Saturday, 21 July 2007
1) Good News
The 'extended medical degree programme', a widening participation course in medicine, at Kings College, which makes extensive use of Bright Journals, has just had its first batch of students from disadvantaged backgrounds qualify as doctors http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6252656.stm
2 ) welfare reform, the government green paper
The eye-catching proposals in the green paper are that single parents will be expected to move into work after their youngest child reaches the age of 7 and that all job seekers will, after 12 months of being on benefit, be expected to carry out socially useful work in return for continued benefits http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2129311,00.html
Availability for socially useful work used to be a requirement for claiming benefit. The last reference I’ve found to actually mobilising the unemployed for work was the winter of 1946/47 when unemployed men were used to clear snow.
But, transferring single parents onto job seekers allowance, after the youngest child reaches the age of 7, is a new proposal. It is more stringent than the recent Freud report proposed and more than the Conservatives in their recent policy review were arguing.
I was surprised when this government paper hasn’t generated much interest. I guess journalists think that after the predictable protest, the government will back down. I disagree, I think this will happen. I recognise I could be wrong, ( I am the person who stood up in a Labour party meeting in 1979 and said the election of Margaret Thatcher didn’t matter, as she wouldn’t last 6 months) but I don’t think the government are going to back down on this one. The reaction of the single parent pressure groups was entirely predictable. The hostile reaction of the left of the Labour party will also be entirely predictable. Yet, the government have brought this forward, why? I think there are two reasons: it will play well in marginal constituencies and it provides cover for further expanding welfare expenditure.
This kind of initiative plays well with the lower middle classes who make up a crucial component of the population of most marginal parliamentary seats. These often previous Tory voters have recently been looking once again at the Tories in a favourable light. Suggesting single parents should be looking for work when their youngest child is 7 outflanks the Tories on their right and in a way that really hurts. Labour is apparently getting tough with single parent benefit scroungers while flaky Dave wants to hug a hoody, this drives them nuts. This same social group are also going to be dangerously exercised by the housing building program that Brown has already announced. These ‘natural born conservatives’ don’t want a mixed tenure housing development in their own backyard but their sons and daughters can’t leave home because of house prices. Buckling under these contradictory pressures the Tories find themselves with a policy of both supporting increases to the housing supply while opposing building in every area. This weakness will be remorselessly attacked by the Labour party, hoping to attract the votes of the young people, whose highest priority is housing, while confusing the parents who would be glad to see the back of their adult children but don‘t want urban sprawl.
Secondly, shifting single parents into the workforce makes the case for more welfare spending: how so? It looks to me like the Bill Clinton strategy; no not the lying on oath, I mean the strategy he adopted to force the Republicans to support increased spending on child care centres for the poor. He argued that if single parents were to end their lifetime dependence on welfare then there first had to be affordable care for their children, if they were to go out to work. In return for a major increase in child care spending Bill Clinton ended the entitlement to long term welfare benefits for single parents in the USA.
Liberal critics of this strategy predicted that children would be dying on the streets of the big cities of the USA when the winter came, as the then homeless single parent families would be without shelter. In the event, a few poor people did die but no more than usual. There have also been some real success stories, people who when forced into the labour market have flourished. The links between the Democrats and the UK’s Labour party are strong with a constant exchange of people between organisations. I think this Green Paper has been developed after a detailed review of the American political and practical experience.
As I have gone on about in the past, this government needs to spend more money if it is to put in place the measures and organisations that are needed to get close to key targets such as ending child poverty by 2020. The question is how to get more tax money out of the middle classes; I think the answer is to play to their prejudices. So, although this has had a slow start I think it will become an important feature of the government’s legislative programme; or maybe its time for another 1979 moment for me.
Availability for socially useful work used to be a requirement for claiming benefit. The last reference I’ve found to actually mobilising the unemployed for work was the winter of 1946/47 when unemployed men were used to clear snow.
But, transferring single parents onto job seekers allowance, after the youngest child reaches the age of 7, is a new proposal. It is more stringent than the recent Freud report proposed and more than the Conservatives in their recent policy review were arguing.
I was surprised when this government paper hasn’t generated much interest. I guess journalists think that after the predictable protest, the government will back down. I disagree, I think this will happen. I recognise I could be wrong, ( I am the person who stood up in a Labour party meeting in 1979 and said the election of Margaret Thatcher didn’t matter, as she wouldn’t last 6 months) but I don’t think the government are going to back down on this one. The reaction of the single parent pressure groups was entirely predictable. The hostile reaction of the left of the Labour party will also be entirely predictable. Yet, the government have brought this forward, why? I think there are two reasons: it will play well in marginal constituencies and it provides cover for further expanding welfare expenditure.
This kind of initiative plays well with the lower middle classes who make up a crucial component of the population of most marginal parliamentary seats. These often previous Tory voters have recently been looking once again at the Tories in a favourable light. Suggesting single parents should be looking for work when their youngest child is 7 outflanks the Tories on their right and in a way that really hurts. Labour is apparently getting tough with single parent benefit scroungers while flaky Dave wants to hug a hoody, this drives them nuts. This same social group are also going to be dangerously exercised by the housing building program that Brown has already announced. These ‘natural born conservatives’ don’t want a mixed tenure housing development in their own backyard but their sons and daughters can’t leave home because of house prices. Buckling under these contradictory pressures the Tories find themselves with a policy of both supporting increases to the housing supply while opposing building in every area. This weakness will be remorselessly attacked by the Labour party, hoping to attract the votes of the young people, whose highest priority is housing, while confusing the parents who would be glad to see the back of their adult children but don‘t want urban sprawl.
Secondly, shifting single parents into the workforce makes the case for more welfare spending: how so? It looks to me like the Bill Clinton strategy; no not the lying on oath, I mean the strategy he adopted to force the Republicans to support increased spending on child care centres for the poor. He argued that if single parents were to end their lifetime dependence on welfare then there first had to be affordable care for their children, if they were to go out to work. In return for a major increase in child care spending Bill Clinton ended the entitlement to long term welfare benefits for single parents in the USA.
Liberal critics of this strategy predicted that children would be dying on the streets of the big cities of the USA when the winter came, as the then homeless single parent families would be without shelter. In the event, a few poor people did die but no more than usual. There have also been some real success stories, people who when forced into the labour market have flourished. The links between the Democrats and the UK’s Labour party are strong with a constant exchange of people between organisations. I think this Green Paper has been developed after a detailed review of the American political and practical experience.
As I have gone on about in the past, this government needs to spend more money if it is to put in place the measures and organisations that are needed to get close to key targets such as ending child poverty by 2020. The question is how to get more tax money out of the middle classes; I think the answer is to play to their prejudices. So, although this has had a slow start I think it will become an important feature of the government’s legislative programme; or maybe its time for another 1979 moment for me.
3) Catch the wave
Over the past couple of years there has been much talk about a new philanthropy http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2129588,00.html . As this article from the Guardian describes, we are beginning to see the detail of this trend and I think how it presents us with opportunities. I particularly like the Action aid idea of having a structured and I guess, focused, ‘ambassador network’ to target potential donors. We certainly cannot rely on the recommendation of New Philanthropy Capital whose reports and analysis should, in my opinion, be regarded as being of uneven quality.
As for the rise in the new wealthy: if you are interested take a look at this new book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Richistan-Journey-Through-Century-Wealth/dp/0749928239/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/026-6725407-0987623?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184857996&sr=8-1 Why the title, Richistan - because with their relatively large numbers, separation from the rest of society and their tendency to gather together, the author sees the western European new rich as a country – Richistan. Like all other countries, there are social differences and the author develops an interesting categorisation or typology of the rich. For example, he discusses how the lower rich in the USA, the single digit millionaires, tend to be Republican and conservative, while the billionaires, the seriously rich, tend towards liberal and Democrat. This is a fun easy read and it might even be useful when trying to understand what we are doing at The Brightside Trust, especially chapter 8, Performance Philanthropy. I am placing my own copy of Richistan in The Brightside Trust library; I may not have the billions but I can adopt the lifestyle.
As for the rise in the new wealthy: if you are interested take a look at this new book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Richistan-Journey-Through-Century-Wealth/dp/0749928239/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/026-6725407-0987623?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184857996&sr=8-1 Why the title, Richistan - because with their relatively large numbers, separation from the rest of society and their tendency to gather together, the author sees the western European new rich as a country – Richistan. Like all other countries, there are social differences and the author develops an interesting categorisation or typology of the rich. For example, he discusses how the lower rich in the USA, the single digit millionaires, tend to be Republican and conservative, while the billionaires, the seriously rich, tend towards liberal and Democrat. This is a fun easy read and it might even be useful when trying to understand what we are doing at The Brightside Trust, especially chapter 8, Performance Philanthropy. I am placing my own copy of Richistan in The Brightside Trust library; I may not have the billions but I can adopt the lifestyle.
4) The digital divide
It used to be assumed that the digital divide, the divide between those using new technology and those who did not, would literally die out; as those born after the 1980s would all automatically have access and familiarity with ICT. This research report finds that this isn’t the case and that 11% of 16-24 year-olds are digitally excluded. How will they get on in the modern world? http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/12521 and http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/12519 . We have a paper copy of the full report in our Brightside library.
5) Academies, why are we doing this, Ed?
Ed Balls, who in previous government’s would be called the Secretary of State for Education, took the opportunity, last week, to review the government’s schools program. The first thing that struck me, was that this speech is number 666 in the Whitehall catalogue, well, I guess, better Ed on schools than a minister speaking about Trident, http://www.dfes.gov.uk/speeches/speech.cfm?SpeechID=666 . If one wanted a listing of the educational achievements of the present government, then the first part of this script is a good summary and worth remembering as a reference. Ed, also took the opportunity to announce some new plans, including those for the Academies program. This included the announcement that the core national curriculum would apply to Academies from now on.
This change distracted me from the thought that Ed might be demonic - as I thought exemption from the National Curriculum was one of the defining characteristics of the Academies program. For me, this change raised the question, what then are the defining features of an Academy? The starting point used to be they were free from state control and that included freedom from the national curriculum. It used to be said that they would be directed and endowed by successful businesses and the entrepreneurs who ran them. In practice, businesses brought in a minimum of 2 million pounds. But Ed announced that "from today, I am abolishing the current requirement for universities and high-performing schools and colleges to provide £2 million before they can sponsor an Academy. “ So, a cash gift is not a defining feature. Could it be that universities have a similar level of competence at running successful organisations as successful entrepreneurs and businesses? This strange thought drew me to look more closely at the list of universities that Ed named as the advance guard of universities wishing to sponsor Academies. It included Queen Mary, University of London, who had only 3 days earlier featured in another list, one drawn up by HEFCE, of failing universities, which the Guardian reported under the headline ‘Secret list of universities facing collapse, Papers name 46 institutions in crisis’ http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,,2120991,00.html .When combined with the pedestrian progress universities have made in their widening participation programs, I’m afraid I feel it reasonable to ask the question, wouldn’t it be wise if these universities were to concentrate on improving their own performance, rather than visiting their flawed talents on a secondary school. So, its not a proven track record of running successful organisations that is the stuff of Academies. Still puzzled, I turned again to Ed’s speech "But the test of whether an organisation can be a potential sponsor should not be its bank balance, but whether it can demonstrate leadership, innovation, and commitment to act in the public interest."
How does this apply to the likes of Peter Vardy, car salesman and Christian fundamentalist, who was allowed to be an early sponsor of an Academy. Was being one of the North-East of England’s largest second hand car salesman proof of a commitment to act in the public interest? It also shows that universities educational expertise cannot be a reason or criteria for sponsorship because the early sponsors such as Vardy had little or none.
Perhaps the importance of Academies was to get schools out of local authority control? Again, that seemed to be the case at the start of the program, but of late local authorities are being allowed to sponsor academies. http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/Pages/press/pritem.asp?Id=10058 - so it cannot be that.
Perhaps, then, it was all a ploy to raise money to build new schools in poor areas in a way that didn't outrage the middle classes. But, the government are already committed to rebuilding all secondary schools in England anyway. So, it cannot be that either.
The only common attribute that I can identify, that seems to be a common feature across the Academies’ program, is that they are more demanding of the school staff. Staff from the schools that are being replaced have had to apply for jobs at the new Academies, there is no automatic transfer. It is also made plain at recruitment that they will be expected to deliver better academic results and the opportunity is also often taken to extend the hours staff are expected to be at the school.. Can it be that this whole exercise of creating Academies is only a device to change the working culture and ethos of state school teachers and support staff? Is this it: I don’t know. Even if it is, I’m still puzzled as to why the justification and the content of the program is jumping around and appears to be manifestly contradictory.
This change distracted me from the thought that Ed might be demonic - as I thought exemption from the National Curriculum was one of the defining characteristics of the Academies program. For me, this change raised the question, what then are the defining features of an Academy? The starting point used to be they were free from state control and that included freedom from the national curriculum. It used to be said that they would be directed and endowed by successful businesses and the entrepreneurs who ran them. In practice, businesses brought in a minimum of 2 million pounds. But Ed announced that "from today, I am abolishing the current requirement for universities and high-performing schools and colleges to provide £2 million before they can sponsor an Academy. “ So, a cash gift is not a defining feature. Could it be that universities have a similar level of competence at running successful organisations as successful entrepreneurs and businesses? This strange thought drew me to look more closely at the list of universities that Ed named as the advance guard of universities wishing to sponsor Academies. It included Queen Mary, University of London, who had only 3 days earlier featured in another list, one drawn up by HEFCE, of failing universities, which the Guardian reported under the headline ‘Secret list of universities facing collapse, Papers name 46 institutions in crisis’ http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,,2120991,00.html .When combined with the pedestrian progress universities have made in their widening participation programs, I’m afraid I feel it reasonable to ask the question, wouldn’t it be wise if these universities were to concentrate on improving their own performance, rather than visiting their flawed talents on a secondary school. So, its not a proven track record of running successful organisations that is the stuff of Academies. Still puzzled, I turned again to Ed’s speech "But the test of whether an organisation can be a potential sponsor should not be its bank balance, but whether it can demonstrate leadership, innovation, and commitment to act in the public interest."
How does this apply to the likes of Peter Vardy, car salesman and Christian fundamentalist, who was allowed to be an early sponsor of an Academy. Was being one of the North-East of England’s largest second hand car salesman proof of a commitment to act in the public interest? It also shows that universities educational expertise cannot be a reason or criteria for sponsorship because the early sponsors such as Vardy had little or none.
Perhaps the importance of Academies was to get schools out of local authority control? Again, that seemed to be the case at the start of the program, but of late local authorities are being allowed to sponsor academies. http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/Pages/press/pritem.asp?Id=10058 - so it cannot be that.
Perhaps, then, it was all a ploy to raise money to build new schools in poor areas in a way that didn't outrage the middle classes. But, the government are already committed to rebuilding all secondary schools in England anyway. So, it cannot be that either.
The only common attribute that I can identify, that seems to be a common feature across the Academies’ program, is that they are more demanding of the school staff. Staff from the schools that are being replaced have had to apply for jobs at the new Academies, there is no automatic transfer. It is also made plain at recruitment that they will be expected to deliver better academic results and the opportunity is also often taken to extend the hours staff are expected to be at the school.. Can it be that this whole exercise of creating Academies is only a device to change the working culture and ethos of state school teachers and support staff? Is this it: I don’t know. Even if it is, I’m still puzzled as to why the justification and the content of the program is jumping around and appears to be manifestly contradictory.
6) Bad News
I think it is wise to take the opportunity, from time to time, to listen to people describing their lives, even when they are recounting things that are difficult and unpleasant. I think this is true at both at the level of disadvantaged communities, http://www.guardian.co.uk/britain/article/0,,2114526,00.html or the testimony of individuals, such as here, of Jamal, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,2126924,00.html I’m not trying to depress readers, especially as it may well be true that there is little we can offer these severely disadvantaged communities and individuals at this time. However, we may well be working with others, whose lives are shaped, to some extent, by contact with these communities and individuals, and in that sense our work has to recognise and address these realities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)