The state of Britain's schools

"Education, education, education," was Tony Blair's mantra in 1997. What are the parties offering 13 years later?



Are schools better under Labour?

They certainly say so. Labour have doubled
spending on schools since 1997 - employing
an extra 42,000 teachers and 123,000
teaching assistants - and claim to have
delivered a decade of improvement as a result.
Around 50% of pupils now achieve at least
five "good" GCSEs - including English and
maths - at grade C or above, compared to
35% in 1997. Pupils get better A-level grades
t(M>: 26.7% of papers were given an A last
year. The Government also claims to have
turned around a huge number of failing
schools. Thirteen years ago, there were 1,600
schools at which just 30% of children attained
five good GCSEs. Now there are 237. This
rosy view, however, is often challenged by
employers and universities, who lament the
falling standard of the British graduate.


What do they say?

Employers complain that even A-lcvcl
graduates do not have adequate literacy or
numeracy skills. Others say Labour is still


failing those at the bottom of the heap. Despite all the spending,
20% of 11-year-olds still cannot write sentences, and about
30,000 children a year leave school with no GCSEs at all. Fears
that standards are declining are confirmed by the UK's slide down
international league tables. Thirty years ago, British secondary
schools were among the best in the world. Recent studies show a
dramatic deterioration. Across the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) - a group of 30
industrialised nations - British 15-year-olds are now ranked 17th
in reading, I4iii in science and 24th In maths. I he proportion of
British children going on to higher education has been overtaken
by Poland, and last year the OECD found that 10% of British 15
to 19-year-olds were "Neets" (Not in Employment, Education or
Training) - ahead only of Turkey, Italy, Mexico and Greece.


Do we score well on any international comparisons?

Yes, but in a way that is uncomfortable for the Government. In
OECD tests, students at British independent schools achieve some
of the highest scores in the world, better than their equivalents in
other countries, and far better than pupils at state schools. Last
summer, pupils at independent schools got As in 52% of their
A-level papers, around double the national average. The gap
between the state and the independent sector has widened since
1998, with independent schools consistently achieving better
results in science and languages - subjects vital to Britain's
competitiveness. The superior performance of the private sector
has translated into a disproportionate number of students from
private schools at good universities.


So what has gone wrong in state schools?

There is no shortage of complaints. Parents blame pr teaching,
poor discipline, and classes too big to enable pupils to prosper.
Teachers say the Government is always on their backs, presenting


them with an ever-shifting set of targets and
exams, rather than allowing them to provide
a rounded education. Under Labour,
compulsory tests for 11 and 14-year-olds
(SATs) that were introduced by the Tories in
1991 have become the stuff of nightmares for
over-stressed teachers and pupils. (Testing
for 14-year-olds was scrapped in 2008.)
Meanwhile, Chris Woodhead, a former chief
schools inspector, blames teaching unions for
making it difficult to fire bad teachers and
blocking much-needed reform.


What is seen as the answer?

Ministers say that school leadership is the key.
The replacement of failing comprehensives
with academies - state-funded schools run by
sponsors and independent of local control - is
now accepted by all three main political
parties. In 2007, the National Audit Office
found that GCSE performance was improving
faster in academics than in any other type of
school, and there are now around 200 in the
country. Tony Blair also began parachuting in
head teachers - "superheads" - as consultants or executive heads
for struggling schools. Labour now plans for up to a third of
comprehensives to be merged, or be given a "supcrhcad", so they
can benefit from better leadership.


Is that likely to prove decisive?

Noi on its own. While inspirational heads can make .1 difference,
income and family background, normally indicated by the
number of pupils receiving free school meals, remain a better
guide to a school's academic performance. "Social disadvantage
trumps leadership every time," says Bernard Barker, the emeritus
professor of educational leadership and management at Leicester
University, who himself led a school out of special measures. Only
27% of pupils eligible for free school meals currently get five
good GCSEs - versus the national average of 54% - while
children from Britain's poorest postcodes, home to around 20%
of the population, constitute just 6% of the student community at
universities that require three Bs at A-lcvcl.


Can anything be done about that?

As ever, the choice is between more flexibility for schools and
parents - seen to favour the savvy, pushy middle classes - and a
smarter, centralised approach that gives more resources to the
neediest. (For the parties' policies, sec below.) The Conservatives
have stolen the headlines by promising to increase the supply of
schools: they will allow parents and businesses to set up their own
Swedish-style "free schools" that will be funded by the state but
unhindered by bureaucracy. Increasing competition for students,
the theory goes, will improve standards across all state schools.
But Labour says the system is expensive and its benefits unproven,
while the Liberal Democrats say the most important thing is extra
funding for poor students. The likely policy of any winning party
will probably boil down to two words: more academics.