Resources

In October 2007 Ofsted (the body responsible for measuring the quality of education provision in England) published its Annual Report. This is intended as a summary of the ‘state of the nation’. The report focused on three interrelated issues: improving the life chances of all children and narrowing the gap between them; the question of what it means to grow up in the 21st century; and preparing young people for the world of work.

The report generated a lot of media coverage, much of which focused on the report’s identification of the gap in opportunities and outcomes that persists in the education system. HM Chief Inspector, Christine Gilbert, summarised this gap:

“The relationship between poverty and outcomes for young people is stark; the poor performance of many children and young people living in the most disadvantaged areas is seen in the Foundation Stage Early Learning Goals, in National Curriculum test results, and in GCSE results. Participation in higher education continues to have much to do with socio-economic background.”

In an article in the Guardian newspaper, Lord Andrew Adonis, the Schools Minister, was quoted as saying that:

“We will not be satisfied until we have closed the gap between the poorer and the more affluent, and until every child and young person has the opportunities they deserve to prosper and succeed.”

The desire to ensure that ‘Every Child Matters’ is laudable, not least because educational success provides individuals with the social and cultural ‘capital’ to succeed later in life. However, in the light of the inequalities highlighted by Ofsted, it is legitimate for a magazine such as VISION to explore different perspectives on how this educational gap might be closed.

Every school a great school

Since the 1990s governments have drawn upon the insights of school effectiveness research which purported to show that there were significant differences in the performance of schools with similar intakes. This supported the message that ‘poverty is no excuse’ for school failure. Researchers discovered some differences between school performance even after social factors were taken into account. This was the ‘school effect’, or the way in which what schools could do could make a difference. Whilst school effectiveness research was concerned with statistical evidence about ‘what works’, it subsequently morphed into research on school improvement, which was concerned with the processes of how schools can change. This research focused on the need for strong leadership and the development of a positive school culture or ‘climate’.

More recently, those working in school improvement have been interested in the lessons learned for the transformation of the educational system as a whole – expressed in the notion of ‘system leadership’. A good example of this is David Hopkin’s book ‘Every School a Great School’. Between 2002 and 2005 Hopkins was the Chief Advisor of School Standards at the DfES. His chief claim is that school improvement researchers have learned the lessons of what makes for school improvement in individual schools, but the challenge is to scale up these reforms and make them go ‘system-wide’. He starts off by providing evidence that for any parent the goal of educational reform is that “every local school should be a great school”. This goal is (and it’s one shared by Ofsted), he thinks, a “no-brainer”. He is optimistic that it can be achieved in the foreseeable future, based on the idea of the ‘tipping point’ whereby “every successful innovation that impacts on society has a tipping point where the change transforms itself exponentially from enjoying a limited sectional interest to become a mass phenomenon”. The ‘tipping point’ in education is now being reached as a result of increased information about the performance of the education system, which means that society is not just demanding excellence, but is prepared to take some responsibility for it happening. However, it’s not just about schools, because, following Basil Bernstein’s argument over 30 years ago that “schools cannot compensate for society”, genuine system-wide reform can only be achieved when society is committed to social justice – this, Hopkins argues, has been secured by 10 years of New Labour government.

Historical continuities

Viewed from a broader historical perspective, it is unsurprising that the gap in educational attainment identified by Ofsted persists, since some argue that education is an effective way of reproducing existing patterns of social inequality. For instance, in a review of educational change in the period 1945-2000, the educational historian Roy Lowe reflects that:

“The central irony of education in Britain since 1945 is that it has been transformed, yet in many ways remains the same, with identifiable social functions and a hierarchical, even elitist structure which still at the start of the twentieth century bears many of the marks of its Victorian origins.”

Lowe notes the existence of a strong sense of hierarchy, the fact that parents and estate agents have a shrewd sense of which are the ‘best’ schools in a locality, a clear public understanding of what are the ‘elite’ institutions, and virtually no erosion of the rift between the private and state sectors during this period. In the post-war period, many sociologists of education have reached the same conclusion. Professor Sally Tomlinson, summarising the voluminous literature on educational ideology, policy, development and change concludes:

“Despite the educational successes and advances that could be recorded, a major theme in the literature is that any expectations that more access to education would lead to a more equal society rapidly gave way to disillusionment. Education persisted as a means by which inequalities were created, legitimised and justified, and privileged groups continued to use the divisions and distinctions of schooling to confirm and reproduce their own positions.”

For those who seek to bring about improvements in education and narrow the gap between rich and poor, this analysis can seem rather pessimistic. It is argued that the approach tends to focus on the large-scale processes that operate to create educational divisions, and that it tends to avoid practical action to make a difference in children’s lives.

Why does every child matter?

As the previous paragraphs indicate, there are different views about whether and how the gap in educational achievement might be narrowed. In practice, most commentators recognise the importance of both effective practice and broader social factors. While few would argue that the educational gap can be explained away by blaming it all on wider societal factors such as poverty or income inequality, it is not simply a matter of making sure that all schools follow a set of guidelines or blueprints for effective practice.

The desire to ensure that every school is a good school is understandable. It fits the government’s concern to ensure that all children are included and have the option to develop their potential. In economic terms it is based on the notion that the long tail of educational underachievement is wasteful of human talent and, ultimately, human capital. In the brave new economic order based on globalisation and the knowledge-economy, raising standards and increasing social cohesion are important targets. All this means that the stakes are high, and that schools are a central part of this agenda. But at the same time, schools are increasingly seen as the key to resolving social problems. Faced with high levels of geographical mobility, trends towards the breakdown of traditional family structures and the much-heralded ‘death of community’, schools are increasingly looked to as institutions that can provide safe havens for children and contribute to social cohesion and sustainable communities.

Transforming childhood

The desire to ensure that ‘every child matters’ is laudable. It is important that all schools provide opportunities for children to thrive. However, the answer to the question of why every child matters is far from clear-cut. Is it in order to fulfil their economic potential and add to the nation’s stock of human capital? Is it to ensure that all children are able to live and participate in communities that are safe, harmonious and culturally diverse? Or is it to allow all children to ‘find their level’ in a society that allocates economic rewards according to success in examinations? The answer as to why every child matters may be all of these and more. Viewed in a wider perspective (and in the British context at least), the drive to ensure that every child matters is to result in transformations in the experience of childhood since the Second World War. Changes in family structure, growing concerns about the risks of childhood, along with the emergence of digital cultures based around the computer screen, mobile phone and text-messaging have led to new forms of childhood. How schools, and society as a whole, responds to these changes, is of paramount importance.

top of page