1) Diploma dancing

It has been announced that student numbers for the new diplomas are to be cut by a quarter http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2274658,00.html embarrassingly it has been leaked that Ministers and education experts in Whitehall would not recommend studying the new diplomas to their own children http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/20/nedu120.xml This comes at a time when a government committee is asking what the future is for A levels? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7397084.stm It also comes at a time when the pre-U is coming into use at private schools http://education.guardian.co.uk/alevels/story/0,,2273115,00.html Overall, this is an interesting time for post 16 qualifications. We seem to be at a point where we are either on the eve of the establishment of a single system of post 16 qualifications after the phasing out of A levels in 2013. Or, we are seeing the establishment of the most divisive system we have ever had in the UK, where qualifications will reflect the social class of the student and the type of school attended. In this latter scenario, diplomas will identify students as being lower class and having attended a poorer performing comprehensive school; A levels will indicate middle class students who attended a superior state school; while private schools students will study the pre-U.
This in turn will then no doubt be reflected in higher education, with private schools consolidating their grip on the Russell group universities who will give preference to the pre-U students; A levels will be the qualification of choice for the other older universities; while diplomas will get you into an old polytechnic. The result will be that social mobility in the UK will diminish and the introduction of diplomas will have achieved the exact opposite of its originator’s intension. I think both scenarios are possible, what’s your bet?

2) Ending child poverty by 2020

The charity 4children have published a report entitled, ‘Turning up the volume on child poverty’ http://www.4children.org.uk/information/show/ref/1224. The publication begins with 3 relatively detailed and well argued statements from Labour, Conservative and Liberal spokespersons about what they would do to end child poverty. I found it significant, and admittedly a little surprising, that all 3 say they are committed to ending child poverty by 2020. However, I think it fair to say that all are rather vague as to how this will be achieved. Consequently, the analysis that 4children make of this challenge, between pages 28 and 40, is particularly useful. Of specific note to The Brightside Trust is the identification of the importance of various forms of mentoring if poverty is to be made history. From page 42 they identify ‘five end child poverty tests’, which they suggest should be used to judge social policy pronouncements.

3) Mentoring for the difficult

Most of the time, most social policy in the UK is not directed at the hardest to reach or hardest to change populations. However, a couple of recent initiatives are apparently aiming to do just that and have mentoring as a core component of their strategies http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2266449,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/apr/30/socialexclusion1
It will be interesting to see if these projects are pursued. It is not clear how the youth task force action plan will engage and mentor 1,000 difficult teenagers but one for us to watch.

4) Are you NAGTY or Iggy?

Information update about the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth (NAGTY) program http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2275354,00.html

5) More to do

Educational gap grows between cared for children and others http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7367250.stm

6) Happiest days?

A million students since 1997 have left school without achieving 5 GCSE at level G or better. http://education.guardian.co.uk/gcses/story/0,,2275280,00.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/21/nschool121.xml In my opinion, not reaching a grade G at GCSE is indicative of a complete failure to engage in a GCSE course or, in a small number of cases, a serious undiagnosed learning difficulty. I see this finding as proof that a significant number of students learn little or nothing in their final years at school.

7) Inadequate advice

Yet more interesting research from the Sutton Trust http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article3828407.ece They found that many students reported the level and type of advice they received at school about university was inadequate. This would seem to match anecdotal information that has emerged from a number of Brightside projects. In turn, this seems to parallel concerns about careers advice expressed elsewhere http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7318919.stm However, I think it unwise to read too much into the detail of this type of survey. Firstly, I have doubts about administrating questionnaires in classrooms where the students inevitably feel they are under the disciplinary gaze of the school and hence most of them wisely try to give the correct responses. Also, I wonder if there is any real relationship, especially for the younger students, between their replies and their subsequent actions. A few years ago, I asked a classroom of 10 year olds what work they thought they would do when they grew up. The majority were going to be teachers, most of the rest vets. I don’t suppose that is what happened but I also don’t think it significant – they were children.

1) Shameless

Over the past few weeks, the disappearance and then discovery of Shannon Matthews has been the subject of much press interest and seems to have left many commentators thrashing around for explanation and understanding of disadvantaged Britain, for example http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=557960&in_page_id=1770&ct=5 While coverage has been diverse, the comments are always written from the perspective of outsiders struggling to understand ‘people like that’. Under these circumstances it is not surprising that writers have cast around for a schema that structures and ‘explains’ with the most popular comparisons being with the TV series Shameless, which is seen as prescient or even causal to the events in Wakefield. Apparently we live in post-modern times where fiction shapes reality. I think not, rather it was because the author of Shameless drew on his own life experience, that of growing up in a chaotic and disadvantaged family that he had a repertoire and way of writing about ‘these people’, which others are now borrowing. When reading this Sun article I noted that the family had three computers in the home; one apparently supplied by social services. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1034032.ece It would seem that it is not just the newspapers who try to understand social disadvantage in the UK using categories of analysis borrowed and mediated by fiction, albeit Oliver Twist rather than Shameless. For my part, I can only hope that things work out for Bianca and Ricky.

2) Poverty

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation recently published a report that argued child poverty could double over the next 10 years in the UK unless significant steps are taken to up-rate welfare benefits. See report summary http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/09/welfare.socialexclusion and full report at http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/2194-benefits-taxation-poverty.pdf The authors assume a constantly rising median income in the UK over the next 10 years and that government does nothing in response to this; even I think that a little unfair to government. It is however in the context of other reports that claim to show that the poverty gap has not narrowed under labour http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/03/socialexclusion.labour and http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-is-burying-bad-news-of-poverty-study-until-after-elections-803990.html However, despite this pessimism, I would argue that it is still a good time to push the issue of child poverty in the public domain as all three main political parties say that they are committed to abolishing child poverty, albeit none are very clear about how and when they will achieve it. For this reason, I think that The End Child Poverty Campaign, which brings together over 110 organisations, has a potentially important role to play at this time http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/assets/plugins/fckeditor/editor/index.html Maybe we should join?

3) Mentoring

As I’m sure most people are aware, the government are to launch a major mentoring scheme where secondary school pupils are to be mentored by university students http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7328464.stm I think it worth reading the linked description of Westminster’s scheme and how they pay mentors, £7 per hour. Are the days of the free volunteer over?

4) Texas – home of progressive thinking

As we have seen from the gifted and talented scheme in the UK, simply defining the top few percent of children in every school as gifted and talented can create anomalies and complications but I thought that the use of that approach in Texas seems to have achieved some genuinely innovative practice http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/comment/story/0,,2273636,00.html . Whatever the government intention, I’m worried that we are about to put in place a system of qualifications in the UK that will entrench the existing class system in higher education. Private schools are rapidly moving away from A levels to the new Cambridge Pre-U qualification http://education.guardian.co.uk/alevels/story/0,,2273115,00.html . IN state schools, the middle classes will continue to pursue A levels while the rest will be steered to diplomas. The result will be a three tier HE sector, with the old prestigious universities recruiting the Pre-U students, the middle range universities recruiting the A level students, while the old polytechnics will admit the diploma students. Once again, the British class system will be re-enforced and graduates class coded by their university. Rather than that scenario I think we should seriously consider the Texan alternative, which builds on student potential and achievement, rather than family background and school.

5) London calling

The conservative party have sponsored a report that raises many questions about poverty in London, it is entitled Breakthrough London http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/default.asp?pageRef=240 This comes at a time when government are also launching an initiative to help more children out of poverty in London http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2008_0069 It is interesting to note the importance of children’s centres in the government’s plans and how many services, including training and employment, are to be child centre focused.

6) Gold star

A major report from the government looking at life chances in the UK

http://www.dius.gov.uk/publications/life_chances_180308.pdf This is an excellent reference document. Indeed this report was recently given the rarely awarded Sue Maskrey prize for readability and relevance.

7) Firm foundations

Foundation degrees are designed to be organically generated, or at least intimately connected to the skills needs of specific industries and careers. In that sense I see this debate about foundation degrees as paralleling the debate about the new diplomas http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7343027.stm There is some evidence that industry specific training can be the most financially rewarding type of training for individuals at the lower grades. Will this prove to be true for higher qualifications such as the likes of foundation degrees? The government are pushing strongly ahead on this course of action http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2273466,00.html and also see this interview with John Denham for the direction of travel http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2273417,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=8 Also Bill Rammell has launched a consultation on strengthening England’s skills base http://www.dius.gov.uk/press/14-04-08.html. Note the particular attention to STEM subjects. Maybe someone at The Brightside Trust would like to give Bill some advice.

1) End child poverty by 2020?

When listening to the Prime-Minister’s speech to the Labour Party spring conference last week, I thought that it was only the cause of ending child poverty by 2020 and some utopian ‘world’ projects, such as abolishing malaria, that triggered any real audience applause and enthusiasm. Even the party faithful seem to be finding it hard to express their passion for the many re-announcements, such as rebuilding schools or the minimum wage. I know this observation is widely shared and quietly voiced in government and there is now sufficient political impetus to try to make progress on ending child poverty in the UK by 2020; however, is this a credible project? Could we really be living at such an amazing point in history, when child poverty was about to be abolished? The signs are frankly not good, with headlines such as ‘Whitehall forecasts child poverty failure’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/mar/03/children.tax and ‘poor children pay for non-doms’ tax break’ or http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/03/economy.economics or ‘child poverty targets ‘will fail’’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7273808.stm

However, it may surprise regular readers of this blog that I am not as pessimistic as these commentators. There are two reasons for this. First, a technical statistical point but one that is often misunderstood and confuses this debate: note that the government always speak of poverty being defined by 60% of median income; that’s average defined by the numerically middle household (whose income is then taken as a statement of average) this is not the way average is more commonly used (where total income for the population is divided by the number of its population to get the average income) which in statistical terms is called the mean. Why does this matter? It matters because as long as the magical median household remains on a static or only slowly rising income then what happens below and above them i.e. the rich and the poor, makes no difference to the calculation of average income and hence the income that represents the 60% poverty target. So it is statistically quite possible to upgrade everyone to beyond the 60% target without having to downgrade those above median income in order to keep the ‘average’ at the same level.

Secondly, I think some recent research has shown that specific and often localised factors seem to be highly influential as to why some families remain in poverty. For example, the recent London poverty review http://213.86.122.139/docs/capital-gains.pdf found that high housing costs were a major disincentive to work and suggested that changes to housing benefit rules might have a significant effect. While elsewhere in UK, such as the north-east of England, the emphasis would probably be on getting people off incapacity benefit and into work. There is also the question of rural poverty http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7273516.stm . I would argue that it is possible to analyse each of these areas, in turn, and identify specific and often relatively minor changes that would make a major difference to people. For me, this finding is a cause for optimism.

I’m not suggesting these things are going to be cheap or easy, far from it, but with serious money going into job training and support (see below) combined with localised measures, such as for example, changes to London housing benefit, then I see a real basis for taking another major bite out of the poverty figures. I don’t know if we will reach zero poverty by 2020, but as Larry Elliott concedes in the article above; to get to the Scandinavian level of 5% poverty would still be a stunning achievement.

2) A great scheme

A short report on a scheme to get disadvantaged students into St George's Medical School, University of London http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/students-from-poorer-backgrounds-catch-up-at-university-786755.html I think it interesting that course applicants academic results are judged, in part, by reference to their school peers and that this as a valid measure of potential has been proved valid by their subsequent course performance.

3) Jackpot

The government has announced a potentially enormous budget for getting people into work. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/plan-to-aid-jobless-will-cost-16375bn-789343.html £35 billion: you could build a hell of an e-mentoring scheme for that kind of money!

4) Sure Start Centres

While many of the disadvantaged seem to be mired in poverty, I think it is generally agreed that disadvantage is not the same as poverty. Sure start centres are at the very centre of the government’s attempts to combat disadvantage and this week saw the publication of a government sponsored evaluation and report into the effectiveness of sure start. The short summary report can be found at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/NESS2008SF027.pdf The government press releases accompanying this publication stressed how this research found that having a sure start children’s centre in a disadvantaged area produced a positive effect, in most ways, in most communities; however, what was not said, was that the positive effects found were mostly rather modest. Still, it was positive.

5) Literacy and disadvantage

By any measure, being an adult and unable to read must count as a disadvantage. The story of Scott Quinnell, the famous Welsh rugby player, illustrates this article ‘Why a million UK adults cannot read this headline‘ http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/mar/02/socialexclusion.adultliteracy and a simple but apparently effective tool; the short story of quick reads http://education.guardian.co.uk/further/story/0,,2261782,00.html

1 Stunning: well, it should be

Last year, only 176, of the nearly 30,000 pupils who got three grade As at A-level were eligible for free school meals: that’s ½ of 1% ! http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2259334,00.html Now, based on my personal experience and anecdotal evidence, I suspect that at least some of those golden 176 were children of recent asylum seekers and refugees; also, I suspect that a few will have been at private schools on scholarship programs for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Consequently, I’m left wondering if any of the 176 who gained 3 As came through the mainstream school system. I might try and get a friendly Tory MP to ask the question. Perhaps that’s why Blair used to say education, education, education – there were three of them.