Morning:
14°c
Leading bright children in poor areas to soft subjects is hindering their futures, says the shadow schools secretary...
It's a classic summer frustration. You've made all the preparations. Your papers are all in order. You've worked hard for this and you've chosen your destination with care. But, at the last moment, some terrible administrative foul-up, with a political context you can't fathom, stops you getting to the place you've set your heart on.
This year, however, its not French air traffic controllers stopping holidaymakers reaching their destination we have to worry about. It's British ministers standing in the way of school students getting to the universities they want.
Thousands of sixth-formers are destined to be disappointed this year, even though they've got the grades which would once have guaranteed university entry. And it's not because sniffily elitist universities want to ration access to their quads and courts. No, the real obstacle to widening participation is Peter Mandelson. The man who once made it his goal to equate New Labour with aspiration has become the barrier to talented students fulfilling their dreams.
The numbers applying to university this year are up by 60,000. Given the state of the jobs market the increase was as predictable as rain in an English summer. But until last month, the Government had funded places for only another 3,000 students and had told universities they would be fined if they over-recruited. As a result, it looks as though tens of thousands who have the passes won't get the places. And ministers alone are at fault for this mess.
But it's very far from being the only tragic blockage to opportunity for which this Government is responsible. Not only is it failing this year to live up to its promise on widening access to higher education, it has consistently failed to deliver on the promise of helping the poorest climb the ladder of opportunity.
In 2007 more than 23,000 pupils secured three As at A level, the basic passport to a top university. The very poorest pupils are those eligible for free school meals. They constitute about 15 per cent of the school population but the number of boys eligible for free school meals who got three As at A level was only 75. Eton had nearly three times that number of boys getting three As.
When one school so comprehensively out-performs the poorest 15 per cent in our society then you know that opportunity remains blocked in Britain. And even these bleak figures don't tell the whole story about talent squandered. The brightest children in poorer areas are also, increasingly, led to weaker exams, in softer subjects, which compromise their ability to get on the best courses.
Our leading universities have made it clear that taking soft subjects such as media studies or dance at A level harms candidates' chances of admission. At Oxford in 2007 more students were accepted with A levels in further maths than the total number with A levels in law, business studies, media studies, film studies, accounting, sociology, communications studies, design and technology, home economics, ICT, music technology, travel and tourism, sports studies and physical education combined.
But because every subject counts the same in school league tables, weaker schools in poorer areas lead pupils to softer subjects in an effort to boost the school's rankings. So, among pupils eligible for free school meals, four times as many take drama as physics and three times as many take media studies as chemistry. Indeed, there are two local authorities in England, Islington and Slough, where no comprehensive pupil sat a single GCSE in physics, chemistry or biology. And no student in the whole of Knowsley, or Hackney, got three good A levels that included maths and physics last year.
If we're to make opportunity equal we need radically to reform an education system which is letting down the poorest more than others. So, the Conservatives would allow all schools to offer candidates the really prestigious exams, such as the International GCSE and the Cambridge Pre-U, which are effectively the preserve of the independent sector at the moment.
We'll also raise the bar on teacher quality by insisting that new entrants to the profession have better degrees than ever before, and we'll concentrate cash in the poorest areas so the best graduates have an incentive to teach in the most challenging schools. We know that there are already superb schools, like Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham in Lewisham, the Harris Academies in south London, Ark schools like Walworth Academy and Mossbourne Community Academy in Hackney which can turn around the lives of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds.
These schools use their independence, like the best American charter schools, to insist on a rigorous academic curriculum for all with no excuses for under-achievement. We want to establish many more excellent schools following their model, schools that are socially comprehensive in intake but rigorously academic in ethos, because we believe there are hundreds of thousands of young people of real talent who deserve the chance of a university education and who are currently denied that opportunity.
What these students need is a truly rigorous education at school, which stretches and challenges them, so their innate talents can be unlocked. But, instead of embracing radical reform in our schools, this Government tries to cover up its failure on education by passing the buck to the universities, devising ever more ornate methods of getting colleges to select students on the basis of their backgrounds, not their talents.
And, just as our league tables have become corrupted, so the university admissions system risks becoming corrupted. Yesterday The Sunday Telegraph reported that candidates are trying to exaggerate the poverty of their backgrounds, like some grotesque parody of Monty Python's Four Yorkshiremen, in order to secure a university place. The genuinely poor aren't helped by this charade. They need a government willing to open up opportunity right at the beginning of their journey through education, not one which erects arbitrary roadblocks at the end. Which is why, this summer, we're working through the holidays to put our schools system right.
Reader views (8)
Firstly I would like to comment on Darius' comment. I am currently in my second year of study of college, included in my subjects is a-level dance. I think it very ignorant of you to assume that I have gone into this subject seeking fame and or fortune. I do plan to do this subject at university and following that I would like to teach and be able to use valuable skills that the dance course will teach me. This I know to be a job with a salary less than an engineer's. This wanting for a job that is little paid is reiterated throughout my dance class with only one dancer that I know of wanting to become a professional performer. But have you never seen a musical and been entertained by this?
Secondly I would like to admit that I am on the gifted and talented register for my ability in further maths. I am sure you will agree this is proof that I am capable of doing any subject I choose, however not only do I find dance more enjoyable, the teacher of my dance lessons to be more competent, but I also find many aspect of dance to be more challenging. I, like a biology student, know all the major bones, muscles and systems in the body as well as many of the minor ones. I, like a historian can also go back to primitive dance and recite you dance history. Also like an English student, I can analyse and critique professional works. On top of this I can perform and choreograph. I should therefore wonder that if dance is a soft subject, is biology, English, history and many others.
- Emma, Solihull, United Kingdom
Well done Amy and Tracey for putting the argument for the breadth and rigour of studying dance to an advanced level. It is one of the very few subjects that develops intellectual, creative, physical, emotional, communication and social skills and engages the whole person. Surely this is exactly the kind of workforce that any future, knowledge-based, multi-cultural and entrepreneurial society will need?
It is the universities that are out of step in maintaining a secret list of 'non-preferred subjects'. This practice is unfair and discriminatory and should be stopped at once. And this is the argument the Shodow Culture and Schools Secretaries should be making and pursuing with all the rigour of an A Level Dance set study.
- Jeanette, London
I wonder how many of you, who believe dance to be non academic have actually tried to study it, or even are aware of what it includes. I would like to see you Darius be able to write a 10,000 word essay on the aesthetic technologies of dance and their effect on the body. I bet you don't even know what that is! And if you don't know what it is then what gives you the right to make judgements on the academic value of dance. It is quite obvious to me that the people that agree with this statement are under the impression that all there is to dance study in our curriculum is a couple of basic classes and an exam. However the reality is there is a lot of research and writing involoved leading to many students to state that Dance A Level is one of the hardest subjects at A Level. There are new technologies in Dance that would give any engineer a run for their money and require mathmatical skill, accuracy and IT knowledge to work. How many of you know how to use ISADORA? Not many..I thought not! Dance has the same importance, and in some cases more importance than other more 'academic' subjects. It requires creativity, co-ordination, communication skills, it builds confidence in performance and enables students to plan in-depth, complex movement theories and analysis. What good is a scientist if he shows no confidence in his work?
Stop putting down the hard work of students and teachers. You want to be scientists fine but not every child has that aspiration.
- Amy, Braintree, Essex
To all the people who seem to feel they are qualified to comment on dance being a 'soft' subject without any basic knowledge of what they are talking about, i would like to make this point. When you have learnt about anatomy and physiology, dance history, dance appreciation and analysis, the uses and applications of labanotation, nutrition and it's application to the training of a dancer, choreographic principles and how to actually put a whole dance together...........then come back and make a comment with some validity.
My so called soft 'dance' degree has allowed me to train to teach many people , to encourage children to have the confidence to perform by themselves, to allow a 70 year old woman to tap dance after a hip replacement, to train young teachers to understand the importance of child protection legislation and to teach my a level students to put in hours of extra rehearsals and study time to achieve a good grade.
Let's not forget the Msc in dance science I hope to start......No you're right lets all do engineering because it's booming in the UK isn't it ?
Or should we all study engineering and maths ?
- Tracey, lancashire
"We'll also raise the bar on teacher quality by insisting that new entrants to the profession have better degrees than ever before,". OK but the ability to teach and inspire pupils is what really matters, and this doesn't necessarily correlate with brilliance. For A level physics I had a teacher who had come to our school from being a lecturer at Imperial College. Academic ability - A*. Ability to teach schoolboys, not a lot. I failed.
- Tonyb, Melbourne, Australia
Typical tory policy making on the hoof - this has not been thought through.
Why knock back people taking vocational courses such as plumbing, electrical maintenance and brick laying? They are vital to our society and lets face it there is only so much demand for brain surgeons and nuclear physicists in today's world.
Lets give people keen to get the training they need to do a decent day's work the credit they deserve.
- Claire, Limehouse, East London
"there are two local authorities in England, Islington and Slough, where no comprehensive pupil sat a single GCSE in physics, chemistry or biology" - Surely this can't be true. When Britain has produced the likes of Stephen Hawking and Isaac Newton how can it be allowed that students do not study these subjects.
- Andy Davids, London
The whole eduk8shun experiment of the last two decades has been a disaster for the UK.
By this I mean that the most valuable jobs, in Engineering and science (which demand basic as well as creative skills) have been unfashionable, "soft" subjects, dance, etc have been seen as a route to fame and fortune.
All a con.
We now have the sad situation of two generations of school leavers who cannot add or spel(!) properly without technological assistance, technology incidentally that has been developed by engineers abroad!
"Yoof" seems perfectly able to embrace USING technological wonders, but have been led down an educational path where they aren`t excited about the develpoment and engineering that actually goes into making them work.
Another example, everyone knows who David Beckham is, but not who invented the washing machine - now which person, honestly, has done more for womankind?
The point is that celebrity being valued more than innovation and engineering skills has GOT to be addressed in our education system, then our economy can be built on sound foundations and not just hopes of celebrity, finance and housing escalator "chaff".
You can dance or kick balls for your degree all you like , but unless you, and the thousands like you can sell your goods and services to the hard working taxpayer, you might as well tap dance or dribble your way to the taxpayer funded wonderland that is your local benefit agency.
- Darius, London UK
