The schools top list, a yearly source of divisions, has deserved lion’s share of the criticism it has drawn. To assess schools after a single criterion would be like marrying somebody according to shoe size or IQ – such ways to select the best being quite naive and doomed to fail.
Even so, this means not that the assessment method is faulty; rather, the conclusions drawn from the results are not quite right. A top list is no sure basis to determine which schools the parents should storm, every fall. Then again: for the state, local governments and education officials, the results provide a picture of which schools are in greatest need for help.
As revealed by the list, Estonia has some dozen schools where gymnasium state exam average comes under 50 per cent. There being about 30 schools where, in some subjects, the average accomplishment is to the tune of 30 points only – 20 points being the minimum required to graduate from high school. That would mean that each year, these schools send out young people with much less chance to make it in this world than others.
Among the said schools, some have teetered at the verge of failure for years. For years on end, they have been upbraided for poor results. But the failings may also be read as a cry for help. The headmasters, teachers and parents linked to these schools know well enough they have a problem on their hands. Often, the situation has not arisen because of any underperformance on their part – rather, in spite of their endeavours.
The problem has at least two reasons to it. On the one hand, the educational system is directly linked to other processes in society – just like medicine and transportation systems. Some of the reasons for uneven levels also are the same. No child is stupid. For parents to be involved in the kids’ studies – a reason listed by success-school leaders as key to achievements – they would need the time and the opportunity. In other words: they would have to lead a stable live, having basic needs covered. When talking about some places having buses once a week and doing without family doctors, accusing fingers point to the state or local governments. But should the talk turn to a school’s poor results – it is their own fault.
On the other hand, however, some of the low-level-schools are to be found in cities, where various issues as parental attention and availability of teachers would be solved somewhat more easily. And even with levels of vocational education rising, still the questionable quality thereof may be seen as reason why the pressure is on to squeeze into gymnasiums – even for kids whose interests lean elsewhere.
Education reform has, indeed, been kicked into gear; still, the way to do it is not only watering the plants that bloom. The reasons why some schools make it and some not are much more varied and complex.
Some schools need a good district to succeed. Some districts need schools, to succeed. To view these two as separate would not be too prudent.