How odd

Polly Toynbee today says that:

This matters because the OECD finds the countries with schools that segregate least according to class and ability do best overall: Britain lags behind partly because of its many forms of segregation.

This is part of an argument against faith schools and academies. It's also a slightly odd statement. Finland, for example, the top country by the OECD's measurements, is very interested indeed in segregation: they do not have a comprehensive schools system, for example, they run two entirely different systems, one academic and one vocational (in the higher years they do, at least).

As indeed, so do many of the other well regarded countries.

However, while we're thinking about what the OECD says is a good idea for schools, why not this?

The results of PISA 2003 suggest that both students and schools perform best in a climate characterised by high expectations that are supported through strong teacher-student relations, students who are ready to invest effort and who show interest and lower levels of anxiety with mathematics, and a positive disciplinary climate. In most of the countries that performed well, local authorities and schools also have substantial responsibility for educational content and/or the use of resources, and many set out to teach heterogeneous groups of learners.

Oh, my word, they say that schools and local authorities determine the content: which is exactly what these academies have the freedom to do, free themselves from the rigid prescriptions from the centre.

Odd she didn't point that out really.