LETTER: Motivate schools by reward, not bribery

Mr Jeff Rooker Mp
Monday 02 January 1995 19:02 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: We appear to have reached a new low in the accepted standards of conduct of public life by ministers when the Independent reports "Cash lure to increase opt-out schools" (28 December).

Just how is the Secretary of State to define the "popular schools" to hand out one-off cash sweeteners to in the hope they will opt out? Will it be the number of middle-class parents applying; the distance people are prepared to send their children to school; applicants to places; applicants with higher education qualifications? The list is endless.

If Gillian Shepherd really wants to push schools to make children work hard, there must be a better way. She could start by introducing a "good schools" programme.

Such a programme would include a learning guarantee and ensure that teachers were up to scratch to deliver it, a system to see that each school improved its performance each year in a measurable way, a method of measuring the education distance travelledby each pupil each year or term - which means knowing where they started from. Pupils from homes where neither parent had been in higher education or further eduction could be worth more to the school in income flow - which means highly motivated teachers would be bidding for these kids so as to get them to travel longer education distances. They might even have to turn away middle-class parents to do so. Prizes and sanctions would be needed so that distance travelled meant extra cash for the school.

Under a "good schools" programme, head teachers would be on fixed-term contracts. And if one school was doing so well that another school wanted to be part of it, a means should be allowed for what my detractors would call "takeovers".

Yours faithfully, JEFF ROOKER MP for Birmingham Perry Barr (Lab)

House of Commons London, SW1

The writer was Labour Spokesman on Education, 1992-93.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in