Feb 2nd 2012, 16:31 by Bagehot
MY PRINT column this week is based on reporting visits I recently made to an inner London secondary school. I found the experience hugely encouraging. It's a great school, in a tough neighbourhood. That begs the next question. If it can be done here, why can't it be done everywhere? I don't pretend to have all the answers, but offer this as a snapshot of one successful school, doing a lot of things right.
Here's the column:
DANIEL RILEY, a young trainee teacher from west London, attended a school so bad that it was shut down while he was there. It was, he recalls with commendable understatement, an “unstructured” place. Fewer than 20% of pupils achieved five good GCSE passes, including mathematics and English (the main benchmark for secondary students, involving exams commonly taken at 16). There were fights. Some, involving knives, ended with arrests. There were drugs—the school drew its pupils from tough housing estates, and gangs prowled at the gates. The teaching was “not inspired,” Mr Riley says, sticking with the understatement. He recalls lessons spent copying texts from books.
As happened to a few dozen failing institutions under the previous Labour government, Mr Riley’s school was turned into an academy—a state school removed from local council control and given new freedoms over staffing and teaching methods. Six years on, Paddington Academy draws its pupils from the same estates. But the school is unrecognisable.
Last summer 69% of pupils met the benchmark for good GCSEs, easily beating the national average. More than half come from homes poor enough to earn free school meals and more than three-quarters do not speak English as a first language, making its intake exceptionally “challenging”, in Whitehall jargon.
Now when Mr Riley meets teenage students they seek advice about university. His dream is to return to Paddington Academy to teach full-time. It is easy to see why. The school is a success, recently earning an “Outstanding” grade from Ofsted school inspectors. It is, more subjectively, an impressive place. It feels calm and academically ambitious. It hums with optimism.
The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition has put great faith in school autonomy: there are now 1,500 academies in England. A single column cannot pretend to prove that faith right or wrong. Bagehot spent time at Paddington last month with a more modest goal, to look at one successful school and try to discern what makes it different. Two big lessons jumped out.
First, Paddington is built around remarkable people. An unusually high proportion of staff come from Teach First, a programme that sends highly-qualified graduates into challenging schools for at least two years. Staff stay late for homework clubs that run until ten at night (many pupils come from crowded homes) and volunteer for weekend workshops. A teacher guiding 15-year-olds through a thoughtful debate on British manufacturing was a Treasury economist before switching career. His economics GCSE class is an experiment, part of a policy of promoting more academic subjects. Maths is the most popular subject for the oldest, sixth-form pupils, followed by sciences. Create an expectation that students can take hard subjects, and they will demand them, the teacher says. Thanks to pupil lobbying, the school now offers the astronomy GCSE.
The students’ families—from Africa, Bangladesh, Iraq, Kosovo and the Caribbean in the main—are remarkable, too. Many went through “trials and tribulations” to reach Britain, explains a 15-year-old girl who plans to be a doctor, so “we like a challenge”.
Second, Paddington uses distinctive methods. A motto is: “the street stops at the gates”. There is a strict uniform code, and pupils must remove hooded tops and caps as they arrive. Pupils are educated for the professional world, says a teacher: if they call a boss “Bruv”, value judgments will be made about them. Pupils agree. Using street slang would be an easy option in school, says a teenage boy. Alas, the world “out there” will not be easy.
Competition is embraced. Pupils are ranked on progress against individual targets every six weeks, with results posted publicly on a board. A difficult home life triggers support but not excuses. Some pupils arrive speaking no English: they are offered up to four years’ specialist help, but expectations are not lowered.
Staff enforce the small details of behaviour ceaselessly, with meaningful looks, a warning finger briefly held up, or a word of praise every few seconds. The goal is not Gradgrindian discipline, but the avoidance of bigger confrontations. Good deeds are consistently rewarded, lapses always have consequences. Pupils’ blazer lapels sag with enamel badges for choir, language-learning, mentoring younger pupils and so on. When the school gained its “Outstanding” grade, pupils were crestfallen to hear that this did not bring a badge. The school’s excellent and tireless principal, Oli Tomlinson, finally had “Outstanding” badges made in blue and gold enamel, bearing the Ofsted logo.
No excuses, no barriers
A common charge from academy critics—notably teachers’ unions—is that they practise selection on the sly by excluding difficult pupils. Early on, Paddington did expel some pupils from the old school, but now takes hard cases itself. At a morning meeting, staff discussed the progress of a new pupil rejected by all neighbouring schools: it went well, they agreed, considering it was his first day out of prison. Yet students feel safe. It’s better than primary school here, says a 12 year old: “People respect you.”
Paddington Academy is a brilliant school. That is great for its 1,200 pupils. But for others to benefit, Paddington’s strengths—its remarkable people and methods—must be echoed elsewhere. Methods can be copied. It helps that Paddington is part of a chain of academies sponsored by a charity, the United Learning Trust, driving the spread of good ideas. It also helps that school league tables are being beefed up with much more data, making Paddington’s success more visible. Remarkable people are harder to reproduce. Yet Paddington’s dynamic young teachers talk of their luck at working at a school which transforms lives. Mr Riley, fresh from university, longs to join them. The country needs more Mr Rileys. Schools as inspiring as Paddington are a good first step.
In this blog, our Bagehot columnist surveys the politics of Britain, British life and Britain's place in the world. The column and blog are named after Walter Bagehot, an English journalist who was the editor of The Economist from 1861 to 1877
Advertisement
Over the past five days
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
So much for the Economists's economic skills. Paying for the education of these good young people has been socialized on to the teachers through age discrimination.
Always good to hear about a good school. However, there are issues that are worth raising, some mentioned by earlier posters. The most obvious is replicability: is the success due to a formula or to the conjunction of good people (typically the principal and his/her backers) with opportunity?
The reliance on 'Teach First' is a bit worrying: these are very bright and motivated young people who are there explicitly for the short term and receive minimal training. As has been said, as they grow older they will either leave or at a minimum balk at staying till 10 p.m. I would also be very interested to know how they can afford to live in or near central London on a young teacher's salary. It's not much good hustling the brightest young people into teaching if you then promise to freeze their pay and reduce benefits over the next how many years.
Finally, it would be REALLY interesting to see a similar article based on a visit (or two) to a good fully-state school. I'm convinced there are some but this kind of article (and I've seen more than one before) always reads like propaganda for a model when it should be simply a description of success.
None of this detracts from the pride the pupils, teachers and managers of Paddington Academy are clearly entitled to feel at their success.
Paddington sounds great, to be honest. However, I can't help thinking that the tough bit replicability - naturally, as in any profession, there will be people who are very good at their jobs and people who are rather bad. Paddington is succeeding in a tough environment by having some of the best teachers around (or at least, so the article implies).
I don't mean to be overly skeptical, but I'm just not sure that given worse teachers elsewhere, we'd see any improvement; giving bad teachers more freedom is likely to make things worse, not better.
In fact, this issue reminds me of federal testing of schools here in the States. Yglesias made a good point a while ago when he said he understood the fears of those who said testing would just ensure "teaching to the test," but he then brought up the example of Detroit, where 47% of adults are functionally illiterate. He said that in cases such as those, even just teaching to the test would be an improvement.
Again, I don't mean to take away from Paddington's success. I'm just not sure that more school choice everywhere is the answer.
Remarkable people are rare...
Sounds brilliant. I wish I'd gone to a school like that.
What's especially cheering is that the intervention comes at high school - showing that although these kids went through childhood with all the social problems and bad schooling and all the rest, good teaching can turn things round. I got so fed up with the notions of the Labour government who concentrated all these resources on small kids in the belief that itnervention would only work at a young age. It was so depressing to think that kids were ruined by the time they went to school.
Tsk.
http://begthequestion.info/
It seems the teachers are very dedicated: classes until 10 pm? I assume these are mostly young teachers who don't have families yet.
I wish Bagehot had told us more about the budget of the school compared to that of other schools of the same size which are not academies: if this one more expensive to run?
Otherwise it is an inspiring story, indeed. It re-kindles your faith in human beings young and old :)
Top of the class. But I serve as clerk to the governors in a small rural primary school which has all the problems of an inner city school in a pretty environment. The overwhelming challenge is student numbers. Each village has its own school (most now renovated under PFI so a continuing drain on the taxpayer even if they were closed). Parents hop from school to school on a whim, leaving the ones with the most demanding standards ironically struggling for pupils. And then government keeps changing the priorities so there is no stability in curricula or school focus. Size (and the absence of local income sources) precludes the academy route. Yet lots of kids go to exactly this kind of school. It is a giant hole in the education landscape of Britain