Expectations
The impact of current educational policies on vulnerable young people
Cynthia Bartlett

Click here for a print version of this article.


For vulnerable young people, government policies on targets, testing and league tables have been a tragedy. All students in the UK experience eleven years of compulsory education once in their lifetime. Most enter secondary school with high expectations and a desire for success. If they are not engaged in learning by 16, they may never be.

There is a generation of young people growing up who have suffered while at school from an undue emphasis on that intellectual and academic achievement which can be accredited by public examinations, to the detriment of many other valuable assets which education can develop, enrich or facilitate. Many have attended schools which have suddenly been labelled as failing and many have left secondary education with low self-esteem and lower expectations.

Education is intended by definition to be learner-centred, but recent policy accords the learner little consideration. One of the causes of some of the greatest difficulties schools have faced in recent years has been a decision to place education within a 'market' driven system. Significant questions need to be asked about the current micro-management and hyper-accountability which inevitably direct the work of schools. Has a belief in the uniqueness and value of every human being and their potential to contribute to the happiness of society given way to a uniformity of delivery and production designed simply to provide useful employees in the market place?

From the adoption of a market model, targets have followed, both for individuals and for institutions. Other public services such as Health and the Police are questioning the effects of targets on their work; many would see them causing as many difficulties as they solve, moving the challenges around rather than improving the service. There seems to be a widespread belief by those making policy that targets motivate people.

Truly, goals are motivational, for all need to know the direction of travel. Yet over ambitious targets, which may have essential funding resting on their achievement, 'forced' on individuals and schools create anxiety, stress and sometimes alienation - an inherent dissatisfaction with the work and the potential for rejection. Targets manufacture a possibility for failure where none previously existed. In the current inspection framework, 'whether learners achieve their targets and whether the targets are adequately challenging' is part of the evaluation schedule for achievements and standards.

If target-setting raises expectations on the part of the individual learner it may motivate and engage. If it is seen as a stick with which to beat the learner into an acknowledgement of current under-achievement and lack of effort, it may alienate, and lead to anxiety and disaffection. Sometimes targets have become labels on persons rather than performances, for example, 'I'm a G'.

And so it is with schools. Targets set against achievement, used as weapons to designate individuals as 'failures' or schools as 'failing' may do untold damage to the lives of vulnerable young people, and add to their numbers. The Fischer Family Trust itself, faced with growing concern from schools under pressure from Local Authorities and Government, is now keen to emphasise that the figures it produces are estimates not targets.

The progress and development of individual learners and the success of their schools cannot be judged merely on academic test and examination results. The current KS2 and KS3 tests contribute little to knowledge of a learner's educational progress or of the quality of the education learners are receiving. Many are asking the question, 'Who does testing at KS2 and KS3 benefit?' Not the learners - they can be assessed at any time by professional staff with assessment moderated as required. Not the schools - their curriculum is constrained by preparation of and teaching to the tests, while staff know the level at which the students are working. Not the parents - they receive reports on progress regularly and watch anxious and sometimes demoralised young people, show concern about their future and the imminent possibility of failure.

The conclusion to be drawn here is that it is thought to benefit statisticians who are able to calculate 'progress' from baselines, and politicians who want to run education as a business and not as a service to the community. In fact, however, it widens the achievement gap, impedes a broad and balanced curriculum and undermines personalised learning. Arguably it fills the streets with aimless and disillusioned young people, whose only experience of success is their ability to lead or join supporting sub-cultures and harness the anger and fear of the society around them.

Not all young people have the same academic ability. This statement needs emphasising because it seems to have been forgotten. Yet cognitive abilities tests show these differences and GCSE and A Level examinations are set to differentiate across the ability range. The very nature of an average means that a significant proportion will always be classed as 'below average'. Given the range of cognitive abilities in a population and the wide variety of childhood experiences, one cannot expect every child to develop at the same rate or in the same ways.

Some vulnerable students and some who are well adjusted will not be able to achieve a C in the current maths specifications, even given many hours of good teaching each week. Their failure to grasp algebra or geometry does not mean they are destined to be poor citizens, parents or employees. The current spotlight on maths (English providing the higher percentages of C grades nationally) ensures that even more young people are in danger of being branded as 'failures'.

The emphasis of 'Standards', and by this is meant a judgment on a narrow range of criteria from only a part of the whole secondary curriculum, damages the chances of vulnerable children. Such pressure on individual teachers promotes staff instability and discourages retention. It forces schools into categories and leads, especially in more challenging areas, to difficulties in recruitment.

Since the introduction of league tables in 1992, there has been a wealth of research in relation to testing, targets, league tables and inspections. Such research appears to have been largely ignored. The increasing tendency on the part of government to relate the management of education to a market economy and to regard parents as the consumers is well known.

Alongside this, there has been a growing concern about the numbers of students alienated from education and the social consequences for them and others of this phenomenon. Headteachers are aware that despite their best endeavours, the present system is weighted against attention being given to those unlikely to contribute to 5A*-C or even to the 5A*-G percentages.

They know how important it is that vulnerable students are not neglected and marginalized. They direct resources to address their needs, but know that the results of these efforts will not gain widespread recognition. Those with higher examination results and a small proportion of vulnerable students can afford to make appropriate provision for them, irrespective of their inability to contribute to the statistical success of the school. Those serving more disadvantaged communities, where vulnerable young people form a significant proportion of the roll cannot afford to do the same.

And yet, despite all of this, in a recent Keele University survey summary 88% of children say they are happy at school - a testimony to the dedication of staff in schools to their profession, which has enabled many of them to continue to provide for the young people, in addition to good teaching, all those things which cannot be measured, or are regarded currently as peripheral.

All young people have a right to expect their lives to be enriched by learning, to experience achievement and taste success. Vulnerable students need all that schools can provide to take a full part in what is offered. They and their parents need to know that they are engaged in an education which promotes confidence in their abilities and above all their happiness.

From 'Expectations, Encouragement and Empowerment: an Education. An alternative to Targets, Testing and Tables: a Tragedy' (March 2008)

Cynthia Bartlett is Headteacher of Bicester Community College, Oxfordshire and a Chair of Examiners (GCSE) for one of the Examining Boards

Respond to this article via office@nationaleducationtrust.net 

Back to the top of the page