocably undermined, older ones that their A-levels will suffer. How can the County Council even start to contemplate such wholesale carnage? The prospects must be completely demoralising for many parents and children.
The County Council is making the common mistake of confusing the admirable concept of providing equal opportunities for all, with providing the same opportunities for all (something that is inherent to some extent in the current National Curriculum). Different people require different opportunities to develop their abilities: some need a more academic education, others greater emphasis on practical skills. Whilst it is impossible to cater fully for every require-ment, the best results are surely to be achieved through a variety of choice. No system is perfect: all that can be hoped for is to provide the best opportunities for as many as possible. What we have in Gloucester is
generally excellent; any changes would almost certainly be to the detriment of the majority of pupils.
The fact that all the grammar schools, despite expansion in recent years, are still heavily over-subscribed proves that a sizeable percentage of parents support the grammar schools and want to have the choice inherent in the present system. If they were under-subscribed, then maybe this review would have some semblance of credibility, but that is palpably not the case, rendering this ill-conceived waste of time and money one of the greatest errors of judgement ever committed by any County Council.
* * * * *
So what can we conclude? Undeterred by the public outcry against just about every aspect of this review, the County Council still defends it. It seems that they have not taken in a word that has been said thus far. They tell us that no costings have been done for any of the options. What sort of business skills does this reveal? The figures in the options simply do not add up. Surely these options are not being offered as serious suggestions: if they were, they would have been far more carefully researched. At the very least, the review demonstrates extreme incompetence.
To me it can only mean one thing: the majority of members of the County Council, particularly its Cabinet, have no intention of listening. They simply want to create so much confusion that they will feel justified in pushing through the changes they want, whatever people may wish. The only chance we have of avoiding this is to vote for no change at all in the system; even then, I fear they will still find a way of foisting their own perverse ideas on us.
I believe that the County Council will adopt one of two different courses of action to maintain their so-called 'vision'. The first is that they will go ahead and try to force changes through before the next election. If so, the battle will continue. Perhaps more likely is that they will appear to shelve the whole review. However, I find it hard to believe that they will give in that easily, even under the weight of so much public opinion. I believe they will be hoping that people will forget about the matter, and at the next election enough of them will be re-elected to retain the balance of power. They will then try to resurrect the project, when they have four clear years before they have to worry again about elections. So, even if they do abandon it for now, this might only represent a minor victory. Everyone must remain vigilant; the battle will not be over.
* * * * *
The fact is that it is we, the people of Gloucestershire, who voted these councillors into office as the best people to run the county; perhaps we committed a massive error of judgement. It is not the school system that is failing pupils, it is the County Council that is failing the people it was elected to represent.