I'm not quite sure why this article expresses such surprise about these educational findings:
A study by academics at University College London (UCL) and Kings College London has given statistical backbone to the view that the overwhelming factor in how well children do is not what type of school they attend- but social class. It appears to show what has often been said but never proved: that the current league tables measure not the best, but the most middle-class schools; and that even the government's "value-added" tables fail to take account of the most crucial factor in educational outcomes - a pupil's address.
I'm not familiar with the "league tables" referenced in this (confusingly-written) article, but it appears they contain rankings of schools, and the authors of the study referenced above appear to have data showing that the rankings correlate highly with the address of the student. The authors are horrified about this "polarization," and hope these data will be used to oppose privitization and school choice. I'm finding it hard to see why allowing middle-class parents and middle-class schools to "find each other" is such a bad thing.
Also, just looking at these results, I don't see a causal relationship. Why are the authors concluding that a middle-class address is a cause, rather than concluding that better children, and more involved parents, actually help produce better schools?
(Disclaimer - I don't have time at the moment to try to find the original study online, if it is online, and I'll confess that I'm not even sure if "middle-class" means the same thing in the UK as it does in the US. So make of my commentary what you will.)
Posted by kswygert at March 6, 2006 03:40 PM