Sunday, 12 August 2007
1 Star Turn
The government recently asked the National Audit Office (NAO) to investigate and report on dropout rates at UK universities - they have now reported http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/06-07/0607616.pdf . Note the page 38 reference to The Brightside Trust. We’re beginning to establish our reputation as experts worth consulting. Unfortunately the NAO didn’t dwell on the importance of mentoring in the report itself, ‘peer mentoring – whereby second and final year students give informal support to new students – is a feature of the student experience in Ireland, the Netherlands, the United States…’ was the high point. Still it’s good to be to be seen as relevant by government agencies.
2 Whistling Eddie
According to Ed Balls, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, ‘Pupils should be able to get into top universities by taking the new Diplomas instead of the traditional A-levels’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6915060.stm Will the health option level 3 diploma get you into medical school? Will it even get you an interview? I doubt it, but why not ask them Ed? How does this square with http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6917842.stm . Whistling in the wind has been the musical accompaniment to vocational training in the UK for the last 50 years and it’s not a popular act.
3 Tough Choices
A report from Durham university poses the question: if some A level subjects are harder than others, why not recognise that and regard the harder ones as more valuable. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2147194,00.html
4 Everyone’s Favourite Philanthropist
I think this article and video interview with Bill Gates could be very relevant to the future of e-mentoring. It strikes me that the seamless integration of different modes of communication, which seems to be central to Microsoft’s ‘schools for the future’, potentially renders obsolete the clear division between face-to-face communication and electronic communication. These are not just ideas; he will make this happen and some of it will shape schools in the UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/6917156.stm
5 Young People Today
A major government investment in youth clubs was announced on July 27th.
http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,,2136106,00.html I would argue that the history of youth clubs in the UK, since at least the 1960s, has been a cycle of promotion and then cutback, every 10 to 15 years. I’m worried that the establishment and running of youth clubs is seen as unproblematic; believe me they are not. The proposal to give ‘young people’ control of 25% of the budget is frankly bonkers. This could only be implemented if a carefully selected group of young people were given very closely proscribed choices, which they would not see as controlling the budget. Result: disenchantment and rejection all round. There are many practical questions, not least, how difficult it can be to engage some individuals in a controlled fashion. For example, in my experience, as soon as a youth club is established there are exclusions – the excluded then either hang around the door, where they are at best a nuisance and often resentful and dangerous and/or they are elsewhere on the estate acting as an even more concentrated group of antisocial individuals.
I’m worried that this is another new Labour house built on sand. New Labour has been good at using the weight of public prejudice to advance progressive policies, a kind of political Jujutsu, using their opponents’ weight against them. The danger is that while simple answers appeal to prejudice, they are not enough to guide successful policy. Certainly among some sections of the press there is an open contempt for social workers of all kinds, who are said to be more concerned about political correctness than taking effective action. Implicitly or explicitly, it is assumed that this is a straightforward occupation if you are practical, down-to-earth and have common sense: youth clubs, what’s to know?
In my opinion, youth work among disaffected young people is difficult and in many ways I think it’s getting more difficult. I thought this when reading an extended article about Eton Manor, a youth club that ran from the early twentieth century until the 1960s in a rough part of Hackney http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,,2133792,00.html . Reading the Eton Manor story, it’s the differences between the 1960s and now, that struck me. For example, I’d forgotten that it used to be common practice to have a shooting range as an appropriate activity for disadvantaged boys; I guess to encourage them to join the military. What of Eton Manor that would work today? I cannot see a system based on class deference to old Etonians being a success; but role models, like the boxer, seem just as relevant; upgrading the shooting range to a drive-by shooting range – perhaps not.
In my opinion, once again government are underestimating how difficult these things are. My fear is that after bunging a load of money into ill thought out schemes they will then silently back away. If this happens, then the cycle of promoting youth services, to only see them cut back and marginalised a few years later, will continue.
http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,,2136106,00.html I would argue that the history of youth clubs in the UK, since at least the 1960s, has been a cycle of promotion and then cutback, every 10 to 15 years. I’m worried that the establishment and running of youth clubs is seen as unproblematic; believe me they are not. The proposal to give ‘young people’ control of 25% of the budget is frankly bonkers. This could only be implemented if a carefully selected group of young people were given very closely proscribed choices, which they would not see as controlling the budget. Result: disenchantment and rejection all round. There are many practical questions, not least, how difficult it can be to engage some individuals in a controlled fashion. For example, in my experience, as soon as a youth club is established there are exclusions – the excluded then either hang around the door, where they are at best a nuisance and often resentful and dangerous and/or they are elsewhere on the estate acting as an even more concentrated group of antisocial individuals.
I’m worried that this is another new Labour house built on sand. New Labour has been good at using the weight of public prejudice to advance progressive policies, a kind of political Jujutsu, using their opponents’ weight against them. The danger is that while simple answers appeal to prejudice, they are not enough to guide successful policy. Certainly among some sections of the press there is an open contempt for social workers of all kinds, who are said to be more concerned about political correctness than taking effective action. Implicitly or explicitly, it is assumed that this is a straightforward occupation if you are practical, down-to-earth and have common sense: youth clubs, what’s to know?
In my opinion, youth work among disaffected young people is difficult and in many ways I think it’s getting more difficult. I thought this when reading an extended article about Eton Manor, a youth club that ran from the early twentieth century until the 1960s in a rough part of Hackney http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,,2133792,00.html . Reading the Eton Manor story, it’s the differences between the 1960s and now, that struck me. For example, I’d forgotten that it used to be common practice to have a shooting range as an appropriate activity for disadvantaged boys; I guess to encourage them to join the military. What of Eton Manor that would work today? I cannot see a system based on class deference to old Etonians being a success; but role models, like the boxer, seem just as relevant; upgrading the shooting range to a drive-by shooting range – perhaps not.
In my opinion, once again government are underestimating how difficult these things are. My fear is that after bunging a load of money into ill thought out schemes they will then silently back away. If this happens, then the cycle of promoting youth services, to only see them cut back and marginalised a few years later, will continue.
Saturday, 21 July 2007
1) Good News
The 'extended medical degree programme', a widening participation course in medicine, at Kings College, which makes extensive use of Bright Journals, has just had its first batch of students from disadvantaged backgrounds qualify as doctors http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6252656.stm
2 ) welfare reform, the government green paper
The eye-catching proposals in the green paper are that single parents will be expected to move into work after their youngest child reaches the age of 7 and that all job seekers will, after 12 months of being on benefit, be expected to carry out socially useful work in return for continued benefits http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2129311,00.html
Availability for socially useful work used to be a requirement for claiming benefit. The last reference I’ve found to actually mobilising the unemployed for work was the winter of 1946/47 when unemployed men were used to clear snow.
But, transferring single parents onto job seekers allowance, after the youngest child reaches the age of 7, is a new proposal. It is more stringent than the recent Freud report proposed and more than the Conservatives in their recent policy review were arguing.
I was surprised when this government paper hasn’t generated much interest. I guess journalists think that after the predictable protest, the government will back down. I disagree, I think this will happen. I recognise I could be wrong, ( I am the person who stood up in a Labour party meeting in 1979 and said the election of Margaret Thatcher didn’t matter, as she wouldn’t last 6 months) but I don’t think the government are going to back down on this one. The reaction of the single parent pressure groups was entirely predictable. The hostile reaction of the left of the Labour party will also be entirely predictable. Yet, the government have brought this forward, why? I think there are two reasons: it will play well in marginal constituencies and it provides cover for further expanding welfare expenditure.
This kind of initiative plays well with the lower middle classes who make up a crucial component of the population of most marginal parliamentary seats. These often previous Tory voters have recently been looking once again at the Tories in a favourable light. Suggesting single parents should be looking for work when their youngest child is 7 outflanks the Tories on their right and in a way that really hurts. Labour is apparently getting tough with single parent benefit scroungers while flaky Dave wants to hug a hoody, this drives them nuts. This same social group are also going to be dangerously exercised by the housing building program that Brown has already announced. These ‘natural born conservatives’ don’t want a mixed tenure housing development in their own backyard but their sons and daughters can’t leave home because of house prices. Buckling under these contradictory pressures the Tories find themselves with a policy of both supporting increases to the housing supply while opposing building in every area. This weakness will be remorselessly attacked by the Labour party, hoping to attract the votes of the young people, whose highest priority is housing, while confusing the parents who would be glad to see the back of their adult children but don‘t want urban sprawl.
Secondly, shifting single parents into the workforce makes the case for more welfare spending: how so? It looks to me like the Bill Clinton strategy; no not the lying on oath, I mean the strategy he adopted to force the Republicans to support increased spending on child care centres for the poor. He argued that if single parents were to end their lifetime dependence on welfare then there first had to be affordable care for their children, if they were to go out to work. In return for a major increase in child care spending Bill Clinton ended the entitlement to long term welfare benefits for single parents in the USA.
Liberal critics of this strategy predicted that children would be dying on the streets of the big cities of the USA when the winter came, as the then homeless single parent families would be without shelter. In the event, a few poor people did die but no more than usual. There have also been some real success stories, people who when forced into the labour market have flourished. The links between the Democrats and the UK’s Labour party are strong with a constant exchange of people between organisations. I think this Green Paper has been developed after a detailed review of the American political and practical experience.
As I have gone on about in the past, this government needs to spend more money if it is to put in place the measures and organisations that are needed to get close to key targets such as ending child poverty by 2020. The question is how to get more tax money out of the middle classes; I think the answer is to play to their prejudices. So, although this has had a slow start I think it will become an important feature of the government’s legislative programme; or maybe its time for another 1979 moment for me.
Availability for socially useful work used to be a requirement for claiming benefit. The last reference I’ve found to actually mobilising the unemployed for work was the winter of 1946/47 when unemployed men were used to clear snow.
But, transferring single parents onto job seekers allowance, after the youngest child reaches the age of 7, is a new proposal. It is more stringent than the recent Freud report proposed and more than the Conservatives in their recent policy review were arguing.
I was surprised when this government paper hasn’t generated much interest. I guess journalists think that after the predictable protest, the government will back down. I disagree, I think this will happen. I recognise I could be wrong, ( I am the person who stood up in a Labour party meeting in 1979 and said the election of Margaret Thatcher didn’t matter, as she wouldn’t last 6 months) but I don’t think the government are going to back down on this one. The reaction of the single parent pressure groups was entirely predictable. The hostile reaction of the left of the Labour party will also be entirely predictable. Yet, the government have brought this forward, why? I think there are two reasons: it will play well in marginal constituencies and it provides cover for further expanding welfare expenditure.
This kind of initiative plays well with the lower middle classes who make up a crucial component of the population of most marginal parliamentary seats. These often previous Tory voters have recently been looking once again at the Tories in a favourable light. Suggesting single parents should be looking for work when their youngest child is 7 outflanks the Tories on their right and in a way that really hurts. Labour is apparently getting tough with single parent benefit scroungers while flaky Dave wants to hug a hoody, this drives them nuts. This same social group are also going to be dangerously exercised by the housing building program that Brown has already announced. These ‘natural born conservatives’ don’t want a mixed tenure housing development in their own backyard but their sons and daughters can’t leave home because of house prices. Buckling under these contradictory pressures the Tories find themselves with a policy of both supporting increases to the housing supply while opposing building in every area. This weakness will be remorselessly attacked by the Labour party, hoping to attract the votes of the young people, whose highest priority is housing, while confusing the parents who would be glad to see the back of their adult children but don‘t want urban sprawl.
Secondly, shifting single parents into the workforce makes the case for more welfare spending: how so? It looks to me like the Bill Clinton strategy; no not the lying on oath, I mean the strategy he adopted to force the Republicans to support increased spending on child care centres for the poor. He argued that if single parents were to end their lifetime dependence on welfare then there first had to be affordable care for their children, if they were to go out to work. In return for a major increase in child care spending Bill Clinton ended the entitlement to long term welfare benefits for single parents in the USA.
Liberal critics of this strategy predicted that children would be dying on the streets of the big cities of the USA when the winter came, as the then homeless single parent families would be without shelter. In the event, a few poor people did die but no more than usual. There have also been some real success stories, people who when forced into the labour market have flourished. The links between the Democrats and the UK’s Labour party are strong with a constant exchange of people between organisations. I think this Green Paper has been developed after a detailed review of the American political and practical experience.
As I have gone on about in the past, this government needs to spend more money if it is to put in place the measures and organisations that are needed to get close to key targets such as ending child poverty by 2020. The question is how to get more tax money out of the middle classes; I think the answer is to play to their prejudices. So, although this has had a slow start I think it will become an important feature of the government’s legislative programme; or maybe its time for another 1979 moment for me.
3) Catch the wave
Over the past couple of years there has been much talk about a new philanthropy http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2129588,00.html . As this article from the Guardian describes, we are beginning to see the detail of this trend and I think how it presents us with opportunities. I particularly like the Action aid idea of having a structured and I guess, focused, ‘ambassador network’ to target potential donors. We certainly cannot rely on the recommendation of New Philanthropy Capital whose reports and analysis should, in my opinion, be regarded as being of uneven quality.
As for the rise in the new wealthy: if you are interested take a look at this new book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Richistan-Journey-Through-Century-Wealth/dp/0749928239/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/026-6725407-0987623?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184857996&sr=8-1 Why the title, Richistan - because with their relatively large numbers, separation from the rest of society and their tendency to gather together, the author sees the western European new rich as a country – Richistan. Like all other countries, there are social differences and the author develops an interesting categorisation or typology of the rich. For example, he discusses how the lower rich in the USA, the single digit millionaires, tend to be Republican and conservative, while the billionaires, the seriously rich, tend towards liberal and Democrat. This is a fun easy read and it might even be useful when trying to understand what we are doing at The Brightside Trust, especially chapter 8, Performance Philanthropy. I am placing my own copy of Richistan in The Brightside Trust library; I may not have the billions but I can adopt the lifestyle.
As for the rise in the new wealthy: if you are interested take a look at this new book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Richistan-Journey-Through-Century-Wealth/dp/0749928239/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/026-6725407-0987623?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184857996&sr=8-1 Why the title, Richistan - because with their relatively large numbers, separation from the rest of society and their tendency to gather together, the author sees the western European new rich as a country – Richistan. Like all other countries, there are social differences and the author develops an interesting categorisation or typology of the rich. For example, he discusses how the lower rich in the USA, the single digit millionaires, tend to be Republican and conservative, while the billionaires, the seriously rich, tend towards liberal and Democrat. This is a fun easy read and it might even be useful when trying to understand what we are doing at The Brightside Trust, especially chapter 8, Performance Philanthropy. I am placing my own copy of Richistan in The Brightside Trust library; I may not have the billions but I can adopt the lifestyle.
4) The digital divide
It used to be assumed that the digital divide, the divide between those using new technology and those who did not, would literally die out; as those born after the 1980s would all automatically have access and familiarity with ICT. This research report finds that this isn’t the case and that 11% of 16-24 year-olds are digitally excluded. How will they get on in the modern world? http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/12521 and http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/12519 . We have a paper copy of the full report in our Brightside library.
5) Academies, why are we doing this, Ed?
Ed Balls, who in previous government’s would be called the Secretary of State for Education, took the opportunity, last week, to review the government’s schools program. The first thing that struck me, was that this speech is number 666 in the Whitehall catalogue, well, I guess, better Ed on schools than a minister speaking about Trident, http://www.dfes.gov.uk/speeches/speech.cfm?SpeechID=666 . If one wanted a listing of the educational achievements of the present government, then the first part of this script is a good summary and worth remembering as a reference. Ed, also took the opportunity to announce some new plans, including those for the Academies program. This included the announcement that the core national curriculum would apply to Academies from now on.
This change distracted me from the thought that Ed might be demonic - as I thought exemption from the National Curriculum was one of the defining characteristics of the Academies program. For me, this change raised the question, what then are the defining features of an Academy? The starting point used to be they were free from state control and that included freedom from the national curriculum. It used to be said that they would be directed and endowed by successful businesses and the entrepreneurs who ran them. In practice, businesses brought in a minimum of 2 million pounds. But Ed announced that "from today, I am abolishing the current requirement for universities and high-performing schools and colleges to provide £2 million before they can sponsor an Academy. “ So, a cash gift is not a defining feature. Could it be that universities have a similar level of competence at running successful organisations as successful entrepreneurs and businesses? This strange thought drew me to look more closely at the list of universities that Ed named as the advance guard of universities wishing to sponsor Academies. It included Queen Mary, University of London, who had only 3 days earlier featured in another list, one drawn up by HEFCE, of failing universities, which the Guardian reported under the headline ‘Secret list of universities facing collapse, Papers name 46 institutions in crisis’ http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,,2120991,00.html .When combined with the pedestrian progress universities have made in their widening participation programs, I’m afraid I feel it reasonable to ask the question, wouldn’t it be wise if these universities were to concentrate on improving their own performance, rather than visiting their flawed talents on a secondary school. So, its not a proven track record of running successful organisations that is the stuff of Academies. Still puzzled, I turned again to Ed’s speech "But the test of whether an organisation can be a potential sponsor should not be its bank balance, but whether it can demonstrate leadership, innovation, and commitment to act in the public interest."
How does this apply to the likes of Peter Vardy, car salesman and Christian fundamentalist, who was allowed to be an early sponsor of an Academy. Was being one of the North-East of England’s largest second hand car salesman proof of a commitment to act in the public interest? It also shows that universities educational expertise cannot be a reason or criteria for sponsorship because the early sponsors such as Vardy had little or none.
Perhaps the importance of Academies was to get schools out of local authority control? Again, that seemed to be the case at the start of the program, but of late local authorities are being allowed to sponsor academies. http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/Pages/press/pritem.asp?Id=10058 - so it cannot be that.
Perhaps, then, it was all a ploy to raise money to build new schools in poor areas in a way that didn't outrage the middle classes. But, the government are already committed to rebuilding all secondary schools in England anyway. So, it cannot be that either.
The only common attribute that I can identify, that seems to be a common feature across the Academies’ program, is that they are more demanding of the school staff. Staff from the schools that are being replaced have had to apply for jobs at the new Academies, there is no automatic transfer. It is also made plain at recruitment that they will be expected to deliver better academic results and the opportunity is also often taken to extend the hours staff are expected to be at the school.. Can it be that this whole exercise of creating Academies is only a device to change the working culture and ethos of state school teachers and support staff? Is this it: I don’t know. Even if it is, I’m still puzzled as to why the justification and the content of the program is jumping around and appears to be manifestly contradictory.
This change distracted me from the thought that Ed might be demonic - as I thought exemption from the National Curriculum was one of the defining characteristics of the Academies program. For me, this change raised the question, what then are the defining features of an Academy? The starting point used to be they were free from state control and that included freedom from the national curriculum. It used to be said that they would be directed and endowed by successful businesses and the entrepreneurs who ran them. In practice, businesses brought in a minimum of 2 million pounds. But Ed announced that "from today, I am abolishing the current requirement for universities and high-performing schools and colleges to provide £2 million before they can sponsor an Academy. “ So, a cash gift is not a defining feature. Could it be that universities have a similar level of competence at running successful organisations as successful entrepreneurs and businesses? This strange thought drew me to look more closely at the list of universities that Ed named as the advance guard of universities wishing to sponsor Academies. It included Queen Mary, University of London, who had only 3 days earlier featured in another list, one drawn up by HEFCE, of failing universities, which the Guardian reported under the headline ‘Secret list of universities facing collapse, Papers name 46 institutions in crisis’ http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,,2120991,00.html .When combined with the pedestrian progress universities have made in their widening participation programs, I’m afraid I feel it reasonable to ask the question, wouldn’t it be wise if these universities were to concentrate on improving their own performance, rather than visiting their flawed talents on a secondary school. So, its not a proven track record of running successful organisations that is the stuff of Academies. Still puzzled, I turned again to Ed’s speech "But the test of whether an organisation can be a potential sponsor should not be its bank balance, but whether it can demonstrate leadership, innovation, and commitment to act in the public interest."
How does this apply to the likes of Peter Vardy, car salesman and Christian fundamentalist, who was allowed to be an early sponsor of an Academy. Was being one of the North-East of England’s largest second hand car salesman proof of a commitment to act in the public interest? It also shows that universities educational expertise cannot be a reason or criteria for sponsorship because the early sponsors such as Vardy had little or none.
Perhaps the importance of Academies was to get schools out of local authority control? Again, that seemed to be the case at the start of the program, but of late local authorities are being allowed to sponsor academies. http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/Pages/press/pritem.asp?Id=10058 - so it cannot be that.
Perhaps, then, it was all a ploy to raise money to build new schools in poor areas in a way that didn't outrage the middle classes. But, the government are already committed to rebuilding all secondary schools in England anyway. So, it cannot be that either.
The only common attribute that I can identify, that seems to be a common feature across the Academies’ program, is that they are more demanding of the school staff. Staff from the schools that are being replaced have had to apply for jobs at the new Academies, there is no automatic transfer. It is also made plain at recruitment that they will be expected to deliver better academic results and the opportunity is also often taken to extend the hours staff are expected to be at the school.. Can it be that this whole exercise of creating Academies is only a device to change the working culture and ethos of state school teachers and support staff? Is this it: I don’t know. Even if it is, I’m still puzzled as to why the justification and the content of the program is jumping around and appears to be manifestly contradictory.
6) Bad News
I think it is wise to take the opportunity, from time to time, to listen to people describing their lives, even when they are recounting things that are difficult and unpleasant. I think this is true at both at the level of disadvantaged communities, http://www.guardian.co.uk/britain/article/0,,2114526,00.html or the testimony of individuals, such as here, of Jamal, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,2126924,00.html I’m not trying to depress readers, especially as it may well be true that there is little we can offer these severely disadvantaged communities and individuals at this time. However, we may well be working with others, whose lives are shaped, to some extent, by contact with these communities and individuals, and in that sense our work has to recognise and address these realities.
Tuesday, 10 July 2007
1 It’s the Family, Stupid
I want to mention 3 new departments that may be of interest to the work of The Brightside Trust. The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), the Department of Innovation Universities and Skills (DIUS) and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBER).
In my opinion, the press and TV coverage of the recent changes to the UK government has been overly dominated by the story of the prime-ministers. Even this narrative, not helped by the release of Alistair Campbell’s diaries, has been largely focused on the personalities and styles of Blair versus Brown. In so far as the cabinet reshuffle was noticed it was seen in terms of who is Blairite and who are Brown supporters. Little or no interest has been shown in the changes to departmental structures that have taken place.
In my opinion, this is a mistake, as important reconfigurations of policies and strategy lie behind the restructuring of Whitehall departments. I think this will become apparent over the next weeks and months, if only because Ed Balls the new secretary of state for education will be making speeches that are not primarily about education; they will be dominated by discussion of families and poverty.
The background to this is twofold. First, the government’s improvement programs for UK society, seemed, to many, to have stalled. In particular, the Brown team have been stung by the way in which social mobility does not seem to have improved after10 years of Labour government. There still seems to be an underclass, which is both socially disadvantaged and socially disruptive. Also, the government is failing to get close to its target of ending child poverty in the UK by 2020. In particular, they are worried by research which has shown that socially disadvantaged children are already a year behind educationally, by the age of 3, and as other studies have shown, lower educational achievers are not socially mobile: Labour wasn’t working! Secondly, the Conservatives are making ‘fixing our broken society’ the central theme of their campaigning.
Ed Balls should not be seen as another secretary of state for education, his brief isn’t just to ‘run and improve education’. This new department is Brown’s main instrument to bump start social change. The key mechanism to this is education, however, this department is more than that, it is recognition that unless the basis for fully taking advantage of educational opportunities is in place, then the offer is only partly taken up by the disadvantaged. Consequently, the new department should be seen as facilitating maximum educational consumption, as well as ensuring the best possible products are on offer. Gaze upon the departmental structure and responsibilities http://www.dfes.gov.uk/aboutus/whoswho/ministers.shtml
It is worth noting that higher education (HE) is not part of the remit; it is in the new Department of Innovation Universities and Skills (DIUS). I don't like this split: I recognise there has to be limits to the size and scope of Whitehall departments, but I think this division will be problematic, especially when it comes to the widening participation agenda. I think DIUS will be drawn away from the less exciting widening of opportunities and skills agenda and will focus on world beating innovation through, for example, scientific invention in elite institutions of higher education. I see a real danger of these two icebergs drifting apart and this drift will be pulled by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBER).
If one looks at the ministerial structure of DIUS
http://www.dius.gov.uk/pressreleases/press.htm you will see our old supporter Bill Rammell is listed. It was widely reported that Bill Rammell ‘keeps the job he had …since 2005 at the new DIUS.’ (Times higher july 6th 2007). I think this is to underplay his new role. I think that he is the person on whom this strain of balancing widening participation in HE with promoting world class institutions will fall. I know that asserting that there can be contradictions between egalitarian and meritcratic objectives is hardly a revelation, but as the different emphases cause the different departments to bump and conflict over the detail of policy, it will fall to Bill to sort out. His problem is that resolution of these contradictions isn’t just a matter of cleverly balancing ideas; these contradictions are real and will be played out in nearly every resource and/or policy question that he has to decide. To complicate his position even further, I don’t see this as a zero sum game. There will be win-win options in the multiplicity of options out there, but Bill and his people are going to have to work hard to find them. They are really going to need to understand the nature of the things they are dealing with, situation by situation. We, and others with genuine expertise, can help in this, if given the chance.
Compare Bill’s brief to that of his colleague Ian Pearson: Minister of State for Science and Innovation, who has a much clearer, almost Wilsonian brief, excitement of the white hot heat of the technological revolution, kind of stuff. I think it likely that the Brightside Trust’s work will bring us into contact with this minister, as well. However, he is dealing with an entity that in terms of its ideology, interests and outlook is a fairly homogenous body; in short, if he keeps doing what’s been done in the past, albeit with a few added flourishes, then things will almost certainly work out and nobody will get too excited. He will be able to showboat around: the worst that could happen is that he spends the equivalent of a couple of hours stuck on a mud bank; Bill, on the other hand, if he just goes with the flow, will almost certainly hit the rocks!
In my opinion, if the egalitarian momentum of the social mobility strategies of the work of the Department of Children, Schools and Families is to be carried forward into higher education then it needs to be married in detail and practice to the meritocratic ethos of the global market and innovation, and that is hard to do.
More specifically, in this organisational split, I see the danger that the WP social mobility agenda will derail at 14+, when children start to leave the nurturing environment of the DCSF and enter the ‘adult’ world of FE and HE. I do not like the way that responsibility for the new 14-19 diplomas is with the DCSF while responsibility for the running of FE colleges is now split between DIUS and local authorities. I am worried that this new structure makes disadvantaged lower achieving students marginal at age 14: this is too early for them to left to their own resources and devices. I would argue that we know the processes of disadvantage continue even beyond university entry and that without a sustained program of widening participation and support, then there will not be any increase in numbers of disadvantaged students entering and succeeding in higher education. The danger is that the gains of the DCSF years will unravel for many students at aged 14. This organisational split is yet another problem for the new 14-19 diploma rollout. Unless Bill Rammell really gets his act together, then the whole Brown project will be in trouble!
Finally, the third new department, http://www.berr.gov.uk Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBER). DBER’s brief is to work closely with DIUS, especially in areas of scientific research and innovation, this could be relevant for some Brightside Trust projects. However, for me, in the short term, its significance was to show how the British civil service is still world class. Within hours of the announcement of this new ministry, they had resolved the major question of the reorganisation - what name should the ministry to be known by? They are calling it Chris. This proves there have been real efficiency gains by Whitehall in recent years, I can remember when Iraq invaded Kuwait, it took 2 days of pondering in the foreign office to define the important question - will the new country be called Kuaq or Irate. Makes you proud to be British, well it does Gordon.
2 Quick Fix
Some are claiming that the systematic use of a particular teaching method, synthetic phonics, is, of itself, enough to end illiteracy. I suspect the active involvement of parents in the process is at least part of the reason for its success, not just the change of teaching methods, however the success documented in this article is a remarkable achievement.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/primaryeducation/story/0,,2122127,00.html
Friday, 22 June 2007
1) What can we expect from Gordon Brown?
Gordon has always taken his annual speeches to the City of London seriously and this year he chose to use the time to introduce his prime-ministership. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6224364.stm There were no real surprises here: the main message was that we can expect continuity with the Blair years. Education featured strongly in his vision, where he appeared to back present policies, including the expansion of the academies program. He re-iterated the commitment to raising the education leaving age to 18, even though this proposal has recently been receiving criticism from, among others, many who will be implementing the change. However, one thing caught my eye, "In future every single secondary school and primary school should have a business partner - and I invite you all to participate". I know Gordon was addressing this to the city folks in his audience, but how about The Brightside Trust becoming a partner with a primary school, once we see what is involved. I assume this proposal is different to sponsoring an academy and would be a lot less demanding. I think we could all learn a lot from the experience and it would ‘ground’ the whole of the charities thinking and work. I don’t have a particular place in mind, but would suggest we try for a school that has a socially disadvantaged population, is firmly attached to a sure start centre and has nursery provision. What do you think?
2) It’s that man again
Frank Field is an unusual MP: he really knows what he is talking about and only talks about what he knows. Last week he launched a report about the progress being made on the government’s pledge to abolish child poverty by 2020 and specially to what extent the welfare to work programs are assisting to achieve this target http://www.reform.co.uk/filestore/pdf/070611%20Welfare%20isn't%20working%20-%20child%20poverty.pdf .
First, a little background information from me: If one looks at the effect of government tax policy over the last 10 years, then I think you can see a consistent strategy of shifting a little money from the middle classes towards getting unemployed parents into work and supporting low earning parents in work. In particular, we have seen the introduction of child tax credits and working tax credits which, as I illustrate below, have generated significant sums of money for some people. However, as has been characteristic of Blair’s general welfare strategy, these payments, or what has been in effect the introduction of negative income tax for some, have been downplayed. I think this is because it was thought it wouldn’t meet with the approval of middle England if they knew the sums involved and who was receiving them. For example, according to Frank Field “In 2006, a lone parent with 2 children under 11, working 16 hours a week on the minimum wage, gained a total net income of £487 a week, largely due to tax credits.” (page 21) I note that this is from a part-time job which, as far as I can see, as the minimum wage is £5.35 per hour would otherwise generate gross earnings of £85.60. I can well believe Frank Field has intentionally chosen this example as one of the system’s ‘big winners’. However for him it illustrates the inequity of the present system as “In order to attain the same weekly income, an equivalent two parent household needed to work 116 hours a week; an extraordinary 100 hours more than the single parent” (page 21)
In this vein and in this detail, Frank Field discusses how the benefits system is both assisting and apparently hindering the government’s attempt to abolish child poverty. Unfortunately, I cannot say, read this report and the working of the welfare system will become clear. I myself am still looking for a ‘welfare benefits for dummies’ type of publication, but I think it significant that no-one came forward to challenge Frank Field on his facts when this report came out.
What I do know is that large sums of money are involved here. I calculate that if the money that has gone into the welfare to work schemes and benefits, had gone instead into income tax cuts, then we could have seen a general 3p in the pound reduction to the basic rate. This will not have escaped the attention of the Conservative party who often speak of sharing the benefits of economic growth between state spending and the tax payer.
First, a little background information from me: If one looks at the effect of government tax policy over the last 10 years, then I think you can see a consistent strategy of shifting a little money from the middle classes towards getting unemployed parents into work and supporting low earning parents in work. In particular, we have seen the introduction of child tax credits and working tax credits which, as I illustrate below, have generated significant sums of money for some people. However, as has been characteristic of Blair’s general welfare strategy, these payments, or what has been in effect the introduction of negative income tax for some, have been downplayed. I think this is because it was thought it wouldn’t meet with the approval of middle England if they knew the sums involved and who was receiving them. For example, according to Frank Field “In 2006, a lone parent with 2 children under 11, working 16 hours a week on the minimum wage, gained a total net income of £487 a week, largely due to tax credits.” (page 21) I note that this is from a part-time job which, as far as I can see, as the minimum wage is £5.35 per hour would otherwise generate gross earnings of £85.60. I can well believe Frank Field has intentionally chosen this example as one of the system’s ‘big winners’. However for him it illustrates the inequity of the present system as “In order to attain the same weekly income, an equivalent two parent household needed to work 116 hours a week; an extraordinary 100 hours more than the single parent” (page 21)
In this vein and in this detail, Frank Field discusses how the benefits system is both assisting and apparently hindering the government’s attempt to abolish child poverty. Unfortunately, I cannot say, read this report and the working of the welfare system will become clear. I myself am still looking for a ‘welfare benefits for dummies’ type of publication, but I think it significant that no-one came forward to challenge Frank Field on his facts when this report came out.
What I do know is that large sums of money are involved here. I calculate that if the money that has gone into the welfare to work schemes and benefits, had gone instead into income tax cuts, then we could have seen a general 3p in the pound reduction to the basic rate. This will not have escaped the attention of the Conservative party who often speak of sharing the benefits of economic growth between state spending and the tax payer.
3) The Magic Roundabout
A recent survey in the Times Education Supplement (TES) showed that ‘four out of five primary schools are abandoning traditional subject teaching and introducing theme based lessons’ http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story/?story_id=2394568 This finding was developed and discussed in 2 further articles in the same issue of the paper http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story/?story_id=2394589 http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story/?story_id=2394568
I find it surprising that despite vicious periodic attacks and a continuous wall of sound and prejudice about what they call progressive education, theme based teaching and learning has continued to thrive (see for example the likes of the Daily Mail, this article by Max Hastings ‘education today is a form of child abuse’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_page_id=1787&in_article_id=461356 ). This is all the more surprising as this opposition has been continuously supported by politicians, beginning with Prime Minister Jim Callaghan in 1979, continuing through the Thatcher years and then through the Major and Blair years.
It has been convenient for opponents of modern teaching methods to counterpoise ‘progressive education’ to ‘rigorous subject based education’. It doesn’t seem to matter that this is a largely pointless debate, as teachers have always done both. In my opinion, allowing this question to dominate educational and schooling discussions has been very misleading and unhelpful. As the TES articles above make clear, teachers are very careful to mix theme development with structured learning in ways that they feel appropriate.
Are we destined to go round and round for ever in a sterile and often puerile debate opposing rigorous teaching to learning by exploration? No matter that anyone who has spent 5 minutes in a classroom knows that these two things go together and that developing enthusiasm is the precursor for engaging children in learning. This is especially so in primary school. What’s more, we need the imaginative combination of both and will only achieve this by giving teachers permission, time and resources to be creative. Unless they are allowed to stimulate a fascination with education in their students then the much vaunted life-long-learning that is said to be essential to the country’s future prosperity will not happen. Remember: the old style school system used to turn most people off education for the rest of their lives.
I find it surprising that despite vicious periodic attacks and a continuous wall of sound and prejudice about what they call progressive education, theme based teaching and learning has continued to thrive (see for example the likes of the Daily Mail, this article by Max Hastings ‘education today is a form of child abuse’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_page_id=1787&in_article_id=461356 ). This is all the more surprising as this opposition has been continuously supported by politicians, beginning with Prime Minister Jim Callaghan in 1979, continuing through the Thatcher years and then through the Major and Blair years.
It has been convenient for opponents of modern teaching methods to counterpoise ‘progressive education’ to ‘rigorous subject based education’. It doesn’t seem to matter that this is a largely pointless debate, as teachers have always done both. In my opinion, allowing this question to dominate educational and schooling discussions has been very misleading and unhelpful. As the TES articles above make clear, teachers are very careful to mix theme development with structured learning in ways that they feel appropriate.
Are we destined to go round and round for ever in a sterile and often puerile debate opposing rigorous teaching to learning by exploration? No matter that anyone who has spent 5 minutes in a classroom knows that these two things go together and that developing enthusiasm is the precursor for engaging children in learning. This is especially so in primary school. What’s more, we need the imaginative combination of both and will only achieve this by giving teachers permission, time and resources to be creative. Unless they are allowed to stimulate a fascination with education in their students then the much vaunted life-long-learning that is said to be essential to the country’s future prosperity will not happen. Remember: the old style school system used to turn most people off education for the rest of their lives.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)