I attended the meeting organised by Compass this week on education. Stephen Twigg, Margaret Tulloch,Ken Spours, Becky Francis, Lisa Nandy MP and Sir Alastair MacDonald were the main speakers.
Whilst there was a good deal of consensus on some key points (if pretty obvious ones) such as the need for a high quality,well-supported teaching force I felt that some issues might well have been skirted round had they not been raised from the floor. For example, the whole question of whether all political parties now accept the virtual demise of LAs was not really addressed until question time.
Above all, I am still left baffled about why an academy sponsor, however highly principled, is superior to an elected council in the supporting/oversight role for schools .
I felt we were expected to sigh with delight at the thought of the co-operative society or the RSA sponsoring schools. As I have a vote for neither body I don't share the enthusiasm and I found the RSA representative rather patronising about LAs.
'I have seen examples of good practice in some local authorities'.
I thought one of the key points made was by the speaker who noted that he knew of no major country
where there was no support authority between the central government and the local school,however small and remote - and yet that is the logic of where the present government policies (perhaps supported by the opposition?) is leading us.
And I have never heard a convincing explanation, as some one who was head of a good and popular school for nearly twenty years , what it was I was missing through not being a grant maintained school or later an academy. (Well,of course, I was missing some money because the conservative governments of both Major and Cameron gave extra funding to the favoured few -at the start at least! )
The other issue which caused a good deal of debate was that of 'narrowing the gap', obviously an avowed
priority of all three major parties. May put some thoughts on this later but as there is no 'save' facility here I'd better post this before my laptop blacks out which is does sometimes.
Comments
We have seen in banking and energy that regulation is essential to maintain systems which look after the little people (you and me). So far we have not got satisfactory regulation in these areas, and whilst we are trying we are putting a lot of people through misery.
When we have Academy Chains fighting for business as they surely will, who will do the regulating? If you have a complaint about an Academy Chain, who will do the listening? If a school within a Chain is not succeeding, who will do the whistle blowing? If you are a teacher in a Chain school who will consider your rights? If you are an “expensive” SEN student in a Chain school, who is going to want you? If you do not have the aptitude as a student to be an EBacc clone, who will welcome you?
Local authorities have no incentive to “cook the educational books”. Academy Chains have “shareholder value” to uphold.
Of course, if you are a member of the government, you likely don’t use the state education system anyway, so marketisation is probably an interesting experiment for you, and it won’t affect your children.
Where is the local accountability of Academy Chains? Will the next “Fred the Shred Goodwin” be coming from the educational sector? Will we realise this too late?
Parents who have a complaint about an academy which is unresolved after going through the academy's complaint procedure have to complain to the Young People's Learning Agency (YPLA) which is to become part of the Education Funding Agency (EFA) in April 2012. They will need to have copies of all correspondence etc. I don't think many parents know that. It used to be so much easier when parents could complain to the local authority. Parents with children in academies will no longer be able to do so.
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/10/gove-is-in-favour-of-profi...
If it is, then I think they are in dangerous territory, because they are letting the right completely define the debate and under cover of criticism of some poor local authorities ( and no mention, as Adrian implies, of the many excellent local authorities there are) ceding the ground to wholesale marketisation and consequent lack of accountability.
I suspect the hunt in post New Labour is for something new. But the right's ideas have been around for thirty years. And if labour folk adopt those ideas as their own new/blue skies thinking, god help us!
First, several speakers seemed to assume that the gaps between richer and poorer children and between higher attaining ethnic groups and others had all widened in recent years whereas my understanding is that the picture is not as simple as that - especially in London where the meeting was being held and most of the speakers based.
Secondly, there seemed to be little understanding of the huge challenges for school in narrowing the gap - I prefer 'gaps' because there a number - rather than simply raising achievement for all groups at roughly the same rate.
For example, my own school was picked out by Ofsted in the late 90s for work we had done on improving boys' achievement . The 'problem' was that the various strategies we employed,which were discussed in an Ofsted report , worked just as well with the girls as the boys and whilst boys results improved so did the girls, at at least the same rate. Of course, it wasn't really a problem at all but the gender gap remained.
What worries me is that whilst these issues are familiar to many, if you read the comments on media websites and elsewhere, it is clear that a lot of people think that the concern about poverty,gender or ethnic gaps in education means that the less successful groups are actually doing worse in real terms not just relatively .
Having read this over it sounds as if I am under-playing the significance of relative educational under-achievement . I am not: simply asking for understanding
of the problem schools have in narrowing the gap between their most vulnerable groups and others whose parents may be better educated,much more motivated and far more savvy about how to help their offspring.
That said, I am fully aware that some schools (and above all many other countries) succeed far better in this than others.
Disadvantaged pupils, however, can defy the odds against them if they have the opportunity to do so. This includes fostering self-confidence and motivation while simultaneously ensuring pupils receive sufficient teaching time and have equal opportunities to learn.**
“Education at a Glance 2011” found that globally the most successful school systems tend to be the most inclusive: they do not segregate children academically or geographically. Yet the government and much of the media ignore this. Instead they promote a “no excuses” mantra which ignores socio-economic background. Mr Gove highlights the excellent results achieved by Mossbourne Academy but neglects to mention that this school has a strict banding procedure which ensures a truly comprehensive intake with 25% of pupils being in the top quartile of ability.*** If all English schools had a similar comprehensive intake then this would benefit all children, advantaged and disadvantaged.
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/09/inclusion-is-the-key-to-su...
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/08/school-intake-governs-acad...
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/07/socio-economic-disadvantag...
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/07/disadvantaged-pupils-do-wo...
*(OECD Viewing the United Kingdom Schools System through the prism of PISA, 2010 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/8/46624007.pdf )
** PISA in Focus 5 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/26/48165173.pdf
*** http://www.learningtrust.co.uk/MobilewebApp/Schools/Secondary_schools/mo...
If you're looking for reassurance that you are entirely sane and they are bonkers, please accept this virtual bucketload I am sending you now.
Rebecca :-)
Add new comment