Some weeks ago I was asked to write an article for the
House Magazine (the in-house magazine for the Houses of Parliament) on the
Coalition Agreement proposals for schools. Unfortunately the magazine is not available online so I am re-posting the article, which appeared last week, below.
The most striking feature of the Coalition Agreement on schools, two and a half years on, is not what has or hasn’t been achieved but what wasn’t included in the first place.
The document’s most high profile policy proposals - the establishment of free schools and a pupil premium for disadvantaged pupils – have been relatively low impact.
Fewer than 80 new schools have opened and many prospective founders are reporting difficulties with both the process and finding sites. The existing free schools appear to serve less disadvantaged intakes than are typical of their local communities so are unlikely to contribute significantly to the Coalition’s overarching aim of narrowing the gaps in educational inequality.
For schools that do have high numbers of pupils eligible for free school meals, the pupil premium is an undoubted bonus. But according to Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw, the money is not yet being spent strategically enough and is in some cases being used, as he put it, to tarmac the playground or fix the roof.
Meanwhile the policies that have made, and are likely to continue to make, a widespread and sustained impact on our education system were not mentioned in the Agreement at all.
Around half of England’s secondary schools are now independent academies contracted to central government. Many converted rapidly under powers given in an Academies Act that wasn’t included in the Coalition Agreement but was rushed through Parliament in its immediate aftermath.
The extra cash these schools were promised has cost the DFE £1bn more than expected according to the National Audit Office. Hundreds of primaries are now being forced down the academy path, raising the spectre of thousands of schools being answerable directly to the Secretary of State.
Data from the DFE and Ofsted suggests that the performance of academies is no better than that of similar schools in the maintained sector, but who will step in if those independent schools start to fail? Even the Labour Party, which introduced the idea of academies, is now consulting on what sort of ‘middle tier’ should replace now weakened and under resourced local authorities.
The current proposed reforms of the curriculum and secondary school qualifications, towards a narrow range of core academic subjects, were also absent from the Coalition Agreement and are proving controversial with heads from the private, maintained and academy sectors, as well as with the CBI and the creative industries.
The government’s own regulatory body, Ofqual, has suggested change is taking place too quickly, leading to the suspicion that reform is being dictated by the political timetable, and the date of the next election, rather than what is best for schools and pupils
The Liberal Democrat election manifesto promised independent state schools accountable to local not central government and the removal of political interference from the day to day running of schools .The Tories didn’t win an overall majority. The Coalition Agreement has proved to be an incomplete road map for this Parliament and it could easily be argued that the Coalition government lacks a democratic mandate for much of what is now taking place.
Comments
I can't square the argument about free schools. One day it's going to be McSchools then the next we hear they are a cottage industry - which suggests to me they are being created at a sustainable rate.
I'd love to see less party politics in schools, let's face it if more LAs were effective national government wouldn't get involved. That's the big question for me and I don't see how Labour would fix that - they would have to reverse their in academy program.
The free schools are a cottage industry, the academy conversions(not flagged up in the Coalition Agreement) are not and it is the academy conversions that will provide the route in for the profit making companies. Hope that squares the argument for you.
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/09/clegg-claims-hes-stopped-f...
.
If the Coalition had acted on its promise to allow ALL schools freedom from the NC it would have:
1 Not restricted this freedom to those schools which become academies.
2 Not wasted time and money on changing the NC. The proposed primary NC is excessively prescriptive and threatens to ditch the “liberal, humane values of primary education” in favour of a “soulless bottom line of the politician” (see second link).
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2012/03/we-did-it-for-the-money-su...
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2012/11/passionate-plea-from-ex-hm...
One thing to bear in mind is that anything that someone does well is usually easily copiable but you can't copy loving children, in the sense that this has to be in the nature of a person. That's a piece of language which seems to be missing from all political discussion and policy. Where does this occur in any discourse? Church schools are the only place I could name anecdotally but I am sure there are others. An interesting idea as to what makes good teachers because I'm sure it isn't either of big business or big government.
You are right o say it has been driven out of political discourse but what is the answer. I believe that actually talking to practitioners and getting a handle on their motivations, purpose, philosophy and aims would be starting point.
Governments for the last 25 years have attempted to drive a wedge between teachers and the public, the media have played along with this very well.
The trouble is mechanistic catch phrases and permeated all levels of the job. I remember in a feedback for an unsuccessful job interview being told that I gave the wrong answer to the question: "What motivates you to be teacher". The correct answer I found was " I am passionate about raising standards".
BTW the sorry about the typos, pressed submit too early!
Welcome to the site - agree with you totally about the propaganda re teachers. According to media we are left-wing trendy trots (try saying that after a couple of drinks) who sit pupils in circles and encourage them to "emote" instead of teaching them to read, rite and do rithmetic.
Have a good Christmas.
I enjoy this site very much and also indulge in the mildly masochistic pastime of punting views on DT pages in answer to the agenda set there.
Enjoy your christmas
I found an authentic way to live outside of this game. I think its more common to lie to oneself in the state sector but not clear cut.
Gove is to my mind creating a system which will break state power over teaching which is a part of the unhappy status quo. But it is not perfect and will require a new consensus which our teachers and society are not ready for.
Similarly people working within a system where their fundamental values are challenged can, as you put it end, up lying to themselves, again such internal conflicts are not the sole preserve of the public sector.
"a new consensus which our teachers and society are not ready for."
I disagree with you Ben. It is all too easy, though tempting to give up on people's capacity for reflection and acceptance of different ideas.
I think teachers are more than ready for a new consensus andI find that when you take the time and trouble to explain to people the realities of the job, the impact of intake upon outcomes and that I really did not work a 30 hour week they will listen and probably are ready too. The same goes for "plummeting down international league tables" and "17 teachers sacked in 40 years". People given time and respect can listen and dig below misleading soundbites. There really no need to be pessimistic, just consistent, honest non-partisan and respectful.
State power or any institutional power over any profession lies in the language it uses and the quality of the debate it and its supporters hold with and about that profession. Dialogue that is constructive and inclusive empowers, dialogue that is aggressive and dishonest oppresses.
It is the quality of argument, the integrity of the use of data and the willingness to persuade rather than abuse those who see things differently that give the best indication as to whether policy makers have autonomy and respect for professionals at the heart of their initiatives.
In that respect I see little in Mr.Gove that distinguishes him from his predecessors.
Well said Sir.
It's also becomes depressingly clear if you are rash enough to join the the official Facebook group "LIberal Democrats". The group has several well-informed "young-gun" moderators delivering erudite explanations of economic and health policies and the threads can be enjoyable. However if you introduce an education issue all the lib dem champions fall back with the exception of a couple of narcissists intent whose only information on the nation's schools is what they have absorbed from the Daily mail. Unfortunately they don't allow the lack of knowledge deter them from defending lib dem policies ( or lack of them to the hilt)
Rosie - unfortunately it seems that the willingness of some politicians and certain sections of the media to speak about education exceeds even the bounds of their ignorance. At the same time, their prejudice is infinite.
Add new comment