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.
Saturday, 21 July 2007
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.
4) The right to roam
For once, I commend an article from the Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=462091&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments
What I liked was the map that showed the geographical area over which 3 generations of children were allowed to move around unsupervised. For this generation it had diminished to almost nothing.
I’ve seen many interviews with parents who when asked as to why they restricted their children’s liberty to roam, usually cite three things: the growth of traffic, making roads more dangerous, the growth of crime and in particular the increasing threat of abduction and murder of children by paedophiles. Now, don’t get me wrong, I understand how children can wheedle their way into your affections and how parents and guardians will want to do all they can to keep them safe. However, when one looks closely at these expressed parental fears then some interesting facts seem relevant.
First, the peak year for children killed in traffic accidents was 1922. I’m not playing with numbers here, I’m not saying relative to the increase in traffic, I mean in absolute numbers; half as many children are killed each year in road accidents today as there were in 1922, despite a 25-fold increase in traffic. The parents of the grandfather in the Daily Mail example should have been more fearful of traffic than the parents of today. Child mortality rates have consistently fallen since 1900 and continue to fall http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=952
In 2002 there did seem to be evidence of increasing child abduction. It jumped by 45% in a single year. However, as a Home Office briefing subsequently explained http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r225.pdf this was closely linked to a change in the way the Police understood and recorded this crime. According to the NSPCC child murder has been constant, for at least 30 years, at the rate of 79 per year.
Why don’t these facts influence parents? I can well believe that panic is stoked by a sensationalist national press and TV. For example, the coverage of events such as the disappearance of Madeline McCann is probably part of the reason for this besieged mentality.
But, for me it still leaves open the question as to why people are apparently so susceptible? I think it has something to do with a changing consciousness about death. In short, I don’t think our modern consumer society can cope with it. I’m not saying it was a trivial matter to loose a child a hundred years ago, but it was not unexpected or unbelievable. Whether through disease, warfare or childbirth, the death of your children was part of life. You didn’t welcome it but you prepared for the possibility and then coped when it happened. I know from my own family history this was why ordinary Victorian families began giving their children two or more forenames; so that in the event of a child’s death the family forename, as well as the family surname, would continue. For example, my great grand father’s name was William Thomas Twineham, his older brother William Albert Twineham died in 1916 at the battle of the Somme. Consequently, despite the older son’s death, a William Twineham went on to the next generation. Compared to them, the modern western consumer seems ill prepared. When faced with the possibility of unwanted outcomes we panic and barricade the doors.
The result seems to be a generation of children who will be less prepared to cope in the world when they eventually have to take flight. Also, keeping children locked up in the home might not even work in the short-term. Remember, most sexual abuse of children is carried out by adult male family and friends. As a child you might well be better off taking your chances, with other children in the woods, than being home alone with your uncle!
What I liked was the map that showed the geographical area over which 3 generations of children were allowed to move around unsupervised. For this generation it had diminished to almost nothing.
I’ve seen many interviews with parents who when asked as to why they restricted their children’s liberty to roam, usually cite three things: the growth of traffic, making roads more dangerous, the growth of crime and in particular the increasing threat of abduction and murder of children by paedophiles. Now, don’t get me wrong, I understand how children can wheedle their way into your affections and how parents and guardians will want to do all they can to keep them safe. However, when one looks closely at these expressed parental fears then some interesting facts seem relevant.
First, the peak year for children killed in traffic accidents was 1922. I’m not playing with numbers here, I’m not saying relative to the increase in traffic, I mean in absolute numbers; half as many children are killed each year in road accidents today as there were in 1922, despite a 25-fold increase in traffic. The parents of the grandfather in the Daily Mail example should have been more fearful of traffic than the parents of today. Child mortality rates have consistently fallen since 1900 and continue to fall http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=952
In 2002 there did seem to be evidence of increasing child abduction. It jumped by 45% in a single year. However, as a Home Office briefing subsequently explained http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r225.pdf this was closely linked to a change in the way the Police understood and recorded this crime. According to the NSPCC child murder has been constant, for at least 30 years, at the rate of 79 per year.
Why don’t these facts influence parents? I can well believe that panic is stoked by a sensationalist national press and TV. For example, the coverage of events such as the disappearance of Madeline McCann is probably part of the reason for this besieged mentality.
But, for me it still leaves open the question as to why people are apparently so susceptible? I think it has something to do with a changing consciousness about death. In short, I don’t think our modern consumer society can cope with it. I’m not saying it was a trivial matter to loose a child a hundred years ago, but it was not unexpected or unbelievable. Whether through disease, warfare or childbirth, the death of your children was part of life. You didn’t welcome it but you prepared for the possibility and then coped when it happened. I know from my own family history this was why ordinary Victorian families began giving their children two or more forenames; so that in the event of a child’s death the family forename, as well as the family surname, would continue. For example, my great grand father’s name was William Thomas Twineham, his older brother William Albert Twineham died in 1916 at the battle of the Somme. Consequently, despite the older son’s death, a William Twineham went on to the next generation. Compared to them, the modern western consumer seems ill prepared. When faced with the possibility of unwanted outcomes we panic and barricade the doors.
The result seems to be a generation of children who will be less prepared to cope in the world when they eventually have to take flight. Also, keeping children locked up in the home might not even work in the short-term. Remember, most sexual abuse of children is carried out by adult male family and friends. As a child you might well be better off taking your chances, with other children in the woods, than being home alone with your uncle!
5) Marriage and inequality in the USA
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9218127 an interesting article from the Economist. The author muses on the recent social trend of divorce rates falling at the top of American society while increasing at the bottom. In the USA, 92% of children whose families make more than $75,000 a year live with two parents, while at the bottom, families earning less than $15,000 only 20% live with two parents. The article discusses the fashionable idea that marriage is a ‘wealth generating institution’. How should we understand marriage and disadvantage?
Monday, 4 June 2007
1 The Tory Party and Grammar schools
I think the main educational story of the past few weeks has been the spat in the Conservative party over grammar schools and the part these schools should play in the UK education system. This Sunday Times article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1813890.ece provides a summary of the quarrel.
I see two strands to this debate. The first strand, which has been dominant, has been discussion of its political significance: was this Cameron’s ‘clause 4’ moment, was he deliberately taking the opportunity to show that the new conservatives were not prisoners of the old Tory party. While for the bulk of the conservative press, it was a betrayal of core Conservative supporters. This particular discussion will rumble on, but I wish to consider the second, less prominent, thread, to the debate: does it make educational sense?
In particular, I want to focus on the question of social mobility. In his original speech, David Willetts argued that Grammar schools do not aid social mobility. It has long been a popular belief among the Tory party faithful (at least as far back as Rhodes Boyson and the Black papers of the 1970s) that Grammar schools were engines of social mobility for bright working class children. This belief is deeply embedded in the lower-middle class psyche of the Tory membership. Willetts’ problem was how not to challenge this engrained belief and yet not support a policy of building more Grammar schools. Typically for David Willetts, he came up with a clever argument: Grammar schools used to be engines of social mobility but they weren’t any longer because the world has changed. In support of this argument he cited the numbers of disadvantaged students who are to be found in grammar schools today – maybe 2%, as measured by entitlement to free school meals. To his credit David Brady, who had always struck me as the classic ‘dim but nice’ tory toff, resigned from the Conservative front bench over the matter. He argued that Grammar schools in his constituency (Trafford) were still engines for social mobility and, more than that, they did not just benefit those selected for the grammar school. He claimed that the non-grammar schools in his area produced better results than non-selective comprehensive schools in equivalent areas. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/05/31/do3101.xml
I would observe that this doesn’t seem to be the case in Kent where the local comprehensives in those areas that have retained grammar schools are very poor. Willetts' argument is also boosted by evidence that the reality of Grammar schools today is that places are obtained by coaching and private school hot-housing http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6665115.stm My fear would be that in inner city areas, middle class flight would ensure that the comprehensives would be worse than the old secondary moderns. They would be holding pens for the underclass, dreadful places which would doom their pupils to low quality experiences and outcomes. So, I personally am still in favour of a comprehensive system. Nevertheless, expect to see more comment and debate on the effectiveness of comprehensive schools where grammar schools still exist.
However, I think it’s also worth noting that both Labour and the Tories are now committed to a schools system that is completely unproven: the Academies program. Much is being made of the way that academies have autonomy from local authority control and that this is the key to their success. I hear the sound of a myth being coined here; that schools are tightly controlled by local authorities. In my experience, this simply isn’t the case; headteachers have always been largely autonomous; my experience when I worked in a local education authority was that the Director of Education rarely, if ever, took a day-to-day interest in the running of schools, let alone micromanaged. People propagating this fairy story should reference one of their own favourite educational legends, the ‘William Tyndale Affair’. This was the ‘scandal’ of William Tyndale junior school in Islington where the staff, including the Headteacher, supposedly allowed the children to run wild, in the name of progressive education. The local education authority (LEA) and the Director of Education was apparently powerless in the face of this open anarchy. How so, if they had an iron grip over the running of schools? In recent years, this limited influence of LEAs has been diminished to almost zero. During this time, there has indeed been an increase in the control of school’s activities, but that has been by central government, through the national curriculum and OFSTED inspections. If central control is the problem, then there is no need to establish a whole new type of school: simply loosen the centralised controlling grip, allow a diversity of local supply to develop, and admit that the main planks of educational reform of the last twenty years have been mistaken. What chance of that?
I know there’s nothing new in educational policy being based on myth and one-sided analysis. However, if the Academies’ fail to achieve the inflated expectations being made of them, then Grammar schools will once again arise like the living dead and figure in a future conservative policy. That is, if a post Brown Labour party hasn’t grabbed the Grammars first, as part of a ‘new, new Labour’, ‘real choices for real people’ agenda.
I see two strands to this debate. The first strand, which has been dominant, has been discussion of its political significance: was this Cameron’s ‘clause 4’ moment, was he deliberately taking the opportunity to show that the new conservatives were not prisoners of the old Tory party. While for the bulk of the conservative press, it was a betrayal of core Conservative supporters. This particular discussion will rumble on, but I wish to consider the second, less prominent, thread, to the debate: does it make educational sense?
In particular, I want to focus on the question of social mobility. In his original speech, David Willetts argued that Grammar schools do not aid social mobility. It has long been a popular belief among the Tory party faithful (at least as far back as Rhodes Boyson and the Black papers of the 1970s) that Grammar schools were engines of social mobility for bright working class children. This belief is deeply embedded in the lower-middle class psyche of the Tory membership. Willetts’ problem was how not to challenge this engrained belief and yet not support a policy of building more Grammar schools. Typically for David Willetts, he came up with a clever argument: Grammar schools used to be engines of social mobility but they weren’t any longer because the world has changed. In support of this argument he cited the numbers of disadvantaged students who are to be found in grammar schools today – maybe 2%, as measured by entitlement to free school meals. To his credit David Brady, who had always struck me as the classic ‘dim but nice’ tory toff, resigned from the Conservative front bench over the matter. He argued that Grammar schools in his constituency (Trafford) were still engines for social mobility and, more than that, they did not just benefit those selected for the grammar school. He claimed that the non-grammar schools in his area produced better results than non-selective comprehensive schools in equivalent areas. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/05/31/do3101.xml
I would observe that this doesn’t seem to be the case in Kent where the local comprehensives in those areas that have retained grammar schools are very poor. Willetts' argument is also boosted by evidence that the reality of Grammar schools today is that places are obtained by coaching and private school hot-housing http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6665115.stm My fear would be that in inner city areas, middle class flight would ensure that the comprehensives would be worse than the old secondary moderns. They would be holding pens for the underclass, dreadful places which would doom their pupils to low quality experiences and outcomes. So, I personally am still in favour of a comprehensive system. Nevertheless, expect to see more comment and debate on the effectiveness of comprehensive schools where grammar schools still exist.
However, I think it’s also worth noting that both Labour and the Tories are now committed to a schools system that is completely unproven: the Academies program. Much is being made of the way that academies have autonomy from local authority control and that this is the key to their success. I hear the sound of a myth being coined here; that schools are tightly controlled by local authorities. In my experience, this simply isn’t the case; headteachers have always been largely autonomous; my experience when I worked in a local education authority was that the Director of Education rarely, if ever, took a day-to-day interest in the running of schools, let alone micromanaged. People propagating this fairy story should reference one of their own favourite educational legends, the ‘William Tyndale Affair’. This was the ‘scandal’ of William Tyndale junior school in Islington where the staff, including the Headteacher, supposedly allowed the children to run wild, in the name of progressive education. The local education authority (LEA) and the Director of Education was apparently powerless in the face of this open anarchy. How so, if they had an iron grip over the running of schools? In recent years, this limited influence of LEAs has been diminished to almost zero. During this time, there has indeed been an increase in the control of school’s activities, but that has been by central government, through the national curriculum and OFSTED inspections. If central control is the problem, then there is no need to establish a whole new type of school: simply loosen the centralised controlling grip, allow a diversity of local supply to develop, and admit that the main planks of educational reform of the last twenty years have been mistaken. What chance of that?
I know there’s nothing new in educational policy being based on myth and one-sided analysis. However, if the Academies’ fail to achieve the inflated expectations being made of them, then Grammar schools will once again arise like the living dead and figure in a future conservative policy. That is, if a post Brown Labour party hasn’t grabbed the Grammars first, as part of a ‘new, new Labour’, ‘real choices for real people’ agenda.
2 It’s the end of the world as we know it
We are witnessing the wrecking of British science according to an eminent UK Nobel prize winning scientist. This article goes beyond the usual moaning about the closure of science courses and argues that the promotion of scientific thinking is central to a healthy modern culture. The author fears that in the UK this is being displaced by faith and irrationality http://education.guardian.co.uk/universitiesincrisis/story/0,,2084784,00.html Strong stuff – what do you think?
3 Parental aspirations
Attitudes to higher education – the gender gap, again, yawn, but wait, I think there is something new here and it’s interesting. A survey has indicated that parental aspirations for their children going into higher education are now higher for girls than boys. http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story/?story_id=2379179 It seems to me, that this is part of a pattern where girls are under more pressure to become responsible adults than, at least some of, their male contemporaries. The low skilled male seems increasingly drone like, no longer a necessary breadwinner; they are without an adult function and seem destined to remain in perpetual adolescence.
4 Major report into child poverty in the UK
Barnardos report into child poverty http://www.barnardos.org.uk/poverty_full_report_07.pdf and a copy in the library at London Bridge. Criticism first: in my opinion, they overplay the emotive case studies. For example, one of the informants claims not to have enough to eat at times. I calculate that this person has a net cash income, after rent and other costs, of £108.10 per week. At Tesco’s, tins of beans cost 17p, tins of spaghetti 15p and a value white loaf is 28p. Therefore for just over a pound you could buy 2 tins of beans, 3 tins of spaghetti and a loaf. That’s food for 5 gut filling meals. Yes, its not a good diet etc but you don’t need to go hungry; frankly, if you are, then it’s your own bad management.
However, case studies aside, this report is a serious description and analysis of child poverty in the UK today. For example, section 3 discusses the often forgotten and difficult point that over half of children in poverty (52%) live in families where there is an adult in work. Child poverty is not primarily a product of non-working single mums. If you want an authoritative analysis of child poverty in the UK, then this report is a fine starting point, just don’t bother with the case studies.
Having been a bit mean about people managing their money, I readily admit there is genuine disadvantage out there. For example, the young carers described in the following article from the Guardian are truly disadvantaged http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,,2063731,00.html. This particular issue, of child carers, comes around every few years, where it is often linked to school non-attendance among girls, who are more likely to take time off school to care for others.
However, case studies aside, this report is a serious description and analysis of child poverty in the UK today. For example, section 3 discusses the often forgotten and difficult point that over half of children in poverty (52%) live in families where there is an adult in work. Child poverty is not primarily a product of non-working single mums. If you want an authoritative analysis of child poverty in the UK, then this report is a fine starting point, just don’t bother with the case studies.
Having been a bit mean about people managing their money, I readily admit there is genuine disadvantage out there. For example, the young carers described in the following article from the Guardian are truly disadvantaged http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,,2063731,00.html. This particular issue, of child carers, comes around every few years, where it is often linked to school non-attendance among girls, who are more likely to take time off school to care for others.
5 The end of undergraduate bursaries?
There is talk of ending undergraduate bursaries for disadvantaged students. The money would be redirected into school based projects aimed at increasing the numbers of disadvantaged school and FE students considering and applying to higher education. It is suggested that the money could be more effectively employed by, for example, increasing the numbers of students going to university summer schools. But, do these holiday schemes work? I’ve not seen any real evidence. Also, by cutting bursaries will we find an increase in the numbers of disadvantaged undergraduates dropping out of courses? If so, this could prove to be a really negative change in the system, as in my opinion, these students are the most vulnerable to experiencing academic failure as a profound personal failure. See http://education.guardian.co.uk/students/finance/story/0,,2090213,00.html and the OFFA report that questioned the effectiveness of bursaries http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,2089733,00.html
Friday, 27 April 2007
1 Less is more
An article from the Observer about ‘ASBO families’ http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,,2059265,00.html . This article reminded me of the families I used to visit as a social worker. The stories had a familiar and candid feel to them. I’m sure living next door is eventful, if not stressful. However, I also recall that the ‘failing’ families I would visit, both the adults and children, were often more rounded and warm-hearted human beings than many of my local authority work colleagues. In truth, I often found their chaotic lives and run–ins with the authorities as amusing as they did. That was twenty years ago, the mood seems very different now.
I was thinking about them when reading/listening to David Cameron’s latest speech http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=136423&speeches=1. I think this is an important speech and well worth reading, but I was left puzzled as to what it means in practice. For example, when he speaks of pain: for whom and how. How would his policy alter the families in the Observer article? I don’t see how reducing state involvement will change these families; surely they will just carry on.
Or, is he saying abstrusely, what Melanie Phillips is saying openly in the Daily Mail? For this iron lady, these people are the enemy within, and need a few smacks. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=450789&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=256&expand=true#StartComments Withdraw benefits and tighten the leash? I really don’t see this as the road to more pleasant society.
2 Blog on Blog
Yes, I know, you can tell when news agencies are running out of ideas when the reporters start interviewing each other. So, a story about blogs in a blog seems to be going in the wrong direction. http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,2058253,00.html However, I think there is a potential and relevance in these accounts of the fine grained experience of practioners that could be of real use to The Brightside Trust. It is an easy way to begin to understand what shapes the outlooks of people who we need to understand better. Perhaps we should find practitioner bloggers for all those areas of interest to us.
I had a look at the sites listed in the Guardian article. In terms of the day-to-day experience of teaching, I felt that ‘it’s your time you’re wasting’ (note the address begins with i, not an L which it looks like in the article) http://iytywnm.blogspot.com and mildly melancholy were the best http://mildlymelancholy.blogspot.com. Mildly melancholy is
3 The art of schmoozing
This particular article seems to be about getting another job; and as for the copious amounts of free alcohol, I’ve definitely been going to the wrong events. I must admit I’m naturally a more ‘I’ll leave you alone if you’ll leave me alone’ kind of a person. Any thoughts on this: tips or tricks? Does schmoozing ever yield anything? http://jobsadvice.guardian.co.uk/officehours/story/0,,2063143,00.html
4 Mentoring Works!
I just thought you should know.
http://education.independent.co.uk/news/article2486627.ece
I hadn’t come across IntoUniversity – website http://www.intouniversity.org . I guess they are new, has anyone had any contact with these people.
http://education.independent.co.uk/news/article2486627.ece
I hadn’t come across IntoUniversity – website http://www.intouniversity.org . I guess they are new, has anyone had any contact with these people.
5 The age of the volunteer
Cameron backs it; Brown cannot see enough of it: volunteering. http://education.independent.co.uk/higher/article2484536.ece But is there really a wide pool of potential volunteers out there just waiting to be asked? How do we fit in with this fashionable turn?
Monday, 16 April 2007
1 Make Poverty History
Last week, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) launched a major anti-poverty policy initiative called ‘Working for Children’ http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dwp/2007/childpoverty/childpoverty.pdf . This builds on the announcements made in the Budget to take a further 200,000 children out of poverty by increasing tax credits and providing wider support for parents. 'Working for Children' refocuses £150 million of resources within the Department for Work and Pensions towards greater support for families.
The proposals include:
Piloting a 'New Deal for Families' approach so more families get access to support that is often only available for lone parents. This will include extending the support available in the New Deal for Lone Parents Plus pilot areas to all families with children in those areas.
Extending the New Deal for Lone Parents Plus scheme and increasing obligations on lone parents with older children to look for work. This proposal dominated news media discussion, which focused on the appropriateness of encouraging single parents to seek work once their youngest child reaches 12.
Providing more support to families, particularly in London, by including widening and improving the in-work credit scheme which provides additional financial support for lone parents as they make the transition to work.
Providing advice and support for the partners of parents claiming Jobseekers Allowance, with the introduction of mandatory six-monthly work-focused interviews for this group.
These proposals build on the analysis of poverty carried out last year by Lisa Harker in her report for the DWP called, “Delivering on Child Poverty: what it would take” http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm69/6951/6951.pdf and the more recent, Freud Report, “Reducing dependency, increasing opportunity; options for the future of welfare to work.” http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dwp/2007/welfarereview.pdf .
The government remains convinced that getting people into work is their best route out of poverty. This week, I’ve heard numerous government ministers reaffirm their commitment to halving child poverty by 2010. If you want to understand the government’s strategy, I’d say read Harker, Freud and ‘Working for Children’ and you will know as much as anyone.
The proposals include:
Piloting a 'New Deal for Families' approach so more families get access to support that is often only available for lone parents. This will include extending the support available in the New Deal for Lone Parents Plus pilot areas to all families with children in those areas.
Extending the New Deal for Lone Parents Plus scheme and increasing obligations on lone parents with older children to look for work. This proposal dominated news media discussion, which focused on the appropriateness of encouraging single parents to seek work once their youngest child reaches 12.
Providing more support to families, particularly in London, by including widening and improving the in-work credit scheme which provides additional financial support for lone parents as they make the transition to work.
Providing advice and support for the partners of parents claiming Jobseekers Allowance, with the introduction of mandatory six-monthly work-focused interviews for this group.
These proposals build on the analysis of poverty carried out last year by Lisa Harker in her report for the DWP called, “Delivering on Child Poverty: what it would take” http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm69/6951/6951.pdf and the more recent, Freud Report, “Reducing dependency, increasing opportunity; options for the future of welfare to work.” http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dwp/2007/welfarereview.pdf .
The government remains convinced that getting people into work is their best route out of poverty. This week, I’ve heard numerous government ministers reaffirm their commitment to halving child poverty by 2010. If you want to understand the government’s strategy, I’d say read Harker, Freud and ‘Working for Children’ and you will know as much as anyone.
2 Child’s Play
“Toddlers who spend three or more days a week in nursery are more likely to become anti-social, worried and upset, government research has found” was just one of the bylines generated last week by a report reviewing nursery care. Research into the effects of non-parental child care seems to fire more furious debate than any other issue in the UK today http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6525039.stm . The full report can be found at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/SSU2007FR020.pdf
Be aware, these people have a track record of being critical of nursery care http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4304528.stm . This report fed straight into middle England’s fear that society is falling apart because of bad child rearing practices. For example, see the great picture and story in the Express http://www.express.co.uk/news/view/3636 . I felt that the Guardian article by Madeline Bunting tried to discuss the results more profitably http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/comment/0,,2049652,00.html
I also think it’s worth perusing the unprecedented 40 pages of reader comments that followed this article. It illustrates both the range of views and intensity of feelings that this issue generates. Personally, I don’t like the argument that if children become a bit more pushy and thick-skinned by the experience of nursery then that is no bad thing in the modern world. That is not an attractive vision.
3 Vital Statistics
Social Trends is an unrivalled source of UK social facts. It is produced every year by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) but the analytical focus of the publication is altered for each edition. This year’s study is especially relevant to The Brightside Trust, as its focus is ‘The changing lives of today’s children’. In what I regard as a genuine example of democratic, open government, the report can be viewed and/or downloaded from the ONS website for free. Hardcopy versions are available at £45; it must have been tempting to charge for the electronic version as well. For a quick summary see the press release http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/st0407.pdf
What seemed to catch news agencies attention was the increase in the numbers of young people, especially men, living at home with their parents for longer http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/04/12/do1203.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_12042007 . There are rumours of an extreme form of this phenomena emerging in the Berkhamstead area. The publication of Social Trends is also a time to reflect on known, but significant, medium term developments, such as in this article from BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6542031.stm
Something that caught my attention was public attitudes to vocational education
Table 3.17 page 36
Attitudes to vocational qualifications,1 2005
Great Britain | Percentages | ||
Agree2 | Neither agree nor disagree | Disagree3 | |
Only people who can’t do academic qualifications should do vocational ones | 20 | 17 | 63 |
Vocational qualifications are easier than academic qualifications | 29 | 24 | 47 |
Most people don’t understand what vocational qualifications are | 60 | 21 | 20 |
Employers don’t respect vocational qualifications enough | 54 | 24 | 21 |
Schools should do more to encourage young people to do vocational qualifications | 74 | 19 | 7 |
Taking these attitudes to vocational qualifications together, it would appear that the British people are very positive about vocational education and qualifications. It seems to me, that this popular mood could be fertile ground for the new diploma courses if they are rigorously promoted.
Overall, Social Trends is a dense catalogue of 225 glorious pages of facts about UK society.
There are too many headings to do it justice here, why not take a look at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_social/Social_Trends37/Social_Trends_37.pdf . If ever you need a social fact about the
4 The Panopticon
Article from the Guardian about training centres for problem families http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2054827,00.html . Retraining centres for ‘neighbours from hell’ are slowly being established all across the country. This phenomenon has largely gone unnoticed and undiscussed, but like ASBOs, will soon become part of the landscape for disadvantaged communities around the country. The linking of family retraining to them retaining their housing tenancy is punitive, but maybe that is the level of leverage required. Will it work? What would work mean? – any views?
5 The Prince and the Paupers
Last week saw the launch of a major report into youth disadvantage and social exclusion by the Prince’s Trust, entitled ‘The cost of exclusion’ http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/main%20site%20v2/downloads/Cost%20of%20Exclusion%20apr07.pdf . The authors have gone out of their way to calculate the loss to the economy and the extra costs to society when people opt out of the workforce and behave in antisocial ways. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/10/nyouth10.xml . In truth, I found this report something of a disappointment, as I’m not sure these calculations add much to the debate. Yes, it would be good if these people were active contributors to society, but they’re not, and all the evidence suggests that simply offering them a ‘hand up’, a break, isn’t enough. Some of these people are a real pain in the arse if you are unlucky enough to live near them. This report left me asking ‘but what is to be done?’ However, if you want the most recent and authoritative analysis of youth disadvantage then this is the place to go.
Monday, 2 April 2007
1 Raising the Education Leaving Age
The major education event of the past fortnight was the publication of a government green paper putting forward the proposal that all young people will be required to remain in education or training until their 18th birthday. I thought the press response to this announcement was low-key and largely focused on the narrow point of how to enforce the attendance of the disengaged. For a quick synopsis I recommend the executive summary as a better guide http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/6965-DfES-Raising%20Expectations%20Green%20Paper.pdf . Consultation on the green paper is open until the 16th of June. Do we have anything to say?
2 Poverty of Ambition?
When it comes to alleviating poverty, the blows to the government’s plans seem to just keep coming. Last week saw the announcement of a rise in child poverty at a time when it was supposed to be falling rapidly http://www.ft.com/cms/s/272983e8-dd92-11db-8d42-000b5df10621.html . Separately, another report highlighted the low birth weight and higher infant mortality of the children born in disadvantaged households http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6496253.stm. Some in government are now very gloomy about achieving major reductions in the levels of child poverty, let alone eliminating it by 2020. The feeling is that there is no chance of raising significant revenue by further tax increases and that too few single parents are showing signs of wanting to enter the workforce. Any views or ideas? I’m sure Gordon is listening.
3 Head Honcho
The Guardian carried an extended interview with Peter Lampl, founder and leader of the Sutton Trust, http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2043290,00.html . The Brightside Trust could be seen as aspiring to become a similar organisation. However, I think we are already evolving in a slightly different way; and, to continue the Darwinian theme, we will not be competing for the same feeding grounds.
Peter Lampl is one of those people who regrets the closure, in most areas of the UK, of the state grammar school system. He links this change to the reduction of social mobility seen in the UK in recent years because, although the grammar schools were mostly populated with middle class pupils, they did provide a stretching academic education for those brighter working class students who passed the 11+ exam. These students then went on to become socially mobile. He worries that the apparently more egalitarian comprehensive school system, which replaced the old system, merely sentences brighter socially disadvantaged pupils to languish in low quality schools where their talents are not drawn out.
As Sir Peter says in the interview "I totally agree that the bottom 40% are a bigger problem. But I can't do everything, I've got to specialise.’ Although Bright Journals, with its medical school aspirations for very bright socially disadvantaged students, might seem similar to a Sutton Trust type of initiative, I think that in our more recent ventures we are beginning to reorient towards that bottom 40%.
This process of target selection involves defining priorities, and this is in part linked to hard questions about a vision of a good society. I think Sir Peter is clear on this, he is a genuine meritocrat: he sees a good society as being one where people’s social mobility is decided by an individual’s talent and work, not by inherited or structural privilege. However, the Sutton Trust adopts a strategic orientation to facilitate this admirable aspiration, it focuses on the most talented; I don’t think The Brightside Trust should follow this lead. I think we can make a significant contribution by targeting those disadvantaged students who are perhaps not marked out for greatness, but given half a chance, could make a perfectly good contribution to a future society. Is this how you see it?
Peter Lampl is one of those people who regrets the closure, in most areas of the UK, of the state grammar school system. He links this change to the reduction of social mobility seen in the UK in recent years because, although the grammar schools were mostly populated with middle class pupils, they did provide a stretching academic education for those brighter working class students who passed the 11+ exam. These students then went on to become socially mobile. He worries that the apparently more egalitarian comprehensive school system, which replaced the old system, merely sentences brighter socially disadvantaged pupils to languish in low quality schools where their talents are not drawn out.
As Sir Peter says in the interview "I totally agree that the bottom 40% are a bigger problem. But I can't do everything, I've got to specialise.’ Although Bright Journals, with its medical school aspirations for very bright socially disadvantaged students, might seem similar to a Sutton Trust type of initiative, I think that in our more recent ventures we are beginning to reorient towards that bottom 40%.
This process of target selection involves defining priorities, and this is in part linked to hard questions about a vision of a good society. I think Sir Peter is clear on this, he is a genuine meritocrat: he sees a good society as being one where people’s social mobility is decided by an individual’s talent and work, not by inherited or structural privilege. However, the Sutton Trust adopts a strategic orientation to facilitate this admirable aspiration, it focuses on the most talented; I don’t think The Brightside Trust should follow this lead. I think we can make a significant contribution by targeting those disadvantaged students who are perhaps not marked out for greatness, but given half a chance, could make a perfectly good contribution to a future society. Is this how you see it?
4 Sunderland Digital Challenge
5 He lives in your basement!
Well, perhaps not so much your basement, as the ground floor at number 1 London Bridge. The Guardian carried this interview with The Children’s Commissioner for England http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,2037469,00.html. I think he makes a number of interesting points. We really ought to try to get to know him and his people. Maybe we could solicit an invite to their re-branding event?
Friday, 16 March 2007
1 The most important education reform of our time
According to Ken Boston, Chief Executive of the UK’s Qualifications and Curriculum Authority,‘the creation of the specialised Diplomas is the most ambitious and important educational reform currently being undertaken anywhere in the world.’ April 2006
So, when last Friday, the Secretary of State for Education, said that the introduction of the new diplomas "could go horribly wrong” alarm bells should be ringing http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6435563.stm . Especially as the Secretary of State’s comments come at a time when concern has been expressed by some of those responsible for developing and rolling out the diploma programs http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6234063.stm . They need to be worried: if the 14-19 diplomas are not a success, then there is little chance that any of the government’s learning and skills aspirations can be achieved. It would also be a disaster for its widening participation into higher education strategy. Indeed, it would damage the government’s whole anti-poverty strategy, as this is dependent on creating a high skilled workforce, in a high wage, high skill economy. There is also a specific link between improving life chances for disadvantage students and vocational education; a failure of the vocational would primarily be a blow to the disadvantaged.
On the basis of a few ‘off the record’ conversations, I’m worried that too many people in the education system are just waiting for this train to hit the buffers. This is wrong, this initiative is too important. I think that just as the Sutton Trust bangs on about private schools all the time, we should be banging on about these diplomas. For example, a key question for the future of Bright Journals is will the Russell group universities treat the diplomas as equivalent to top grade A levels? How many UCAS points will an advanced diploma be worth? These questions need clear answers now. Obfuscation at this time will mean that those who have any sort of choice will stick with the traditional qualifications.
The Brightside Trust could also focus on the way the health diplomas are being run and seek to improve their operation. There is still time; but the history of education in the UK has repeatedly shown that if vocational based qualifications are not seen to of high value, and that means at least as valuable as traditional qualifications, then they are doomed to be seen as second best.
So, when last Friday, the Secretary of State for Education, said that the introduction of the new diplomas "could go horribly wrong” alarm bells should be ringing http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6435563.stm . Especially as the Secretary of State’s comments come at a time when concern has been expressed by some of those responsible for developing and rolling out the diploma programs http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6234063.stm . They need to be worried: if the 14-19 diplomas are not a success, then there is little chance that any of the government’s learning and skills aspirations can be achieved. It would also be a disaster for its widening participation into higher education strategy. Indeed, it would damage the government’s whole anti-poverty strategy, as this is dependent on creating a high skilled workforce, in a high wage, high skill economy. There is also a specific link between improving life chances for disadvantage students and vocational education; a failure of the vocational would primarily be a blow to the disadvantaged.
On the basis of a few ‘off the record’ conversations, I’m worried that too many people in the education system are just waiting for this train to hit the buffers. This is wrong, this initiative is too important. I think that just as the Sutton Trust bangs on about private schools all the time, we should be banging on about these diplomas. For example, a key question for the future of Bright Journals is will the Russell group universities treat the diplomas as equivalent to top grade A levels? How many UCAS points will an advanced diploma be worth? These questions need clear answers now. Obfuscation at this time will mean that those who have any sort of choice will stick with the traditional qualifications.
The Brightside Trust could also focus on the way the health diplomas are being run and seek to improve their operation. There is still time; but the history of education in the UK has repeatedly shown that if vocational based qualifications are not seen to of high value, and that means at least as valuable as traditional qualifications, then they are doomed to be seen as second best.
2 There is an elephant in the room and it isn’t Charles Clarke
I was interested to see that ex-ministers Charles Clarke and Alan Milburn had launched a website. It was, they said, to facilitate discussion as to how the government could renew itself. I thought it interesting that launching a website is now the modern thing to do in politics; in the old days it would have been a manifesto, or a political program, or at the very least, a rant in some cold drafty room http://www.the2020vision.org.uk/index.php/pages/have-your-say/the-2020-vision However, when I viewed the site I was struck by the first sentence of their mission statement
‘Politics is about the future not the past.’
Why begin with this ridiculous remark? - Especially from these two. As you all know, I’m not one to gossip, but I can remember when Milburn was part of a collective, running a bookshop called ‘days of hope’, known locally as ‘haze of dope’ – his politics at that stage was overtly based on historical materialist analyses. Clarke lived in Cuba for a while, in order to be part of history. As young men, both of these chaps would have been very insistent, that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. So, when did history become bunk?
Well, some might say, not me you understand, that if you had the ministerial records of these two, then you wouldn’t want to look too closely at history either. For example, Charles Clarke, according to his successor, failed to notice that the Home Office wasn’t fit for purpose. Also, when education secretary, he castrated the proposals for 14-19 educational reform contained in the Tomlinson report by committing the government to keeping GCSEs and A levels http://education.guardian.co.uk/1419education/story/0,15147,1330607,00.html . This piece of surgery has left the present secretary of state worried about the future prospects for the 14-19 diplomas (see above). However, I think the problem goes beyond an evaluation of the ministerial competence of these two politicians.
I think these two have the same problem as other government supporters, such as Anthony Giddens, who seek renewal http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2034138,00.html Their problem is that according to the Moses of new Labour, Phillip Gould; the first commandment of winning elections is thou shalt not be seen by middle England to be divided. So, how can it be possible for a modern political party to conduct an honest audit? Wouldn’t the passion, self criticism and disorder that any such exercise would inevitably entail, be seen as division. The new Labour answer is to maintain unity by agreeing that everything the government has done has been a complete success - everything has worked wonderfully, no mistakes, no failures - so looking back is pointless and unproductive. Why are there still problems? It can only be that the world has changed and this has presented us with new challenges.
This will not do. In my opinion, the government has indeed fashioned some major successes, for example, the massive reduction in unemployment, the sure start program, the upcoming raising of the educational leaving age to 18, all truly historic. However, there are other stories, the PFI deals, the failure of housing policy, increasing inequality and decreasing social mobility.
Unfortunately, it’s even more complicated than recognising good and poor outcomes. It’s not just a matter of what worked, it’s also about what might have worked better, what might have worked differently, what were the alternatives?
So, what chance a fearless debate? - Fat chance.
However, without a truly critical reappraisal, then the goal of renewal is not possible. The elephants of new Labour’s creation are in the room, they must be seen, spoken of, and come to terms with. I’ll go further; if the likes of Milburn and Clarke, living in their eternal rose-tinted present, really are allowed to drive policy, then the importance of looking back will soon become apparent, as ‘history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.’
‘Politics is about the future not the past.’
Why begin with this ridiculous remark? - Especially from these two. As you all know, I’m not one to gossip, but I can remember when Milburn was part of a collective, running a bookshop called ‘days of hope’, known locally as ‘haze of dope’ – his politics at that stage was overtly based on historical materialist analyses. Clarke lived in Cuba for a while, in order to be part of history. As young men, both of these chaps would have been very insistent, that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. So, when did history become bunk?
Well, some might say, not me you understand, that if you had the ministerial records of these two, then you wouldn’t want to look too closely at history either. For example, Charles Clarke, according to his successor, failed to notice that the Home Office wasn’t fit for purpose. Also, when education secretary, he castrated the proposals for 14-19 educational reform contained in the Tomlinson report by committing the government to keeping GCSEs and A levels http://education.guardian.co.uk/1419education/story/0,15147,1330607,00.html . This piece of surgery has left the present secretary of state worried about the future prospects for the 14-19 diplomas (see above). However, I think the problem goes beyond an evaluation of the ministerial competence of these two politicians.
I think these two have the same problem as other government supporters, such as Anthony Giddens, who seek renewal http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2034138,00.html Their problem is that according to the Moses of new Labour, Phillip Gould; the first commandment of winning elections is thou shalt not be seen by middle England to be divided. So, how can it be possible for a modern political party to conduct an honest audit? Wouldn’t the passion, self criticism and disorder that any such exercise would inevitably entail, be seen as division. The new Labour answer is to maintain unity by agreeing that everything the government has done has been a complete success - everything has worked wonderfully, no mistakes, no failures - so looking back is pointless and unproductive. Why are there still problems? It can only be that the world has changed and this has presented us with new challenges.
This will not do. In my opinion, the government has indeed fashioned some major successes, for example, the massive reduction in unemployment, the sure start program, the upcoming raising of the educational leaving age to 18, all truly historic. However, there are other stories, the PFI deals, the failure of housing policy, increasing inequality and decreasing social mobility.
Unfortunately, it’s even more complicated than recognising good and poor outcomes. It’s not just a matter of what worked, it’s also about what might have worked better, what might have worked differently, what were the alternatives?
So, what chance a fearless debate? - Fat chance.
However, without a truly critical reappraisal, then the goal of renewal is not possible. The elephants of new Labour’s creation are in the room, they must be seen, spoken of, and come to terms with. I’ll go further; if the likes of Milburn and Clarke, living in their eternal rose-tinted present, really are allowed to drive policy, then the importance of looking back will soon become apparent, as ‘history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.’
3 i-spark
i-spark is a social networking site described as "MySpace for engineers and scientists". It's backed by the Engineering and Technology Board, Altran and the Guardian. Will this catch on? http://www.i-spark.org/ would you visit?
4 The motives of volunteers
Does it matter if people have ulterior motives for volunteering? An article in the Guardian explored this question http://society.guardian.co.uk/voluntary/story/0,,2024273,00.html what do you think? Also, on the volunteering front, a new volunteering website for 16 to 25 year olds has been launched. This is part of the Gordon Brown’s community service scheme which hopes to recruit a million volunteers.
http://society.guardian.co.uk/voluntary/news/0,,2034917,00.html Is this a place for us to recruit? http://www.vinspired.com
http://society.guardian.co.uk/voluntary/news/0,,2034917,00.html Is this a place for us to recruit? http://www.vinspired.com
5 Welfare Reform
There continues to be much debate about the numbers of people of working age in the UK who are dependent on benefits and not working. While no leading UK politician’s are, as yet, publicly discussing the merits of the changes pushed through in the USA by President Clinton, I know they are privately very impressed. I confidently predict that if the recent Freud report recommendations, for the Department of Work and Pensions, do not produce the desired results, then a future Conservative or Labour government will move to reform benefits, American style. I thought the following article from the Sunday Times waltzed quite nicely through the changes and debate in the USA.
From The Sunday Times
March 04, 2007
How America tried to cut single parents the welfare way
Did Bill Clinton find a way to aid family life? It’s complicated, says Tony Allen-Mills
When America marked the 10th anniversary of former President Bill Clinton’s sweeping welfare reforms of 1996, there was an improbable reaction in right-wing Republican circles. Conservatives who normally regard anyone named Clinton as an agent of Satan were to be found huddled in Washington corridors, admitting that maybe their arch-nemesis had done something right.
The president who had boldly promised “to end welfare as we know it” turned out to have done exactly that. It took a comparatively liberal Democratic president to achieve what right-wing ideologues had been opining about for years — a fundamental shift in welfare policy that forced millions of dole-seekers to work.
Despite dire warnings that families would starve and children die in the streets, Clinton pushed through a reform package that imposed strict limits on benefit entitlements and deadlines for recipients to begin fending for themselves.
The results, at first glance, appear staggering. There had been no significant decline in the number of American welfare cases for almost half a century, yet within five years, caseloads had dropped at least 60%. In some states that introduced extensive back-to-work programmes, dole queues were cut by up to 80%.
Yet before anyone in Britain leaps to conclude that what worked for Clinton would work for new Labour, meet Vivyan Adair, a former welfare recipient who got on her bike, took a university degree and became an assistant professor at Hamilton College in upstate New York.
“If the goal of welfare reform was to get people off the welfare rolls, bravo,” said Adair. “If the goal was to reduce poverty and give people economic and job stability, it was not a success.”
Through the blizzard of statistics that descends on any debate about politicians and social engineering, there is one that stands out in the continuing controversy over the impact of Clinton’s reforms.
Having identified single-parent families as the biggest drain on welfare funds, Clinton set out to promote the traditional nuclear family as the surest economic safeguard against poverty. His reforms abolished automatic cash grants for single mothers and effectively forced them to work at least part-time.
Yet a federal study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last year showed that despite many different measures to prevent unplanned pregnancies and to promote family life, out-of-wedlock births have reached a record high.
Almost 40% of children born in America are now born to single mothers, compared to 33% before Clinton’s reforms. For the first time in US history, married couples have become a minority, accounting for only 49.7% of US households.
Both right and left have seized on these figures as evidence in a continuing dispute over how much poverty really exists in America, and to what extent government policies are aggravating or relieving it.
The debate is complicated by ethnic, racial and geographic issues — 68% of black children are born out of wedlock. The only thing that seems clear is that America’s welfare revolution cannot yet be declared an enviable success.
In one respect Clinton helped usher in a genuine transformation. Teenagers of all races are having fewer babies. Despite an overall increase in single-parent families, the unmarried teen birthrate has fallen to its lowest level since the late 1980s.
Various groups have claimed credit for the trend, from liberals promoting contra-ception to evangelical Christians who have launched chastity campaigns. Clinton’s admirers also claim that his crackdown on welfare made young women realise they would not be able to rely on government handouts if they became pregnant.
Yet just as teenagers were changing their lives, the birth rate for single women in their twenties and thirties began to rise. Older women who remain unmarried are increasingly deciding to have children on their own. Different kinds of economic pressures then emerge as these women struggle to balance their children and their jobs.
“The chief goal of Clinton’s 1996 statute, as revealed by its preamble, was to reverse the decades-long decline in the nuclear family,” said Professor Amy Wax of the University of Pennsylvania law school. “If judged by this objective, welfare reform has been an abysmal failure.”
Wax argues that requiring single mothers to work has done little to discourage single-motherhood and obliges state governments to prop up one-parent families in different ways — with tax credits or food, health and other benefits. “The possibility of economic self-sufficiency has been mugged by reality,” said Wax.
Further clouding the welfare issue are new claims that the number of American families living in severe poverty reached its highest level for more than 30 years in 2005. A study last month of the recently released 2005 census statistics found that nearly 16m Americans were classified as severely poor, up 26% from 2000.
The study by the McClatchy newspaper group defined “severely” poor as individuals earning less than $5,080 (£2,610) a year and families of four with an annual income of $9,903 — half the official poverty line.
Several experts claimed these statistics reflected the creation of a permanent underclass. Conservative researchers say the statistics were not reliable as many poor people underreport their incomes.
Arloc Sherman, a senior researcher at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank, offered a different interpretation. “What you see in the data are more and more single moms with children, who lose their jobs and who aren’t being caught by a safety net,” he said.
From The Sunday Times
March 04, 2007
How America tried to cut single parents the welfare way
Did Bill Clinton find a way to aid family life? It’s complicated, says Tony Allen-Mills
When America marked the 10th anniversary of former President Bill Clinton’s sweeping welfare reforms of 1996, there was an improbable reaction in right-wing Republican circles. Conservatives who normally regard anyone named Clinton as an agent of Satan were to be found huddled in Washington corridors, admitting that maybe their arch-nemesis had done something right.
The president who had boldly promised “to end welfare as we know it” turned out to have done exactly that. It took a comparatively liberal Democratic president to achieve what right-wing ideologues had been opining about for years — a fundamental shift in welfare policy that forced millions of dole-seekers to work.
Despite dire warnings that families would starve and children die in the streets, Clinton pushed through a reform package that imposed strict limits on benefit entitlements and deadlines for recipients to begin fending for themselves.
The results, at first glance, appear staggering. There had been no significant decline in the number of American welfare cases for almost half a century, yet within five years, caseloads had dropped at least 60%. In some states that introduced extensive back-to-work programmes, dole queues were cut by up to 80%.
Yet before anyone in Britain leaps to conclude that what worked for Clinton would work for new Labour, meet Vivyan Adair, a former welfare recipient who got on her bike, took a university degree and became an assistant professor at Hamilton College in upstate New York.
“If the goal of welfare reform was to get people off the welfare rolls, bravo,” said Adair. “If the goal was to reduce poverty and give people economic and job stability, it was not a success.”
Through the blizzard of statistics that descends on any debate about politicians and social engineering, there is one that stands out in the continuing controversy over the impact of Clinton’s reforms.
Having identified single-parent families as the biggest drain on welfare funds, Clinton set out to promote the traditional nuclear family as the surest economic safeguard against poverty. His reforms abolished automatic cash grants for single mothers and effectively forced them to work at least part-time.
Yet a federal study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last year showed that despite many different measures to prevent unplanned pregnancies and to promote family life, out-of-wedlock births have reached a record high.
Almost 40% of children born in America are now born to single mothers, compared to 33% before Clinton’s reforms. For the first time in US history, married couples have become a minority, accounting for only 49.7% of US households.
Both right and left have seized on these figures as evidence in a continuing dispute over how much poverty really exists in America, and to what extent government policies are aggravating or relieving it.
The debate is complicated by ethnic, racial and geographic issues — 68% of black children are born out of wedlock. The only thing that seems clear is that America’s welfare revolution cannot yet be declared an enviable success.
In one respect Clinton helped usher in a genuine transformation. Teenagers of all races are having fewer babies. Despite an overall increase in single-parent families, the unmarried teen birthrate has fallen to its lowest level since the late 1980s.
Various groups have claimed credit for the trend, from liberals promoting contra-ception to evangelical Christians who have launched chastity campaigns. Clinton’s admirers also claim that his crackdown on welfare made young women realise they would not be able to rely on government handouts if they became pregnant.
Yet just as teenagers were changing their lives, the birth rate for single women in their twenties and thirties began to rise. Older women who remain unmarried are increasingly deciding to have children on their own. Different kinds of economic pressures then emerge as these women struggle to balance their children and their jobs.
“The chief goal of Clinton’s 1996 statute, as revealed by its preamble, was to reverse the decades-long decline in the nuclear family,” said Professor Amy Wax of the University of Pennsylvania law school. “If judged by this objective, welfare reform has been an abysmal failure.”
Wax argues that requiring single mothers to work has done little to discourage single-motherhood and obliges state governments to prop up one-parent families in different ways — with tax credits or food, health and other benefits. “The possibility of economic self-sufficiency has been mugged by reality,” said Wax.
Further clouding the welfare issue are new claims that the number of American families living in severe poverty reached its highest level for more than 30 years in 2005. A study last month of the recently released 2005 census statistics found that nearly 16m Americans were classified as severely poor, up 26% from 2000.
The study by the McClatchy newspaper group defined “severely” poor as individuals earning less than $5,080 (£2,610) a year and families of four with an annual income of $9,903 — half the official poverty line.
Several experts claimed these statistics reflected the creation of a permanent underclass. Conservative researchers say the statistics were not reliable as many poor people underreport their incomes.
Arloc Sherman, a senior researcher at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank, offered a different interpretation. “What you see in the data are more and more single moms with children, who lose their jobs and who aren’t being caught by a safety net,” he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)