The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has produced a document which “provides guidance on targeting outreach activities at young people from communities under-represented in higher education (HE)”. Some of you might think that it would have been wise to have sorted this out before spending millions of pounds but I’m not one of those moaning minnies http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2007/07%5F12/
For anyone working on widening participation related projects these guidelines are essential reading. As they are to be implemented from autumn 2007, I would suggest checking that you are HEFCE compliant as soon as possible. I particularly liked the rule of thumb that “Aimhigher partnerships and HE providers should aim to ensure that around two-thirds of participants in widening participation activities are from the target group.” The good news is that we appear to be ahead of the government’s game, as we have been evaluating our work in the terms that HEFCE recommend for the past 12 months. The only slightly surprising feature is the modified categorisation of adult employment which we can easily incorporate.
Overall, I welcome these guidelines, as they are relatively tight and proscriptive and should help us engage with disadvantaged populations.
HEFCE has promised universities and Aimhigher assistance with local data in order to identify qualifying neighbourhoods and schools. In the past, a number of universities have said they found this data difficult to obtain: frankly this claim is disingenuous. Even without HEFCE help, excellent school and neighbourhood data can be easily marshalled from two major on-line sources. If we find that partner organisations are claiming that a lack of local data is making evaluation difficult, then we at the Brightside Trust can show them how to construct their own local map.
Firstly, the government’s national statistics office, neighbourhood statistics http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadHome.do;jsessionid=ac1f930bce6048c8bb53e5240d89babfb8ebe040ced.e38PbNqOa3qRe34LbxuNah4ObNj0n6jAmljGr5XDqQLvpAe?bhcp=1 Why not try your own postcode and see the range of datasets that can be drawn upon. If looking in detail, I recommend choosing the ‘more areas’ tab in section 2 and then selecting ‘lower layer super output area’, as your unit of choice. This has emerged as the fashionable unit of analysis among the pointy head analysts of neighbourhoods in the UK and will be the HEFCE unit of choice when they get their act together. Indeed, if you really want to be part of the ‘in’ crowd, use the other tab on the data sets screen to get a view of the range of stats available. Note lower layer super output areas can be found by postcode, so as long as you know a student’s postcode then you can define their neighbourhood as disadvantaged or not. For individual school details, ask the student which school they attend and then draw on the OFSTED website http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/portal/site/Internet/menuitem.2daefc8f97e956fe628a0d8308c08a0c/?vgnextoid=ba6a8587fd24a010VgnVCM1000008192a8c0RCRD, where every school in the UK’s latest inspection report can be downloaded. This provides considerable detail of both the schools performance, including the strengths and weaknesses of individual subject departments as well as the demographic and social profile of its pupil population.
There can be no excuses for non-compliance!
So, I hear you ask, how are people going to bend the rules. I know where I’d begin: there are some small neighbourhoods which are sharply divided between advantaged and disadvantaged, especially in cities, especially in London. For example, neighbourhoods in Islington where multimillion pound properties stand over the road from Victorian council flats. Even with lower layer super output area small area analysis, these neighbourhoods will average out as disadvantaged (each area has around 2000 people). Who’d care to bet that some universities haven’t already identified the post codes of these ‘golden’ lower layer super output areas and will be especially welcoming to its residents.
Monday, 24 September 2007
Wednesday, 5 September 2007
1 Gangs, Shooting and Anarchy
Much has been said and written about the shooting of Rhys Jones in Liverpool. This child lived in a middle class area that abuts 2 disadvantaged estates. It might be an unpalatable thought, but maybe the killing of middle class children will be more of a spur to politicians than the mutual slaughter of the disadvantaged. But what action are they going to take? I worry about the inadequacy of the measures being mooted and that there is a naive simplicity to much of the talk. First, the idea that increasing the cost of alcohol is a way of dealing with the problem: in my opinion this will make things worse. The youths concerned will turn to using greater quantities of other drugs to get out of their brains and will then spend the little money they have on alcohol to top the evening off. This cocktail of drugs and drink will make them even more unpredictable and disagreeable. Also, it will push them even further into the hands of local drug dealers; it would be better to push them further into the hands of the local off-licence. Secondly, there has been much talk of there being an easier access to guns in the UK now than there was in the past. This again, is plain wrong. During the 20th century, the UK was always awash with guns; many were trophies from the First and Second World War and this pool of weapons was regularly toped up by a constant feed from returning imperial troops and civil servants. In terms of the law, you didn’t even need to register having a gun before 1920 or need a licence to buy or own a shotgun before 1967.
I think we need to understand a little more before prescribing a fix. In pursuit of that, I think Camila Batmanghelidjh has written an interesting article
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article2893902.ece
This line of argument chimes with my own experience from when I ran a group for 14 year-old boys on the edge of school dropout and offending. It was a condition of group membership that they attended school and kept out of trouble with the law. One day I received a report from the police juvenile bureau that one of the boys had been caught stealing a vehicle. I spoke to him about what had happened and he told me, in a matter-of-fact fashion, that he had stolen a steam roller (if this is what they are still called) from a road repair site. I couldn’t believe the stupidity of it, I asked him, what were you thinking of; how were you going to outrun the police on a steam roller; what was the point of taking it, you couldn’t sell it - All good rational questions and, of course, completely irrelevant. He shrugged, no answer. The point I only later came to understand, was that he didn’t think because he lived in a world where there wasn’t any point in ‘thinking’. Without outlining his personal history, his life had been chaotic; he couldn’t plan or rely on anything or anyone, so before he did things he didn’t ask himself consequences-type questions. Rather, he lived in the present, and took it from there. This tended to short-termism in decision making and also to doing what made him feel good at that moment. I agree with Camila, this is nihilism, not anarchy.
However, I’d like to ask a trickier question: are these children so very different from the rest of modern British society? The way the press are speaking of gang members they are seen as self evidently, ‘the other’, the jackals of society, living by a different philosophy, uniquely selfish and dangerous to those around them. However, when the gang members look at ‘us’, what do they see? I would say they see a society dominated by a similar ethos of amoral individualism. This ethos includes a similar disregard for others and a disrespect for the law when it is thought to be interfering with an individual’s immediate desires. If we brought a Liverpool gang to London Bridge, might they look no further than the respectable middle class commuter cyclists disregarding all traffic laws and caring nothing for the safety of pedestrians as they hurtle along the pavement? If they asked the cyclists why they do this, they’d be told it’s because they are in danger from the car drivers who care nothing about them, and who similarly breach traffic laws whenever they think they can get away with it, including dangerously making calls on their mobile phones. Our child thugs might then point out that many more children are killed each year by wilfully careless car drivers than by gang members with guns. Also, when people speak of having alternative adult role models for these children, who do they have in mind? Sports personalities perhaps, but what lessons can be learnt from them. It seems to me, that many footballers and their partners are appalling individuals leading trite and dissolute lives. Or perhaps we should introduce them to the City folks who make money out of selling arms to repressive regimes and asset stripping third world countries of their natural resources, what is our juvenile gunman going to learn from them - to increase his prices perhaps. Or the Daily-Mail-reading-60-year-old who rants about the law being flouted, while they park in the parent and baby spaces at the supermarket, allow their dog to run loose and foul the local playing field, and drive home from the golf club drunk as a Lord. Is our visiting crew really so different, when they individualistically and amorally pursue their own self-interest with no concern about the impact on others. I’d go further; I’d ask who came first, who is imitating whom.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advising hugging a hoodie; they’ll either hurt you or steal your money or probably both. You can call these children feral, if you like; life for them is indeed a sort of opportunistic scavenging in an unpredictable and unstable world. There are many more children growing up in chaotic environments than is often acknowledged, for example, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2327918.ece
Finally, I suspect when the young person who committed this latest shooting is caught, their explanation will seem wilfully inadequate. However, rather than reacting with anger about that, I suggest, accept it at face value and see this shooting as a product of lives lived as a series of reactions to events, not as some diabolical strategic gang initiative that went wrong, and then, most sadly of all, recognise that the reasons for murder can be truly banal.
I think we need to understand a little more before prescribing a fix. In pursuit of that, I think Camila Batmanghelidjh has written an interesting article
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article2893902.ece
This line of argument chimes with my own experience from when I ran a group for 14 year-old boys on the edge of school dropout and offending. It was a condition of group membership that they attended school and kept out of trouble with the law. One day I received a report from the police juvenile bureau that one of the boys had been caught stealing a vehicle. I spoke to him about what had happened and he told me, in a matter-of-fact fashion, that he had stolen a steam roller (if this is what they are still called) from a road repair site. I couldn’t believe the stupidity of it, I asked him, what were you thinking of; how were you going to outrun the police on a steam roller; what was the point of taking it, you couldn’t sell it - All good rational questions and, of course, completely irrelevant. He shrugged, no answer. The point I only later came to understand, was that he didn’t think because he lived in a world where there wasn’t any point in ‘thinking’. Without outlining his personal history, his life had been chaotic; he couldn’t plan or rely on anything or anyone, so before he did things he didn’t ask himself consequences-type questions. Rather, he lived in the present, and took it from there. This tended to short-termism in decision making and also to doing what made him feel good at that moment. I agree with Camila, this is nihilism, not anarchy.
However, I’d like to ask a trickier question: are these children so very different from the rest of modern British society? The way the press are speaking of gang members they are seen as self evidently, ‘the other’, the jackals of society, living by a different philosophy, uniquely selfish and dangerous to those around them. However, when the gang members look at ‘us’, what do they see? I would say they see a society dominated by a similar ethos of amoral individualism. This ethos includes a similar disregard for others and a disrespect for the law when it is thought to be interfering with an individual’s immediate desires. If we brought a Liverpool gang to London Bridge, might they look no further than the respectable middle class commuter cyclists disregarding all traffic laws and caring nothing for the safety of pedestrians as they hurtle along the pavement? If they asked the cyclists why they do this, they’d be told it’s because they are in danger from the car drivers who care nothing about them, and who similarly breach traffic laws whenever they think they can get away with it, including dangerously making calls on their mobile phones. Our child thugs might then point out that many more children are killed each year by wilfully careless car drivers than by gang members with guns. Also, when people speak of having alternative adult role models for these children, who do they have in mind? Sports personalities perhaps, but what lessons can be learnt from them. It seems to me, that many footballers and their partners are appalling individuals leading trite and dissolute lives. Or perhaps we should introduce them to the City folks who make money out of selling arms to repressive regimes and asset stripping third world countries of their natural resources, what is our juvenile gunman going to learn from them - to increase his prices perhaps. Or the Daily-Mail-reading-60-year-old who rants about the law being flouted, while they park in the parent and baby spaces at the supermarket, allow their dog to run loose and foul the local playing field, and drive home from the golf club drunk as a Lord. Is our visiting crew really so different, when they individualistically and amorally pursue their own self-interest with no concern about the impact on others. I’d go further; I’d ask who came first, who is imitating whom.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advising hugging a hoodie; they’ll either hurt you or steal your money or probably both. You can call these children feral, if you like; life for them is indeed a sort of opportunistic scavenging in an unpredictable and unstable world. There are many more children growing up in chaotic environments than is often acknowledged, for example, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2327918.ece
Finally, I suspect when the young person who committed this latest shooting is caught, their explanation will seem wilfully inadequate. However, rather than reacting with anger about that, I suggest, accept it at face value and see this shooting as a product of lives lived as a series of reactions to events, not as some diabolical strategic gang initiative that went wrong, and then, most sadly of all, recognise that the reasons for murder can be truly banal.
2 You(test)Tube
America's National Science Foundation has opened a test version of a video sharing site called SciVee, a sort of "YouTube for science" http://www.scivee.tv
Video is a bit slow and I couldn’t see a way to directly embed into this blog. Why not try http://www.scivee.tv/node/53 - OK, it’s a specialist taste.
Video is a bit slow and I couldn’t see a way to directly embed into this blog. Why not try http://www.scivee.tv/node/53 - OK, it’s a specialist taste.
3 This Year’s Physics GCSE Paper.
Those of you on the distribution list will have received a copy of one of this year’s GCSE physics paper. Here are the answers – how did you do?
1. C, 2. B, 3. C, 4. B, 5. C, 6. B, 7. B, 8. C, 9. A, 10. C, 11. D, 12. D, 13. A, 14. C, 15. C, 16. D, 17. A, 18. D, 19. A, 20. B, 21. D, 22. A, 23. B, 24. D, 25. C, 26. C, 27. C, 28. C, 29. B, 30. A, 31. D, 32. C, 33. A, 34. D, 35. A, 36. D, 37. C, 38. B, 39. D, 40. C
1. C, 2. B, 3. C, 4. B, 5. C, 6. B, 7. B, 8. C, 9. A, 10. C, 11. D, 12. D, 13. A, 14. C, 15. C, 16. D, 17. A, 18. D, 19. A, 20. B, 21. D, 22. A, 23. B, 24. D, 25. C, 26. C, 27. C, 28. C, 29. B, 30. A, 31. D, 32. C, 33. A, 34. D, 35. A, 36. D, 37. C, 38. B, 39. D, 40. C
Sunday, 12 August 2007
1 Star Turn
The government recently asked the National Audit Office (NAO) to investigate and report on dropout rates at UK universities - they have now reported http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/06-07/0607616.pdf . Note the page 38 reference to The Brightside Trust. We’re beginning to establish our reputation as experts worth consulting. Unfortunately the NAO didn’t dwell on the importance of mentoring in the report itself, ‘peer mentoring – whereby second and final year students give informal support to new students – is a feature of the student experience in Ireland, the Netherlands, the United States…’ was the high point. Still it’s good to be to be seen as relevant by government agencies.
2 Whistling Eddie
According to Ed Balls, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, ‘Pupils should be able to get into top universities by taking the new Diplomas instead of the traditional A-levels’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6915060.stm Will the health option level 3 diploma get you into medical school? Will it even get you an interview? I doubt it, but why not ask them Ed? How does this square with http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6917842.stm . Whistling in the wind has been the musical accompaniment to vocational training in the UK for the last 50 years and it’s not a popular act.
3 Tough Choices
A report from Durham university poses the question: if some A level subjects are harder than others, why not recognise that and regard the harder ones as more valuable. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2147194,00.html
4 Everyone’s Favourite Philanthropist
I think this article and video interview with Bill Gates could be very relevant to the future of e-mentoring. It strikes me that the seamless integration of different modes of communication, which seems to be central to Microsoft’s ‘schools for the future’, potentially renders obsolete the clear division between face-to-face communication and electronic communication. These are not just ideas; he will make this happen and some of it will shape schools in the UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/6917156.stm
5 Young People Today
A major government investment in youth clubs was announced on July 27th.
http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,,2136106,00.html I would argue that the history of youth clubs in the UK, since at least the 1960s, has been a cycle of promotion and then cutback, every 10 to 15 years. I’m worried that the establishment and running of youth clubs is seen as unproblematic; believe me they are not. The proposal to give ‘young people’ control of 25% of the budget is frankly bonkers. This could only be implemented if a carefully selected group of young people were given very closely proscribed choices, which they would not see as controlling the budget. Result: disenchantment and rejection all round. There are many practical questions, not least, how difficult it can be to engage some individuals in a controlled fashion. For example, in my experience, as soon as a youth club is established there are exclusions – the excluded then either hang around the door, where they are at best a nuisance and often resentful and dangerous and/or they are elsewhere on the estate acting as an even more concentrated group of antisocial individuals.
I’m worried that this is another new Labour house built on sand. New Labour has been good at using the weight of public prejudice to advance progressive policies, a kind of political Jujutsu, using their opponents’ weight against them. The danger is that while simple answers appeal to prejudice, they are not enough to guide successful policy. Certainly among some sections of the press there is an open contempt for social workers of all kinds, who are said to be more concerned about political correctness than taking effective action. Implicitly or explicitly, it is assumed that this is a straightforward occupation if you are practical, down-to-earth and have common sense: youth clubs, what’s to know?
In my opinion, youth work among disaffected young people is difficult and in many ways I think it’s getting more difficult. I thought this when reading an extended article about Eton Manor, a youth club that ran from the early twentieth century until the 1960s in a rough part of Hackney http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,,2133792,00.html . Reading the Eton Manor story, it’s the differences between the 1960s and now, that struck me. For example, I’d forgotten that it used to be common practice to have a shooting range as an appropriate activity for disadvantaged boys; I guess to encourage them to join the military. What of Eton Manor that would work today? I cannot see a system based on class deference to old Etonians being a success; but role models, like the boxer, seem just as relevant; upgrading the shooting range to a drive-by shooting range – perhaps not.
In my opinion, once again government are underestimating how difficult these things are. My fear is that after bunging a load of money into ill thought out schemes they will then silently back away. If this happens, then the cycle of promoting youth services, to only see them cut back and marginalised a few years later, will continue.
http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,,2136106,00.html I would argue that the history of youth clubs in the UK, since at least the 1960s, has been a cycle of promotion and then cutback, every 10 to 15 years. I’m worried that the establishment and running of youth clubs is seen as unproblematic; believe me they are not. The proposal to give ‘young people’ control of 25% of the budget is frankly bonkers. This could only be implemented if a carefully selected group of young people were given very closely proscribed choices, which they would not see as controlling the budget. Result: disenchantment and rejection all round. There are many practical questions, not least, how difficult it can be to engage some individuals in a controlled fashion. For example, in my experience, as soon as a youth club is established there are exclusions – the excluded then either hang around the door, where they are at best a nuisance and often resentful and dangerous and/or they are elsewhere on the estate acting as an even more concentrated group of antisocial individuals.
I’m worried that this is another new Labour house built on sand. New Labour has been good at using the weight of public prejudice to advance progressive policies, a kind of political Jujutsu, using their opponents’ weight against them. The danger is that while simple answers appeal to prejudice, they are not enough to guide successful policy. Certainly among some sections of the press there is an open contempt for social workers of all kinds, who are said to be more concerned about political correctness than taking effective action. Implicitly or explicitly, it is assumed that this is a straightforward occupation if you are practical, down-to-earth and have common sense: youth clubs, what’s to know?
In my opinion, youth work among disaffected young people is difficult and in many ways I think it’s getting more difficult. I thought this when reading an extended article about Eton Manor, a youth club that ran from the early twentieth century until the 1960s in a rough part of Hackney http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,,2133792,00.html . Reading the Eton Manor story, it’s the differences between the 1960s and now, that struck me. For example, I’d forgotten that it used to be common practice to have a shooting range as an appropriate activity for disadvantaged boys; I guess to encourage them to join the military. What of Eton Manor that would work today? I cannot see a system based on class deference to old Etonians being a success; but role models, like the boxer, seem just as relevant; upgrading the shooting range to a drive-by shooting range – perhaps not.
In my opinion, once again government are underestimating how difficult these things are. My fear is that after bunging a load of money into ill thought out schemes they will then silently back away. If this happens, then the cycle of promoting youth services, to only see them cut back and marginalised a few years later, will continue.
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.
Tuesday, 10 July 2007
1 It’s the Family, Stupid
I want to mention 3 new departments that may be of interest to the work of The Brightside Trust. The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), the Department of Innovation Universities and Skills (DIUS) and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBER).
In my opinion, the press and TV coverage of the recent changes to the UK government has been overly dominated by the story of the prime-ministers. Even this narrative, not helped by the release of Alistair Campbell’s diaries, has been largely focused on the personalities and styles of Blair versus Brown. In so far as the cabinet reshuffle was noticed it was seen in terms of who is Blairite and who are Brown supporters. Little or no interest has been shown in the changes to departmental structures that have taken place.
In my opinion, this is a mistake, as important reconfigurations of policies and strategy lie behind the restructuring of Whitehall departments. I think this will become apparent over the next weeks and months, if only because Ed Balls the new secretary of state for education will be making speeches that are not primarily about education; they will be dominated by discussion of families and poverty.
The background to this is twofold. First, the government’s improvement programs for UK society, seemed, to many, to have stalled. In particular, the Brown team have been stung by the way in which social mobility does not seem to have improved after10 years of Labour government. There still seems to be an underclass, which is both socially disadvantaged and socially disruptive. Also, the government is failing to get close to its target of ending child poverty in the UK by 2020. In particular, they are worried by research which has shown that socially disadvantaged children are already a year behind educationally, by the age of 3, and as other studies have shown, lower educational achievers are not socially mobile: Labour wasn’t working! Secondly, the Conservatives are making ‘fixing our broken society’ the central theme of their campaigning.
Ed Balls should not be seen as another secretary of state for education, his brief isn’t just to ‘run and improve education’. This new department is Brown’s main instrument to bump start social change. The key mechanism to this is education, however, this department is more than that, it is recognition that unless the basis for fully taking advantage of educational opportunities is in place, then the offer is only partly taken up by the disadvantaged. Consequently, the new department should be seen as facilitating maximum educational consumption, as well as ensuring the best possible products are on offer. Gaze upon the departmental structure and responsibilities http://www.dfes.gov.uk/aboutus/whoswho/ministers.shtml
It is worth noting that higher education (HE) is not part of the remit; it is in the new Department of Innovation Universities and Skills (DIUS). I don't like this split: I recognise there has to be limits to the size and scope of Whitehall departments, but I think this division will be problematic, especially when it comes to the widening participation agenda. I think DIUS will be drawn away from the less exciting widening of opportunities and skills agenda and will focus on world beating innovation through, for example, scientific invention in elite institutions of higher education. I see a real danger of these two icebergs drifting apart and this drift will be pulled by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBER).
If one looks at the ministerial structure of DIUS
http://www.dius.gov.uk/pressreleases/press.htm you will see our old supporter Bill Rammell is listed. It was widely reported that Bill Rammell ‘keeps the job he had …since 2005 at the new DIUS.’ (Times higher july 6th 2007). I think this is to underplay his new role. I think that he is the person on whom this strain of balancing widening participation in HE with promoting world class institutions will fall. I know that asserting that there can be contradictions between egalitarian and meritcratic objectives is hardly a revelation, but as the different emphases cause the different departments to bump and conflict over the detail of policy, it will fall to Bill to sort out. His problem is that resolution of these contradictions isn’t just a matter of cleverly balancing ideas; these contradictions are real and will be played out in nearly every resource and/or policy question that he has to decide. To complicate his position even further, I don’t see this as a zero sum game. There will be win-win options in the multiplicity of options out there, but Bill and his people are going to have to work hard to find them. They are really going to need to understand the nature of the things they are dealing with, situation by situation. We, and others with genuine expertise, can help in this, if given the chance.
Compare Bill’s brief to that of his colleague Ian Pearson: Minister of State for Science and Innovation, who has a much clearer, almost Wilsonian brief, excitement of the white hot heat of the technological revolution, kind of stuff. I think it likely that the Brightside Trust’s work will bring us into contact with this minister, as well. However, he is dealing with an entity that in terms of its ideology, interests and outlook is a fairly homogenous body; in short, if he keeps doing what’s been done in the past, albeit with a few added flourishes, then things will almost certainly work out and nobody will get too excited. He will be able to showboat around: the worst that could happen is that he spends the equivalent of a couple of hours stuck on a mud bank; Bill, on the other hand, if he just goes with the flow, will almost certainly hit the rocks!
In my opinion, if the egalitarian momentum of the social mobility strategies of the work of the Department of Children, Schools and Families is to be carried forward into higher education then it needs to be married in detail and practice to the meritocratic ethos of the global market and innovation, and that is hard to do.
More specifically, in this organisational split, I see the danger that the WP social mobility agenda will derail at 14+, when children start to leave the nurturing environment of the DCSF and enter the ‘adult’ world of FE and HE. I do not like the way that responsibility for the new 14-19 diplomas is with the DCSF while responsibility for the running of FE colleges is now split between DIUS and local authorities. I am worried that this new structure makes disadvantaged lower achieving students marginal at age 14: this is too early for them to left to their own resources and devices. I would argue that we know the processes of disadvantage continue even beyond university entry and that without a sustained program of widening participation and support, then there will not be any increase in numbers of disadvantaged students entering and succeeding in higher education. The danger is that the gains of the DCSF years will unravel for many students at aged 14. This organisational split is yet another problem for the new 14-19 diploma rollout. Unless Bill Rammell really gets his act together, then the whole Brown project will be in trouble!
Finally, the third new department, http://www.berr.gov.uk Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBER). DBER’s brief is to work closely with DIUS, especially in areas of scientific research and innovation, this could be relevant for some Brightside Trust projects. However, for me, in the short term, its significance was to show how the British civil service is still world class. Within hours of the announcement of this new ministry, they had resolved the major question of the reorganisation - what name should the ministry to be known by? They are calling it Chris. This proves there have been real efficiency gains by Whitehall in recent years, I can remember when Iraq invaded Kuwait, it took 2 days of pondering in the foreign office to define the important question - will the new country be called Kuaq or Irate. Makes you proud to be British, well it does Gordon.
2 Quick Fix
Some are claiming that the systematic use of a particular teaching method, synthetic phonics, is, of itself, enough to end illiteracy. I suspect the active involvement of parents in the process is at least part of the reason for its success, not just the change of teaching methods, however the success documented in this article is a remarkable achievement.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/primaryeducation/story/0,,2122127,00.html
Friday, 22 June 2007
1) What can we expect from Gordon Brown?
Gordon has always taken his annual speeches to the City of London seriously and this year he chose to use the time to introduce his prime-ministership. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6224364.stm There were no real surprises here: the main message was that we can expect continuity with the Blair years. Education featured strongly in his vision, where he appeared to back present policies, including the expansion of the academies program. He re-iterated the commitment to raising the education leaving age to 18, even though this proposal has recently been receiving criticism from, among others, many who will be implementing the change. However, one thing caught my eye, "In future every single secondary school and primary school should have a business partner - and I invite you all to participate". I know Gordon was addressing this to the city folks in his audience, but how about The Brightside Trust becoming a partner with a primary school, once we see what is involved. I assume this proposal is different to sponsoring an academy and would be a lot less demanding. I think we could all learn a lot from the experience and it would ‘ground’ the whole of the charities thinking and work. I don’t have a particular place in mind, but would suggest we try for a school that has a socially disadvantaged population, is firmly attached to a sure start centre and has nursery provision. What do you think?
2) It’s that man again
Frank Field is an unusual MP: he really knows what he is talking about and only talks about what he knows. Last week he launched a report about the progress being made on the government’s pledge to abolish child poverty by 2020 and specially to what extent the welfare to work programs are assisting to achieve this target http://www.reform.co.uk/filestore/pdf/070611%20Welfare%20isn't%20working%20-%20child%20poverty.pdf .
First, a little background information from me: If one looks at the effect of government tax policy over the last 10 years, then I think you can see a consistent strategy of shifting a little money from the middle classes towards getting unemployed parents into work and supporting low earning parents in work. In particular, we have seen the introduction of child tax credits and working tax credits which, as I illustrate below, have generated significant sums of money for some people. However, as has been characteristic of Blair’s general welfare strategy, these payments, or what has been in effect the introduction of negative income tax for some, have been downplayed. I think this is because it was thought it wouldn’t meet with the approval of middle England if they knew the sums involved and who was receiving them. For example, according to Frank Field “In 2006, a lone parent with 2 children under 11, working 16 hours a week on the minimum wage, gained a total net income of £487 a week, largely due to tax credits.” (page 21) I note that this is from a part-time job which, as far as I can see, as the minimum wage is £5.35 per hour would otherwise generate gross earnings of £85.60. I can well believe Frank Field has intentionally chosen this example as one of the system’s ‘big winners’. However for him it illustrates the inequity of the present system as “In order to attain the same weekly income, an equivalent two parent household needed to work 116 hours a week; an extraordinary 100 hours more than the single parent” (page 21)
In this vein and in this detail, Frank Field discusses how the benefits system is both assisting and apparently hindering the government’s attempt to abolish child poverty. Unfortunately, I cannot say, read this report and the working of the welfare system will become clear. I myself am still looking for a ‘welfare benefits for dummies’ type of publication, but I think it significant that no-one came forward to challenge Frank Field on his facts when this report came out.
What I do know is that large sums of money are involved here. I calculate that if the money that has gone into the welfare to work schemes and benefits, had gone instead into income tax cuts, then we could have seen a general 3p in the pound reduction to the basic rate. This will not have escaped the attention of the Conservative party who often speak of sharing the benefits of economic growth between state spending and the tax payer.
First, a little background information from me: If one looks at the effect of government tax policy over the last 10 years, then I think you can see a consistent strategy of shifting a little money from the middle classes towards getting unemployed parents into work and supporting low earning parents in work. In particular, we have seen the introduction of child tax credits and working tax credits which, as I illustrate below, have generated significant sums of money for some people. However, as has been characteristic of Blair’s general welfare strategy, these payments, or what has been in effect the introduction of negative income tax for some, have been downplayed. I think this is because it was thought it wouldn’t meet with the approval of middle England if they knew the sums involved and who was receiving them. For example, according to Frank Field “In 2006, a lone parent with 2 children under 11, working 16 hours a week on the minimum wage, gained a total net income of £487 a week, largely due to tax credits.” (page 21) I note that this is from a part-time job which, as far as I can see, as the minimum wage is £5.35 per hour would otherwise generate gross earnings of £85.60. I can well believe Frank Field has intentionally chosen this example as one of the system’s ‘big winners’. However for him it illustrates the inequity of the present system as “In order to attain the same weekly income, an equivalent two parent household needed to work 116 hours a week; an extraordinary 100 hours more than the single parent” (page 21)
In this vein and in this detail, Frank Field discusses how the benefits system is both assisting and apparently hindering the government’s attempt to abolish child poverty. Unfortunately, I cannot say, read this report and the working of the welfare system will become clear. I myself am still looking for a ‘welfare benefits for dummies’ type of publication, but I think it significant that no-one came forward to challenge Frank Field on his facts when this report came out.
What I do know is that large sums of money are involved here. I calculate that if the money that has gone into the welfare to work schemes and benefits, had gone instead into income tax cuts, then we could have seen a general 3p in the pound reduction to the basic rate. This will not have escaped the attention of the Conservative party who often speak of sharing the benefits of economic growth between state spending and the tax payer.
3) The Magic Roundabout
A recent survey in the Times Education Supplement (TES) showed that ‘four out of five primary schools are abandoning traditional subject teaching and introducing theme based lessons’ http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story/?story_id=2394568 This finding was developed and discussed in 2 further articles in the same issue of the paper http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story/?story_id=2394589 http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story/?story_id=2394568
I find it surprising that despite vicious periodic attacks and a continuous wall of sound and prejudice about what they call progressive education, theme based teaching and learning has continued to thrive (see for example the likes of the Daily Mail, this article by Max Hastings ‘education today is a form of child abuse’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_page_id=1787&in_article_id=461356 ). This is all the more surprising as this opposition has been continuously supported by politicians, beginning with Prime Minister Jim Callaghan in 1979, continuing through the Thatcher years and then through the Major and Blair years.
It has been convenient for opponents of modern teaching methods to counterpoise ‘progressive education’ to ‘rigorous subject based education’. It doesn’t seem to matter that this is a largely pointless debate, as teachers have always done both. In my opinion, allowing this question to dominate educational and schooling discussions has been very misleading and unhelpful. As the TES articles above make clear, teachers are very careful to mix theme development with structured learning in ways that they feel appropriate.
Are we destined to go round and round for ever in a sterile and often puerile debate opposing rigorous teaching to learning by exploration? No matter that anyone who has spent 5 minutes in a classroom knows that these two things go together and that developing enthusiasm is the precursor for engaging children in learning. This is especially so in primary school. What’s more, we need the imaginative combination of both and will only achieve this by giving teachers permission, time and resources to be creative. Unless they are allowed to stimulate a fascination with education in their students then the much vaunted life-long-learning that is said to be essential to the country’s future prosperity will not happen. Remember: the old style school system used to turn most people off education for the rest of their lives.
I find it surprising that despite vicious periodic attacks and a continuous wall of sound and prejudice about what they call progressive education, theme based teaching and learning has continued to thrive (see for example the likes of the Daily Mail, this article by Max Hastings ‘education today is a form of child abuse’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_page_id=1787&in_article_id=461356 ). This is all the more surprising as this opposition has been continuously supported by politicians, beginning with Prime Minister Jim Callaghan in 1979, continuing through the Thatcher years and then through the Major and Blair years.
It has been convenient for opponents of modern teaching methods to counterpoise ‘progressive education’ to ‘rigorous subject based education’. It doesn’t seem to matter that this is a largely pointless debate, as teachers have always done both. In my opinion, allowing this question to dominate educational and schooling discussions has been very misleading and unhelpful. As the TES articles above make clear, teachers are very careful to mix theme development with structured learning in ways that they feel appropriate.
Are we destined to go round and round for ever in a sterile and often puerile debate opposing rigorous teaching to learning by exploration? No matter that anyone who has spent 5 minutes in a classroom knows that these two things go together and that developing enthusiasm is the precursor for engaging children in learning. This is especially so in primary school. What’s more, we need the imaginative combination of both and will only achieve this by giving teachers permission, time and resources to be creative. Unless they are allowed to stimulate a fascination with education in their students then the much vaunted life-long-learning that is said to be essential to the country’s future prosperity will not happen. Remember: the old style school system used to turn most people off education for the rest of their lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)