Leading Article: Parents' choice is limited
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Conservative's deserve congratulation for at least being prepared to tackle a problem that Labour has been unable to solve - namely that exam league tables have meant affluent parents moving into homes near the best-performing schools, thereby denying children from poorer homes access to them.
The Conservative's deserve congratulation for at least being prepared to tackle a problem that Labour has been unable to solve - namely that exam league tables have meant affluent parents moving into homes near the best-performing schools, thereby denying children from poorer homes access to them.
Speaking at the National Union of Teachers' conference in Harrogate last weekend, Tim Yeo, the Tory education spokesman, said that schools should be barred from using geographical proximity as a way of deciding school admissions. Sadly, however, the Tories' education spokesman did not suggest what criteria should be used instead, although his promise to consult with teachers' unions and other education organisations is welcome.
Doug McAvoy, the outgoing general secretary of the NUT, thinks that abolishing the geographical promixity rule will lead to names being drawn out of a hat by head teachers - something that most parents will not stomach. He has a point. That seems to be the only alternative way of determining admissions, given that it would take too long to expand a school to meet parental demand in any given year.
Another idea floated at the NUT conference is a return to the kind of banding arrangements that flourished under the Inner London Education Authority. This forced schools to admit fixed quotas of pupils from differing ability ranges.
Professor Tim Brighouse, appointed as London Schools Commissioner by the Government, has already promised that city academies - the newly privately sponsored inner city schools - will use this arrangement to decide on admissions. It looks to be a more practical way of approaching the problem than the "passport'' (or voucher) put forward by the Conservatives. After all, the "passport" cannot guarantee admission to a school if there are no places available at that school.
Perhaps the main lesson to emerge from this controversy is that politicians of every persuasion have a duty to face up to the fact that they cannot guarantee to deliver on parental choice. They can offer parents the opportunity to put their children's names down for the school they would like them to attend. Ultimately, however, if the school is oversubscribed, it is the school and not the parent who will determine whether a child gets in.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments