Who and what is in the middle tier?

Fiona Millar & Henry Stewart's picture
 171
Debate the election issues with LSN

With the local and European polls out of the way, the way is clear now for 11 months of electioneering and policy wrangling until the General Election next May.

The recent “Trojan Horse” story has raised a number of questions about the way schools and governors are currently held to account locally and nationally. Michael Gove has appointed regional schools commissioners to manage academies and free schools but has little to say about the future local authority role, which is still (in legal terms) substantial and includes provision of school places, admissions, the requirement to intervene in schools causing concern and to provide for children with SEN.

Ofsted has also appointed regional directors and last month a Labour Party review into the local authority role, carried out by former Education Secretary David Blunkett, proposed the creation of a new Independent Director of School Standards , possibly to work across local authority boundaries, brokering collaboration, commissioning school places and holding schools to account.

The LSN founders, and contributors, don’t always agree on the fine points of these policy proposals so decided to start a debate about the whole question of “local oversight” here…

FIONA MILLAR: "Overall I think the Blunkett proposals are an inevitable tentative first step to resolving the chaos that Michael Gove will leave behind. As I explained in my Guardian Education column last month Gove will leave such a mess behind him that a clean solution will be hard to devise overnight. To understand the extent of the fragmentation and atomisation read the article by David Wolfe QC in the Education Law Journal last year. In it the London barrister spells out the legal minefield created by thousands of schools accountable only to the DFE via a multitude of subtly different funding agreements, depending on how and when each school was established.

That a new order must arise from this chaos seems to me inevitable, preferably one that creates strong, collaborative local systems that embrace ALL schools, whether free, maintained or academy. Given that so many schools now lie outside the LA framework, it may be necessary to create a new all encompassing layer".

HENRY STEWART:"Surely the simplest response would be to make all state schools – whatever their structure – accountable to the local authority? If it wasn’t for that strong Westminster prejudice against local government, that would surely be the proposal.

The distrust of national politicians for local government is a peculiarly British disease, in probably the most centralised system of government in the developed world, and one which has caused considerable damage to our society.The chaos over school places is a direct result of Michael Gove’s refusal to let councils plan and build new schools to meet the local need.

And his intense distrust of local authorities (which he apparently sees as part of his much disdained “blob”) means that now almost any group can put together a business plan to run chains of academies. The fact many have precious little educational experience seems to have been an advantage in his book.

I have described elsewhere the result of this. Of 151 local authorities only two (1.3%) have an average GCSE benchmark, without equivalents, of 35% or below. Of the seven largest chains, four of them (57%) have an average GCSE benchmark of 35% or below.

Compare those two statistics. What this means is that the personal ideological dislike of the Secretary of State for local educational authorities has led directly – in the schools in these under-performing chains – to lower achievement for thousands of our young people."

FIONA MILLAR: "I can understand the reaction of people who are disappointed that councils can’t take over all these functions again. I have sympathy with that view. Some local authorities have successfully nurtured and maintained their families of schools against the tide of national policy, and done so more effectively than many academy chains. We shouldn’t forget that.

But in other parts of the country local authorities haven’t been as successful as the ones you and I are involved with and in many areas the infrastructure is disintegrating; local authorities either don’t want, or haven’t got the capacity, to do what is needed

The Blunkett proposal for a new director post, appointed by one or more local authorities and responsible for intervention and brokering collaboration, possibly across borough boundaries as in the case of the hugely successful London Challenge, is more sensible than Gove’s regional commissioners who are only responsible for academies and free schools, or the idea of Ofsted running both an inspectorate and a school improvement service."

HENRY STEWART: "I can understand the reason behind Blunkett’s proposal. It is likely that if he had recommended a greater role for local authorities, his report would have been sidelined by national politicians with a deep distrust of the local, enhanced in Hunt’s case by the apparent poor performance of his constituency Stoke-on-Trent’s Council (though he did say in his Sunday Times interview of 25th May that it was improving).

The original academies programme too was a response to a perceived failure of local government or, arguably, to the failure of one council, Hackney. Key Labour educational players (Tony Blair, Andrew Adonis, Michael Barber and Charles Clarke) were involved in the politics of Hackney Council in the 80s and 90s. I have heard a description of how they would sit on the Downing Street sofa, scoffing at the absurdities of Hackney schools and determining a way of avoiding council involvement.

I was a governor in Hackney then and I do agree that the system was dysfunctional and letting down local children. At roughly this time Estelle Morris intervened to create the Learning Trust (an arms-length not-for-profit organization), under whose co-ordination Hackney’s education was transformed and is now arguably among the best in the country. It is true that the majority of Hackney secondaries are academies, most of which are newly built. However the local authority ensured there were no chains involved, that all schools were committed to working together and that admissions were co-ordinated by the local authority. And the transformation in primary schools in Hackney have taken place, up to this year, with no academy involvement.

But the important thing to note is the fundamentally different approach. Adonis and Blair invented a new type of school to get over the problems they had experienced in one council, which has led to the chaotic system that Blunkett so accurately describes. Estelle Morris provided a solution that fixed the problems in that local education authority and laid the basis for over a decade of improvement there.

You may be right, Fiona, that the educational capabilities of many local authorities have disintegrated over the last four years. But many are still performing strongly. You have yourself powerfully described the transformation enabled by Tower Hamlets Council in one of the most deprived areas in the country.

This is the decision that Tristram Hunt faces: Does he create a new and entirely unproven education layer or does he recognize the decades of experience and the large number of high-performing local authorities, and seek to sort out those that are under-performing."

FIONA MILLAR: "Unfortunately in politics it is always easier to go forward and create something new than it is to re-create the past so I think whatever our personal preferences, the pragmatic approach is to accept that , should Labour win the next election or even be the biggest party, there will be some sort of new model of local accountability ,involving central and local government together, which is effectively what the Learning Trust was in its day.

I suppose you could argue for a tailored approach applicable to the authorities which are seriously under performing, but I am more attracted by the idea of a systematic approach to this issue across the country so that children, regardless of the type of school they are in, or the area in which they live, can expect the same high standard of accountability.

I also don’t think we should overlook Blunkett’s other proposals that every school should be put on the same legal footing in terms of curriculum, admissions and so on. Under the Labour plan schools will actually be built where they are needed, rather than where they are not. Open competitions will be run by the IDSS to choose who should run them with no presumption that any one “type “ of school or provider is best. For the first time in almost a decade new schools won’t have to be academies. I consider this a huge sea change.

And I like the idea of commissioning places across borough boundaries. In an area like London, where a combination of parent choice and very small local authorities mean that children are frequently educated in different local authority areas to those in which they live, a regional approach to need and demand would be more efficient and effective."

HENRY STEWART: "Should one never re-create the past? A majority in opinion polls call for the railways to come back under public ownership and I certainly hope Labour will fulfill its promise to get rid of the bedroom tax.

There are many differences between the Learning Trust and the proposed DSS. The Learning Trust just worked in one local authority but took on the full responsibilities of a local education authority, and still fitted within local accountability.

In contrast the DSS proposal surely creates far more questions than it answers. It has been described to me, by a local government expert, as “the most muddled proposal I have ever seen”. Which powers and responsibilities lie with whom are unclear, as is who the DSS will be accountable to.

On the one hand the report suggests an increase in LEA powers, with all school funding coming through the local authority. On the other hand it is the DSS and not the LEA that will intervene and challenge when a school is perceived to be under-performing and in proposing that all schools join a federation seems to suggest that this is the body which provides the support and challenge that schools need.

Blunkett provides an accurate analysis of the problem our schools face, of an atomised system with schools working under hundreds of different funding agreements. He gives the example of a local authority that knows one of the academies in its area is under-performing but has no power over it and cannot get the DfE to take any action, which is a common problem in the current situation. And many of his proposals are good, giving all schools the same freedoms."

FIONA MILLAR: "I don’t think you can equate repealing the bedroom tax to rolling back the years to the early 90s, which was really when this experiment with independent state schools started. The fundamental problem remains that there are now thousands of schools contracted directly to the Secretary of State so it is impossible to just wave a magic wand and give them back to the local authority, as I explained here..

But you are right. There are still too many unanswered questions. Labour must explain clearly how the local authority and the independent directorate will relate to each other, how the statutory duties will be divided up and to go back to David Wolfe’s original piece, how will the jungle of different rules governing each academy and free school be streamlined and what legislation will be necessary to ensure all this happens seamlessly?

Parents probably don’t think much about who actually ensures the smooth operation of their local schools. But they do care when things go wrong, they care when they can’t get a place for their child, when they are not listened to and when they can’t get quick and easy redress. That is what these proposals are about.

One of the reasons some of us opposed the Labour academy model from the start was the fear of how schools, run directly by contract with the Secretary of State, might be used in the hands of a different party. Depending on who wins the General Election, there may be worse to come, which is probably why these proposals haven’t drawn forth any serious challenge. Everyone knows deep down that something must be done. The Blunkett review may just be a tentative first step, but it is an essential one."

HENRY STEWART:"Let’s face reality. Local authorities are always going to be part of the solution. The DSS appears to be little more than a one-person quango. It can alert people to problems in individual schools but it will not be the source of support and school improvement. Those will either be provided by a similar chaotic range of hundreds or thousands of chains, federations and others as at present or it will be provided by the 151 local education authorities – with a focus on making sure they are all effective.

You are right to conclude with the needs of parents. Where do they go when things go wrong? They don’t go to the DFE and I’m not sure they will go to the new DSS. They overwhelmingly go to their council and (even if they didn’t bother to vote) to their local councillor. Call me old-fashioned but that good old democratic accountability is something to support and enhance, not disregard in a new combination of centralisation and atomisation."

 

 

 

 
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook

Be notified by email of each new post.





Comments

Fiona Millar's picture
Sun, 15/06/2014 - 15:05

Probably because the coalition proposal only covers academies and free schools and we are concerned with a solution that brings all schools into the same system.


Janet Downs's picture
Mon, 16/06/2014 - 08:27

Andy - the soon-to-be elected Headteacher Boards comprise only headteachers of academies. Academies are still a minority subgroup of schools overall although they now dominate the secondary sector.

As Fiona says, we're looking for a solution which will bring all schools together under one supervisory layer.

Andy V's picture
Mon, 16/06/2014 - 09:52

With respect that is not what the headline title of the thread indicates.

So rather than keep an open mind and explore the wider scenario for what you calling the 'Middle tier' you are explicitly stating that there can only be a single homogeneous tier, which leads to a return to L(E)As whether with a remodelled or refocused structure or simply the status quo prior to Blair and Brown, and latterly the coalition government?

Janet Downs's picture
Mon, 16/06/2014 - 08:32

The Local Government Association has announced it wants to "restore school intervention powers to councils to bring stability". The press release says:

"Recent polling for the LGA by Populus shows 76 per cent of people trust their local councillor most to make decisions about how services are provided in their area. Nine per cent of people trust their MP most and six per cent trust government ministers to make these decisions."

and

"Nine in 10 people (89 per cent) in England believe the power to build and maintain new schools should be returned to councils (TNS, March-April 2014)".


Phil Taylor's picture
Mon, 16/06/2014 - 09:58

Well, that's not really a surprise, is it? Some people seem to live in a parallel universe where the public share the views of policy wonks and the media. In our universe there is a massive disconnect which is often ignored.

Thanks are due to the LGA I reckon.

Andy V's picture
Mon, 16/06/2014 - 10:00

And as every with the statistics quoted - polling and surveys are kindred members of the statistical fraternity - what was the sample size by LGA and participants?

If 100% of LAs participated with all 18+ citizens invited to respond by each LA and there was a consistently high return within each LA then there might be a deal of credence but if it was the usual apathetic picture (e.g. MEP, Local and General election level) then the statistics carry rather less impact.

agov's picture
Mon, 16/06/2014 - 12:03

Perhaps it might be best if news of this LGA proposal is kept from Ed, Tristram, or any of the other academy supporters constituting the NuLab gang.

The notion of such dangerous radicalism might cause them to suffer medical harm. Like as if it's bombing the Black Forest or something.

Phil Taylor's picture
Mon, 16/06/2014 - 10:34

This is what the politicians always say! Until a poll comes along that they like. The poll was conducted a respectable polling organisation, Populus. Your second paragraph is very odd. You don't appear to understand the principles of polling, which is now much more accurate than it once was, by the way.

At least this is some evidence of the public view and should carry more weight than the unsubstantiated assertions we can find in this discussion.

Andy V's picture
Mon, 16/06/2014 - 10:46

There is no indication given as to how many:

1. LAs took part in the survey
2. How many citizens within each participating LA took part in the survey

A patchwork response is not representative. The %age of LAs taking part and %age of people surveyed in each LA is entirely relevant.

I postulated that just as a low electoral turn out does not offer substantive outcomes so too a low survey response is equally questionable in making a case.

Thus the LGA data reprinted here appears to present high impact outcomes but if it subsequently transpires that the data is based on low polling participation then the results become questionable.

Andy V's picture
Mon, 16/06/2014 - 12:08

PS For the record I am no politician (or ever want to be)


Janet Downs's picture
Mon, 16/06/2014 - 13:46

Andy - the Populus poll surveyed 1,008 British adults aged 18+. The TNS poll surveyed 1,688 adults analysed by region, age, gender, ethnicity and socio-economic status.

For more details of Populus see here

For details of TNS see here.

Andy V's picture
Mon, 16/06/2014 - 15:40

Janet, Many thanks for that insight. I've gone to the LGA press officer and asked if they will let me a full copy of the Populus poll.

First impression is that 1008 is a tad short of being meaningfully representative - particularly if it was spread across all or several LAs.

Janet Downs's picture
Mon, 16/06/2014 - 16:05

Andy - 1000 may seem small but You Gov polls usually survey that number of pollsters. Apparently, you can get quite a reliable result about opinions in England from such a sample size. I can't find where I read that now. I really think I ought to read my Statistics for Dummies which has been gathering dust on my shelf for over a year now.


Phil Taylor's picture
Mon, 16/06/2014 - 16:28

Andy, Janet is right - I think you'll find that 1000 is a very normal sample size, even when Polling Organisations are dealing with every constituency (i.e. many more than the number of LAs responsible for education). They know how to make the sample representative. This is their business. This is what people pay them to do. They get it right because they'd go out of business if they didn't.


Andy V's picture
Tue, 17/06/2014 - 17:07

Janet/Phil, The conclusion I reach is that I am no lover of political statistics / data and do not trust polls / surveys based on the normative 1-2000 sample sizes but you both are and that's the long and short of it.


Phil Taylor's picture
Tue, 17/06/2014 - 07:54

There's an excellent article by Tim Brighouse in the Guardian today. For those who haven't already seen it, many of the issues discussed here are dealt with, as well as other important issues, like religious assemblies, that haven't been mentioned here. Brighouse, of course, knows a lot about Birmingham, and about education. He also led the London Challenge. He should be listened to, but I don't suppose he will be.

As he says: 'If we want to avoid future scandals, some form of local democratic accountability for all schools, separate from governors, is urgently needed. The locally elected authority, if properly resourced, is the obvious existing vehicle for doing that.'

Here's the link:
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/17/trojan-horse-affair-fiv...

Brian's picture
Tue, 17/06/2014 - 19:08

Thanks for that link, Phil. As always Tim Brighouse says it all so clearly and succinctly. A great article.


Roger Titcombe's picture
Sat, 21/06/2014 - 10:57

Tim Brighouse supports my idea of a compulsory, comparative, fact based, National Curriculum RE syllabus for every school. It would be very easy for Ofsted to regulate this by asking pupils and teachers for their lesson notes and records and asking them how and what has been taught. The faith school issue is difficult for the UK for historical reasons, so I think regulation is wiser than abolition. Ofsted would however need to be committed. There are many Christian and Muslim faith schools that pay lip service to the teaching of evolution by mentioning it as a 'false theory' opposed to the message from God. This sort of nonsense needs to result in 'inadequate' Ofsted judgements as well. Ofsted has a very poor record here in respect of evangelical Christian Academies.

However what is clear is that the public are well ahead of our educationalist sensitivities on the issue of faith schools. See here.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2014/06/pm-reaffirms-britain-is-a-chri...

Andy V's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 15:41

"Tim Brighouse supports my idea of a compulsory," did you really mean to suggest that Sir Tim Brighouse plagarised you idea or that the original 1988 national curriculum was your idea all along?


"There are many Christian and Muslim faith schools that pay lip service to the teaching of evolution by mentioning it as a ‘false theory’ opposed to the message from God", and evidence to support this claim.

"This sort of nonsense needs to result in ‘inadequate’ Ofsted judgements as well. Ofsted has a very poor record here in respect of evangelical Christian Academies." Are you really suggesting that a school complying with the statutory requirements relating to the teaching of Science, which also taught in RE that different world religions held a different opinion should be graded 4 "Inadequate". Quite a draconian point of view, which I am confidence would breach the UN Charter of Human Rights, the EU Human Rights Directive and British sensibilities for those who support the democratic right to opposing views and debate. What you are clearly suggesting is that all schools of all types must teach the approved Science curriculum (which they should be doing anyway) and that if any other subject are covered a differing point of view then the school should be in special measures. What irrational illogical totalitarian nonsense.

"Ofsted has a very poor record here in respect of evangelical Christian Academies", any evidence to substantiate is allegation? I seem to recall that a group wanting to open a free school that taught creationism / intelligent design incurred the ire of one Michael Gove who changed the legal requirement to ensure that the accepted traditional Scientific theories were taught as fact and that other views could only be covered in non-core subjects (e.g. RE), and it is this that Ofsted work with. Personally I don't perceive that to be a "poor record".

Roger Titcombe's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 18:06

There is a distinction between what is true and what is religious tradition. Pupils should be taught both, for all the mainstream religions. Biological evolution and its timeline (for example) is categorically true. It is indelibly written into the collective genome and matching geology of the living planet Earth.

Of course teachers in schools should be prohibited from telling their pupils that what they are (or should be) taught in science lessons is not true. There is nothing totalitarian about that - the opposite is the case. Totalitarianism is deliberately preventing children being taught truths and telling them lies instead.

Of course adults are entitled to freedom of religion. They have the right and indeed the obligation to make their own minds up about what they choose to believe. It is perfectly reasonable for adults to bring their children up so as to respect the faith and religious practices of their parents. It is not reasonable to deny them, directly or indirectly, access to scientific facts, or to frighten them them with threats of divine or earthly retribution for apostasy. That is abuse.

I fear we are once again straying into territory where you tend to get offended.

Andy V's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 20:44

"There is a distinction between what is true and what is religious tradition." Well there's a thesis in and of itself, what is truth?

As things stand, pupils are already taught both. That is to say, the truth through what Science beliefs and the truth through what different religions consider to be truth. Thereafter pupils come to their own conclusion. Unless you are really suggesting that they should be indoctrinated by Science alone?

"Biological evolution and its timeline (for example) is categorically true. It is indelibly written into the collective genome and matching geology of the living planet Earth." Gosh an advocate of Kant's Categorical Imperative. I think not. Science, rightly changes its position as new information comes to light. I put it to you that for something/anything to be "categorically true" it - that truth - cannot change but research moves things forward and positions/Scientific teaching changes.

"Of course teachers in schools should be prohibited from telling their pupils that what they are (or should be) taught in science lessons is not true. There is nothing totalitarian about that – the opposite is the case. Totalitarianism is deliberately preventing children being taught truths and telling them lies instead." We are back full circle to defining and understanding 'truth'. Totalitarianism: "centralized control by an autocratic authority"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/totalitarianism

In this context the 'centralised control over the definition of truth by Science'.

I would suggest that a reflective reading of what you have said will lead to the conclusion that the statement is so contradictory as to be untenable / unsustainable.

I also find it enlightening that whereas I consider that my interactions on LSN are discussion / debate you describe them as 'arguing'.

I am only open to offence when people make insensitive and/or personal comments.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 21:22

"As things stand, pupils are already taught both. That is to say, the truth through what Science beliefs and the truth through what different religions consider to be truth. Thereafter pupils come to their own conclusion. Unless you are really suggesting that they should be indoctrinated by Science alone?"

Do you agree that of the many accounts of the origin of life on earth that we agree pupils should be taught, not all can be true? So how do you discount the false ones? Science says you apply the triple tests of reason, experiment and evidence. We will never be in a position to declare anything to be absolutely true because there are always more phenomena to discover and experiments to be done.

So that is how we should teach children about the origins of our planet and the development of life on it - acquainting them with the evidence, experiments and the reasoning that binds them together and fits them into the whole supporting jig-saw body of science.

Then you invite the children to apply the same tests to all the other (religious) accounts.

Except that you don't do that do you for obvious reasons? Instead you descrtibe the particular version of 'revealed' truth that each religion requires its adherents to accept as a matter of faith.

I am quite happy for school pupils to be exposed to, and asked to participate in all of this. What I am not happy about is for the RE teacher in any school, faith school or not, to tell pupils that what the science teacher has taught them is not true. If it had ever happened in any school that I taught science in I would have been very angry indeed and I would have expected the head/LA/Ofsted/SoS to stop it happening. It never did happen to me, but it is happening now in many state funded English schools.

This obviously applies to all science equally. There is nothing special about evolution.

It is not possible to be 'indoctrinated' with science, because the scientific method invites continuous attempts to falsify the current state of knowledge and understanding. What science denies is that faith can never be allowed to trump this process. The whole of modern civilisation is based on this principle so obviously it must apply in our schools,

Roger Titcombe's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 21:25

I mean 'ever' not 'never' trump the process.


Roger Titcombe's picture
Mon, 23/06/2014 - 07:55

The initial Ofsted inspections of the Vardy academies should have raised similar questions to those now being asked of the Trojan horse schools. This includes the issue of proper science teaching. Richard Dawkins asked questions at the time that were never properly answered.


Andy V's picture
Mon, 23/06/2014 - 10:50

"So that is how we should teach children about the origins of our planet and the development of life on it – acquainting them with the evidence, experiments and the reasoning that binds them together and fits them into the whole supporting jig-saw body of science. Then you invite the children to apply the same tests to all the other (religious) accounts." This is an example of totalitarianism. Underlying your position is the assumption that everything about Science is 'categorically true', is wholly factual and therefore incontrovertible. This is simply not the case. Science is based on ever evolving and changing theories and hypotheses. Hence the different postulations are open to and able to change / be reformulated in light of the latest research data. Examples of this are evident in the many differing cosmological views of the origins of the universe, and most recently the question as to whether black holes actually exist.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-b...

"What I am not happy about is for the RE teacher in any school, faith school or not, to tell pupils that what the science teacher has taught them is not true." Now we are getting to the core of the issue, "What [you] are not happy about". For me providing the respective teachers - Science and RE - stick to the PoS/Syllabus and do not stray in 'personal opinions' then all is fine.

"If it had ever happened in any school that I taught science in I would have been very angry indeed and I would have expected the head/LA/Ofsted/SoS to stop it happening." This is another underscoring of your clearly strongly held personal opinion. Why do you not mention the strong action taken by the SoS Educ to make it a statutory obligation linked to continuing taxpayer funding that all state schools of all types must teach the agreed Science syllabus? I distinctly remember a debate on LSN relating to this issue when a free school group were found to have given creationism and intelligent design priority over the Science syllabus. He acted promptly and put a stop to it.

"It never did happen to me, but it is happening now in many state funded English schools." Evidence to support the claim that this pertains in “many” would be nice please.

"It is not possible to be ‘indoctrinated’ with science". Really, according to your posts on this thread you want Science, Science or Science and if RE studies happen to look to at what religions around the the world believe then that should either be stopped or carry an official DFE/government health warning that only Science is factually accurate and true. It seems to me that even as a Scientist you are allowing your own strongly held beliefs to colour your view of what others should believe (e.g. not all Scientists are secularist and/or atheist in the same way that not all Scientists are theists or agnostics). No matter how strongly held a teachers personal convictions are they should not knowingly or directly influence how or what they teach. Rather they should teach the content of the subject involved to the best of professional expertise and ability.

Andy V's picture
Mon, 23/06/2014 - 11:16

"The initial Ofsted inspections of the Vardy academies should have raised similar questions to those now being asked of the Trojan horse schools." To me this sounds like clutching at straws. There is absolutely no comparison between the former Vardy academies and allegations and concerns arising from the 'Trojan Horse' investigations.

"This includes the issue of proper science teaching. Richard Dawkins asked questions at the time that were never properly answered." I wonder where this piece of evidence fits into the overall scenario you allude to:

""Evolution will be taught, other theories will be taught and children will be left to take a view of it themselves," he said.

The national curriculum requires schools to teach evolution but does not ban them from teaching creationism as well.

But Richard Dawkins, Symonyi professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University, said that equating evolution and creationism was "educational debauchery". (29 April 2003)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/apr/29/schools.religion

"Evolution is supported by mountains of scientific evidence," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "These children are being deliberately and wantonly misled." (29 April 2003)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/apr/29/schools.religion


"The creationist issue has derailed the academy agenda because people are worried that anyone who has different beliefs can build a school and teach what they want," he [Sir Peter vardy] said. "Creationism is not taught in my schools. That is stark raving crazy. I am not a creationist and I did not build academies to indoctrinate anyone. I am a Christian and have decided to put some of the wealth I have been blessed with into schools." (24 November 2006)

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=2313863

With regard to Professor Dawkins, a fierce hardline secularist and ardent atheist, it is entirely in keeping with his personal views that he should want to eradicate RE from schools but these same personal views evidently influence everything he postulates. Over the years he has given me the unambiguous impressions as someone whose extent of debate and openness can be described as, I'll listen but no matter what you say I'm right and you're wrong. Indeed, his most recent pronouncements about fairy tales is nothing short of an outright embarrassment and reinforces my perception of him as a blinkered mono-view person.:

"The controversial ethologist suggested it was "pernicious to instil in a child the view that the world is shaped by supernaturalism."

The 73-year-old acknowledged that the appeal of fairytales lay in their magic but believes they may be causing more harm than we think.

In the same breath, he also questioned whether we should let children believe in the myth of Father Christmas.

"Is it a good thing to go along with the fantasy of childhood?," he said. "Or should we be fostering a spirit of scepticism?."

But whose scepticism, open academic or his highly personal version?

The myth of Father Christmas? Now is that the western led commercial image or stripping it back the historical version and St Nicklaus?

http://www.gloucestershireecho.co.uk/Review-Richard-Dawkins-Cheltenham-S...

Roger Titcombe's picture
Mon, 23/06/2014 - 14:06

Andy - I very timidly and respectfully fear that you may be misunderstanding the nature of science. Cosmology is at the outer leading edge of science where current understandings of quantum theory, thermodynamics, relativity etc all still fail to cohere adequately enough to describe in detail what is experimentally observed.

Some scientists believe in an eventual 'theory of everything'. It is possible to dissent from this without shaking the shared scientific conviction that Charles Darwin got it fundamentally right, such that Evolution through Natural Selection is now mainstream normal science that is hard enough (because like most science it is initially profoundly counter-intuitive) to get pupils to understand, without some mystic in the RE department undermining our efforts.

The science in school GCSE and A Level syllabuses is what Kuhn calls 'normal science' - where the principles are no longer contested by any serious scientists. Pupils can still be told about the problems scientists are having with cosmology - it is exciting, imaginative and speculative stuff, but it is not normal science.

Evolution by Natural Selection, the geological history of the Earth, Newton's and Einstein's Principles are all normal science. They therefore represent the pinnacle of truth in that they continue to defy all attempts at experimental and rational refutation. Science is not an 'eternal truth' like what revealed religion deals in.

Would you countenance an RE teacher telling pupils that the Earth-centred Aristotelian model of the universe was true after all, and that Galileo and Copernicus got it wrong, and furthermore the RE teacher must be right because it is written in various sacred texts?

No, the head would tell him to keep his personal views to himself and stop filling pupils heads with nonsense, in much the same way as Glen Hoddle was told to keep quiet about the perils of reincarnation.

Of course there are religious scientists (although few and far between). They usually put God above science, not deny scientific truth or the scientific method - to them these things are all part of God's wonderful creation and will always be beyond human understanding.

There are no serious scientists that advocate versions of young earth creationism and so called intelligent design. You could not get a paper advocating such stuff published in any scientific journal.

Just as you are right to require schools to prepare young people for adult life and that the Muslim schools you mention fail key tests in this regard, so do creationist schools that only pay lip service to the teaching of any science that they think conflicts with 'revealed truth', also fail the same key tests.

I confess to finding your position on this strange. I would have less difficulty discussing it with the Archbishop of Canterbury (or at any rate the last one) or the Pope (but not the last one).

Barry Wise's picture
Mon, 23/06/2014 - 14:45

Roger - There seems to be a very big difference between Evolution by Natural Selection - for which as you say there is a great weight of supporting data and a broad scientific consensus - and evolutionary theories about the origin of life. When it comes to whether the first string of proteins were willed into being by a Creator or happened entirely by chance, then Andy's guess is as good as yours and Science barely enters into it.

I haven't looked at the new curriculum stuff, but the 2007 National Curriculum didn't include 'origin of life''/promordial soup/ chemical evolution stuff at all.

As for Vardy and his academies - it's probably worth remembering that he unequivocally denied creationism was taught in his schools to TES a few years back and when Tribune magazine persisted in calling him a creationist, he sued for libel and won.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Mon, 23/06/2014 - 14:59

Barry - Thank you. I fully accept that the Vardy academies did not and do not teach creationism and withdraw any suggestion to the contrary.


Roger Titcombe's picture
Mon, 23/06/2014 - 15:03

Barry - Evolution by natural selection does not preclude a religious explanation for the origins of life. That is presumably why it is accepted as mainstream science by many (most?) mainstream religions. How young Earth creationism is a different matter. This is completely incompatible with 'normal' science.


Andy V's picture
Mon, 23/06/2014 - 15:33

Amazing I quote Vardy from that TES article and provide the link, which ignored. Someone else mentions it and you acknowledge it and withdraw - including presumably your comment that Dawkins' questions from 2003 were left unanswered. See my comment at 11.16 today.


Andy V's picture
Mon, 23/06/2014 - 15:41

For me the citing of natural selection and normal science is pedanticism. The issue is that while it is right for Science to taught as a core subject using the approved content in the syllabi it is unacceptable to urge for the stopping (censoring) of the teaching of religious positions per the appropriate syllabus. As stated earlier, it is unacceptable for any teacher to impart their personal viewpoints and convictions into the lesson then.


Andy V's picture
Mon, 23/06/2014 - 15:49

Your comments @ 2.06.

I will not stoop to your level of disregard and disdain and will not therefore grace your last comment with a response.

I fail to comprehend that you cannot see the untenable nature of your closing statement, "I confess to finding your position on this strange. I would have less difficulty discussing it with the Archbishop of Canterbury (or at any rate the last one) or the Pope (but not the last one)." Talk about want your cake and eat it. You are essentially saying, you'll talk to anyone on this subject providing you approve of them. How wonderfully democratic and open minded of you. Hoisted on your own pedantic petard.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Mon, 23/06/2014 - 17:52

Andy - The precepts of 'normal science' are not 'personal convictions'.


Roger Titcombe's picture
Mon, 23/06/2014 - 18:12

Andy - I can't find your 'comment at 11.16 today'.


Roger Titcombe's picture
Mon, 23/06/2014 - 18:38

Andy - "The issue is that while it is right for Science to taught as a core subject using the approved content in the syllabi it is unacceptable to urge for the stopping (censoring) of the teaching of religious positions per the appropriate syllabus."

I am in favour of the teaching of the religious positions of all major religions to all pupils regardless of any religious faith of their parents. These 'religious positions' are many and various. Therefore as a matter of logic they cannot all be taught as something that pupils should believe to be true. You appear to accept this yourself with regard to various religious teachings of Islam that parents and governors may judge to be required in the interests of piety. An example is the religious teaching that Muslim boys and girls should each have separate and distinct curriculum experiences. Clearly the distinction is between being taught what the followers of various religions believe and pupils being instructed in the corresponding faiths.

All this is easily overcome if we adopt the standard pan-European and North American ban on all religious proselytising in all state regulated schools. I am strongly in favour of more teaching of what different peoples from different traditions believe.

You appear to be suggesting that the teaching of 'normal' science or geography for that matter in terms of its content being factually true is proselytising, in the same sense as religious proselytising. If that is indeed your position it is clearly untenable.

Andy V's picture
Tue, 24/06/2014 - 12:02

Once again you miss the point and as ever attempt to introduce spurious elements

With regard to my comment made at 11.16 yesterday I can only suggest you contact the moderator.

johnebolt's picture
Tue, 17/06/2014 - 11:06

I think it is possible to exaggerate how difficult it would be to ensure that academies and maintained schools are under a consistent set of expectations and responsibilities. There are several examples under the current government of legislation or regulation which simply imposes additional requirements which are not contained in funding agreements. The duty of "teach British values" will no doubt be imposed in the same way. David Wolfe has documented how this has been done on his website " a can of worms". Some clear and consistent regulations would get rid of much of the problem of differing funding agreements.

The detail of how academies are funded (ie the formulae applied and the extras taken from LA funding) are not in funding agreements but in DfE regulations that can easily be changed. Establishing a level playing field would not be hard here either.

If monitoring all schools and place planning, opening, closing etc.were to be the responsibility of middle tier authorities rather than the DfE then arguably the Education Funding Agency is redundant, except for funding 16 to 19 which could go to the Skills Funding Agency which already does post 19. So along with abolishing Regional Commissioners, Academy Brokers and their DfE support, there is a tidy saving which could certainly fund a new middle tier.

I would agree with Alan Parker that the attempt by Blunkett to leave some functions with LAs while creating DSSs to take on some of them is a muddle. And surely fundamental decisions like whether to open a new school (and what sort) must be taken by a predominantly elected body not by an appointed officer on their own. I would certainly put all education functions under the DSS but with clear accountability to either a single LA or a joint authority. I do think it is right to recognise that the proliferation of tiny unitary authorities is an issue ... some are only a half to a third the size of a London borough

Janet Downs's picture
Tue, 17/06/2014 - 17:25

The Local Government's association's plea to ensure all schools were under LA stewardship prompted this exchange in the Commons yesterday:

Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con) asked Gove to "resist these efforts by local government to take back controls?"

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is a man after my own heart. There are some outstanding local councils, not least, for example, in the north-east and Darlington. They do a great job in supporting head teachers to raise standards and exercise a greater degree of autonomy. Sadly, however, there are those who want the creeping tendrils of bureaucracy once again to choke the delicate flower of freedom, and I am afraid that the Opposition Front Bench is a particularly rank unweeded garden when it comes to nurturing those tendrils."

Again we see Gove perpetuated the myth (aided by an easy question bowled to him by a Tory MP) that LAs "control" school and he is offering "freedom".

Ben Taylor's picture
Fri, 20/06/2014 - 21:05

You still don't understand that inspection by remote bodies is of limited value and inferior to to other mechanisms for quality.


Roger Titcombe's picture
Fri, 20/06/2014 - 21:38

You mean the private care home quality model do you? Maximise profits by employing cheap non-unionised below minimum wage labour and then being surprised by appallingly low standards


Andy V's picture
Fri, 20/06/2014 - 22:27

Ben, would you expand on the alternative models?


Ben Taylor's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 01:13

Inspection has a value. But as for nearly all processes used in operations of businesses or services it is limited.

Strangely LSN insist dogmatically on the primacy of Local Authorities as inspection bodies and demote the experience of the users when they wish to inspect: parents and children.

It is of course desirable to have some sort of baseline or consensus for the cultural values which all parties share. As we see this is becoming difficult as UK society Balkanises.

Retrospective inspection is useful but limited in effectiveness. The more concurrent inspection of users and the anticipatory actions of the most responsible agents, who I argue are the teachers, is more effective.

In particular the idea that nameless, politicised, unionised, entryist, unaccountable and unrepresentitive LA officers and councillors can oversee schools optimally is just stupid.

It's also stupid to think that all academies and free schools will be successful: at least when failure occurs it is exposed and the punters get a choice.

agov's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 07:08

Another of your evidence free zones. I suppose it has an entertainment value.


Roger Titcombe's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 10:16

Hello Ben. If you hadn't noticed there is a debate going on here about the creation of a middle tier. Although I favour LAs as the already existing democratically elected local body, that costs nothing to create because it is already exists, there are plenty of left inclined contributors to this site that disagree.

Thank goodness for Trade Unions. They enabled post-war capitalism to grow alongside social justice and the ability of decent people of ordinary talent and willingness to work sensible hours to enjoy rising standards of living and provide for their children without any need for resort to state benefits. My working class parents born in the early 1920s suffered through the great depression and the war but never claimed any non-universal state benefit in the whole of their lives.

There was a post-war political consensus in favour of a mixed economy, the welfare state and recognition of trade unions was a necessary part of modern capitalism as remains the case in the most successful post-war capitalist economy - Germany. Churchill, McMillan and Heath all shared these basic beliefs with Gaitskell and Wilson.

Unfortunately the notoriously dim and short-termist British boss class teamed up with the grocer's daughter to destroy that consensus and exploit the emergence of global capitalism to weaken the unions and drive down pay such that the ever rising national benefits bill now goes to directly subsidise scam racketeering employers that call themselves 'entrepreneurs' when all they are good at is thinking up ever more vicious scams like private car parks, aided by the government (DVLA) in their determination to divert ever greater proportions of taxpayers money into the pockets of private 'enterprise' spivs.

I note that you failed to reply to my private care home example. This demonstrates the real failure of trade unionisation. It has been too weak to stand against the race to the bottom. Care homes as well as schools should be regulated by democratically elected LAs. Care home workers should be professionally trained, properly paid with decent pensions and yes, be unionised to protect the standard of living of their families but also of the residents of the care homes who paid their taxes all their lives in the reasonable expectation that the welfare state would provide qualified professional staff to look after them.

Karl Marx may have been hopelessly wrong about communism but he had a far greater understanding of the developmentalism of capitalism than Adam Smith. The current crisis is a new stage in which the boss class is so powerful in depressing wages and working conditions that decent ordinary people cannot earn enough to pay basic bills no matter how low and base their non-unionised working lives have become.

So yes, I do believe in unionised, properly remunerated and pensioned public services. Where these are failing it is almost always because of the adoption of the corrupting practices of spiv-led private corporations.

Phil Taylor's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 11:42

There have been some odd posts on here, but yours is perhaps the oddest I've read.

Where has anyone associated with LSN put forward the idea of LAs as 'inspection bodies'?

Is is possible that you feel you have suffered from LAs at some point? Where do you get the evidence for the existence of 'nameless, politicised, unionised, entryist, unaccountable and unrepresentitive LA officers and councillors' from? I'm sure we'd all be interested to know.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 12:41

Ben - It is possible, common even, for parents to support bad schools. In the 'Trojan horse' affair, recently resigned governors complained that a school culture encouraging 'pious' Moslem religious practice is being mislabelled as political extremism. They may be right about that. However they are wrong to assume they have the right to impose a culture of Islamic piety onto a non-sectarian state school. The Derby Islamic school also had strong support from parents.

Only a few hours ago I had a conversation with a parent (she runs a beachside ice cream stall) of a pupil who attended my headship school in the early 1990s. The parent was lamenting the disastrous state of the school system in our town. She is certainly right about that. Her solution was to bring back caning. "That will soon sort them out". If white working class parents had the power to insist on it, caning would be commonplace in the daily lives of pupils.

That is why all schools including faith schools need to operate within a clear and unambiguous framework of national regulation, just like all other public services.

The idea that standards would be raised by giving parents market based powers within which to determine the success or failure of schools depending on their various 'common sense' educational views is profoundly wrong. The continuing failure of the English school system is a direct consequence of that underlying assumption on the part of the Secretary of State.

Andy V's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 15:24

Ben, Am I right in understanding that you are against both LA and Ofsted / DFE being part of inspection processes and your preference is for parents/carers/teachers to undertake this function?


Roger Titcombe's picture
Mon, 23/06/2014 - 08:09

Ben - Society should not countenance failing schools any more than failing hospitals or failing police forces. In the catastrophic event of such failure the taxpayer cannot and should not bear the burden of your market solution of closing them down and building/opening new ones. Public service institutions themselves cannot 'fail'. They can however be inappropriately focussed, badly managed, lack appropriately skilled and qualified staff, lack proper professional and morally accountable oversight and be ineffectively regulated. All of this should be comparatively easy and cheap to fix.


Roger Titcombe's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 10:26

Ben - I forgot to mention - polling overwhelming shows that parents and the public want their schools built, organised, supported and regulated by LAs, rather than by the new educational-spiv-entrepreneurs, whose activities are regularly exposed here if nowhere else,


Pages

Add new comment

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