E n g l a n dE n g l a n d

E n g l a n d

CH O I C E SWe Make

T h e

An Examination of the Impact of a Decadeof Parental Choice & School Accountability Experimentation in England

This study was made possible by supportfrom the Burroughs Wellcome Fund,the Kenan Family Trust and GlaxoWellcome.

Thanks also go to the Public School Forum’s Institute for Educational Policymakers, the NC Centerfor International Understanding, and the NC State Board of Education for organizing this trip.

Participants

Thank you

D. Carr Agyapong Program Officer, BurroughsWellcome Fund

Marty Babcock Director of Programs, NC Center forInternational Understanding

Grova Bridgers Director, Charter Schools Division,Dept. of Public Instruction

Susan Norwood Carter-Hope Member, Board ofDirectors, Professional Educators of NC; teacher,Kernersville Middle School, Winston-Salem/ForsythCo. Schools

Lucille Dalton Chair, Rutherford Co. Board ofEducation; Board Member, NC School Boards Assn.

Walter Dalton Senator, NC General Assembly; Co-chair, Senate Education/Higher Education Committee& Senate Education Appropriations Subcommittee

John Dornan President, Public School Forum of NCJoyce Elliott President, NC Assn. of EducatorsMike Fedewa Chair, NC Charter School Advisory

Committee; Superintendent, Catholic Schools of theDiocese of Raleigh

Ken Jenkins Interim Director, Principals’ ExecutiveProgram, Center for School LeadershipDevelopment, UNC

Jim Johnson Senior Fiscal Analyst, General AssemblyPhil Kirk Chair, State Board of Education; President,

North Carolina Citizens for Business and IndustryHoward Lee Senator, NC General Assembly; Co-

chair, Senate Education/Higher Education Committee& Senate Education Appropriations Subcommittee

Helen Rhyne Marvin Member, UNC Board ofGovernors; Liaison Committee Representative

Lynda McCulloch Senior Education Advisor, theGovernor’s Office

Geraldine McNeill Vice President, NC Assn. ofEducators

Evelyn Monroe Member, State Board of EducationJo Ann Norris Assoc. Exec. Director, Public School

Forum of NCJane Norwood Member, State Board of Education;

Professor, Dept. of Education, Appalachian StateUniversity

Maxine O’Kelley Member, UNC Board of Governors;Liaison Committee Representative

W.C. Pete Oldham Representative, NC GeneralAssembly; Co-chair, House AppropriationsSubcommittee on Education

James Stegall Member, Board of Directors,Professional Educators of NC; teacher, ParkwoodHigh School, Union Co. Schools

Charles Thompson Design Director, NC EducationResearch Council, UNC General Administration

Vivian Turner Member, Business Committee forEducation; Director of Contributions & CommunityAffairs, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

Mike Ward State Superintendent of Public InstructionJudy White Director, Office of Educational Reform,

Department of Public InstructionAnn Whitmire President, NC School Boards Assn.Jane Worsham Exec. Director, State Board of

EducationDouglas Y. Yongue Representative, NC General

Assembly; Co-chair, House Education Committee

E n g l a n dE n g l a n dUncanny Parallels 4Striking Differences 5Overview of Parental Choice 6Lessons from England 10Examining Accountability 15Drawing Conclusions 17An Experiment in Progress 23Hats Off to our English Hosts 24Credits and Resources 25

IntroductionWhen a 29 person delegation of North Carolina business leaders, policymakers

and educators left in March of 1999 to study schools in England they were underthe mistaken impression that American colonists were the revolutionaries. Whenit comes to education however, England’s school choice experimentation makesthe United States seem timid by comparison. To label what has happened inEnglish schools “a revolution” is to run the risk of understatement.

In little over a decade, England has given its 24,000 governing boards of publicschools the power to hire their Head Teachers, or principals, and virtually

The findings of a North Carolina delegation of educators, policymakers & business leaders May 1999

[2]

autonomous authority over their school budgets.England established, and then curtailed, a nationalvoucher program. It made all of its public schools“schools of choice.” The English created a newtype of public school that received total autonomyfrom local school authorities and additionalfunding. However, they are now in the process ofbringing those schools back into their schoolsystems while reducing additional funding. At thesame time, they have put into place a verydemanding accountability process that goes farbeyond the typical standardized testing modelcommon in the United States.

All of these experiments have been started orstopped since 1988 and the pace of change has notabated. The Labour Party, restored to power in1997, is launching sweeping changes in teacherpreparation, proposing to initiate merit payincentives and is in the process of creating“educational enterprise zones” that willexperiment with privatizing schools.

Now that 34 states, including North Carolina,are in the early years of experimentation withparental choice options, England offers aneducational choice laboratory that has beenengaged in experimentation for over a decade. Theopportunity to see first-hand what comes fromsweeping parental choice programs motivated thestudy that led to the findings that follow.

A partnership that included the Public SchoolForum’s Institute for Educational Policymakers, theNorth Carolina State Board of Education and theNorth Carolina Center for InternationalUnderstanding (NCCIU), organized the trip withfinancial support from the Burroughs Wellcome Fu n d ,the Kenan Family Trust and GlaxoWellcome. Thedelegation that went to England included members ofthe State Board of Education, the Board of Governorsof the University of North Carolina, members of theState’s House and Senate Education Committees,heads of major educational organizations, businessrepresentatives and others.

[3]

Readers BewareBefore documenting the findings of the

delegation, it is only fair to issue two warnings. First,the old adage that “a little learning can be adangerous thing” may apply to some of whatfollows. The delegation read considerable materialbefore traveling to England; it was briefed in twoorientation sessions by English officials andresearchers who have studied England’s schools.H o w e v e r, the time in England was brief, only a weekin all. Fu r t h e r, the bulk of school visits took place inLondon and exposure to smaller communities andrural schools was limited to two days.

Pr e d i c t a b l y, as many questions were raised by thisbrief visit as were answered. The only consolation tothat was offered by Harry Judge, former Dean ofOxford University’s School of Education and one ofthe final presenters to the delegation. Judge, onlyh a l f - j o k i n g l y, said, “If you’re confused, you probablyhave it right! My fear was that you’d be convincedyou understood what you’ve seen.”

Second, the English experiment is not complete.As in America, the pace with which reforms havebeen put in place and abandoned is dizzying. Evenas the delegation was visiting, the Labour Party wasunveiling new plans and new directions for schools.

Thus, this report will not attempt to draw manyconclusions about the final impact of England’sexperimentation. At best, the proverbial court is out.Some of what is underway appears promising. Some

reforms that have been launched are already beingabandoned, most notably a national voucher program.

It should be noted that there is little, if any,evidence that student performance is appreciablybetter or worse after this decade ofexperimentation. In fact, much of the last decadehas focused on which adults would be empoweredto govern the schools. Only in recent years doesthe spotlight appear to be moving squarely to theissue of student performance and the accompanyingproblems of low-performing schools.

As in many states across America, England’s desireto reform schools is strong though the English appearwilling to adopt far more extreme measures thanthose used in most states. The themes driving schoolreform are the same in both countries; however, theanswer to genuine school reform appears to remainas elusive in England as it is in America.

Once again, the former Education Dean ofOxford may have captured it best when he said,“I want to welcome you to our educationallaboratory. You may conclude it is run by madscientists and that you have had the opportunity tosee it before it explodes.”

Only time will tell whether Judge’s commentwill turn out to be comic relief in an otherwisehumorless search for better educational answersor prophetic in predicting that England’s reformefforts will collapse as a result of attempting somuch, so quickly.

(l-r) Carr Agyapong, student guides,Helen Marvin, Ann Whitmire,and Jo Ann Norris at GraveneyGrant Maintained School, London.

[4]

Uncanny Parallelsconsequences for failing schools. In NorthCarolina, the state’s lowest performing schools areassigned full-time, five-person assistance teamsthat have the power to recommend removal ofschool principals. In England, the government candissolve failing schools or, under recent legislation,privatize the management of failing schools.• In both countries, serious experimentation hasbegun with parental choice options. In England, allschools have become “schools of choice.” In NorthCarolina, parents now choose from charter, magnet,and year-round schools as well as other options.• Both countries are in the midst of empoweringlocal communities and/or school buildings withmore authority; however, the “trade off” in bothplaces has been higher standards and accountabilityfor more freedom from rules and regulations.• Both places are focusing on ways to deal withracial and ethnic diversity and the performance gapsbetween different groups of young people. Whilethe North Carolina delegation was in England, thenational Education Department released a studyaccusing some schools of institutionalized racism.The study found alarming gaps between the scoresof different ethnic groupings. At the top of the listare young people from China and India; far beloware students from the Caribbean Islands andBangladesh. Those studies mirror similar ones in theUnited States comparing performance outcomes ofAfrican American, Native American and Hispanicyoung people to scores of white students and otherh i g h e r-performing ethnic groups such as theJapanese or Chinese. At the heart of these studies,h o w e v e r, are economic factors that both countriesalso have in common. Students from low incomefamilies, especially those who have recentlyimmigrated to either country, are far more likely tofall behind in schooling than are English-speakingyoung people from more affluent families.• Driving school reform in both nations has beenan obsession with low standings in internationaltesting comparisons and a concern that educationwill prove to be the Achilles Heel of economiccompetitiveness in the years ahead.

Political ParallelsIn the political arena, the parallels between the

two countries are striking. Both nations have livedthrough a tumultuous period during which liberalsand conservatives have struggled to gain and keeppower, and the struggle continues.• In both countries, charismatic leaders led whatwas termed a “Conservative Revolution” in theeighties. Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdomand Ronald Reagan in the United States left a markon policymaking that remains to this day.• In both countries, political power shifted backinto more liberal hands in the nineties. Ironically, itshifted to leaders claiming to represent “new”political thinking. Many parallels have been drawnbetween the “New Labour Party” of PrimeMinister Tony Blair, and the “New DemocraticParty” of President Bill Clinton.• Both countries’ new, more liberal leaders haveadopted educational positions that would have beenan anathema to their parties not too long ago. Blair,for instance, is a proponent for privatization offailing schools and for introducing financial incentivesfor teachers in high performing schools. Clinton,meanwhile, supports experimentation with charterschools and is calling for an end to social promotion.

School Reform ParallelsParallels are as striking in education. Anyone

immersed in North Carolina’s drive for schoolimprovement would feel at home in England.• England’s entry into school accountability beganwith national legislation enacted in 1988; NorthCarolina’s began with legislation enacted in 1989.• Both pieces of legislation resulted in theestablishment of curriculum frameworks upon whichstandardized tests were created. In both places,b u i l d i n g - b y-building testing results are issued to thepublic; in England, they are school performancetables, commonly referred to as “league tables,” ametaphor alluding to soccer league scores; in NorthCarolina, “ABCs Report Cards.”• Over time, accountability plans in both countries“raised the bar” and established more serious

[5]

Striking Differencestheory parents have broad choiceamong schools, it is more accurate tosay that schools have broad powers inselecting parents and students based onacademic achievement and otheradmissions requirements. The Englishsystem could not be more differentthan the attendance-boundary systemused in most North Carolina schools.

On a national level, London, then a t i o n’s capital, is to local schools whatstate capitals are in the United States.While local education agencies (LEAs),broad jurisdictions resembling schoolsystems in the U.S., once wieldedconsiderable control over schools, thatcontrol has largely been appropriatedby Parliament.

All public English schools fall underthe same national curriculum and accountabilityprograms. The national government is directlyresponsible for inspecting local schools andpublishing its findings. The majority of school fundingin England comes from the national government.Unlike the United States, it is a true national systemof education with no intermediary branch ofgovernment, like our states, wielding significantauthority over schools.

Last, when it comes to school reform efforts, theEnglish have been far more willing to take a “go fast”approach than have most states in the United States.Reform initiatives in England have been rapid andsweeping. Some would suggest that this approach toeducational reform is an outgrowth of England’sgovernmental structure. The nature of the politicalstructure is such that Parliament, unlike the U.S.Congress, has much broader powers and is lessencumbered by the kinds of checks and balancesthat Americans take for granted. Additionally, ineducation, Parliament wields power over things thatin the U.S. would be the exclusive domain of stategovernments. Thus, when it comes to schoolreform, if one can muster a majority of Parliament, itis possible to enact wide-ranging reforms overnight.

Rep. Doug Yongue withtwo students from theErnest Bevin College(Boys), London.

The differences between schools in the twocountries are as striking as the similarities.Returning to the diversity issue, English schools,especially those in the London Metro area whichhouse one-third of England’s population, are morelike schools in Miami or Los Angeles than those inNorth Carolina. Not uncommonly, the Londonschools visited by North Carolina’s delegationserved students speaking 20 to 30 differentlanguages. The way English schools collect studentpopulation data is testament to the degree towhich the nation is awash with immigrants. Onesystem visited by the delegation separated datainto the following major categories:• United Kingdom born white• Other European white• Gypsies• Caribbean black• African black• Chinese• Indian• Other Asian• Bangladesh

As to the schools themselves, one presentercautioned North Carolinians to remember that theEnglish system of public schooling was “graftedonto the nation’s tradition of private schools.” Infact, when all schools became schools of choice,many appeared to emulate the traditions of privateschools by, for example, requiring uniforms and/orbecoming exclusively schools for girls or for boys.

Since the forties, national school funding hasbeen granted to church-controlled schools, thebulk of which are Church of England or RomanCatholic. Roughly 20% of students in Englandattend church-affiliated schools that are publiclyfunded. The churches retain a large amount ofcontrol over the schools, albeit they fall under thesame national accountability system.

For parents and students, one of the moststriking differences is the English system ofadmission to secondary schools. Students movefrom the primary to secondary grades based on a“meritocratic” system. As will be seen later, while in

[6]

Overview of Parental ChoiceThe seeds for England’s experimentation in

parental choice were planted during the lateseventies when Conservatives like MargaretThatcher came into power and began embracingfree market views of education. Thatcher, who inthe seventies served as an Minister of State forEducation, and other influential Conservatives,became advocates of the view that withoutcompetition there was little, if any, motivation forpublic schools to improve.

With that, sentiment in the political communityshifted heavily against LEAs (local school systemadministrations) that were viewed as too rigid andbureaucratic to foster meaningful innovation. Thatsentiment resulted in the London LEA, the nation’slargest, being subdivided into a number of smallerLEAs, or systems, in much the same way that New

York and Chicago have experimented withbreaking up their large school bureaucracies.

1988 Reform LegislationBy the time Thatcher became Prime Minister, the

groundwork had been laid for what would becomeradical experimentation. In 1988, Pa r l i a m e n tenacted school reform legislation that wouldrewrite the face of schooling in Great Britain.• It required that every school be governed by aboard of governors that included parents andeducators elected at the school level, members ofthe local community and a minority of appointeesselected by the LEA. The majority of the boardwas very much in the hands of parents andeducators who were direct stakeholders at theschool level.

E n g la n d

[7]

• Building-level boards were given the power toappoint Head Teachers (i.e., school principals) andto determine budget priorities for their schools.• To ensure that power resided at the buildinglevel, LEAs were directed to automatically passalong 90% of their budget resources to building-level boards of governors which were empoweredto establish budgets for their schools.

By placing authority for budgeting and selectionof Head Teachers in the hands of building-levelgoverning boards, Parliament went far beyond theintent of North Carolina’s “site-based managementcouncils,” required by law in each building. Thesite-based councils have control over only a smallportion of the money it takes to run a school; thevast majority of budgetary control resides withschool system administrators and elected schoolboards. Fu r t h e r, North Carolina’s councils are, atbest, only advisory when it comes to selection ofbuilding-level principals and other key issues.• To ensure that the new legislation gave parentschoice about the school their children would

attend, the 1988 legislation also declared everyschool a school of choice. Parents were given theright to apply to any school they chose and, unlessthe schools were “over subscribed” (at enrollmentlimits) or unless applicants didn’t meet schooladmissions standards, parents could send theirchildren to the school of their choice. It wasargued that parental choice would drive themarketplace; strong schools would flourish whileweak schools would lose attendance and be forcedto curtail programs or close their doors. Thephilosophy behind this legislation was the same asthat advanced for charter schools.

’90s Laws Expand ChoiceIn the nineties, Parliament enacted three

additional laws that expanded choice options evenmore dramatically.

Grant Maintained SchoolsGrant Maintained (GM) Schools, like charter

schools in the U.S., were essentially removed fromany LEA supervision and granted even broaderautonomy than were other schools.

It should be noted that GM Schools differ fromNorth Carolina’s charter schools in two ways. First,only existing public schools could become grantmaintained; unlike North Carolina’s charter schooll a w, new start-up schools were not envisioned inthe British legislation. Secondly, in contrast toNorth Carolina’s charter schools, GM Schoolswere offered cash incentives. While charter schoolsoperate without state support for facilities ormaintenance, GM Schools were to receive all ofthe funding that public schools received, plusadditional funds to reflect their additionalresponsibilities and generous capital grants.

[8]

City Technology CollegesCity Technology Colleges were also established

by Parliament. They were envisioned as highschools that would be supported by both publicfunds and by businesses that would agree to bepartners with the colleges. Like GM Schools, theywere to be granted broad autonomy.

Government-funded Voucher ProgramFinally, Parliament launched a government-

funded voucher program called the Assisted PlacesScheme. Touted as a program that would give

lower income parents the sameprivate school choices that upperincome parents had, the AssistedPlaces Scheme was envisioned tooffer government funding for youngpeople choosing private schooling.The formula for providing assistancewas “means tested,” in that lowerincome parents would receive farmore government assistance thanwould middle or upper incomeparents.

With the establishment of thesethree additional choice options, bythe mid-nineties, England was in themidst of a sweeping parental choiceplan far beyond the scope of any yetattempted in the United States.There was an almost dizzying arrayof choice options open to parents:publicly-supported religious schools,

public schools governed by parent-dominatedboards of governors, GM Schools that werealmost entirely autonomous from LEA supervision,City Technology Colleges, and private schools withgovernment voucher assistance.

The Trade OffIt should be noted that there also was, in

political terms, a “trade off” for the new freedomsgranted to schools. With the 1988 legislation camea national accountability plan, similar in somerespects to North Carolina’s ABCs accountabilityprogram. All schools that received public funding

came under the accountability plan that was basedon a national curriculum and a national test.

In addition, the government established anOffice for Standards in Education (OFSTED)which, in turn, organizes an inspection processthat would send teams into schools for a full weekto assess the strength of the school. In NorthCarolina terms, England’s accountability systemcombines mandatory statewide testing with an on-site inspection process similar to that which highschools must undergo to receive accreditationfrom the Southeastern Accreditation Association.The difference is that OFSTED inspections haveresulted in poor schools being forced to close;Southern Accreditation, on the other hand, isroutinely granted to schools, including some onthe state’s low-performing list.

This political trade off of freedom and choice foraccountability is virtually identical to that made instates across the U.S. including North Carolina. Asin the U.S., England would later come in forcriticism from those who would contend thatunder the guise of granting freedom, governmentessentially assumed control over schools throughthe national curriculum and testing program.

In fact, as will be seen later, the delegationconcluded that England’s accountability system isdriving change to a far greater degree than isparental choice. The political trade off of freedomand choice for higher standards and accountabilitymay prove to have been the most significant factorin England’s school reform experimentation.

What Transpired After aDecade of Experimentation?

By the mid-nineties, the English experiment hadled to the kind of wide-ranging changes itsarchitects had envisioned. By 1997:• Over 1,000 of 24,000 plus schools had becomeGM Schools, operating largely outside of theauthority of their local school system and receivingadditional government funds.• 38,000 of England’s eight million students hadenrolled in private schools through England’svoucher program, the Assisted Places Scheme.

charismatic national leaders. Both campaigned ascandidates of the “New Labour” or “NewDemocratic” Parties. Both took positions thatwere much further to the center or, in somecases, to the right of their party predecessors.

Blair and the Labour Party, however, came intopower committed to changing some of the schoolreforms that had been enacted under theConservative Party. For instance, they have:• Eliminated the Assisted Places Scheme which isnow being phased out. Students who had beengranted vouchers will be funded until theycomplete their schooling; no new vouchers arebeing granted. In Labour’s eyes, the voucherprogram had evolved into an educational subsidyprogram for middle and upper class parents – not,as envisioned, a popular choice option for lowincome families.• Began phasing out the additional funds for GMSchools and are in the process of returning thethose schools to a more subordinate role underLEAs. In the eyes of Labour, the additional fundingfor GM Schools simply created an inequitablefunding system that weakened non-GM Schools.• Called for LEAs to rationalize the patchworkquilt of school admission policies that has sprung upand are also returning more authority to the LEAs.

Thus far, these changes appear to have takenplace with remarkably little political backlash;albeit, the only backlash recourse open to thepublic is at the ballot box. There seems to havebeen a general consensus that the voucherprogram wasn’t meeting its intended purpose; theadditional funding for GM Schools had sparkedpredictable animosity among other schools; andLabour’s move to cut off incentive funds had beenwidely anticipated. Parents, confronted with amaze of conflicting school admission policies,appear to welcome the attempt to makeadmissions policies more uniform from one schoolto the other.

While Labour is making changes, it has adopteda pro-choice stance and appears to be leaving thebroad framework of choice options largely intact.Labour also appears committed to theaccountability program and has proposed steps tostrengthen low-performing schools.

• All schools were schools of choice, governed bybuilding-level boards of governors.• Accountability became the order of the day.Standardized test scores were published annuallyand 6,000 schools per year were undergoingscrutiny by teams of inspectors.• Competition for students between schools wasintense as parents began to exercise choice options.

As with any change initiative, however, therewere unintended as well as intended consequences.Among those least expected were:• Good schools were indeed flourishing; however,with some exceptions they were not expandingtheir enrollment. Recognizing that small size wasone of the appeals of sought-after schools, mostsought-after schools of choice kept their enrollmentlow and, instead of expanding their studentpopulation, they had longer waiting lists of parentswho could not gain admission for their children.• Less sought-after schools were not closing theirdoors. Instead, they struggled on with fewer andfewer resources as their enrollments declined.While the national government had closed roughly60 chronically low-performing schools, they soonreopened “under new management.”• Middle and upper income parents, not lowincome parents, were more likely to seek vouchersupport for private education. After five years,only 38,000 of eight million students had takenadvantage of the Assisted Places Scheme and manyof those were not needy.• There was a marked decline in the number ofcandidates for teaching positions. At the universitylevel, there was an even greater decline in numbersof students choosing to major in education.• As England devolved responsibilities to theschool house level, there was a steep increase inthe number of non-educational staff required atthe building level. Many schools, especially largerschools, had full time budget managers andgrounds maintenance staff added to their faculties.

New Power; New DirectionIn 1997 there was a much-predicted election

reversal that returned the Labour Party to power.Labour’s new leader, Tony Blair, drew comparisonsto Bill Clinton. Both were relatively young and

[10]

Lessons from EnglandWhat Can Be Learned from the English Experiment to Date?

Lesson 1Be wary of unproven claims. The LabourParty’s unraveling of some of the foundationblocks of the English choice experiment was anattempt to remedy some of the problems causedby policymakers embracing faulty premises andunproven claims. Chief among them was thetheory that once parents were offered choicesthey would flock to excellence.

Contrary to that claim, there is little evidencethat the majority of parents choose schoolsbecause of academic excellence. Theoverwhelming majority of parents appear tochoose schools based on very practical, andpossibly unsurprising, criteria such as:• Proximity. The desire for neighborhood schoolsruns deep and the proximity of schools to homescontinues to be a major factor in school choice.• Social groupings. Children want to attend theschools where their friends are; thus, there is a

strong pull to send young people to schools thatattract their friends and playmates.• Affiliations. In addition to social groupings, thereis a strong likelihood that parents will chooseschools that cater to people who share theiraffiliations – in England that is likely to be a churchschool that caters to people of the same faith.

Not surprisingly, parents most likely to screenschools based on student test scores and thestrength of their academic programs tend to beparents who are determined to see their youngpeople gain acceptance to the nation’s best colleges.These parents, typically more educated andwealthier than the population as a whole, “shop”for the best choice option and appear to placeeducational excellence as their primary criteria.

For the majority of parents, however, schoolchoice is an available, but largely unexercised, luxury.More precisely, as will be seen in the next lesson, itis also a luxury that is more theoretical than real.

[11]

school,” and “How many of you have beenaccepted to date?”

In each class the response was essentially thesame. Only a handful of students had applied to justone or two schools. The majority had applied tothree or four schools. Some had applied to as manyas seven or eight schools. When asked how manystudents had been accepted to date, roughly halfthe students in each class had gained admission; theother half was still waiting for notification.

Applying to a school is not as simple as it seems.There is not one test used to measure student’sacademic ability. Instead, most secondary schoolsadminister their own tests and students applying atmultiple schools must take multiple tests. Further,highly sought-after schools conduct interviews ofapplicants; those interviewed, however, are notnecessarily the students but the parents. Notsurprisingly, high-demand schools can, and do,“cream” the most desirable students who aresupported by the most involved parents.

In the school that dramatized the complexity ofEngland’s admission policies, a full-time facultymember is assigned to the task of helping parentsnavigate the system. She counsels parents on how

Lesson 2In a true school choice environment, schoolsmay choose parents as much – or more – asparents choose schools. The free market crythat rallied support for England’s choiceexperiment is the same that has rallied support forAmerica’s charter schools: “If parents had choiceoptions, good schools would flourish and poorschools would be forced to close their doors.”

In England, quite the opposite has occurred.Good schools tend to have long waiting lists andpoor schools have suffered a slight decline inenrollment (and subsequently resources) butcontinue to limp along. In fact, in England, as inNorth Carolina, parents typically resist any effortsto close “their” schools.

The faulty premise that drove policymakers toembrace England’s choice option was that goodschools would dramatically expand their studentenrollment as more parents chose to send theirchildren to them. This rarely occurred. One of theh i g h l y-regarded high schools that was visited by thedelegation enrolled 960 students – a number thatresearchers would say is almost an ideal size for ahigh school. While the government placed asubscription (enrollment) limit of 1,200 on the highschool, it has maintained its enrollment level while itswaiting lists have grown. This year’s waiting list isover 500. When the Head Teacher (principal) wasasked why the school didn’t expand its rolls, hereplied that the school’s size was one of the featuresthat distinguished it. “W h y,” he asked, “should theschool become over-crowded and lose its appeal?”

Because England, unlike America, has notcreated charter-like schools that increase availableclassroom space, choice in England is a zero-sumgame. More parents are competing for essentiallythe same spaces in effective schools. Thus, choicein England has largely evolved into a studentchoice program for popular schools.

To dramatize this point, an elementary HeadTeacher took some of the North Carolinadelegation into four classrooms of youngsters whowere scheduled to move from the elementary tothe secondary level in the next year. By a show ofhands, the Head Teacher asked each class torespond to two questions: “How many schoolshave you applied to for admission to secondary

(l-r) Sen. Howard Lee,Carr Agyapong, JohnDornan, Rep. PeteOldham, GrovaBridgers, and MikeFedewa enjoyingLondon weather.

[12]

38,000 of England’s eight million plus students, orless than half of 1% of all students, had availedthemselves of the voucher option. Contrary to theclaims of voucher supporters, low income parentsdid not flock to use national vouchers.

In retrospect, that may have been a predictableoutcome. If one refers back to the earlier lessonabout parents and the factors causing them tochoose schools for their young people, there arepowerful reasons why parents did not choose tosend their youngsters to schools that caterprimarily to educated, affluent parents. For lowincome families, these are not schools that attractlarge numbers of people “like us.” They almostcertainly are not where their childrens’ playmatesand neighborhood friends are likely to go toschool. In large measure, they are not schoolsclose to the homes of low income families. Andfinally, they are not schools that attract peoplewith whom low income families are usuallyaffiliated, either by ethnicity or religion.

Moreover, the value of England’s schoolvouchers did not come close to equaling the costof tuition at many private schools, especiallyschools like Eton, one of England’s oldest andmost prestigious schools. Private schools thatchose to participate in the Assisted Places Schemehad to agree to make up the difference betweentheir actual cost of schooling and the value of thegovernment voucher. For many private schoolsthere was little, if any, incentive to participate.

Thus, the Labour Party’s contention that thevoucher program was largely an educationalsubsidy for affluent families appears to have beengenerally accepted by the voting public. When theNorth Carolina delegation visited, England was inthe midst of abandoning the voucher program.

One private school administrator, an officer ofEngland’s National Association of Private Schools,who addressed the delegation admitted thatprivate school officials were not surprised that theprogram had been abandoned. He even sharedthat private school enrollment grew slightly whenthe program was dropped – a fact he attributed tothe number of people who had taken advantage ofthe voucher program and later opted to continuepaying the private school tuition on their ownwhen the program ended.

to make application; she intervenes on behalf ofindividual students and she consoles students whoare denied their first choices.

It should be noted that all students will gainadmission to a school somewhere within the LEA.By law, LEAs must ensure that all students areassigned to a school. Those who have not gainedadmission to a high-demand school, however, areensured only that they will gain admission to aless-in-demand school that is under-subscribed.

Thus, while England touts its system of choice,for the average parent, the choices are largelyimagined, not necessarily real. In many respectsthe system is much like that of college admission inthe U.S. where parents and students are free toapply to the college of their choice; however,colleges accept the students of their choice.

While the English admissions system runs counterto America’s “open door” policies, it must be notedthat this is but one example of cultural differencebetween our countries. In England, admission tocollege has long been dependent on how onescores on a national test. It is not, as in the UnitedStates, a situation where virtually any high schoolgraduate can attend college somewhere, even withmediocre academic ability.

For decades, litigation in the U.S. has createda body of law around policies of equal access –be it ensuring minorities can attend any schoolor that handicapped children are guaranteedmainstreaming with other children or even usinglottery systems to ensure that all children have anequal opportunity to attend a newly createdcharter school in North Carolina. In this respect,our countries differ a great deal.

Lesson 3The offer of vouchers doesn’t guarantee lowincome parents will flee failing public schools.The demise of England’s Assisted Places Scheme,or voucher program, contains many lessons forNorth Carolinians. The voucher program waspromoted largely on the basis that it would “eventhe social scales” by giving low income families thesame private school choices that wealthier parentshad available to them.

The English experience, however, does notsubstantiate that claim. After five years, only

[13]

Lesson 4Once Humpty Dumpty is broken it’s hard torebuild him. Governmental systems are fragile;when shattered, it is not easy to rebuild them.England’s experience demonstrates that onceradical changes are made to governmental systems,especially to the foundation, it is extremely difficultto turn back the clock and put the system back tohow it was, even if that is desirable.

When England’s choice experiment started, itsfirst goal was to wrest power away from LEAs bygiving funds directly to school building governingboards who were given the power to set andadminister school building budgets. It also gave theboards the power to hire their Head Te a c h e r s( Pr i n c i p a l s ) . As the experiment evolved, schoolswere also empowered to cut one more link toLEAs by withholding the portion of their budgetthat would entitle them to a modicum of servicesfrom the LEA. A school that opted not to give theLEA that portion of their budget in essencebecame totally independent of the LEA.

These moves combined to dramatically reducethe role of centralized school administrations tothe point that one of the inner city London LEAsvisited by the delegation saw itself in a fight forsurvival. Its Executive Director, the equivalent of aSchool Superintendent in North Carolina, candidlyadmitted that if the LEA could not demonstrate itsviability in the coming years there would be littlepossibility of it continuing.

It should be noted, however, that the NorthCarolina delegation was extremely limited by thebrevity of its visit to England and by the limitednumber of schools and LEAs it was able to visit. Incontrast to the self-described struggle for survivalof an LEA in London, the delegation witnessed avery different picture in the Oxfordshire LEA.

Oxfordshire is a large LEA, composed of over300 schools and 151,000 students – most ofEngland’s LEAs are much larger than are schoolsystems in North Carolina. It encompasses theuniversity city of Oxford and surrounding ruralareas including the bucolic pastureland of theCotswold district. In contrast to some of the muchcriticized LEAs in London, the Oxfordshire LEAtraditionally was one of the leading English schooldistricts. Unlike its counterparts in London, the

Oxfordshire LEA appeared to have redefined itsrole through the last decade in such a way that ithas carved out an important niche.

Testament to the Oxfordshire LEAs ability tomaintain a central role through the last decade’sreform era, is that only one of over 300 schools inthe LEA opted to become a GM School, thusmoving itself outside of the LEAs sphere ofinfluence. Today, the Oxfordshire LEA is focusedheavily on providing quality staff development,working with schools to identify improvementstrategies and perfecting an intervention/supportprogram with low-performing schools.

The LEA experiences observed by the delegationwere so different that it is difficult to generalize onthe role or future of LEAs. The one conclusion thatis possible to draw, however, is that it is not easyfor a national government tointerface directly with localschool buildings without anintervening governmentalentity such as an LEA toprovide on-site supportand oversight.

Lesson 5With a devolution ofpower comes additional,and labor-intensive, jobs.Following England’sdevolution of authority toschools, Head Teachersquickly learned that morethan power had beentransferred to schoolbuildings – so had new jobs.Heading the list of new jobswas the responsibility ofassuming budgetaryresponsibilities thatpreviously had been the solepurview of LEAs.

One elementary HeadTeacher summed it up whenshe said, “I am now am a n a g e r, not an instructionall e a d e r. Where I used tospend nearly 25% of my time

(l-r) Rep. Pete Oldham, Phil Kirk, Joyce Elliottand Evelyn Monroe.

(l-r) Jane Norwood, Mike Fedewa, Judy Whiteand Helen Marvin leaving Parliament.

(l-r) Geraldine McNeill, Grova Bridgers, MaxineO’Kelley, and Vivian Turner entering Parliamentfor a meeting with English policymakers.

[14]

working directly with young people, I now findmyself needing more and more desk time to keepup with budgeting problems, maintenance issuesand other things that I didn’t used to worry about.”

One school visited by the delegation vividlyillustrated an unintended staffing result ofdevolution. The school, a large high school of 1,700students, had a full time “bursar,” or financialo f f i c e r, with five people reporting to him. Wherethere formerly was a centralized payroll operationadministered by the LEA, now individual schoolshave their own systems. Other centralizedfunctions ranging from maintenance totransportation are now in the hands of individualschool buildings. Some opt to purchase servicesfrom their LEAs; others choose to privatizefunctions they administer themselves.

Formerly, schools needing major repairs wouldpetition the LEA for the necessary funding; now,schools need to finance repairs or renovations outof their existing funds and/or find creative long-term financing options to cover those costs or thecost of major purchases like school technology.This might partly explain why the school facilitiesvisited by the delegation were typically a far cryfrom school facilities taken for granted in NorthCarolina. Buildings tended to be older and smallerand many were in need of upkeep, partly due tothe high cost of upkeep of old or poorly builtnewer buildings and a long history of inadequaterenovations by LEAs. Often this was exacerbateddue to the rules which restricted the amount ofcapital local authorities could raise.

In business terms, it appears a large part of“economy of scale” was lost when budgetingpower was completely devolved to local schools.Pr e d i c t a b l y, some buildings do far better in

managing budgets than others. Some are largeenough to hire full-time finance officers; smallerschools can band together and share one full-timefinance officer; still other schools retain accountantsto do payroll and handle school budgets.

In educational terms, devolution is transformingthe job of Head Teacher. In the past, it wascommon for elementary Head Teachers to carry aformal, albeit light, teaching load and devote muchof their time to instructional issues. Betweenmanaging budgets, dealing with building andgrounds issues, and learning to work with building-level boards of governors, the job has become farmore managerial and far less educational.

Lesson 6New job pressures make jobs less appealing.Earlier in the report, it was noted that England,like America, is facing a growing shortage ofteachers. The same phenomena is occurring at theHead Teacher level. In both cases, some attributethe decline in availability of educators to the newdemands that devolution and accountability areplacing on educators.

When the Head Teacher’s job was largelydesigned for a master teacher, it was a natural jobprogression path for excellent teachers. Now thatthe job requires more and more managerial skills,it is less attractive to those who thrive on contactwith young people, teachers and teaching.

The abrupt redefinition of the role of HeadTeachers is leading England, like the United States,to redefine preparation requirements for schooladministrators. Already, the country is changingthose requirements and intends to focus far moreon preparing Head Teachers for the new roles thatdevolution has brought with it.

(l-r) Lynda McCulloch, Jim Johnson, John Dornan, Lucille Dalton and Sen. WalterDalton in front of Parliament following a tea with members of Parliament and avisiting delegation of Elon College Teaching Fellows.

[15]

Examining Accountabilityare private contractors who are employed andtrained by OFSTED. OFSTED is also notresponsible for providing follow-up services toschools. Its sole role is school inspection.

When talking to Head Teachers, facultymembers, parents who serve on Governing Boardsand other school officials, it was clear to thedelegation that School Inspectors have gained theattention of schools, to put it mildly.

One of the many parallels between England andAmerica is the timing of their entry into the schoolaccountability arena. The reform legislation of1988 led to the introduction of England’s nationalcurriculum and testing program; it was the SchoolImprovement and Accountability Act of 1989 thatthrust North Carolina into the same arena.

The introduction of accountability into Englishschools, however, was not a smooth one. Withvery little input from the educational community,England’s national Education Departmentestablished a National Curriculum Council whichdeveloped a national curriculum framework andaccompanying tests that caused a hue and cry fromteachers and parents. Opposition to the newaccountability standards was so pronounced thatEnglish teachers boycotted, or refused to give,national tests as scheduled, causing thegovernment to go back to the drawing board. T h eresult was a sweeping revision of the nationaltesting and curriculum programs – a revision thatwas the result of a process involving teachers andothers. The tests rely far less on multiple choice andtrue/false test items, and depend instead on morecomplex questions requiring written answers.

Since those changes were made, the testingprogram seems to have become an accepted partof the educational landscape. Today, school-by-school results are published in school performancetables, called “league tables,” similar to NorthCarolina’s annual ABCs Report Card of statewidetesting results.

In addition to the national tests, however, theEnglish accountability system relies heavily on thefindings of a week-long inspection of individualschools conducted on average every four years.School Inspectors work in teams of five and, afteran intensive examination of individual schools,publish their findings. Once the findings arepublished schools have to formally issue theirimprovement plans in response to the findings.

OFSTED, the Office for Standards in Education,operates as a quasi-independent agency. SchoolInspectors are not government employees; they

[16]

The only thing in North Carolina that begins tocompare to this inspection process would be the on-site assessments conducted by the SoutheasternAccreditation Association of high schools wantingaccreditation status. A major difference, however, isthat English Inspection Teams can, and do,recommend drastic action, including closure, forschools that are failing to show signs of improvement.Also, the English Inspection Teams are focused ondemonstrable evidence of serious schoolimprovement where Southern Accreditation teamstend more to focus on the availability of resourcesand other issues.

While the very mention of School Inspectionevoked strong reactions, there was an underlying,albeit begrudging, recognition that the processforced schools to be more focused and to remainmindful of continuous improvement. T h einspection process appears to be the primary factordriving school improvement in England. Whentalking to educators and parents abouta c c o u n t a b i l i t y, it was the on-site inspection process,not standardized national test scores, that appear todrive their system. Unlike most accountability plansin America, the English inspection system focuses onwhole-school improvement efforts, not simply theresults of state mandated tests.

Parallels & DifferencesBoth Systems have Evolved Over a Decade

In both England and North Carolina, there havebeen numerous changes in testing programs andaccountability standards. In both places,consequences have been made more rigorous,with North Carolina placing full-time assistanceteams into low-performing schools and Englandhaving closed roughly 60 low-performing schooland now creating “education action zones” thatwill experiment with school privatization.

In similar fashion, both accountability plans werelaunched with few, if any, incentives to reward highperformance. While both offered more localcontrol, England’s accountability plans provided norewards to educators. In 1997, North Carolinacreated financial rewards for faculties in buildings

that met or exceeded their student performancegoals. Similar rewards are now under discussion inEngland; however, teacher unions are threateningstrike action if merit pay plans are implemented.The outcome is uncertain.

In Both Places, the Focus is Now on Low-performing Schools

Both England and North Carolina are discoveringthat “holding schools accountable” is the easy partof accountability. Finding ways to deal with thechallenges of chronically low-performing youngpeople is another task altogether.

As noted earlier, one of the unintendedconsequences of accountability programs in bothnations is testing data finding enormousperformance gaps between racial and ethnicgroups – performance gaps that are oftentraceable to income gaps between parents of low-and high-performing students.

In both nations, new strategies are beingemployed to focus resources on schools servinglarge numbers of low-performing students. InEngland, LEAs are being charged with devising earlyintervention and assistance programs for low-performing schools. In North Carolina, the state isusing a variety of strategies ranging from assistanceteams, to training programs to additional resources.

Both are Searching for the Right Balance ofConsequences and Support

As in states across the country, England andNorth Carolina appear to be searching for theappropriate balance between dire consequencesfor low-performing schools and a resource andsupport base that gives low-performing schools abetter chance of succeeding.

As with its other reforms, England is poised totake a more radical step than those underconsideration in North Carolina. Its previouslymentioned education action zones will make itpossible to privatize low-performing schools bygiving the day-to-day management of the schoolsto not-for-profit and for-profit firms willing toassume accountability for them. In contrast, NorthCarolina has just launched NC Helps, a programfocusing resources on low-performing schools thatdevise promising improvement initiatives.

Drawing ConclusionsStates who focus much of their energy onfundraising campaigns for local buildings, parents inEngland are wrestling with real problems andseeking real solutions. Thus, the parents appear tohave a much higher degree of ownership andinvolvement with their schools than is true inNorth Carolina. It is important to note that“involved” parents in England (i.e., those servingon boards of governors) are much more involvedthan parents in North Carolina; in both places,however, there is a concern over how to involvemore parents in the educational process.

National Curriculum Standards and theAccountability Program have Created aUnified, National System

Unlike the patchwork quilt of curriculum andtesting standards in the U.S., England has a truenational system of education. Educators and thepublic appear to support the system. Faircomparisons between schools from one end of thenation to the other are possible.

[17]

On the Plus SideEach member of the North Carolina delegation

was asked to isolate those aspects of the Britishsystem that had most favorably impressed them.Following are the items cited most frequently.

Parents Appear to be More Satisfied UnderToday’s Policies

Even if the English choice system gives parents alimited range of choice, parents express approval ofthe system. It may be, however, that their satisfactionhas less to do with their choices than with the degreeto which they genuinely are empowered over theirlocal schools (see next point).

Parents Appear to have Embraced Building-level Control

Parents in England are wrestling with thoseissues that truly determine what a school will belike. They are members of governing boards thatchoose the Head Teacher, decide whatexpenditures will be made, how much of theschool budget will go to salaries, and what classsizes will be. In contrast to parents in the United

[18]

The English Inspection System is More Three-dimensional than U.S. Single-test Programs

Because of the week-long English Inspectionprocess, schools are forced to focus on whole-school improvement, not just the results of asingle, standardized test. While the five-dayinspection process causes a high degree of anxietywithin schools, there appeared to be a generalconsensus that the process kept schools focusedon improvement and was of value.

England Seems to have a Far More EffectiveSystem of Teacher Induction

One aspect of English schools that struck a veryresponsive chord with members of the delegationwho were classroom teachers was England’streatment of new teachers. In contrast to newteachers in North Carolina, new teachers inEngland have a reduced class load and workdirectly under the supervision of a veteran teacherduring their first year of teaching.

There are Multiple Career Paths for TeachersWith the focus on new teachers, England

provides differentiated teaching roles for teachersas they progress through their careers. Thus, asteachers gain experience and expertise, they canopt to become the equivalent of a lead teacher inNorth Carolina giving them career path options fardifferent than those in America where teacherstypically must choose school administration as thesingular path of upward mobility.

Schools have “Defined Their Character” andare More Customer Driven

When all schools in England were made schoolsof choice it was immediately necessary for them to“define themselves,” to carve out an educationalniche that would be their marketing strategy forattracting parents and students.

It was clear that this process had resulted inschools clarifying their vision and, in some cases,reinventing themselves. Some schools emulatedexclusive private schools and became all boys’ orall girls’ schools. Many now require uniforms.Others announced themselves as “back to thebasics” schools; still others have a primary focuson science and technology or on the arts.

In North Carolina terms, it would be as if allschools in a system were suddenly to become

magnet schools and had to create an educationalphilosophy and approach that would bringeducational customers to their doors. Thedelegation felt that this process of schoolsdefining themselves had resulted in a muchsharper focus and, in some cases, distinctive andpromising approaches.

With that, educators, especially Head Teachers,are very attuned to their parents and board ofgovernors. With hire/fire authority at the buildinglevel, that is a predictable outcome; nonetheless, itmay account for the strong approval ratingsparents give the new system.

English Schools Appear to be Well Connectedto Other Public Services

Under the English form of government, LEAsare part of a larger governmental sub-division that

would closely resemble county government inNorth Carolina. The responsibility foradministering schools falls to a group similar to acounty commission that is also responsible forpublic programs in welfare, health, housing andother areas. Subsequently, there appeared to becloser ties between public services and theschools. Schools, as an example, routinely areassigned nurses from their area’s public healthadministration as opposed to providing them outof educational budgets.

On the Side of CautionBe Wary of Unsubstantiated Claims

Driving much of the parental choice discussionin England and the U.S. are “free market” theoryclaims that are largely untested in a public school

context. England’s short-lived experiment withschool vouchers and findings about the likelihoodof low-income parents exercising choice arevaluable lessons for the United States.

Parental Choice Only Comes with anAvailability of Good Options

Parental choice is only real if there are goodchoices for parents to make. English presenters tothe delegation were quick to point out that parentsin rural areas of England have few, if any, choicesopen to them. The preponderance of choice isavailable to parents living in urban areas likeLondon. Not only is an urban area more likely tohave an infrastructure that will foster schoolchoices, it has a transportation system that enablesyoung people to take advantage of choices out oftheir neighborhood. Additionally, the English

[20]

experience underscores that for real choice to beavailable, there must be an over supply of space ingood schools; otherwise, too many parents andyoung people will be competing for too few spaces.

Lead or Be LeadWhen criticism of public schools was building in

the seventies and eighties, the educationalcommunity in England and in the United States didnot respond by advancing improvement initiativesof their own. Subsequently, the pressure for moreradical reforms has grown on both sides of theAtlantic. Indeed, one could argue that the schoolimprovement agenda in both places continues tobe largely written by elected policymakers, thebusiness community, private think tanks and othersoutside of the school community. It was strikinghow infrequently the educational community’s rolein England’s reform movement was discussed;however, much the same could be said aboutdiscussions of school reform in North Carolina.

Holding Schools Accountable is Easiest PartIn both North Carolina and England, school

accountability has brought with it a host ofunintended consequences. Disparities amongschool performance in wealthy and poorcommunities are but one example. Gaps betweenracial groups are another. Finding a balancebetween strong consequences and rewards for

performance is a third. Establishingaccountability systems may, in retrospect,have been the easier part of theimprovement effort; stimulatingimprovement across-the-board is analtogether more complicated task that mayconsume both places for years to come.

Power can be Devolved but Jobs andFunctions Remain

England’s devolution of power to schoolbuildings contains several importantmessages for the United States. Reducingthe role of LEAs, or in America, of statesand school systems, can shift power;however, it will also shift jobs that must bedone. Whether devolution of power meanslocal school buildings establishing a

budgeting and payroll office or whether it meansthe national government hiring a small army ofSchool Inspectors, governmental functions don’tdisappear because power is moved. The jobremains to be done. It is only a matter of whichlevel of government is performing the jobs.

The English experiment should trigger a healthyreassessment of the appropriate roles of governmentat all levels and force one to rethink the potentialvalue of intermediary forms of government, be theylocal school boards or state government.

The Test of Reform is Student Progress, NotAdult Satisfaction

As noted in several ways throughout thisdocument, much of what has transpired in Englandin the last decade has had to do with authorityover schools and who controls them. Whileimproved student performance has been therationale for the experimentation, it has been asmuch an ideological struggle between those whobelieve “less government is the best government”and those who believe a strong governmental roleis the best way to achieve progress. Given thedegree to which schools are central to the lives ofparents and young people and given the amount ofgovernmental investment in schools, it is naive tohope that schools can be above politics; however,when schools become a nation’s primary battleground for clashing ideological points of view, theconsequences can be dire. It appeared to the

Delegates meeting with English faculty and board of governors’ members. (l-r) Mike Ward,Jo Ann Norris, four English faculty and board of governors’ members, Carr Agyapong,Rep. Doug Yongue, Jane Worsham and Mike Fedewa.

[21]

school programs; others are making Saturdayinstruction available for young people at risk offailure. Both countries need to find more ways toclose the educational gap.

Unintended Consequences Come with ChangeIt is impossible to implement the kind of wide-

ranging experimentation that is underway in bothEngland and North Carolina without encounteringunintended consequences. As noted earlier, manyattribute the pressure cooker environment that theinspection process has created with contributing toa growing teacher shortage in England. Even morepuzzling is the sharp drop in college studentsmajoring in education. Officials are asking if thisdecline is partially a reaction to reformexperimentation. It is a phenomenon worthwatching in North Carolina.

With that, the new competition betweenschools for student enrollment coupled with theLEAs ceasing many of the functions they onceperformed has led to a dramatic lessening ofcollaboration and sharing among educators.Several Head Teachers, for instance, expressedregret that they rarely meet with theircounterparts from other schools; in a competitiveenvironment, sharing trade secrets is counter-intuitive. Teachers who formerly would meet withtheir peers rarely have those opportunities inEngland’s new climate.

In North Carolina, the relation betweeneducators in charter schools and those intraditional public schools is very analogous. In anumber of communities, charters are viewed ascompetitors and there is virtually no interactionbetween charter and traditional school educators.

The delegation also heard from researchers atthe Roehampton Institute, an English research andpublic policy organization, which contended thatschools were “excluding,” or expelling, low-performing students at a much higher rate nowthat student test results are being publicized. Theyfurther contended that those being expelledtended disproportionately to be students from lowincome and minority families.

These issues bear watching; they will requireskillful juggling on the part of policymakers. The

delegation that the focal point of reforms inEngland is shifting to student performance but itwas sobering to realize that for almost a decadethe focus appeared to be on issues related topolitics, power and ideology.

If Ignored, Diversity-related Issues can PlantSeeds for Social Discord

The ethnic and racial diversity that is soprevalent in the metropolitan London area is notdissimilar from that which will be the demographicface of the United States in the future. Thediversity that is causing England to addresseducational gaps between ethnic and racial groups,however, is as much diversity of economic class asdiversity of color or language.

England’s schools, like North Carolina’s, do bestat educating children who come to school fromhomes in which parents are educated andfinancially capable of providing a sound home lifeand support for their children. They do worst withstudents from low income families, those who arenot fluent in English or those not capable of“making the system work for them.” Thechallenge for both countries is to effectivelyeducate the children of the group that has beenlabeled “the underclass,” the economicallydisadvantaged. The North Carolina delegation wasimpressed with how English schools have adaptedto dealing with diversity; however, studentperformance scores starkly point out that a hugelearning gap remains. What was seen may be aglimpse into our own future.

Two things stood out. First, the make-up ofEngland’s teaching population doesn’t begin toreflect the diversity of the students attendingEngland’s schools. The same can be said for themake-up of the teaching population in the UnitedStates. Both countries need to aggressively recruitand build a core of teachers more closelyresembling their student populations.

Second, schools serving large numbers ofLondon’s inner-city students from low incomefamilies are beginning to employ the samestrategies that are being used in North Carolina’slow-performing schools that are showingmeasurable gains in student performance. Weheard about schools instituting before and after

[22]

challenge for both countries is finding the properbalance between rewards and consequenceswithout creating a situation that drives teachers outof the field, or students out of school.

Leaving Us Undecided…England’s Policy of Letting 16-year-olds ChooseAlternative Career or Educational Pa t h s

In England, as in many other European or AsianRim countries, students at roughly age 16 take twodistinctly different paths. Those passing requirednational tests may go on to school for two years ofintensive academic preparation for college. Thosewho do not pass the tests can retake them untilsuccessful; or, they can enroll in technical trainingschools or enter job apprenticeship programs.

The United States has not embraced formaloccupational high schools or employed jobapprenticeships on a broad scale for high schoolstudents. In that regard we are different frommost European countries which have had formalapprenticeship programs for generations; we arealso different from countries like Japan where,based on test scores, high school students canenroll in an academic high school readying themfor college or in occupational high schools in a hostof areas ranging from fishing to manufacturing.

The North Carolina delegation was mixed onthis point. Some felt that the English approach

offered young people the option to prepare foremployment and to be in an environment in whichthey would be more motivated and likely tosucceed. Others were not so sure but all agreedthat this difference is thought-provoking anddeserves closer examination.

England’s Non-retention PolicySchools in England do not retain students who

are unable to perform at grade level. Instead, theyare promoted with their age group though HeadTeachers and others assured the delegation thatthey would be given individualized instructionaimed at bringing them up to their grade level. Thispolicy obviously flies in the face of the growingnumber of states, including North Carolina, thathave made an “end to social promotion” theirmotto. Once again, this was a point upon whichthe delegation returned undecided.

To some, it was another indication that theEnglish reform had not made increased studentperformance for all its primary goal. Theycontended that the outcome of such a non-retention policy was simply to ensure that manyyoung people would not make the grade at age 16when tests would determine their educationalfuture. Others weren’t so sure and, given the newNorth Carolina testing policies that will be in effectin 2001, the subject is sure to be hotly debated inthe years ahead.

[23]

An Experiment in ProgressThe delegation to England learned much from

its brief visit but there will be much more to learnfrom England in the years ahead as the impact ofreform can be measured in student terms. Onething is certain: “once the genie is out of thebottle, you can’t put it back again.”

Those were the words of the Minister of Statein the English Department for Education andEmployment. Those words are perhaps a goodway to conclude this report. The face of educationin England has been changed for years, possiblydecades, to come. What educational face willemerge in the future, however, is very uncertain.

If anything is certain it is that the responsibilityshouldered by the men and women who occupypolicymaking positions in both England and NorthCarolina is heavy indeed. Systems, especiallysystems of government, are fragile things. Onceweakened, it can take generations to putsomething better in their place.

As policymakers in the United States feelimpatient after over a decade of school reform, itis worth reflecting on the English experiment.After over a decade during which parental choicewas touted as the answer to school reform, thespotlight is back on the hard work of schoolimprovement. No longer are English policymakersviewing programs like school vouchers as apanacea to failing schools; instead, they arefocusing on root causes like teacher preparationand school leadership.

It may be that none of us, be we in Raleigh,North Carolina, or London, England, is likely todiscover a panacea in this drive for schoolimprovement. More likely, it will be the result ofthousands upon thousands of policymakers,parents, business leaders and educators workingshoulder to shoulder on the hard and demandingjob of school improvement.

[24]

Hats Offto our English Hosts

This trip would not have been possible without the assistance of theBritish Council, a not-for-profit organization that interfaces withcountries across the world on a broad range of issues ranging fromhealth to education. Council officials in Washington D.C. and inLondon, England, who were responsive to the needs of the NorthCarolina delegation, traveled with us while we were in England andarranged a rich and diverse set of experiences during our stay.

We are also grateful to officials in England’s national EducationDepartment, officials with one of the British Teachers Union,representatives of private schools, researchers with the RoehamptonInstitute, officials, faculty and students in Lambeth, Wandsworth andOxfordshire LEAs and others who presented to the delegation.

Last, but far from least, we are deeply grateful to the educators andparents who opened their school doors to us during our visit. Wewere greeted warmly and had insightful, candid, discussions aboutschools and schooling in England. To all of them we are grateful.

ResourcesLibby Plum, Visit Coordinator, British Council,

LondonJohn Rolfe, Visit Coordinator, British Council,

LondonCaroline Clifford-Knapp, Country Services

Group, British Council, LondonLouise Kitching, Country Services Group, British

Council, LondonLena Milosevic, Consultant for Schools, British

Council, LondonToby Linden, Consultant for Education, British

Council, WashingtonDr. Kathryn Riley, Director, Centre for

Educational Management, the RoehamptonInstitute, London

Elle Rustique-Forrester, the RoehamptonInstitute, London

Heather du Quesnay, Chief Education Officer,Lambeth LEA, London

John Bangs, Asst. Secretary, Education Dept.,National Union of Teachers

Janet Theakston, Principal Officer, EducationAction Zone Unit

Charles Clarke, MP, ParliamentaryUndersecretary of State, Dept. for Educationand Employment, London

Ralph Tabberer, Senior Education Advisor, Dept.for Education and Employment, London

Andrew Bidewell, Head of Exports and Visits,Dept. for Education and Employment, London

Mike Sant, General Secretary, IndependentSchools and Bursars Association

Michael Gibbons, Head Teacher, Bishop ThomasGrant School, London

Sister Goggin, Head Teacher, St. Anne’s PrimarySchool, London

Sue Scarsbrook, Head Teacher, SudbournePrimary School, London

Councillor Professor Prichard, Deputy Chair,Education Committee, Wandsworth LEA,London

Paul Robinson, Director of Education,Wandsworth LEA, London

Mary Evans, Deputy Director of Education,Wandsworth LEA, London

Graham Carter, Pupil Services Manager,Wandsworth LEA, London

Veronica Bradbury, MBE, Head Teacher, AllFarthing Primary School, London

Naz Bokhari, MA, Principal, Ernest BevinCollege (Boys), London

Graham Stapleton, MA, Head Teacher, GraveneyGrant-Maintained School, London

Sue Garner, Admissions and Information toParents Division, Dept. for Education andEmployment, London

Richard Puleston, Admissions and Information toParents Division, Dept. for Education andEmployment, London

Linda Kennedy, Admissions and Information toParents Division, Dept. for Education andEmployment, London

Mary Scowcroft, Admissions and Information toParents Division, Dept. for Education andEmployment, London

Christopher Graffius, Parliamentary Officer,British Council, London

Anne Harper, Qualifications and CurriculumAuthority, London

Tina Isaacs, Qualifications and CurriculumAuthority, London

David Hawker, Qualifications and CurriculumAuthority, London

Steven Hillier, Teacher Training Agency, LondonSue Dasey, Dept. for Education and

Employment, LondonAndrew Coulson, Financial Controller, Lambeth

LEA, LondonTim Johnson, Financial Controller, Lambeth,

LondonRichard Page-Jones, Her Majesty’s Inspector,

OFSTEDCheryl Gillan, MP, House of Commons, LondonDavid Wilson, Head Teacher, Faringdon School,

FaringdonKath Cook, Head Teacher, Northbourne School,

DidcotAlan Klee, Head Teacher, Carterton Community

College, CartertonMike Curtis, Head Teacher, Carterton Primary

School, CartertonGraham Badman, Chief Education Officer,

Oxfordshire County Council, InternationalEducation Bureau, Oxford

Dr. Rebecca Walton, Director of Education,British Council, London

Harry Judge, former Dean of Oxford Schoolof Education, Oxford

The Burroughs Wellcome Fund, the KenanFamily Trust and the GlaxoWellcomeCorporation’s financial support made thisundertaking possible. We hope the NorthCarolina delegation’s findings will lead to betterdecision making about the direction of schoolimprovement in North Carolina that will validateeach of those groups helping to underwrite thisexamination of schools in England.

A special thanks also goes to NCAE forhosting a luncheon for the NC delegation and agroup of teachers from England who werevisiting North Carolina prior to the delegation’svisit to England.

Thank you

Thanks also go to our English guides and advisors including (l-r): Lena Milosevic, John Rolfe,Louise Kitching, Caroline Clifford-Knapp and Libby Plum.

E n g l a n d

Public School Forum of North CarolinaKoger Center, Cumberland Building3739 National Drive, Suite 210Raleigh, North Carolina 27612Tel 919 781-6833; fax 919 781-6527

Please contact the Public School Forumfor additional copies:1-5 copies $10; 6 or more copies $8May 1999

E n g l a n dAn Examination of the Impact

of a Decade of Parental Choice

& School Accountability

Experimentation in England