As a school where 96% of students achieve the Government benchmark of five good GCSEs, it came as a surprise to many that the Greater Manchester institution has achieved the distinction of being the first selective school to be officially deemed a failure.

In implying that the action is a partisan coup by Labour politicians waging a pervasive campaign of political correctness (the school fails to meet statutory requirements in areas such as Sex Education, community cohesion and citizenship) simultaneously with an aggressive war on the handful of remaining grammar schools, Seaton has clearly and fundamentally missed the point of Ofsted's findings.

The school, according to the report, has presided over a wholesale tide of underachievement. All too often schools such as Stretford rest on their laurels, maintaining relatively impressive exam results purely through the intrinsic attainment calibre of a select intake.

This is a blatant picture of a school where the leadership has taken its eye off the ball in the most destructive way. The Headmaster and his deputy spent months away from their posts on extended sick leave, ultimately resigning when the HMIs came to call. Does that, Mr Seaton, sound like a school that is upholding standards to you?

Seaton points to nearby comprehensives where 'only 14% or 15%' achieve good GCSEs, and suggests these are the schools that Inspectors should be condemning, but Value Added exam performance (which takes account of pupils' performance before they come into the school) is appalling at Stretford and very likely better at these comprehensives which do not have the benefit of academic selection. Indeed in my view, and in that of numerous respected educationalists, schools such as Stretford have a lot to answer for in creaming off a huge swathe of potential high-achievers from local schools - and this no doubt plays a significant role in low rates of attainments at the aforementioned local comps.

Any school - whatever the nature of its intake - that is guilty of coasting should be named and shamed. It is encouraging that the Children's Secretary Ed Balls has publicly stated that he agrees with this view.

I personally would go further and argue that we should finally do away with the anachronism that grammar schools clearly constitute, and release local schools from the stranglehold of non-subscription from a cross-section of the local community - thereby introducing a fair, single-tier education system under which all children could thrive.

Ken Livingstone captures these sentiments in an interview with the right-wing blogger Iain Dale, published last week in the 'Total Politics' magazine. 'I'm not in favour of any parental choice in education. You will go to your local school.' He also hits the nail on the head in pinpointing the deciding factor in what makes a good school, or a bad one for that matter. 'A school can screw you up if it's got a bad head who has lost interest and loses control.' All schools need effective leadership. Headmasters and Headmistresses need to have a strategic vision for their schools, as well as for the personal development of every pupil under their charge. Pupils perform well in a high-achieving ethos, where standards are consistently high, those with learning difficulties are well supported and every pupil is expected to achieve his or her personal best.

That's what I got at my school. The fact that it was relatively small meant I formed strong relationships with my tutors who always pressed me to be on task. The government needs to descend on schools that expand and enlarge class sizes or increase the number of forms purely
to raise funds (school budgets are understandably pinned to the number of pupils in attendance) like a ton of bricks - for this is undoubtedly at the expense of quality of education.

Whilst the majority of state schools do admirable work in educating and inspiring their charges, there remain pockets of poor standards and lacking vision. In a field as sacred as the leadership of our children's education there is no room for carrying passengers. We do not owe ineffective school leaders a living. These scourges on achievement must be rooted out and schools would benefit greatly from an influx of enthusiastic, determined and skilfull educators into the sometimes jaded world of maintained-sector education.

On a separate, but related note, the results of a survey that examined the views of 1000 young people on higher education reveal today that financial cost is an overwhelmingly dominant factor in university choices.

It thus beggars belief that the leaders of our universities are seeking the removal of the cap on top-up tuition fees, currently standing at £3,000 per year. One Vice-Provost at a renowned London university has even audaciously talked up the potential for achieving a 'true market in university education.'

It is truly painful that the government has to date only made ambivalent noises in response. Such a move would render our top-flight institutions, oversubscribed to such an extend that they can afford to raise fees exorbitantly, no-go areas for students from underprivileged backgrounds.

When we hear every day of the crippling debts that students endure even under the current regime, it would be socially irresponsible for such a fundamental decision-making process faced by millions of young people, the majority of whom remain dependent on family income, every year, to become a shopping expedition.

posted by Axel John Landin  # 04:58