Cool reception for school voucher plan

Shadow Education Secretary Tim Yeo has called for an end to admissions policy based on the "proximity rule" - school entry according to which catchment area you live in.

At present, houses near high-performing state schools can be thousands of pounds more expensive than properties in other catchment areas.

In an uncharacteristically anti-middle class move, Mr Yeo said it was wrong that affluent parents could guarantee their children places at top schools by buying houses nearby.

"We aim to give to the many the privileges now only bought by a few," he said.

"At the moment we have a selection process on the basis of parental wealth. I think that's a very poor principle.

"The whole essence of this policy is that we no longer want schools in expensive areas to exclude people from poor areas merely because they don't live nearby."

Most people would agree that the standard of education a child receives in the state sector should not be determined by the amount of money their parents have.

And the Conservative policy seems to hit the right note in Worcester after recent figures revealed youngsters from richer areas of the city are seven times more likely to go to university than others from poorer wards.

However, the replacement system the Tories advocate has not been explained in detail and has come in for scathing criticism.

Under the outlines each pupil would have a voucher entitling them to education at the comprehensive school of their choice.

Parents would simply hand this to a school for their children to be accepted.

Though school governors would have the final say over which pupils attended, the reasons for turning down a child would need to be published and within approved guidelines.

The scheme would also allow successful schools to increase their capacity by up to 10 per cent so more pupils have the chance to learn at the best schools.

Worcester's Labour MP Mike Foster has led the criticism of the plans.

"The end of the catchment area would cause huge disruption, particularly in Worcester where schools are quite close together and there is fierce competition for places," he said.

Parents can, in theory, already apply to any school for a place for their child. However, popular schools tend to make choices based on those living closest, as well as other criteria, such as whether a brother or sister attends.

According to Worcestershire's headteachers, the current system is not perfect, but has clear benefits over the sketchy, voucher proposals.

"At the moment we are moving away from a proximity-based system anyway because we have 27 feeder schools - some from St John's but others from further afield," said Neil Morris, headteacher at Christopher Whitehead High School, in Bromwich Road, Worcester.

"One of the biggest arguments against a new school site is that Christopher Whitehead is at the centre of its community, but with 27 feeder schools it is difficult to say that.

"So, if children came from even further away under the new plans it would be even harder to be a community-based school.

"It would also create problems with after-school activities and sports, when travel would become a major issue.

"Another obvious problem is that some schools would be inundated with applications while others would be seriously under-subscribed."

Pershore High School, in Station Road, Pershore has three middle schools and 12 first schools in its feeder system.

Headteacher Clive Corbett said the "proximity" system was as fair as it could be.

"We have a very strong pyramid of schools in our area and many of the students who leave us at 18 have been to school together since they were four or five," he said.

"These friendship groups would be lost under the proposals."

The high school already has waiting lists for every year group and if they were forced to expand whenever another pupil came, this would create its own problems.

"If we took extra students as and when they came to us with a voucher it would make long-term financial planning very difficult," Mr Corbett added.

"It would also mean that we would have to take on part-time teaching staff at certain times, which is not ideal.

"I agree with the principle that people shouldn't be able to pay their way into schools, but I would rather see tinkering with the current system rather than wholesale change."

Education Secretary Charles Clarke labelled the policy "utter chaos" and, while the issue should remain educational rather than political, few teachers look set to disagree.