Wow, my first week of school began last week…crazy as usual and full of change. That IS the first week of school at any age level.  So much goes into a new semester: roster changes, procedural changes, new faces, old problems, the excitement of returning, and the awkwardness of getting back in a groove; there’s really no need for that proverbial needle on an educator’s back.  But I found it…three to be sure!

1. The Christian Science Monitor had an extensive bio on Arne Duncan. They balance the hope and humanity of the Secretary of Education with an underlying tone of targeting inferior teachers as the problem with schools.

2. TIME magazine’s entire issue this week focused on the potential of charter schools while subtly citing teacher unions as the problem with schools.

3. Probably my favorite was Newsweek’s editorial on why school reform fails, naming students (!!!) and their lacking motivation, as the problem with schools.

What is it about our national fabric that requires we find a boogeyman, a scapegoat, a fall guy, or otherwise something or someone to blame?  America’s public education system is hugely complex to the degree that appointing one boogeyman for the ailment is crassly shortsighted.

The journalistic timing is optimal that as teachers begin our year, usually the hardest part of our job, it becomes a popular time to critique and dissect the profession that we’ve sacrificed so much to uphold, not for the institution itself, but for children.  Still, a hallmark of problem solving and continuous improvement is to identify root causes and fixing them which may sound like casting blame.  Great educators do this every day with our students, finding out what is missing, what is needed, and what can be better, then doing it.   Let’s hope that was the intent of this latest media blast of education, so that after the first few weeks of a new school year settles in, we can continue the great work of improving schools from the inside out while thanking mainstream media for their hearty analysis.

I appreciate the tools and views of the HOPE Foundation. Simply through the moniker (Harnessing Optimism and Potential through Education), I feel reassured that there are voices in the darkness discounting boogeymen and blame, and focusing on the positive energy to approach solving the litany of challenges each school faces.

The new policy – which would be enshrined in the admissions code used by schools to offer places – is set to spark allegations that the Coalition is seeking to socially-engineer the make-up of schools.

As a result, tens of thousands of middle-class families who have paid premium property prices to live in the catchment areas of popular schools could see themselves disappointed when applying for places.

However, Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, believes the move may be necessary to reverse the growing educational gap between the richest and poorest children in Britain. The gap widened under the Labour Government.

The policy is initially being considered for the new generation of state-funded free schools and academies. However, if it is introduced and proves successful, experts believe it is likely to spread to all schools.

Mr Gove, who is fearful of a middle-class backlash against the scheme, is still considering the plans and has asked education officials to draw up proposals for how it may work in practice.

A source close to the Education Secretary said the scheme was under consideration.

“The central aim of the Government’s education policy is making opportunity more equal,” the source said. “We have one of the most segregated and stratified education systems in the world.

“We’re putting in place a range of policies to help every child do better. As part of our commitment to helping every child do better we’re introducing a pupil premium – which will mean more cash for the poorest children in all our schools.”

The source added: “We’re exploring how schools which wish to target their efforts on helping the poorest can be helped. We want to emulate the success of the KIPP charter schools in America which explicitly target their attention on poorer children.”

The new planned admissions policy would complement the Coalition’s plan to introduce a so-called “pupil premium” from next year.

The pupil premium is to be paid to schools for each poorer student they take on from autumn 2011. The level of the premium is still being negotiated between the Treasury and Education department but the Liberal Democrats have called for a budget of about £2.5 billion annually for the scheme.

Typically, state schools receive £4,000 in direct funding for each pupil they take. Under this scheme they could be paid around £6,000 for each pupil they admit who receives free school meals.

It could benefit up to one million children whose families earn less than £16,000 a year and give schools up to 50 percent more funding for the education of poorer pupils. They would be free to spend the money as they wished.

The new admissions policy would allow them to actively seek to recruit the most disadvantaged children and they would have a major financial incentive to do so.

It would be up to individual schools whether they want to introduce the new policy and would not be imposed by Whitehall.

On Monday night it was not clear how much freedom new schools and academies may be given to target the poorest children. They may only be permitted to offer preferential access to poorer pupils within existing catchment areas.

However, a more radical policy would allow those on free school meals who live outside a school’s catchment area to benefit.

The planned policy is likely to prove controversial with middle-class parents.

John Chard, founder of School Appeals, which advises parents on admissions, said: “Politicians have been trying to stop middle-class parents monopolising the best schools for some time but I think we are getting into quite dangerous territory here.

“If you give children on free school meals complete priority it could very quickly change the face of a school. What happens if you have 240 places available and 300 applications from children eligible for free meals? They will have to have limits on the number of these children if they don’t want to cause real problems for other parents.”

Mr Gove is expected to study the options before deciding whether to include the new rules in an education white paper to be introduced to Parliament later this year.

The new Education Secretary has repeatedly expressed his concerns over the fate of the poorest students in British schools. By the age of seven, those on free school meals are already 16 percent less likely to be reading at the expected level than other children.

At GCSE, just 27 per cent of “free school meal” children achieve five A-C grades, compared to 54 percent of children from more affluent backgrounds. The chances of those going to university are miniscule compared to those who are privately educated.

Next week, the Education Secretary will meet with George Osborne, the Chancellor, to negotiate future funding for schools. The education budget faces cutbacks of at least ten percent over the next three years.

However, plans to introduce the pupil premium and help poorer students will be protected. They are a flagship Government policy which is being heavily backed by Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister.

The Telegraph understands that the Government will signal a shift away from Labour’s attempts to present vocational subjects as “pseudo academic” courses that focus on the theory behind key trades.

They want more students to “get their hands dirty” by taking part in on-the-job training and practical courses staged in specially-designed Studio Schools and University Technical Colleges.

The review will be led by Alison Wolf, professor of public sector management at King’s College London.

It comes just days after Mr Gove announced plans to bolster academic secondary school subjects by introducing a new English Baccalaureate. Under proposals, pupils will be expected to gain at least five C grade GCSEs in subjects including English literature, maths, science, foreign or ancient languages and humanities to gain the new certificate.

The Coalition will today attempt to strengthen vocational subjects which they claim have been undermined by 13 years of Labour.

Currently, courses are given the same weighting as academic subjects in school league tables. This has seen their popularity boom, with 540,000 entries recorded in 2008 compared with 22,500 five years earlier.

Last year, more than 64,000 16-year-olds took an IT course which is worth the same as a GCSE but takes far less time to teach.

But the Government claim some of these courses are of questionable value – and too focused on classroom tuition – meaning they fail to properly prepare students for a career in the workplace.

Prof Wolf’s review will assess how vocational courses fit into league tables and whether an “official quality benchmark” should be drawn up to regulate these qualifications.

It will look at the age in which pupils are expected to take certain practical courses, suggesting that some children could start them earlier as an alternative to academic study.

In a key move, it will assess the way vocational courses are taught and how they can be improved to meet the demands of businesses.

Ministers are believed to be keen on more students taking courses away from conventional schools to receive expert tuition.

Labour and the Conservatives have already backed plans for the creation of University Technical Colleges – the first of their kind since the 1950s.

Under plans, students aged 14 and over take GCSEs in core subjects including English, mathematics and science, along with courses in areas such as bricklaying, manufacturing, fashion and information technology.

The first UTC will open in 2012 in the West Midlands, sponsored and run by Aston University, with plans for more in Wolverhampton, Salford, Bradford, Leicester and Loughborough.

The Coalition is also backing Studio Schools, based on a similar model in which pupils take both practical and academic subjects. Six are due to open within the next two years.

This suggests that school boundaries would have to be radically expanded or redrawn to give more deprived children an equal opportunity of winning a place.

Thousands of children across England were forced to take part in random ballots to get into the most sought-after schools this year.

The policy – introduced by Labour three years ago – is designed to stop middle-class parents buying expensive homes near the best state secondaries to secure places.

Ed Balls, the former Labour schools secretary, later admitted they could be “arbitrary” and “unfair” but an independent review of the system last year said councils should be free to impose them.

Research by the Telegraph found lotteries were employed by at least one school in 25 local authority areas.

Brighton was the first council to introduce a city-wide lottery system in 2007.

Under its plan, six district catchment areas were established with one or two schools in each. Places at over-subscribed schools were allocated by random ballot.

Although any pupil can apply for any school, those living within the catchment area are given priority.

Today’s study, which examined the first two years of the Brighton system, said there had been “winners and losers” but concluded that the overall number of poor pupils in the best schools had not increased.

The report, by the Institute of Education, London, and Bristol University, said the way new catchment areas had been established meant that families in the poorest neighbourhoods still had “little chance of accessing the most popular schools” in the city centre.

“Some students are attending less academically successful secondary schools than they might have expected to; for others the reverse is true,” it said. “The location of these winners and losers largely derive from the design of the catchment areas rather than the impact of the lottery where it applies.”

The study – being presented at the British Educational Research Association annual conference at Warwick University on Friday – added: “It seems unlikely that the reforms [will] substantially lower social segregation across schools even in the long-run in this city where differences in the quality of housing stock across areas are deeply entrenched.”

The report’s authors said: “The main lesson of our analysis is that the introduction of a lottery on its own is not enough to equalise access to the high-performing popular schools.

“The drawing of the catchment area boundaries is central to the outcome of the reform.”

Brighton Council said it would be reviewing its lottery system in 2012 but dismissed claims that it had been a failure.

“The aim was to create a system that is fairer to more people than the previous system and ensure children could get places at a school that’s near to them,” said a spokesman. “We argue that these aims have been achieved.

“The report is not critical of the use of random allocation but does comment on the effect of catchment areas. However it uses too small a sample of pupils over the first two years and we do not think this is enough to arrive at a significant conclusion.

“Catchment areas in the city have changed since the research was conducted and the report acknowledges that the retained sibling link affects the efficacy of the findings. We are reviewing the system in 2012 which was agreed when it was adopted.”