(no subject)

[f4f3]

The league tables for Scottish schools have just been published. I realise that league tables are a blunt instrument for measuring performance, but I thought I’d have a peek at how my old school, All Saints in Glasgow, was doing.

The results depressed me, showing just how bad the exam results were compared to the city’s norm. Then I looked at the results for the private schools in Glasgow, and I stopped being depressed and started being furious instead.

Leaving aside the morality of private education, the results demonstrate just what can be achieved by throwing money at education.
2 out of 3 pupils getting five or more highers (the Scottish A Level) against 1 in 20
97% of pupils going on to university against an average of 32% or worse.
More than half of the pupils at my old school are poor enough to qualify fro free school meals – how many of their children will end up the same?

Comments

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree with you. My instant remedy would be close half the universities and use the money for early childhood and primary education, especially in poorer areas.

I'm not sure that throwing money at secondary education would help much since there are socially determined differenes in average performance that are already apparent. It's noteworthy that in the south of England some state schools produce results as good as private schools. Surprise, surprise, they have relatively wealthy catchment areas.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

We're in violent agreement :-)

I'd say that "socially determined differences" should be read as "financially determined differences" though - more teachers in the socially deprived areas would bring up results.