When the Government first introduced it, the idea of parents having choice in education seemed a great idea, but many saw this as a vote-winning policy and felt the Government had not considered all the possible consequences for society.
For all schools, the main imperative arising from parental choice is competition. Private schools are used to this but the LEA had always sheltered community schools. This is an issue that had to be faced when considering parental choice; the supply of children to any school is now the result of family choice. Is it fair to deny students who live in poorer neighbourhoods the chance to go to better schools with better facilities, teachers and conditions? Or is it fair to allow affluent families to snap up the ‘best’ school places because they can afford to and are able to drive their children there each day?
The effects of choice for parents cannot readily be summarized. Some parents have always had preferences but have often only been able to take advantage of them if they had the financial or social resources. Now, apparently, all parents have the opportunity for effective choice.
Naturally most parents want the best education for their children, and as a consequence, aim for their children to attend the best school available. When regarding schools, the information available to parents is derived from a mixture of published league tables, possible personal experiences, and the attitudes of the community to the schools in question. Other factors may also include locality in relation to their home, discipline reputation, the region where the school is, the facilities available at the school and whether the school is on a busy road. The list of reasons that parents select schools often seems endless and each individual has their own ideals and priorities.
Appendix 1 shows the results of a survey for parents sending their children from primary to secondary school. Although it is from 1993, it highlights the wide range of issues that parents consider when choosing a school. Now that League tables are a ‘hot topic’ with Government, have been featured in the press and debated constantly, maybe they might be more of a consideration in 2003. 10 years ago parents didn’t know that much about them, and it would be interesting to see how that table would look today!
Since parental choice has been in force, little has been heard about its advantages (except from the Government that introduced it!). This could possibly be explained by simple human nature. Those who have made the choice and been happy with the result will sit back and be confident that they have been ‘heard’. On the other hand those parents that have not been happy with the school they have been offered, are the ones whose voices will be heard the loudest.
Many studies have been done about Educational achievements linked to background.
Nicholas Pyke, a reporter for the Times (2002) said recently “ Family background and the social mix of a school population have long been established as significant determinants of a child’s’ future, academic and economic – a depressing truth that can be seen in most of the longitudinal studies conducted by Professor John Rutler and Professor Peter Mortimore. The rate of entitlement to free school dinners – effectively the employment rate amongst parents – at a school, correlates strongly with poor results” ().
Appendix 2 attempts to highlight the differences between social classes and how they can have a profound effect on education. The early, formative years are considered vital to a child’s direction when they get to school and the table highlights some areas that can be a concern. The life that a child has led before school and the attitudes of the adults around them mean that they all begin school at a different level and with different values. If children have all the advantages that life can offer them, they can arrive at school at the age of 5, with a head start on another child from a poorer family without those advantages. Of course there are always going to be exceptions and there are many children from working class families who do well and succeed despite any disadvantages, but for the purposes of study it needs to be a more general view.
Generally in any one area there tends to be one school that meets the expected criteria of the parents more than any other. The ability of parents to choose to some level which school their child attends, leads to the most popular school receiving more applications than other schools. This school could then become filled quickly, and other children then refused entry. Parents are then faced with the prospect of appeal, and if unsuccessful, having to send their children to schools which they do not consider to be the best one for their child’s education.
Admission to schools has even affected house prices. It seems that parents are willing to pay up to 20% more for a house in an area that will ensure a place at a good school. Estate agents have taken advantage of this and know exactly where the dividing line will fall, so adjust prices accordingly. This can create an even bigger divide between the ‘haves and have nots’, reinforcing existing social divisions.
Prior to parental choice, all children in a community would attend one or two schools and therefore maintain relationships with the children living around them. The social aspect was continued in and out of school. Choice has now led to children living near each other, attending different schools, simply because one got a place in a certain school and another did not. This can lead to a breakdown in social play outside of school, simply because the children do not associate with each other on the grounds that they attend different schools. Competition and friction can often occur in these circumstances; with children trying to prove which school is ‘best’. Parents whose children did not gain entry to a specific school may become resentful towards those that did. Parents whose children did gain entry may feel as though their children are destined for greater things than the children who did not. Social division is common as rivalry begins to grow. Those with the least money and resources will have the fewest choices. To have choice, some would say that you must have the means to afford them.
Another suggestion has been made that some schools are being particularly selective about the children that they choose to admit. Recent studies have shown that children from lower working class or single parent families, have a lower score rate in national tests, schools which regardless of equal opportunity issues, have to maintain a high standard in order to remain popular and high in the league tables. To maintain their success in the eyes of the both the government and of parents, they decline places to children who are potentially at risk of doing poorer in examinations. The population and community become even further divided by the selection process of some schools themselves. The population in these schools is often not representative of the social climate of the region.
It can be seen by some that the choices of parents, and the selection processes of some schools creates a rift in the social community. Popular schools have limited places. Families, who are late to apply, or move into an area during term time, are sometimes forced to accept places in schools that are not as popular. This then reflects on the commitment in the classroom, children who know they are at the best school and who are given all the according praise and encouragement, are more likely to thrive and achieve in this environment than children who know they did not get a place in such a school, and who are surrounded by peers who do not attend the same school as they did. Regardless of the age and the nature of children, there is a rivalry within schools.
There are other effects of this that are perhaps more subtle. As more parents choose to send their children to schools out of the area, fewer children are able to get to their schools safely on foot. Many parents are resorting to using the car and this is increasing traffic pollution, congestion, parking problems, and accidents. The rise in childhood asthma has been linked to the increased level of traffic. Many local shops no longer have the foot traffic that they had when families walked to school, many smaller shops rely heavily on this as a major source of income, and as more parents use cars, the shops are losing business. Without this many are forced to close, or, alternatively change their main source of income and turn into off licences etc, again reshaping the local community. It wouldn’t be unfair to some to link this with the rise in childhood alcohol problems.
In time, there will be a greater divide, as more children from ethnic minorities, single parent families, working and lower class families are forced to accept places in schools which are not their first choice. Middle class families with apparently stable parental backgrounds will be able to send their children to the school of their choice, and the rift will continue throughout the community. Peer groups can have a stronger effect on an individual than background and class. If the brighter children are ‘creamed off’, then the schools with lower ability pupils will create their own atmosphere. The ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ comes into play and children may find themselves in school alongside children with behavioural problems. Peer pressure can then lead to children deteriorating rather than improving, if the school has a bad reputation, the children might just feel they have to live up to it.
The community of schools has changed dramatically over recent years. Parents no longer mingle in the playground, and rather than parents visiting the corner shop after school and walking home, there will be an ever growing increase in traffic and the problems associated problems with it.
Even in small numbers, this change in the population of schools in respect to the population of the local community will further reflect in the success and the attitude towards these schools. Unless there are changes made to enforce enrolment and to change the system again popular schools will grow more successful, and less popular schools will become less successful. The divide in the parent’s choice will essentially become an ever-increasing divide in the production of the schooling provided by the local schools in any one community.
It has been argued that the schools that are under-achieving should be the ones given the most help. Linking funding to higher achievement seems, to some, to just widen the gap between schools. The Schools Standard Minister, David Milliband argued that “extra funding and specialist schools encouraged excellence and raised standards”, although later he accepted that “ England has the most unequal education system in the industrialised world. Far too many children with the potential to succeed are not given the opportunities to fulfil that potential” ().
The fact that the majority of teachers in schools disapprove of League tables, as they do with testing primary children, might make the Government think again. The recent u-turn regarding tests is hopefully a sign that people in education are being heard. Re-thinking parental choice and League table information may lead to yet more changes in communities and societies in general.
Maybe if we could help those children succeed in the school and society, they will produce fewer problems and we can build up a better environment for everyone. Choices are a good thing, and anything that gets parents more involved with education is a good move, but the long-term effects are only just beginning to emerge.
