Changing the present system means understanding how we got to where we are and not starting from a blank sheet.

David Pavett's picture
 56
I am concerned at what seems to me to be the paucity of informed and intelligent discussion of education by people who want to see state education act as a means of transforming and enhancing the lives of everyone who experiences it.

The Conservatives have a simple and clear philosophy: education is about shopping around to get the best for your children. All their reforms have the aim of supporting that objective. In other words they see education in individualistic terms and not as a social enterprise in which we are all committed to do the best for all our children.

This simplistic philosophy has direct appeal in the absence of a coherent and forcefully argued for alternative. Unfortunately such an alternative is not supplied by either the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats who tend to move within the slipstreams produced by the Conservatives ideological positions and practical reforms.
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook
Category: 

Be notified by email of each new post.





Comments

Jake's picture
Fri, 28/10/2011 - 18:49

Did you post the correct link to the book? The summary of the book says that "the state system of education was superimposed upon successful private efforts, thereby suppressing an emerging and increasingly robust structure of private, voluntary, and competitive education funded by families, churches, and philanthropies". That pretty much sums up part of what Gove is trying to do - encourage school freedom and autonomy through the academy model and reducing local state control. Or is the book not in fact supporting that view? That aside I am less clear why you consider the likes of Finland, Canada and all the other established economies above the UK in PISA as 'emerging'? I am further puzzled as to why you dismiss the global research conducted by OECD and McKinsey detailed in the Economist article as being 'without relevant experience' but you have no issues with linking to what appears to be your own maths related blog as offering 'insight'. Do you consider that to be objective?


Rebecca Hanson's picture
Fri, 28/10/2011 - 19:53

The summary of the book says that “the state system of education was superimposed upon successful private efforts, thereby suppressing an emerging and increasingly robust structure of private, voluntary, and competitive education funded by families, churches, and philanthropies”".
The bit of the book you refer to, Jake, describes the UK in Victorian times which is that last time the authors consider the kind of thinking Gove has employed as being relevant (i.e. when there was not yet universal education).

I don't consider Finland, Canada or the other established economise to be 'emerging'. Where did I say that? Are you trying to suggest that they have applied what Gove is suggesting with great success? If so let me guess why you think that - because Gove said so? Must be true then (*giggles and suggests you might want to spend a few minutes researching the reality on the internet*).

I consider the article in the Economist to be interesting but am concerned about Gove's lack of insight into the huge steps which need to be taken beyond identifying countries we may be able to learn things from in order for a positive difference to be made to UK education (namely working out what it is teachers on the ground are doing differently, working out how those techniques could be applied to UK education and disseminating new practices to teachers).

Do I consider what to be objective? I don't consider any perspective to be fully objective and am always open to adjusting my view if provided with new relevant information.

Janet Downs's picture
Fri, 28/10/2011 - 15:44

On the contrary, Jake, the article was a thoughtful read. It was encouraging to learn that Poland “used its new freedom to dismantle a centralised system which had channelled roughly half its pupils into an academic education and the rest, as factory-fodder, into less well-appointed vocational schools,” and that Saxony, Berlin and Hamburg abolished the low-performing Hauptschulen (secondary moderns). And “the best Chinese schools have also modified their obsession with high-fliers to ensure that they address the “long tail” of underachievement...”

You mentioned the importance of a "focus on underachieving pupils". I agree that this is absolutely essential. The Government would do well to read OECD advice about how to produce "resilient" students (see link below to previous LSN discussion).

The article contained a warning: “Introducing new types of schools, however, is no guarantee of better outcomes. Sweden, admired by Mr Gove for its independent, non-selective, state-funded Free Schools, has had a sticky period in international rankings… Sceptics of America’s fairly new experiment of this kind, privately funded charter schools, think that politicians are “too invested” in them to close them if they fail.”

The article quite rightly stressed the importance of teacher quality. Mr Gove appears to support this by praising Finland for encouraging the best graduates to become teachers. However, he undermines his position by allowing free schools to employ untrained teachers. And he demeans teaching by describing it as a “craft” which can be learnt solely on-the-job. If he truly admired the Fins he would insist on teachers gaining a degree in teaching methods as well as subject knowledge.

It was a pity that the article brushed aside concerns about the effect of disadvantage on pupils’ attainment. This has been aired thoroughly on this site - see link below for one such thread.

And as for autonomy – Mr Gove pays lip-service to this but in reality the Education Bill gives the Secretary of State for Education unprecedented powers – it even tells teachers how to teach. And the inclusion of the Ebac in performance league tables means that most secondary schools will stick to it. So much for his "handing power back to schools".

Thanks again for drawing our attention to this article.

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/07/socio-economic-disadvantag...

Jake's picture
Fri, 28/10/2011 - 19:01

Janet, I was at pains to stress in my original post above that personally I did not think Gove has everything right at this stage - the employment of untrained teachers being one such example (which is wholly counter intuitive to my mind). I also think the Ebac is a blunt instrument but it is on the right lines. But also as I said above in my opinion his strategic reforms are in the right direction based on best parctice from around the globe - learning from systems that work and hopefully will therefore have real and beneficial impact on what goes in the classroom.


Allan Beavis's picture
Sun, 30/10/2011 - 18:44

Jake –

Thanks for posting the article, which was most informative. Of course, The Economist‘s economic liberalism leads them to advocate “schools free of government control,” – no surprise there – and high standards for teachers, which, superficially, Is an ingredient all parents want in a good school.

As other people have already mentioned here, the problem is that Michael Gove has tightened his grip on centralising control by pretending, with some sleight of hand, that he is handing back control to schools and has actually discouraged teachers by introducing punitive measures into schools that are deemed to be failing according to how well they do in league tables. This does not inspire confidence in teachers, when their jobs are now available to unqualified teachers, when their concerns about education “reform” have been ignored by the Secretary of State for Education and when they see him attempting to turn parents against teachers by encouraging them into schools to take classes during the one day pension strike a few months ago.

The Economist makes some great suggestions but of all the models he could have chosen, Michael Gove has chosen the US Charter School model. There have been many posts about this programme on Local Schools Network, but here is a summary of them:-

•There are some good charter schools. Many bad ones.
•The introduction of charter schools in school districts have not raised standards amongst public schools in the same neighbourhood (and this is not to assume they were bad to begin with)
•The claims that New York City Charters have dramatically closed the achievement gap between rich and poor has been revealed to be based on unreliable and conflated research
•Too many charter schools that have failed their pupils are being sued by the school board or the state for putting profit above education
•Too many charter schools are under investigation for cheating in tests, as heads and teachers come under considerable pressure to deliver results
•A number of charter schools – including HCZ – have prevented lower ability children from taking exams, thus creating an entirely false snapshot of the school
•Charter schools have demonstrably failed to find the formula which breaks the poverty-low attainment cycle in America’s poorest regions
•The Charter programme in the US has cost billions of dollars in federal, state and philanthropic funds with no improvement in the US’ global standing in PISA.
•The Charter programme is supported and funded by a political and philanthropic cabal whose financial interests and intervention has shaped and dictated US schools policies, which have not achieved anywhere near the success its supporters claim.
•Teacher burn-out in Charters is high, thanks to pressure to hit targets, long hours and punitive measures that include cutting teachers’ pay or rewarding teachers’ pay depending on test outcomes (hence, the cheating scandal, including on centred on DC’s schools chief Michelle Rhee)

And what example has Gove not taken up, not even in part?

Well, the Finnish model for one, where teachers are not punished, where they are revered, highly trained to teach children of all abilities, where there is no selection, little need for free market “choice” because their egalitarian system ensures every neighbourhood has an outstanding school truly free of state meddling and the teachers are trusted to adapt the curriculum and teaching methods to suit the mix of abilities in the children of their community.

He also ignores the example of Singapore, whose schools reflect ethnic diversity, a commitment to equality, no selection. Even communist China is beginning to relax its centuries old focus on intensive learning by rote, broadening the curriculum and acknowledging that true education has to be creative and less focused on exam results and attainment certificates. In China, post-Cultural Revolution, teachers are once again held in the highest esteem.

China, Finland, Singapore - all these nations have invested huge amounts of money into education. There is still some argument as to whether billions guarantee success. Well in some countries, they have. In others, like America, they haven’t, yet this is the failed model that Gove is closely following.

Oh. And the education budget here is not even being increased. But cut. By 60%.

Janet Downs's picture
Sat, 29/10/2011 - 12:32

Jake - you identified 4 important themes: "decentralisation (handing power back to schools); a focus on underachieving pupils; a choice of different sorts of schools; and high standards for teachers" And you say that these 4 pillars underpin Gove’s own reforms. I'll consider each in turn (forgive me if I'm repeating comments from above posts):

1 Decentralisation: (a) Gove makes great play of "freeing" schools from local authority (LA) control when in reality LAs have had little control over schools since Local Management of Schools was introduced. LA influence is limited to such things as admissions and legal/administrative support. . (b) Far from freeing schools from bureaucracy, academies and free schools have to cope with legal and administrative burdens that are provided by local authorities to maintained schools. (c) The Education Bill (as noted above) gives the Secretary of State for Education unprecendented powers, even to the extent of telling teachers how to teach. He is imposing the EBac, although he says it's voluntary and schools are still free to choose subjects which are in the best interests of the students. But as the EBac measure will be included in league tables it is inevitable that schools will teach these subjects. He also changes his mind - last year he dumped carefully-laid plans to introduce foreign languages into English primary schools, a few weeks ago he decided this was a good idea.

2 A focus on underachieving pupils. This is addressed in the link above to one of the many LSN discussions on this subject. However, since I wrote the post above, the TES reported how a pilot project on how to tackle in-school variation in pupil achievement had its funding stopped last year. At the same time, there is an excessive emphasis on exam grades which are used for school league tables. This could risk schools ignoring their weaker students (and, indeed, their high fliers) to concentrate on the D/C borderline pupils.

3 A choice on different kinds of schools. OECD research has found that the evidence linking educational outcomes with school choice is mixed. Some high-performing countries, like Finland and New Zealand, have little school choice. And the article to which you referred pointed out that providing different types of schools is not a magic wand - it cites the experience of Sweden and the US.

4 High standards for teachers. As I mentioned above, Mr Gove pays lip-service to this factor but undermines his words by allowing unqualified teachers to be employed in free schools. Neither does he pay attention to the fact that the Finnish teachers he praises so highly are required to have a degree in educational practice as well as subject knowledge. And Mr Gove ignores the professionals: the Social Partnership, the formal structure that saw education unions (except the NUT and, intermittently, the NAHT) meeting with DfE officials weekly to discuss educational policy, was scrapped and replaced with "a very loose arrangement called the Education Partnership". Chris Keates, NASUWT general secretary, wrote to Mr Gove in July saying that the Education Partnership was "nothing more than an event at which the DfE profiles and presents its policies, listens politely to views and then, regardless of the comments made, does what it originally intended." (TES 28 October 2011, print version only). Although Mr Gove is willing to meet union representatives (they almost universally describe him as "charming"), but believe that what they contribute is largely ignored (TES 28 October 2011, print version only). Finally, in constantly praising academy staff and free school "pioneers", Mr Gove is belittling the work of teachers in the 20,000+ English schools that are not academies or free schools.

Pages

Add new comment

Already a member? Click here to log in before you comment. Or register with us.