LEAGUE tables may be fine for rating football teams, but not schools or hospitals. 91av recently reported a study by mathematician Rebecca Hoyle of the University of Surrey that simulated the results of pupils from 10 schools over 15 years (14 December 2002, p 9). Using a simple mathematical model, Hoyle found that the position of a school in a league does not always reflect the quality of the school’s teaching. I gave a copy of the article to David Miliband, the school standards minister, asking what he thought of the findings.
Miliband said the article was interesting and agreed that the methodology was valid. But performance tables are an important part of the drive to boost standards in schools. The tables are accurate, calculated on a consistent basis and difficult to manipulate, and are the only readily available source of comparative information on all the institutions in England. However, the Department for Education and Skills is always looking for ways to make them more useful to the strategy for higher educational standards. That is why it is this year introducing “value-added” tables that assess pupils’ improvement rather than just final results.
Standard tables, Miliband said, do not provide a complete picture of a school’s performance, because many factors can affect each pupil’s achievement and thus a school’s place in the performance tables. But parents do not rely on league tables alone when choosing schools. Other key considerations include school prospectuses, inspection reports and records of achievement. They use as wide a range of information as possible and set it against their knowledge of the local schools, he said.
Advertisement
To my mind, league tables can damage teacher morale in schools that are not near the top. And they damage those schools in turn, because they then find it more difficult to attract maths, physics and chemistry teachers. Pupils with talent in these subjects are often found in unlikely places, and encouraging only those who are already successful could work against the country’s interests.
CLEARLY, the government is determined to discourage teenage smoking. The Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 came into force in Britain this week. It bans tobacco advertising on hoardings and in the media. There is tougher enforcement against under-age sales, proof-of-age card schemes, new restrictions on vending machines and higher taxes on tobacco. But if, as 91av reported last year (22 June 2002, p 4), a vaccine could stop us becoming hooked, could that not also be used to prevent youngsters getting addicted to the evil weed? I asked public health minister Hazel Blears for her view.
Blears replied that under British legislation, all medicinal products for human use, including vaccines, must win a product licence before they can be sold. Licence applications must be made to the Medicines Control Agency, submitted along with supporting data about the product, including findings from clinical trials, to show that the product meets acceptable standards of quality, safety and efficacy. Blears said the European Commission has established similar controls for the European market.
From now on, tobacco advertising will be banned in Britain under the 2002 act. Direct marketing will be outlawed on 14 May and sponsorship of national events will end in July. I think that vaccine injections should be part of this campaign, although certainly, teenagers’ consent would be needed. It is not a fanciful suggestion. Many teenagers say they would welcome help to kick the habit.
