The numbers of pupils in comprehensive schools has steadily increased since the mid-1960s and in that period standards have risen continuously. Around six times as many pupils get five good GCSEs as did in 1968.
Given that GCSEs were introduced in 1988 (1986 they started being taught, ’88 was first examination year) I find that to be, well, not quite true. Garbled bloody nonsense in fact.
Five times as many go on to university and
The expansion of university is not an advertisement, nor of course a condemnation, of the comprehensive school system. It’s an expansion of the universities, no more.
Myth 2: Local authorities run schools This ridiculous statement is used repeatedly by politicians who should know better, especially if they are Conservatives, as it was their party that introduced Local Management of Schools in 1988, removed direct financial control from local authorities and decentralised power to heads and governing bodies, who have been able to allocate resources, recruit staff and make decisions about subjects and exams ever since.
So, your whining about how academies remove local democratic control has no basis then?
Myth 3: Autonomy leads to higher standards Autonomy alone is not a golden bullet. Ask the Swedes, who have seen their country slip down the international league tables since they introduced more “free” schools. The most recent DfE performance tables, and successive reports from Ofsted‘s chief inspectors, show clearly there is very little difference overall in either results or inspection grades for academies and maintained schools in similar circumstances. Indeed, on several key indicators, maintained schools outperform academies with similar intakes. This is not to suggest that academies haven’t improved, simply to point out that maintained schools have improved at the same rate. It is a mystery why ministers, who are responsible for both, won’t take credit for that.
Snigger. So, since the introduction of academies standards have improved. This shows that the introduction of academies has not improved schools in what manner?
Take it futher: we generally assume that competition improves all participants in a market. One supermarket getting better gets those competing with it to buck up their act: however owned or managed.
Ms. Millar’s prejudices are not impressive, are they?