There is also another factor to consider. The quality of a school is effected not only by the quality of the teachers, but by the quality of the students.
In the UK, schools that are mostly populated by students from deprived backgrounds (e.g. missing fathers, long term unemployment, high crime etc.) tend to get the worst reports as schools.
To close a school is surely to transport at least a fair chunk of the reason for the closure to another nearby school, causing them to begin to struggle with results.
I don't think it is as clear cut as closing the school itself. If the school is doing badly because of teaching quality - sack the teachers and get new ones. If it doing badly because of poor resources - invest more money. If it is doing badly because of the culture the students bring with them from their home life - then will closing the school really solve the problem, or merely transport it elsewhere?
I agree with you whole heartedly.
As a teacher in the UK, the systems may be different but the problems are still the same.
In the UK colleges are measured annually on the following things:
Student Retention - that is % of students still enrolled at the end of the year compared to the start of the year.
Student Achievement - that is % of retained students that passed.
Success Rate - that is % of students that enrolled at the start of the year that passed.
If a college runs a course which scores below a national benchmark for 3 years on the above stats below, they risk losing government funding for that course. The theory being that another college not too far away can run it better so they will get the money.
The practical upshot is that these statistics become more important than teaching quality, student progress and learning real competence. Imagine the following situations, actually happening where I teach:
Towards the end of the year a large % of students on a particular course have not completed all units successfully. This will result in scoring below the national benchmark. To counter this teachers recall students and virtually dictate essay content to their students in order to gather "evidence" that shows the students have passed. This is done under pressure from middle management and leads to teachers under great stress. It also leads to students having a qualification "on paper" which they have not earned and which indicates abilities and competences they do not have. This then has a knock on effect on any future employer accepting their qualification in good faith.
This is just one symptom of results only based measuring. Anyone can skew the figures, but long term it is merely an exercise in gathering bad data.
Other ways of measuring thje quality of education provided by a college are needed which will actually encourage real honest self analysis, rather than the facade that is currently built every year.
Slashdot Mirror
There is also another factor to consider. The quality of a school is effected not only by the quality of the teachers, but by the quality of the students.
In the UK, schools that are mostly populated by students from deprived backgrounds (e.g. missing fathers, long term unemployment, high crime etc.) tend to get the worst reports as schools.
To close a school is surely to transport at least a fair chunk of the reason for the closure to another nearby school, causing them to begin to struggle with results.
I don't think it is as clear cut as closing the school itself. If the school is doing badly because of teaching quality - sack the teachers and get new ones. If it doing badly because of poor resources - invest more money. If it is doing badly because of the culture the students bring with them from their home life - then will closing the school really solve the problem, or merely transport it elsewhere?
I agree with you whole heartedly. As a teacher in the UK, the systems may be different but the problems are still the same. In the UK colleges are measured annually on the following things: Student Retention - that is % of students still enrolled at the end of the year compared to the start of the year. Student Achievement - that is % of retained students that passed. Success Rate - that is % of students that enrolled at the start of the year that passed. If a college runs a course which scores below a national benchmark for 3 years on the above stats below, they risk losing government funding for that course. The theory being that another college not too far away can run it better so they will get the money. The practical upshot is that these statistics become more important than teaching quality, student progress and learning real competence. Imagine the following situations, actually happening where I teach: Towards the end of the year a large % of students on a particular course have not completed all units successfully. This will result in scoring below the national benchmark. To counter this teachers recall students and virtually dictate essay content to their students in order to gather "evidence" that shows the students have passed. This is done under pressure from middle management and leads to teachers under great stress. It also leads to students having a qualification "on paper" which they have not earned and which indicates abilities and competences they do not have. This then has a knock on effect on any future employer accepting their qualification in good faith. This is just one symptom of results only based measuring. Anyone can skew the figures, but long term it is merely an exercise in gathering bad data. Other ways of measuring thje quality of education provided by a college are needed which will actually encourage real honest self analysis, rather than the facade that is currently built every year.