September 2018, No THE NATIONAL EDUCATION SERVICE FROM ...€¦ · Education Politics Journal of...

Education PoliticsJournal of the Socialist Educational Association

September 2018, No 136 | Labour Party Conference Edition

THE NATIONAL EDUCATION SERVICE

FROM VISIONTO REALITYJohn Bolt, SEA General Secretary

When the concept of aNational Education Service

was first put forward in 2015, itreceived an almost universallypositive reception. The idea thateducation from cradle to gravecould again be an entitlement forall is an exciting and inspiringvision. The Socialist EducationalAssociation shared thatenthusiasm and was keen to join

However, three years on thereremain many unansweredquestions. A year ago, a ten-pointcharter was published. These wereto be the founding principles ofthe NES. There is much towelcome in that document – thecommitment to education free atthe point of use, to education as apublic service not a private good,

continued on page 4

in the process of turning thatinitial concept into somethingconcrete. The September 2017 ofour journal, Education Politics,was devoted to that theme. Itfocussed particularly on educationoutside and beyond school – areasthat were central to the initialNES concept while also beingones that have been damagedmost severely since 2010.

Inside: Richard Hatcher David Pavett Emma Hardy MP Kevin Courtney Louise Regan Pam TatlowMelissa Benn Tom Unterrainer Sal MorawetzCartoons by Polly Donninson

2

Educa t i o n Po l i t i c s

What’s inside?

Page 6: Abolish Academies andGrammar Schools

Page 10: For Socialism andEducation

Page 11: Ready for Work?

Page 12: Abolish National Standards

Page 14: Life Lessons

Page 17: Lifelong Learning

Page 19: Our NES

1: Mental Well-Being

Page 23: Ofsted

Page 25: Higher Education

About Education PoliticsEducation Politics (ISSN 1354-2028) isthe journal of the Socialist EducationalAssociation. The articles reflect the viewsof their authors and not the SEA unlessindicated otherwise. Editors: Louise Regan and TomUnterrainerSEA General Secretary: John BoltEmail:[email protected] the Labour Affiliated SocialistEducational Association. Details fromthe General Secretary. Membershipcosts £25 per year.

Our schools and universitiesare in crisis. To be blunt,

nothing other than a completeoverhall of the education systemin this country will remedy thesituation. What this means inpractice is that a future Labourgovernment will have to addressa whole number of problemssimultaneously.

The order of the task at handis many times more complexthan the ‘meddling’, ‘reforms’,grand schemes and fantasiesthat have passed forgovernment education policiesover the past few decades. Thesolutions to these problemscannot be sumarised by mantrasor pithy slogans. Neither willthey be addressed by ‘crackingdown’ yet further on theteaching profession, stigmatisingchildren and young people orby scapegoating of any kind.Rather, the starting point is torecognise the crisis for what it is.

The most readily visibleproducts of the crisis mightpoint us in the right direction.The UK has very unhappy

students and equally unhappyeducators. They’re not simply‘disgruntled’ but are beingdriven to despair.

In the case of students,Natasha Devon (page 21) pointsout that purportedly ‘scientific’and ‘rigorous’ testing regimesdamage mental health. What’strue for young people is equallytrue for the people who teachthem.

The extent to which educatorshave become mere appendagesto spurious targets, datacollection systems,‘accountability’, ‘performancemanagement’ thresholds andthe rest has done seriousdamage. These dual pressures,acting ‘upwards’ and‘downwards’, have generated atruly toxic culture.

No wonder then that there isa serious teacher recruitmentcrisis. The start of every schoolyear is greeted by a plethora ofmedia stories detailing the dropin numbers of those applying toteach and the ever-wideningnumber of unfilled teaching

E d i t o r i a l

Standing Up for EducationEdited by Louise Reganand Tom Unterrainer

With contributions fromChristine Blower, SiobhanCollingwood, MaryCompton, Jeremy Corbyn,Kevin Courtney, AlanGibbons, Rosie Hancock, JillHuish, Julie James, SamKeely, Gawain Little, KristineMayle, Philip Moriarty, TonySimpson, Kiri Tunks and NadiaWhittome.

www.spokesmanbooks.com

3

L abou r Pa r t y Con f e r e n ce 2018

posts. The figures for 2018 areparticularly shocking.

Most seriously, in the short-term at least, is the crisis inschool funding and the impactthis will have on the educationalprospects of millions of childrenand young people. After a periodwhere schools went relativelyunscathed in rounds of publicsector spending cuts, austerityhas finally hit home.

If the current governmentremains in power for any periodof time, the impact of fundingcuts will be significant: fewerteachers, larger class sizes, aneven narrower curriculum andanother generation of over-tested, under-nurtured youngpeople.

The truly outrageous, but veryinstructive, fact is that when thisgovernment attempts to respondto the crisis of its’ own making, itwill deploy all the machinerythat drove the crisis in the firstplace. For example: larger classsizes can only result in a drop in‘standards’. Data collectionsystems in schools across theland will be flashing red. Whenthe Department for Educationcrunches numbers, the Whitehallcomputer system will go into themother of all meltdowns.

Cue a public statement fromthe Secretary of State attackingschools and teachers. Thestatement will most likely includean assault on the ‘youth of today’.Also included will beannouncements of furtherpowers for Ofsted, more focus onthe ‘basics’, the need for ‘higherstandards’ and more ‘robustaccountability’ measures.

Far from ending the cycle of

government be able to achieve inthe first one hundred days inpower? Here are a fewsuggestions that might beincluded:

1. Scrap standardised testing.

2. Abolish league tables.

3. Abolish Ofsted

4. Put play at the centre ofearly years education.

5. Halt new academies andFree Schools and begin theprocess of re-nationalisation.

6. Remove curriculumrestrictions, widen thechoices offered to youngpeople and scrap the greater- and ultimately damaging -weighting given to Maths,Science and Englishsubjects.

7. Remove the punitivelanguage of surveillanceand control.

8. Remove barriers between‘academic’, ‘creative’ and‘skills’/’vocational’ subjects.Allow students toexperience everythingwithout limits.

9. Put teachers and youngpeople at the centre of thecurriculum formationprocess.

10. Remove the privatesector and ‘private sectorpriorities’ from theeducation system.

11. Return teacher trainingto university departmentsand ensure that teachers areexposed to the full range ofpedagogic ideas andapproaches.

LR & TU

toxicity, the response will simplymake things worse: an evennarrower curriculum, morepunitive regimes and muchgreater pressure.

The next Labour governmentwill not only have to deal withthese symptoms of the crisis. Itwill have to deal with the causes.To do this, the faulty and failinglogic of neoliberal ‘reforms’ needto be short-circuited. In theirplace, the creative impulses thatdrive educators and learnersmust be allowed to flourish : theymust be given the freedom toexplore, experiment and focuson the actual needs of learners,young and old.

In this way, schools and youngpeople will become more thandigits in a data processingsystem; fodder for the labourmarket; sites of inadequatelyexploited capital generation orthe perennial political football.

Such a transformation ofschooling and education is notonly necessary, it will beoverwhelmingly popular. Notonly that, but in many instanceshuge amounts of money can besaved. There will be littleresistance from trade unions ifthey are fully involved from theword go, there will be littleopposition from the parents andcarers of over-stressed and over-tested children and the mostfar-sighted of employers alreadyrecognise the need for arounded, creative andexploration-focussed educationalprocess. That’s why so many ofthe wealthy opt for just this sortof education for their ownchildren.

What might a Labour

Transforming Schools and Education in the first one hundred days of a Labour government

4


Early Years, Education and SkillsNational Policy Forum 2018 ReportThe NPF Commission responsible for consultation on the National Education Servicepolicy has produced a report of its findings. Combining information on the consultationprocess, including information on those involved, the report expands on some of thekey themes outlined in the ‘National Education Service Draft Charter’ and providessnapshot quotations from some of the submissions. Of particular interest is the quotefrom the National Education Union, which states: “[Education should] engage childrenand young people, enabling them to develop their interests and broaden their horizons,giving them the best life chances possible to participate fully in the life of the nation asequal citizens, modern, responsible and engaged, and as fully rounded, happy humanbeings, motivated to continue learning through their lives.” This report makes acontribution to our collective efforts to forge education policies that meet the aspirationoutlined by the NEU. However, there is still much work to do if we are to meet theseaims. The full report will be available at Conference and can be viewed online at:https://www.policyforum.labour.org.uk/commissions/education

From vis ion to real i ty. . .to public accountability and to avision of education that goesbeyond the exclusively academic.But, as SEA argued in its responseto the party’s consultation, there ismuch more to say. We arguedthat:

· Labour needs to challenge thenarrow approach to educationthat has been promoted since2010. Education shouldpromote not just the acquisitionof knowledge but the masteryof a wide range of skills and thedevelopment of personalqualities and values that willsupport our vision of the goodsociety.

· A core purpose of the NESshould be to promote greaterequality and to enhance socialcohesion. A comprehensivesystem in which children fromall backgrounds learn togetheris of critical importance to theseobjectives.

· Competition and marketisationcan have no place in a socialisteducation service and we needspecific proposals to addressthis for all phases of educationfrom early years throughschools and colleges to

education. For the past two years,in meetings, conferences, blogsand in the pages of this journal,we have been exploring what atruly radical programme forgovernment could look like. Webelieve that the party needs to bemuch more ambitious if we are toprovide a National EducationService that can truly standcomparison with the NationalHealth Service.

First of all, we need a newvision for what the aims andpurposes of education are. Thisneeds to be grounded in anunderstanding of the kind ofworld our young people will begrowing up into. We need futuregenerations that are informed andexpert certainly, but also have theskills and values that will beneeded in a fast changing world.This will require a new approachto the curriculum, to assessmentand to the kinds of draconiandisciplinary regimes operating inan increasing number of schools.

The school systems in the Eastthat have been held up as rolemodels to realising this. They areshifting the emphasis away fromrote learning and increasing the emphasis on deep understanding,

universities.

· Establishing a NationalEducation Service should notbe at the expense of the abilityof local communities toinfluence the provision ofeducation in their area. Neitherthe DfE nor Ofsted are fit forpurpose and real devolution ofdecision making is essential.

In 2010, Michael Gove walkedinto the Department forEducation knowing exactly whathe wanted to do. The firstacademies legislation wasintroduced within weeks becausethe work had been done inopposition.

In the current situation, a snapelection cannot be ruled out giventhe chaos over Brexit. SEAbelieves that Labour needs to beas ready as Gove was to hit theground running not just by 2022but by 2019.

SEA is the Labour party’saffiliated society specialising in

‘we need a new vision forwhat the aims and purposes

of education are’

5


the ability to apply knowledge tosolving new problems and theability to think creatively. Englisheducation, dominated by theprejudices of a couple of politicians, is ignoring this andsticking to an out-dated model.

We need to be thinking tooabout the well-being of bothstudents and staff. Internationalsurveys tell us that our childrenare amongst the most unhappy inthe world. This is true also ofmany members of staff which iswhy teachers are leaving fasterthan they can be replaced. Howschools and colleges are being runand the pressures being put onboth students and staff are makingsignificant contributions to thisdecline in well-being.

Next must be a seriouschallenge to the ideology ofcompetition and marketisationthat has been dominant across theeducation system for the last 30years. It’s important to assertclearly that structures matter –issues of governance andaccountability are not meredetails that we can largely ignore or hand over totechnicians. They determinewhether there is fair access to

opportunity for all, what the dayto day experience of staff andstudents is like, how efficientlyscarce resources are used andwhether communities have agenuine stake in how theirchildren are educated. Currently,we are doing badly on all thesefronts and this needs to change.Education is a public good andshould be delivered as a publicservice – but the rot has set in sofar that changing this is complex,will be controversial butabsolutely needs to be done.

International evidence saysclearly that the English system isnot delivering for lower attainersand that outcomes aredetermined more than theyshould be by socio-economicbackground. Too much selectionand segregation (academic, socialand religious) both between andwithin schools is an importantreason why. So too is acurriculum and exam systemwhich is increasingly being

‘Next must be a seriouschallenge to the ideology of

competition’

reduced to a narrow band ofacademic subjects at the expenseof practical, technical and artisticones.

The report of the EducationCommission of the NationalPolicy Forum recognises some ofthese issues. But there arevirtually no answers on offer,which after three years of talkingabout the NES is a hugedisappointment. It is concerningthat the scale of the challenge isnot really recognised.Overturning the dominantideology that has driveneducation for too long is not easyand can’t be done in the fewweeks of a short electioncampaign. The case for changewill need to be made over yearsnot weeks.

That will mean, in months notyears, developing a distinctiveLabour vision for a NationalEducation Service and producingcomprehensive policies that canbe ready for immediateimplementation. This issue ofEducation Politics aims to use theexpertise and commitment ofSEA members to get us closer tothat goal.

The Socialist Educational Associationis the only educational organisation

affiliated to the Labour Party and can be described as its

critical friendYou can join here:

socialisteducationalassociation.org/jointhe-sea/ You can follow us on twitter at: @SocialistEdu

An up to date list of local events can be found here:socialisteducationalassociation.org/ category/events/

6


Richard Hatcher and David Pavett

To rephrase John Deweyslightly, ‘What the best and

wisest parents want for their ownchildren, that must thecommunity want for all of itschildren. Any other ideal for ourschools is narrow and unlovely;acted upon, it destroys ourdemocracy.’ [1]

Only a community-wide systemof schools can ensure a goodschool for every child and youngperson. So the question ofstandards is inseparable from thestructure of the local schoolsystem, ensured by democraticaccountability to localgovernment. The old Blairitemantra of ‘standards notstructures’ is a completely

A Labour government canabolish academies

Labour’s National EducationService has established theprinciple of a local democraticallyaccountable school system. It nowneeds filling out andstrengthening to include theabolition of grammar schools andacademies, in line with thepolicies of Jeremy Corbyn. He isa longtime advocate of a fullycomprehensive school systemand, as Labour leadershipcandidate in 2015, said ‘I am nota supporter of the principle of freeschools and academies, and Iwould want to bring them all backinto the local authority orbit.’(Guardian 7 July 2015). In aspeech to Labour councillors in

mistaken counterposition,currently being revived in anattempt to block moves to abolishthe twin structures that maintainthe divisive Conservative stateschool system. One is the sociallyselective grammar schools whichsurvive in too many localauthorities and are currentlyexpanding, perpetuating the oldgrammar-secondary moderndivision. The other divisivestructure, far more pervasive, isacademies (including so-calledfree schools): schoolsunaccountable to localcommunities through theoversight of elected localauthorities and often controlledby private organisations undergovernment contracts – theacademy chains.

A b o l i s h A c a d e m i e s a n d

7


Nottingham on 3 February thisyear, speaking against theprivatisation of public services, hesaid:

“it’s about time we acknowledged atruth we all know - when it comesto running public services it’s thepublic sector that works best, thatdelivers for the many, not the few,accountable to the public and actingin the public interest.”

Now we have the real possibilityof a Labour government whichwould end selection and abolishthe status of academies, restoringcontrol of schools to their electedgoverning bodies and creating auniversal state-funded systemaccountable to reinvigorated andreformed elected local authorities.Ending selection is relativelystraightforward throughlegislation that phases it out witheach new annual entry cohort.What would Labour need to do toabolish academies?

A Labour secretary of state hasthe power, based on precedentsset by Michael Gove when heunilaterally altered existingfunding agreements, to terminatethe funding agreements ofacademies and transfer theschools, their land and premises totheir relevant local authorities. ALabour secretary of state can alsointroduce legislation to remove allpowers over the governance ofschools by academy trustsincluding academy chains andMATs (Multi-Academy Trusts),and restore the control of state-funded schools to their dulyconstituted governing bodies,which would include a majority of

could be alleviated by a policy ofrotating secondments to them bylocal headteachers and teachers.

But the concept of democraticaccountability of the localauthority for its local schoolsystem means more than this, andhere we draw on the powerfulcase made by Michael Fieldingand Peter Moss in their 2011 bookRadical Education and theCommon School: a democraticalternative [2]. They propose thatthe local authority ‘should haveresponsibility for the education ofits children, indeed more broadlyfor the relationship between itschildren and the community. Thisdoes not mean going back to asituation where local authoritiesmanage schools directly. Schoolsshould be democraticallymanaged in a system ofgovernance marked bydecentralisation and widespreadparticipation, by children andadults, teachers and parents,school and local communities.’(p123). On that basis ‘localauthorities define a local culturalproject of education for theircommunity, a collective vision forthe area, in relationship withschools, local communities andcitizens…’. (p124).

The fundamental principle hereis that every citizen has a stake in,and therefore should have a voicein, the vision, principles and aimsof their local school system. Whatsort of structures and processes oflocal governance could make thatpossible? At present localauthorities provide littleopportunity for publicinvolvement in the policy process.The structures and procedures of

elected representatives of parents,staff and the local community.

Many schools collaboratetogether, including as MATS, andLabour should encourage schoolsto work together, including theoption of forming partnerships,provided that ultimate controlremains with individual schools’governing bodies. Schools are ofcourse free to purchase theprovision of support from anyexternal organisation and thatshould include ex-academy trustsif they continue to offer it.

For a reinvigorated anddemocratised local

authority system

Academies would be integrated –in most cases reintegrated - into areinvigorated local authoritysystem. This would need to be acarefully managed phased processensuring that there was as littledisruption to the schools aspossible and that local authoritieshad the capacity to fulfil theiradditional responsibilities, whichwould require a reversal of themassive cuts in local authoritybudgets.

The functions of the localauthority would include, as now,monitoring schools, providingappropriate support to schools,parents, children and youngpeople, and connecting the localschool system to other relevantagencies and sectors. (It may beadvantageous for smaller localauthorities to collaborate togetherto provide some of thesefunctions.) Concerns about theprofessional capacities of thenewly reformed local authorities

G r a m m a r S c h o o l s

8


local councils are highlybureaucratic and exclusionary. Itis representative democracywithout participatory democracy.Fielding and Moss say that ‘intoday’s neoliberal climate,‘accountability’ is widelyunderstood in a predominantlycontractual and legal sense as ‘alargely negative instrument ofpolitical and social control’’(p123), which is why ‘thedevelopment of radical educationand the common school needs togo hand-in-hand with the renewaland development of democraticlocal government, which in ourview has to include an active andinnovative role in education.’(p127).

This entails a radicalredefinition of the concept of‘accountability’. In her bookReclaiming Local DemocracyInes Newman points out that‘Unlike ‘democracy’,‘accountability’ separates out thestate and society and can beexercised with no participation bycitizens in the decision-making

including of course teachers andother school workers, schoolgovernors, parents and schoolstudents, as well as councillorsand other education–relatedbodies. The details of each LocalEducation Forum’s constitutionand procedures should be amatter for local decision.

Public participation in localeducation policy-making does notmean intervening in issues whichare properly matters ofprofessional judgement. Nor doesit imply that public views areinevitably progressive. In bothcases it is a question ofdeliberation and negotiationamong public and professionals,and the mobilisation of collectivepopular and professional supportfor progressive policies.

But community-wide publicand professional participation isfruitless unless there is a means tofeed it into and influence councilpolicy. There would need to beformal procedures to channel thedeliberations of the LocalEducation Forum into the

process.’ (p103). [3] ‘The conceptof democracy demands the activeinvolvement of diverse citizens indetermining policy. It alsodemands institutions that addressthe current power inequalitiesthat allow elites to dominate thepolicymaking process. It thereforeinvolves both representative andparticipative democracy…’(p104). ‘If democracy is to bereclaimed, councillors will needto address power inequalities andto increase the capacity ofindividuals or groups to engage inthe policy process.’ (p101).

Democratic participationthrough Local

Education Forums

What institutional form couldmake it possible for allstakeholders in the localeducation system to participate?What is needed is a LocalEducation Forum: a body in eachlocal authority area meetingregularly which brings togetherall with an interest in education,

Caroline Benn Memorial Lecture 2018This year's Caroline Benn Lecture will be delivered byProfessor Stephen Gorard from Durham University.Stephen is probably the leading academic specialiston all the issues around school choice, selection andits impact on both schools and on young peoplethemselves. His research is absolutely key tounderstanding how inequality bedevils our schoolsystem. Anyone concerned with these issues will needto hear Stephen's latest views on school intakes andtheir impact on social cohesion.

Date and Time Tue, November 13, 2018, 6:00 PM – 8:00 PM Location House of Commons Committee Room 14

Tickets: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/caroline-benn-memorial-lecture-2018-tickets-49686806576

9


Council’s decision-makingprocess. The Labour Party has yetto address the need for radicalreform to democratise theexisting structures and processesof local government, based on anew combination ofrepresentative and participatorydemocracy. But there is an initialstep which local councils have thepower to take right now: open upthe scrutiny committeeresponsible for education to laymembers elected from the LocalEducation Forum with at least anadvisory role. (There is aprecedent: they already havereligious representatives.)

Open up a debate totranslate the NES into

concrete policies

The question of academies is ofcourse just one of the educationalissues facing a future Labourgovernment. The NES statementprovides an initial brief starting-point, but it urgently needsfilling-out and strengthening.Labour now needs to open up adebate to translate the NES intoconcrete policies. Labour should:

a) consult with its members,and affiliates active oneducational issues, about whatbroad areas of policy the Partyneeds to work on. It should also

a hard-hitting campaign to winpublic support for a newsettlement for education. All ofthis would require carefulplanning and a genuinecommitment to following wherethe arguments lead rather thandeciding in advance what theresults should be. Labour has noestablished tradition of working inthis way so a lot of effort would berequired to get it to do so. Labourhas within its ranks the peoplewho could see such a projectthrough to success. Now it needsto show that its commitment tomember involvement in policyformation is more than justrhetoric.

The SEA should play a key rolein this process, including byorganising a series of local publicmeetings throughout the country,in conjunction with otherorganisations where appropriate.

Notes1. John Dewey (1907) ‘TheSchool and Social Progress.’Chapter 1 of The School and Society.Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. (p19).2. Michael Fielding and PeterMoss (2011) Radical Education andthe Common School: a democraticalternative. Abingdon: Routledge.3. Ines Newman (2014) ReclaimingLocal Democracy. Bristol: PolicyPress.

take note of the materials andsuggestions of the variousgroups campaigning for moreinclusive state education;

b) draw up a list of the ideasresulting from (a) and maketentative suggestions aboutwhether it thinks they shouldbe pursued or not, which issuesrequire urgent answers andwhich require a longer termperspective;

c) consult widely on the ideasresulting from (b) with a view toorganising a series of carefullyprepared seminars with papersarguing for various perspectivesand solutions circulated inadvance of the discussions;

d) maintain a website giving fullinformation about all of theabove so as to work in the mosttransparent way possible.

e) The purpose of all of theabove should be clear: todevelop Labour'sunderstanding of educationalissues and to develop itsproposals with a view toreaching out to the electoratewith its solutions and asking forfeedback from everyoneinterested.

All of this should be the basis for

This article draws on Richard’s article ‘Therealistic possibility of a Labour government ledby Jeremy Corbyn means we could get rid ofacademies for good’, published in the currentissue of FORUM: for promoting 3-19comprehensive education 60:2, July 2018,pp201-216. This is the link to the journal:www.wwwords.co.uk/forum/content/pdfs/60/issue60_2.asp

10


For Social ism and Education Kevin Courtney

It is thirty years since MargaretThatcher’s Education Reform Act

established the framework of anew school system in England.No government since then hastried to step outside itsframework.

The patterns of our everydaywork, and the horizons of ourimagination, are to a large extentset by ‘1988’. It is difficult toimagine a system ofaccountability without Ofsted, ofassessment without SATs, ofschool governance withoutacademies.

Yet this is what Labour now hasto do. With the promise of aNational Education Service,Labour has set itself a boldchallenge – to remake, root andbranch, a broken system.

To some such a bold changecan seem intimidating. But theevidence of failure of the currentsystem is everywhere, in andaround the school. Our childrenare the most unhappy in thedeveloped world, their teachersface higher workload thanpractical anywhere else. We havegrowing problems of cuts and ateacher recruitment and retentioncrisis. Our market-led schoolsystem puts finances before thewell-being of pupils; our tests and

new sense of possibility created.We know the problems are manyand complex. We know thatsocialism is the language ofpriorities and that we must selectand target our policies. We haveto know where to begin, in a waythat maximises support, and setsout a clear path towards furtherchange. In that spirit, I putforward these proposals.

- Restore the cuts made byCoalition and Conservativegovernments; then build a newschool budget formula thatguarantees schools have theresources they need. Investmassively in early years, SENDand further education.

- Commit to ending thecurrent system of testing inprimary schools in its entirety –baseline, phonics and SATs. Inthat context introduce thebetter systems of assessment forlearning that we see in othercountries.

- Abolish the EACC so thatschools are not discouragedfrom teaching arts andvocational subjects.

- Take bold first steps to re-

exams narrow the curriculumwhile increasing stress; specialneeds education is in crisis; ourinspection system punishes morethan it supports; our failingaccountability systems contributeto a school culture wheremanagement is intrusive andworkload ever-rising.

These are not accidentalfailures. They are the products ofausterity, and of an educationalprogramme based on the coreprinciples of neoliberalism – amarketised system, policed by astrong state. They are problemsnot just of resources but of quality.We have to accept that smallerchanges are likely to fail – wecan’t introduce teacherassessment alongside SATs orschool self-evaluation alongsideOfsted. We need a change on thescale of the 1944 Education Act toput right the failures of the 1988Act. They cannot be endedwithout investment, and withouta bold redesign. Here the Partyproposals have some way to go.The NES will need to be basedon concrete proposals, as well asgood intentions.

Many supporters of the NESwill feel that progress needs to bequicker if the conversation oneducation is to be changed, and a

Kevin Courtney is joint General Secretary of the NationalEducation Union, the largest teachers’ organisation inEurope. Formed in 2017 following the merger of theNational Union of Teachers and the Association ofTeachers and Lecturers, the National Education Union(NEU) represents over half a million teachers, FE lecturers,school support staff and teaching assistants. The NEUproclaims that “together we’ll shape the future ofeducation”. For more informaton on the NEU, visit theirwebsite at neu.org.uk.

11


integrating all schools into aunified, democraticallyccountable system; includingby immediately reintroducingnational pay and conditionsand Local Authority oversightof school admissions andexclusions, by allowing LocalAuthorities to open newcommunity schools andreturning to them pupil placeplanning powers, ending forcedacademisation and by returninga legal existence to schools inMATs with the right to leavethose MATs and by making theremaining trust boards bodiesinto elected bodies. Localauthorities school supportsystems should simultaneouslybe systematically rebuilt.

- Abolish Ofsted schoolinspection and create a schoolreview system based on selfand peer review, qualityassured by HMI. Othercountries do this and it works.

- Support the work ofteachers and the growth ofprofessionalism; base systemsof management on professionaldialogue and trust in teachersreducing the onerous demandsfor evidence so it only requiredwhere there is suspected failure.Invest hugely in better initialtraining supported byuniversity educationdepartments and in high qualityContinuing ProfessionalDevelopment.

With policy headlines like these,Labour can take the ‘standardsagenda’ away from the right. Itcan depict Conservatism for whatit really is: the party thatpromotes low quality, test-dominated, de-professionalised,underfunded education for themany, while reservingopportunity for the few.

Ready for work?Some quest ionsTom Unterrainer

Something instructive is happening in American schools. To clarify, it’snot the hyper-commercialisation, continued segregation, conformity and

narrowing of curriculum in that country’s state-funded schools that is ofinterest. No, the interesting development is the proliferation of fee-payingschools that fundamentally reject the narrow view of childhood thatgenerally dictates in education. Also of interest is the fact that such schoolsare overwhelmingly popular with sections of the elite in American society.

Only the rich can afford to send their children to such places, schoolswhere budget cuts, competition, assessments, league tables and a narrowingcurriculum are unimaginable. These are places where young peopleblossom in their own ways, where children are cultivated as ‘fully developedhuman beings fit for a variety of labours’. Such places are the preserve ofthe already privileged. Why so? Why is such an education fit only for asmall section of society, people who could choose any school in the worldbut who prefer – in increasing numbers – a progressive alternative? Becausewhen you can buy the best education available on the planet, you buy it.

We should be very cautious indeed when using the phrases “ready forwork” or “work ready” when discussing educational priorities.

Parents, children and educators in the UK are told that high-stakes testing,league tables, invasive inspection and appraisal regimes are the only wayto secure the best possible outcomes for young people. A philosophy of‘train it, measure it, race it’ dominates, where children and young peopleare trapped in a perpetual horse race, where every day is like the GrandNational. The children of working class families and others are being soldan educational bill of goods that would horrify not only the elites of NewYork but ordinary families on much of the European continent.

Ken Coates argued the following in the 1970s:continued on page 12...

Ready for what type of work and workplace?

12


A b o l i s h ‘It remains true that the liberal educational goals are, at root, in flagrantcontradiction to the basic assumptions which regulate our economic life. The resultis that today, far from education – individual development in co-operative activity– reaching out through working life to become a life-long experience, it is still truethat industry constantly exerts itself to reach its clammy hands down into schools,in order to make wage-slavery as life-long, and as inescapable, as it possibly can.’

Ken was concerned to identify and celebrate the very many positive andprogressive developments in education at the time. For example, the raisingof the school leaving age and the ‘new spirit in the schools’ where ‘[t]heprimary school today … is a place of adventure, experiment, liveliness, joy,and a felicitous co-operation between child, parent and teacher’. But he wasalso finely tuned into the realities of employment at the time and thecontradictions between developments in education and the practicalities ofthe workplace: ‘[t]he more co-operative and participatory that teachingtechniques become, the more grossly they will be out of phase with the rolesfor which their victims are being prepared’.

The development of ‘Academies and ‘Free Schools’, the high-stakestesting regime and the general narrowing of the curriculum can beunderstood as an effort to resolve the contradiction identified by Coates. Inshort, there is now little effort made to maintain the pretence that schoolsare places of liberation, wonderment and joy. The steady progress towardsthe privatisation of schools and the further regimentations of the curriculumare answers to the oft-posed question: ‘what sort of education does modernproduction require?’ In large parts of the world, the ‘Global EducationReform Movement’ [GERM] is working to provide similar answers to thisquestion. Our children are victims of a global process that only the wealthyelites are able to escape. This is because when we talk of ‘modernproduction’ we are talking about the practices of multi-national companies,firms that operate within a global market with global competition and globalimperatives. We are talking about zero-hours contracts, anti-union laws,employment practices geared towards avoiding payment of the minimumor living wage. We are talking about short-termism, precariousness anduncertainty. When asked to answer the question ‘what sort of education doesmodern production require?’, the present government are fully aware of therealities and imperatives.

Coates suggested that we turn the question on its head. Rather thanmoulding a school and education system to the needs and requirements ofmodern production and employment – with its litany of inadequacies,humiliations and repressions – we should ask what modern production andemployment can learn from the aspirations of progressive education. Shouldwe not try to understand that when the economic elites of New York andelsewhere shun ‘traditional education’ and choose the best education thatmoney can buy, they do so not just because they love their children butbecause they understand that such an education will prepare them for thedemands and challenges of the world to come?

The present government has offered its answer to the question of whattype of schools we need. In so doing, they have generated an unprecedentedcrisis and our first job is to make them accountable for it. Our second job isto reject the premise of the question they sought to answer. Our third job isto fight for a vision and structure of education and society more generallywhere the extraordinary in each of us can be unleashed.

In Setpember 2017, theNew Zealand LabourParty returned togovernment for the firsttime since 2008. Despitegoverning through amixture of coalition andconfidence-and-supplyarrangements, Labourin New Zealand hasbeen able toimplement someimportant educationreforms. The moststriking of these is theabolition of nationalstandards. Labour in NZlistened to the concernsof teacher unions,parents and childrenthemselves in decidingto scrap the NationalStandards. Labour in theUK now has a very clearunderstanding of theimpact of neoliberalismon our economy andsociety - including ourpublic services.Standardised testing isjust as much a productof neoliberal thought inthe UK as it was in NZ.Surely it’s time to followthe lead of our sisterparty?

13


N a t i o n a l S t a n d a r d sL e s s o n s f r o m N e w Z e a l a n d

The National Party of NewZealand under Prime

Minister John Key introduced apolicy of National Standards inreading, writing and mathematicsfor primary-aged students when itbecame the government in 2008.

Draft standards were releasedfor consultation in May 2009 andthe standards were introduced atthe beginning of the 2010 schoolyear.

NZEI Te Riu Roa (the unionfor primary principals andteachers, support staff, earlychildhood workers and Ministryof Education itinerant staff)fiercely fought National Standardsand lobbied opposition parties tocommit to getting rid of NationalStandards should they becomegovernment. One of the first actsof the new Labour-led coalitiongovernment was to scrap NationalStandards in early 2018.

NZEI Te Riu Roa PresidentLynda Stuart said in December2017 after their demise wasannounced by the newgovernment:

“National Standards narrowed thecurriculum, put undue pressure onchildren, increased teacherworkload and weren’t even anaccurate measure of a child’sprogress.”

By changing words andphrases, we were able to movethe conversation. We talked aboutchildren and their learning, anarrowing curriculum, creativitybeing stifled, high-stakes testing,pitting schools against each otherand the danger of perceived“failing” schools. We talked abouthow every school was a goodschool and that with adequatefunding all children could reachtheir potential. That qualitypublic education was real andachievable.

We “called out” what wethought were the real reasonbehind National Standards – thatthey were part of the neo-liberalagenda. School education in NewZealand had been“neoliberalised” over the past 30years, and this shaped these threepolicies.

A lot of work was done aroundhow broad, creative curriculawere the best way for children tolearn and become resilient,questioning and confidentcitizens. We generated a lot ofstories around the benefit of arts,music in schools, for example.

It was enough to create doubtin the minds of the public andinfluence commentators andallies.

This article was adapted from adocument produced by NZEI.

It was important to change thenarrative about how NationalStandards narrowed thecurriculum.

There was a need to combat theneo-liberal agenda that NationalStandards were a panacea for all“the ills” in the New Zealandeducation system. Focussing onthe was particularly effective.Parents were good allies in this, asthey did not like their child beingassessed “below standard” andwere unhappy that progress wasnot being measured in anindividualised. Children becameunconfident of their abilities, withsome as young as five years oldsaying they were failures.

Children with additionallearning needs were also includedin the National Standardsstatistics. Schools were told toreport these results to theministry, but not to parents. Thisalso caused parents to bedisillusioned about the results’worth and effectiveness.

We explained that teachers dotest in NZ using a range ofassessment tools but these areassessments for learning ratherthan of learning. This was integralin allaying fears particularly ofparents who wanted to know howtheir child was doing at school.

The National government hadsaid the standards were needed tohelp those children who were“under-achieving”, but it waspainfully clear that there was noextra funding forthcoming forchildren who had been identifiedas needing extra support.

‘It was important tochange the narrative abouthow National Standardsnarrowed the curriculum’

‘We called out the neo-liberal agenda behindNational Standards’

14


Trawl the literature on the‘fourth industrial revolution’

and the same themes repeatedlyrecur. We are facing the end ofthe job for life, the rise of thefreelance, task-oriented, gigeconomy. In order to get ahead oreven just to survive, tomorrow’sworkers will have to be entrepre -neurial, good communicators,globally aware, thrive in solowork — ‘learning to earn a livingthrough the “start up of you”‘—

supervisors, a lonely soundingsort of job. Nano robots willenter through the keyhole in orderto get the surgical job done.

Artificial Intelligence will soonsuccessfully be able to reproduceall the great works of art, whiledriverless cars will renderthousands unemployed within adecade (although I anticipate aflourishing under ground businessin old-fashioned taxis, driven bysurly well-informed drivers, tocontinue long into the twenty-first century).

Yet what most clearly emergesfrom this extensive liter ature ishow much more, not less,relevant and cherished theungovernable human being, andhuman relations, will become inthis futuristic landscape.

As jobs move away frommanufacturing to services, therewill be more demand forstronger non-cognitive skills suchas communication, confidenceand resilience.

How will — how should — theseeconomic and technologicalchanges affect twenty-first-century schooling? Proposals fora `twenty-first-centurycurriculum’ tend to put emphasison increasing studentunderstanding of global politics,climate change, andinterpersonal relationships andfostering greater self-

and skilled in teams. According to Hilary Cottam we

can ‘expect an average of elevenjobs in a life time ... and by 2020half of Britons will be sole traders.12 Automation will rob us ofmillions of jobs. Manufacturing isalready shifting from the factoryfloor to the 3D printer; coding isactually the principal foreignlanguage of our age. Chatbots willstaff call centres, but will stillrequire human administrators and

Excerpt: Li fe Lessons by Mel issa Benn, Verso, 2018

A passion for learning

15


development and civicengagement. Such goals,unimpeachable as they are, canhave a touch of non-specificwindiness about them and a hintof the wrong sort of vaultingambition as if we are settingyoung people the challenge tosolve major problems — globalwarming, the fraying ofdemocracy — that have eluded theefforts of most adults so far.Perhaps we also fear the vanishingof academic specialisms — thefoundation stone of Englisheducation — into a general haze ofgood intentions.

Returning from the wildershores of utopian speculation tothe unforgiving playground ofcontemporary political debate, itfeels hard to know how to fit thevague future into the demandingpresent moment in which childrenmust be educated daily, examstaken, specific paths in lifedecided. There lurks a morepragmatic fear of losing importantelements of the modern scenesuch as an apparently newemphasis on high expectationsand order in our classrooms. Allschools may not yet have reachedthese giddy heights but suchthemes are understandablyimportant to parents, andpoliticians are always sensitive tothe anxieties of their electorate.

This nervous pragmatism mayhave its uses, however. In ourconsideration of the future weneed to incorporate the rightlessons from the past in the right

experience of education must beshot through with friendly,engaged order. We could call thisapproach both progressive andrigorous.

What might such a perspectivelook like in practice? At the heartof all these initiatives must be arenewed emphasis on theimportance of nurturingrelationships and capabil ities of allkinds: an imperative perfectly inkeeping both with the anticipateddemands of Artificial Intelligenceand some interestingcontemporary ideas on theprinciples behind therevitalisation of the welfare state.’

At an early years level, thereneeds to be a switch away fromdidactic, fact-based learning to theplay-based curriculum that hasbeen well established, bynumerous researchers, as the bestfoundation for deepunderstanding, one thatrecognises the vital emotional andrelational elements of learning.

Our system’s currentoveremphasis on testing needs tobe phased out in favour ofdifferent forms of formativerather than summativeassessment, with teachersconstantly `feeding back’responses to students, andresources directed to supportstruggling learners to achievetheir very best.

At secondary level, thereshould be no contradictionbetween deep subject learningand more engaging methods of

way, to remem ber that our systemhas for too long and too oftenfailed to provide a genuinelyinteresting and challenging educa -tion for most children andcertainly a significant majority ofdisadvantaged young people.

Many of the wrong turns of thepast seventy years (includinggrammar schools, retrotraditionalism and the marketexperiment) have stemmed, inpart, from attempts, howeverpartial, however blinkered, torescue some, or all, fromunderachievement and a lack ofself-fulfillment. They may haveproduced their own prob lems, butnonetheless future deliberationson curriculum, pedagogy anddiscipline — in the broadest sense— must stay faithful to the betterpart of those goals and carryforward the most fruitful lessons ofthe past.

It is important not tounderestimate any single learneror group of learners and maintainthe highest expectations of allchildren, albeit in broader waysthan currently conceived. Wemust take par ticular care to invest,in all senses, in the education ofthe disadvantaged and make surethat schools are seen as placeswhere we learn how to livetogether in interesting harmony.Last but not least, the daily

‘It is important not tounderestimate any single

learner or group of learners’

16


teaching. As I have argued, formany teachers the tra ditional/progressive divide is pernicious:a false binary.

This is not just abstract theory.There are schools around thecountry, often led by brave heads,that have deliberately pursuedtheir own pedagogical path. Whatmost struck me about the schoolsI visited was their rigour. Theymix something of today’s ‘highexpec tations’ culture with olderideas about granting youngpeople the time, and freedom, tolearn more deeply. It is alsosignificant that they are in areas ofhigh deprivation or surroundedby more selective institutions,meaning a significant proportionof Year 7 pupils will arrive with asense of demoralisation abouthaving failed to get into a `better’school: the curse of the Englishsystem.

Yet I was deeply impressed bythe degree of commitment, andself-critical reflection, displayedby heads, teachers and teachingassistants. There was plenty ofwhat might be called tra ditionallearning going on in both schools,but the whole point of SlowEducation, or the approach takenat Stanley Park High, is not tospurn knowledge but to anchor it

involve not just a spread ofexpected aca demic subjects butensure plentiful provision of thearts, drama, music, physicalexercise, consideration of politicaland social questions, sex andrelationship education: all thoseelements that the futurologists(and our own common sense) tellus is so important.

Every child should have theright to learn a musical instrumentand a foreign language, personalproject and other non-exam-related forms of learning such ascommunity service. In order tomake the right decisions abouttheir upper secondary schoolchoices, future learning paths andeventual employment, students -will have access to properlyfunded guidance and careersadvice.

These diverse initiatives offerboth a coherent andcontemporary framework thatmeets the challenges of the futureand a truly national system. Theycan be utilised by any school inthe country, whatever its mix, andbalance of learners. The proposalsalso foster useful co-operationbetween schools and colleges inany given area.

Edited extract from Chapter 8

more authentically. Luckily, itsimpact can be assessed in terms ofdata and destination as well as inthe manifest enjoyment ofstudents.

So, what are some of the policyimplications of such a shift inapproach to teaching andlearning? Education is inevitablya deeply political question, butthat does not mean politiciansshould directly decide whatchildren learn.

Without doubt, the setting ofthe national curriculum shouldnot just be removed frompoliticians, of all parties, butseparated from the distortingnature of the political cycle itself.Nor is there a need for such acurricu lum to set out insuffocating detail what knowledgeneeds to be acquired year by year.

At both primary and secondarylevel, the curriculum should bebroad and multidisciplinary and,at secondary school, should

‘Without doubt, the settingof the national curriculumshould not just be removed

from politicians of all parites,but separated from thedistorting nature of the

political cycle.’

THE ABOLITION OF CHILDHOOD?

As with our factory model, the state of the component or “Human operating unit” at thisfinal inspection stage is linked in the development process to the initial raw material state,our childhood. Just as raw material in conventional production has to be monitored, testedand scientifically prepared for its ultimate destination so also must human material bescientifically prepared as society moves towards its factory model. In this regard, childhoodin the sense in which I will describe it, is a real problem indeed. It is notoriously unscientific,is unstructured, is supervised by amateurs and non professionals, namely parents, and bydefinition the activists are the children themselves. For the reductionist bent on scientificprinciple and engineering precision, this is clearly a recipe for chaos and an unmitigateddisaster. Above all, childhood is a subversive hotbed for the spread of tacit knowledge. Thisis a term coined by Polanyi to describe that form of knowledge which as he put it, is “thosethings we know but cannot tell”.

Mike Cooley, Delinquent Genius

17


Lifelong Learning - A personal view Sal Morawetz

I’ve been active as a tradeunionist mobilising around

personal and professionaldevelopment for workers for overthree decades. It is music to myears that the Party is committingto lifelong learning free at thepoint of use for all ages. We needmore detailed discussion –perhaps via the Lifelong LearningCommission – and to set out somethoughts.

Where is the urgency forgearing up to the Fourth IndustrialRevolution - Automation andArtificial Intelligence? Thepundits envisage the decimationof countless low-skilled and low-paid jobs.

We may see a myriad of newjobs developing over the next fewdecades, but where is thecommitment to the needs of thoselikely to be most affected but leastable to easily retrain in the short-to medium-term? Fantastic thatfunding for Unionlearn is to berestored – though I would warnagainst a self-perpetuatingindustry of well-paid projectworkers who organise ever moreevents regardless of growingrelease problems which make itincreasingly hard for reps tofunction let alone attend externalevents alongside fantastic convertswho’ve changed their livesthrough education and want topay it forward. The most recentadult education survey reminds usthat it is those living in areas ofdeprivation who are least likely to

train for this brave new world –we must ensure a supportivebenefits culture as well asresourced opportunities to spreadtheir wings learning about thethings that thrill them in theirpersonal lives!

I am delighted by ourcommitment to abolish highereducation fees, bring back theEducational MaintenanceAllowance and maintenancegrants. But we can do better. Ifeducation and qualificationtraining is to be truly about allages, then we must also addressthe issue of support at theworkplace. Currently employeesin firms with over 250 workershave the right to request unpaidrelease to study related to their job

be learning – a factor reinforcedall too often by class, previousnegative experiences of education,disability etc. I remember as alearning project worker beingmoved to the core by one womanwho I’d helped sign up for anUSDAW-led IT course cryingtears of terror and nearly breakingevery bone of my hand as I triedto reassure her and encourage herto go into the training room. Shedid just fine! We need plans tosupport unions & communityactivists to engage with such “atrisk” workers to help them to takefirst steps into education and newskills. We should make it a legalright for unions or independentcommunity learning champions tobe able to access workers incompanieswithout tradeunionrecognition tooffer learning& educationsupport!

Rememberthat often it’sonly throughtime andresource-heavysupportedinformallearning thatsuch previouseducation“rejects” willsee learningand training asan option forthem. And forthose whodon’t have thecapacity to re-

‘Where is the urgency forgearing up for the FourthIndustrial Revolution? ’

18


– surely an employerresponsibility anyway! I doubtmany have accessed this, andindeed very few can afford to taketime off without pay! (And theresearch shows that it is thealready educated, higher socialstrata who are most likely to keepstudying)

Let’s go bold and make it alegal right for people to have aspecified amount of paid time perannum to study for their owninterests, making sure thatemployers can’t use this to getemployees to train in their timefor current or employersupported future jobcompetences!

We really need to get on withthe discussions about cross borderworking! Forget Europe for amoment, we already see abewildering mish-mash ofdifferent skills options availablefor workers and organisationswith multiple sites located acrossdifferent nations of the UK. Notto mention the iniquities of levyallocation to the devolved NationStates – can we ensure we’ll belooking at that too? Let’s see somesensible joined up thinking!

Previous Tory governmentshave decimated our brilliantcareers service, so it is great to seeour commitment to improvecareers advice. Let’s ensure thatsome of the ridiculous restrictedvision, payment by results, outputmonitoring is done away with andintroduce an all age, free,properly resourced, locallyoffered, face-to-face service(alongside something likeScotland’s excellent web basedWorld of Work resources) so thatworkers and unemployed alikecan get expert support andguidance for re-training –

education and sectorknowledgeable unions to beinvolved at every level,including the Institute forApprenticeships & TechnicalEducation, Local EnterprisePartnerships, and compulsorylocal quality and scrutinypanels in each employer withapprentices· The right for paid time forapprentices to meet with unionrep buddies.

Let us prioritise reviewingapprenticeships usinginternational best practice toguide us, alongside exploringoptions for widening the levy ofall employers to support a morehelpful umbrella framework ofdifferent workforce developmentoptions, includingapprenticeships, but for heaven’ssake let us not rush into a furthermajor upheaval at short notice!

And on the same vein ... Greatthat we will look at devolvingresponsibility for skills down tocity regions or devolvedadministrations for localconditions. But we need both toretain more than annual reportbacks nationally and divorceourselves from the ‘party ofbusiness’ which grantedemployers the powers to set theagenda.

Our Party must be saying loudand clear that it is the realeducation experts, together withthe wider unions, the voluntarysector (particularly women,BAME and disability groups) andlearners, who must have equalweight with employers to explorelabour market intelligence andagree priorities and strategies!

preferably without the stereotypesand unconscious bias that we sosadly see dominant in signpostingcurrently!

Fanfare re our commitment toproper apprenticeships! I hopethat means we will actually returnto quality programmes. Too manyBritish apprenticeships are thejoke of Europe.

Instead of offering the breadthof competencies & knowledgethat formats in other countriesdemand, the Tories cuddled up tobusiness cronies and allowedthem to set the terms of referencefor narrower frameworks to suitparochial business needs ratherthan the proper fully transferableskills for the workforce of thefuture.

We have to challenge thebizarre new orthodoxy that profitfocused businesses are allaltruistically interested in andsupportive of wider (cross) sectorskills development!

And great that we will upskilltrainers in the private sector(many of whom were “let go” inthe first place from the ever-centralising Further Educationcolleges) but are we prepared todeal with the extremely dodgysign offs for private providers topractice and sort the mess ofinsufficient, low quality assessororganisations?

First steps:

· Mandatory requirement formultiple trade union places atapprenticeship and skillsdecision-making tables –allowing all the appropriate

‘Too many Britishapprenticeships are

the joke of Eurpe’

19


The National EducationService, and the cradle to

grave education it represents, isone of the most revolutionarypolicies that a Labour Party hasever designed. If done right, itcould liberate thousands ofpeople in this country and rankalongside the institutionsintroduced by Labour that giveus, as Labour members,overwhelming feelings of pride-institutions such as the NHS andthe welfare state.

But now at the birth point ofour National Education Service, itis still a concept that must bedefined, designed and debated.We must spend time looking ateach part of our education systemas it currently stands to examinehow they fit together, whethereach part is beneficial to our aimsand what we would like to keepand what needs to be discarded.

has resulted in increased classsizes, a lack of adequate supportfor children with specialeducational needs and disabilities,a range of “expensive” subjectscut from the curriculum, excitingeducational visits cancelledbecause schools cannot subsidisethem, teaching assistants leavingin droves and crumbling schoolestates.

We cannot provide theeducation system all our childrenneed when, as Laura McInerneyidentified through her ‘TeacherTapp’ surveys, 80% of teacherswould rather take a pay cut andgo to 4 days a week so they canhave some semblance of work-lifebalance. This is especially thecase when those currentlyrunning our school system seemto have no idea how to attractnew, passionate educators to theprofession.

As a Member of Parliament,and a Member of the EducationSelect Committee, I spend muchof my time debating andexamining education in thiscountry. There are so many issuesthat come up about schools, fromfunding to behaviour policies toteacher workloads. Each of theseis exceptionally important andneeds to be addressed under aLabour National EducationService.

We cannot provide theeducation system all our childrenneed when school funding hasbeen cut in real terms by just over4% per pupil since 2015-16. This

Our National Education Service Emma Hardy MP

‘We cannot provide theeducation system all our

children need when schoolfunding has been cut’

20


Each of these issues isexceptionally important in and ofitself and needs to be fixed undera Labour National EducationService, but each point to anunderlying issue. That issue isaccountability. If we can fixaccountability, then we can fixnearly everything else in theeducation system. But we need tobe brave and we need to beradical and we need to beprepared for a backlash fromsome of the traditionalestablishment.

By fixing accountability, youcan have a system that accuratelymeasures where problems trulylie in schools and where moneycan be provided to help remedythose problems. Thisaccountability should be providedat a local enough level to allowcommunities the proper oversightthey need to teach their childrenthe skills that will help themflourish in their local economiesand communities.

By fixing accountability, youcan put the power back into thehands of those at a local level - theparents, communities, and dare Isay it, even the teachers - toproduce an environment that isright for learning and engagingchildren with their education.

And by fixing accountabilityand the high stakes environmentyou will remove the additional,largely pointless workload thatcomes from having to ‘evidence’everything in Ofsted’s name. Thiswould bring the amount of worka teacher is required to do downto a level that is moremanageable, while taking nothingwhatsoever away from thechildren who are reliant upon thatteacher for their education.

So what will that accountability

look like? Here, we must turn toour principles as socialists andthose embodied by the SEA. Asan organisation, we as SEAmembers have committedourselves to promoting aneducation system that is local anddemocratic. These are theprinciples that we should followtoo when designing ouraccountability system.

If we just accept that the currentresults-based league tables are away to measure ‘good’ schools,then our only offering will be totinker at the edges of theaccountability system we alreadyhave. I do not accept that baselineis a fairer way to judge schoolsbecause I do not accept thattaking two measurements andrewarding schools with a biggestgap between these measurementsis any way to determine if thosechildren have received a goodeducation.

We need to start at the endresult we want to achieve andwork our way backwards. Surely,we all want engaged, educated,contented, tolerant and activecitizens who can work effectivelytogether. The question is, how dowe design an education systemthat achieves this? We need to bebold and ask ourselves difficultquestions like, does ourassessment system help or hinderus producing citizens who knowhow to work together and whoare content with few mentalhealth problems? If it doesn’t thenwe need changes.

As an MP I care about all thechildren in my constituency and Iwant all the children to have agood quality education. I believethat the current system is drivingbehaviours that prevent thishappening universally. The

practise of ‘off rolling’ is wellevidenced in the latest educationselect committee report and isarguably the ‘unintendedconsequence’ of a system thatrewards schools who can get themore troublesome students out oftheir results. Imagine the radicalchange that could immediatelyappear if we decided that wewould no longer judge schoolsindividually on their results, butwe would instead judge themcollectively through regionalaccountability.

Regional accountability couldend ‘off rolling’ overnight becauseevery school would becomeresponsible for every child. Forthat region to demonstrateachievement for the pupils theywould be forced to collaborate,recognise their different strengthsand weaknesses, share expertiseand work together. We know thatcollaboration works, LondonChallenge demonstrated this. Associalists and trade unionists weknow we are stronger when wework together.

Whatever we judge, whateverwe measure, illustrates what wevalue as a country. We have theopportunity to learn the lessons ofthe past and be brave aboutshaping our future and we need tograsp it. We need to thinkradically. I’ve given my thoughtsand now it’s over to you.

Emma Hardy is the Member ofParliament for West Hull and Hessle.Prior to entering Parliament, sheworked as a teacher and then for theNational Union of Teachers. She is amember of Labour’s National PolicyForum.

‘By fixing accountabilityyou can put the power backinto the hands of those at a

local level’

‘We need to start at theend result we want and

work our way backwards’

‘Whatever we judge,whatever we measure,

illustrates what we value as a country’

21


Schools, Happiness and Mental Well-Being

According to a report in TheGuardian on July 13th, the

number of under-19s beingtreated by the NHS for mentalillnesses, such as anxiety,depression and eating disorders,has reached the record total of400,000 a year.

The charity “Young Minds”warns that this total represents anunderestimate of the true scale ofneed as many more children whowould benefit from treatment areunable to access it.

NHS England admits that only25% of children with adiagnosable mental healthproblem ever receive treatment,largely because the number ofpsychiatrists who specialise in thetreatment of young people isinsufficient to meet demand and,indeed, has been declining. Theperiod from 2013 to 2017 saw a6.6% fall in the numbers of suchspecialists.

The government’s green paperof last November proposed thattackling this growing problemshould be a priority and, amongits proposals, is an increased rolefor schools in identifying pupilswith problems. However, “YoungMinds”, while welcoming thisdevelopment, point out that whatis needed is long term investment,both in schools and in the NHS.

“Schools”, says Tom Madders,the charity’s director, “must begiven the resources andrecognition they need to makechildren’s well-being a genuinepriority”. No-one looking at the

Devon condemned those whosaid the younger generationneeded to toughen up to deal withthe stress of life, and misusedwords such as ‘character’, ‘grit’and ‘resilience’, as it impliedhaving a mental illness “issomehow a defect of theindividual”.

Shortly after giving thisaddress, Devon was sacked by thegovernment.

RECOMMENDATIONS OFTHE “YOUNG MINDS”

REVIEW

We are calling on theGovernment to re-balance

the education system, so that thewell-being of students isconsidered as important asacademic attainment.

To tackle the mental healthcrisis in our classrooms, and totransform outcomes for youngpeople, the Government must putwell-being at the very heart of theeducation system.

We know that many schools aredelivering high quality,innovative programmes to makesure their pupils are happy andhealthy, but too often they facesignificant barriers.

Currently, schools areincentivised to focus on exams,without the capacity, time, andresource to invest in students’social and emotionaldevelopment.

current state of school financescould feel much optimism aboutthis coming to pass and there isgrowing evidence that, for manyyoung people, school is morelikely to be part of the problemthan of the solution.

How seriously the governmentreally takes matters can be seen inits treatment of Natasha Devon,whom it appointed in August2015 to inquire into and report onthe state of children’s mental well-being. Addressing a conference ofprivate school heads in 2016,Devon said:

“We need to ask ourselves whatis causing mental healthproblems in the first place.Time and time again overrecent years young people –and the people who teach them– have spoken out about how arigorous culture of testing andacademic pressure isdetrimental to their mentalhealth. At one end of the scalewe’ve got four-year-olds beingtested, at the other end of thescale we’ve got teenagersleaving school and facing theprospect of leaving universitywith record amounts of debt.Anxiety is the fastest growingillness in under 21s. Thesethings are not a coincidence.”

The conference was told thatthough drinking, smoking, drugtaking and teenage pregnancywere down among young people,rates of depression and anxietyhave increased by 70% in ageneration, admissions to hospitalas a result of self-harm havedoubled in four years and calls tothe counselling service ChildLineabout exam stress have tripled.

‘We need to ask ourselveswhats is causing mental

health problems’

‘Government must putwell-being at the very heart

of the education system’

22


These five keyrecommendations are necessaryso that all schools can help theirstudents build resilience, promoteemotional well-being, andrespond effectively to mentalhealth problems. These changeswould mean all young peopleleave school with the skills theyneed to thrive in adulthood.

Recommendation 1:The Government mustupdate existing legislation toenshrine well-being as afundamental priority ofschools.

Primary legislation mustcontain a clear duty on allschools to promote well-being and good mentalhealth for their pupils. TheGovernment should alsodevelop new, detailedstatutory guidance, so thatschools have a blueprint fordelivering this duty.

Recommendation 2:The Ofsted inspectionframework should beupdated to emphasise theimportance of a whole-school approach to mentalhealth and well-being inschools.

To enable the well-beingof students to become anintegral part of schoolimprovement and development plans there needs tobe a much strongeremphasis on mental healthand well-being within theOfsted inspectionframework.

Schools must be inspectedon how effectively theypromote good mental healthand well-being, as well astheir academic results.

The Ofsted inspectionframework must include adescription of how schoolscan create a positivelearning environment,

YoungMinds is the UK’s leadingcharity committed to improvingthe emotional well-being andmental health of children andyoung people atwww.youngminds.org.uk/

which fosters resilience,wellbeing and healthydevelopment.

Recommendation 3:The Government shoulddevelop, trial and establish awell-being measurementframework by 2020.

Schools will have differentbaseline standards ofwellbeing, based ondemographics and otherfactors. Comparing schoolsdirectly may be misleading,but measurement is essentialto drive improvement.

The Government shouldprovide schools with thetools to measure their ownprogress in this area, andresults should be publishedand available to pupils andparents.

Recommendation 4:Embed an understanding ofwell-being, mental healthand resilience in all teachertraining.

The framework of corecontent for Initial TeacherTraining (ITT) is inadequate.To ensure all teachers areable to confidently supporttheir students’ mental healthand well-being needs, theITT framework should beexpanded to include adesignated component onmental health awareness.

However, simplyupskilling newly qualifiedteachers is not the wholeanswer and will lead tofurther inconsistencies in theprovision of well-being.

All teachers should have afundamental understandingof mental health and well-being and this needs to bereflected in mandatoryContinuing ProfessionalDevelopment such as INSETdays.

This article first appeared in theAugust 2018 edition of CASEnotes,magazine of the Campaign for StateEducation. campaignforstateeducation.org.uk

EP Comments...The fact that mental well-beingis completely overlooked incurrent legislation informs theserecommendations, whichhave been made within theexisting framework of schoolinspection and accountability.We would expect somethingradically different from thestructures created by a newNational Education Service. Infact, happiness and well-beingshould be central concerns.British school children are someof the unhappiest in the world.Such a situation cannot bereplicated in truly socialistsystem of education. Anecessary first step will be todispense with the totallyuneccessary pressures createdby the targets and testingregime.

23


Ofsted - what is it good for?Louise Regan

Ofsted, the Office forStandards in Education,

Children's Services and Skills,was set up in 1992. It has beenthrough numerous changes sincethat time and the schoolinspection framework haschanged dramatically, but Ofsted– and what it stands for – hasalways been a disliked by manyin the teaching profession.

Any inspection system shouldhave at its core the ability forschools to understand their ownstrengths and areas fordevelopment, to build on thosestrengths and to put in highquality positive support todevelop identified areas of need.

The current school inspectionsystem is a far cry from this. It isa punitive, top-down system. Ateam of inspectors arrive, inspect,report and leave. The lack ofrespect for educationprofessionals, the lack of dialogueand genuine problem solving isharming, not helping, children’seducation.

There is a lack of consistency,lack of trust and in many casesgenuine fear of the inspectionsystem. This is not good foranyone in our education system.

A review by the right-wingthink tank Policy Exchange in2014 found that observations byinspectors were often unreliable,with around a fifty-fifty chance

communities. The report statedthat the evidence “suggests thatthe inspection system may not befully equitable to schools withchallenging intakes. We havefound that the least disadvantagedschools are most likely to bejudged ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’,and that notable proportions of‘good’ and ‘outstanding’ schoolsare not downgraded following asubstantial deterioration in theiracademic performance.”

Ofsted has created a toxicculture in our schools andeducation establishments. Thefear and anxiety aroundexpectations has increasedworkload and whilst this has beenrecognised, very little has actuallychanged. Ofsted have published

that the inspectors judged a lessonto be of the same standard as dataon pupil progress showed it to be.The report stated: “when it comesto relying on judgment of atrained Ofsted inspector on howeffective a lesson, you would bebetter off flipping a coin.”

A YouGov poll of teachersfound that only 15% of thembelieved that Ofsted inspectionsmake a positive contribution toschool improvement; just 9%believed they capture a roundedpicture of all the school's work;only 12% agreed that they are areliable measure of schoolperformance; and just 7% ofteachers concluded thatinspections supported schoolimprovement.

Research by the EducationPolicy Institute (EPI) showed howthe inspection system in Englandpenalises those schools servingthe most disadvantaged

‘There is a lack ofconsistency, lack of trust andin many cases genuine fear’

‘Ofsted has created a toxicculture in our schools andeducation establishments’

Ofsted - not f i t for purpose

24


various documents but staff inschools still report that inspectorsenter with preconceived ideasand expectations.

There have been increasingconcerns about the inspectionsystems role in the forcedacademisation of schools. Theacademisation system facesregular criticism and there is noevidence that it is having theimpact on school standards thatthe government said it would, yetthe inspection system is beingused to force throughacademisation even where it isn’twanted by the local schoolcommunity.

Concerns have also been raisedabout the inability to challengethese judgements and the fact thatthe complaints system is notindependent, creating a lack oftrust.

In August 2017, the High Courtquashed the special measuresverdict on an Academy in SouthLondon, describing Ofsted’scomplaints procedure as “not arational or fair process”. Ofsted’sguidance at the time stated that

Apparently this does not apply tothe Chief Inspector of Schoolswho stated that “Ofsted has noevidence that the quality ofeducation has been affected byschool funding cuts.”

Kevin Courtney, joint generalsecretary of the NationalEducation Union called for theabolition of Ofsted because it wasunable to speak truth to power.He raised the cuts to arts subjectsand reductions in special needssupport as examples of the wayfunding pressures are affectingeducation. He also suggestedOfsted had not found evidencebecause it focused too heavily onexam results.

He went on to say, “I thinkOfsted is not doing the right job.We need an inspectorate that willspeak truth to power. Ofsted istrying to blame schools forbecoming exam factories insteadof telling the government thatthey are running our educationsystem wrongly. And to cap it all,to say that the education budgetisn’t having an impact – it tellsyou that we don’t really have anindependent inspectorate that isspeaking truth to the government.I think we need to go back toHMI.”

It is time for a system of schoolimprovement that puts those thatwork in education at its core.School self-review, with peersupport and evaluation, buildingon strengths, celebrating thediversity of our schoolcommunity and investing in highquality professional development.

It is time to put our trust backin the people doing the job. Let’slet the teachers teach and thechildren and young people learn– through play, pleasure andenjoyment.

schools judged to have seriousweaknesses or to require specialmeasures would not need to bereconsidered because “all suchjudgements are subject toextended quality assuranceprocedures,” and therefore bydefinition infallible. This wasdescribed as “Alice inWonderland,” by the judge.

A recent newspaper reportshowing that Ofsted has givenwell-paid officials collectively upto £185,000 in bonuses over thepast two financial years when themajority of schools are facingsignificant budget cuts and whenstaff in schools have faced years ofpay freeze or below inflationawards has made many questionnot only the bonuses but thesignificant salaries of officials.

The final and most recentconfrontation between Ofstedand the National EducationUnion came just days after theDfE had issued a statement tryingto silence those in educationspeaking out about what ishappening, saying they shouldnot express ‘political views’.

F i t f o r P u r p o s e ?

“ We h a v e n ' t s e e n a n y t h i n gy e t f ro m s c h o o l i n s p e c t i o n st h a t s a y s t h a t s c h o o l s a r eu n a b l e t o p ro v i d e a g o o dq u a l i t y o f e d u c a t i o n b yr e a s o n o f f u n d i n g . "

A m a n d a S p i e l m a nH e a d o f O f s t e d

25


The National EducationService as espoused in

Labour’s 2017 election manifestooffered the prospect of a verydifferent approach to educationthan that pursued by the Coalitionand now the ConservativeGovernment. Popular with partymembers, education staff andvoters in particular because of itscommitment to free education,the NES should be thespringboard for a raft of moredetailed proposals as to how it willbe delivered by a LabourGovernment.

This is why the National PolicyForum report on education is amissed opportunity. While no-oneexpected every i to be dotted or tto be crossed, those who madesubmissions, gave evidence inperson or made the effort toattend those consultationmeetings that were held, areentitled to feel disappointment atthe end result – a publication thatdeals in generalisations and addslittle to what we already knew.

If this was the intention, theNPF report has certainlysucceeded but matters cannot beallowed to rest here. Thealternative is that the details arebelatedly fleshed out before anelection with little input fromthose, including the SocialistEducation Association who mightsteer the Party in the rightdirection – or that Labourcandidates find themselves on thecampaign trail unable to answerobvious questions about wherethe Party stands on the future ofacademies, grammar schools,selections, school organisationand accountability – to name buta few.

the dismantling of the marketregulator, given the bizarre title ofthe Office of Students (OfS) underthe Conservative’s 2015 HigherEducation and Research Act(HERA). The OfS has statutoryresponsibilities and duties tomanage the market on theassumption that students areconsumers. Labour shouldundoubtedly commit to abolishthe OfS without delay and repealand replace HERA with a newHigher Education Act but alsoreview the award of universitytitle.

In an effort to furtherincentivise the market promotedby HERA and encourage privateproviders to enter the market, theaward of university title inEngland, previously highly valuedand hard-earned, has been

It also goes without saying thatLabour’s intentions on highereducation remain equally vaguebeyond the commitment to freeeducation which includes thescrapping not only of universitytuition fees but the advancedlearner loans that now have to betaken out by those aged 19 and

over who want to study for Level3 qualifications but who cannotafford course fees – a scandal ifever there was one.

Free tuition is of course the keyto Labour’s commitment to life-long learning.

This means the return of grantsto universities and should mean

The NES and higher education:what next? Pam Tatlow

‘Free tuition is the key toLabour’s commitment to life-

long learning’

26


undermined with the criteriareduced and the prospect oforganisations being able to awarddegrees on a probationary basisand being awarded university titleeven though they have traded forless than three years. Labourshould commit to review both theprocess and the criteria for theaward of university title inEngland and review whetherprivate and for-profitorganisations awarded universitytitle under these reduced criteriashould be allowed to retain thelatter.

Rather than restore a HigherEducation Funding Council forEngland, Labour should establisha University and HigherEducation Grants Committee(UHEGC) with a remit to agreegrant levels with universities andhigher education institutions. Thishas the potential to address theconsequences of theConservative’s decision toderegulate funded studentnumbers from 2015. TheGovernment line is that this haswidened opportunities andensured that all students who arejudged to be qualified can get auniversity place withoutinterference of the Treasury.

Like much higher educationpolicy since 2010, this is a sleightof hand not only because theTreasury has continued to cutwhat little teaching grant that stillexists but also becausederegulation has simply allowedsome universities to trade on theirhistoric reputation andcommercially produceduniversity league tables which arethemselves heavily reliant onresearch funding.

These universities have donewell out of this free-for-all

restore funding for postgraduateteaching, abolished when higherfees were introduced, and directfunding of universities was cutfrom 2012. Free tuition wouldundoubtedly provide newopportunities for part-time andmature students whose numbershave dropped like a stone since2012. The restoration andextension of maintenance grantsand loans by the WelshGovernment from 2018-19 andtheir extension to all studentswhether full or part-time, providesa model to which Labour couldalso commit.

Labour should reiterate itscommitment to restore NHSbursaries for nurses, midwivesand other professional healthcarestaff who have been required totake out higher education loanssince 2016. Not only is this a vote-winner it’s an obvious winner forindividuals and the NHS.

Of course, all this will belabelled as unaffordable by someeconomists and by those whoargue that paying off a loan for 30years, never being able to repay infull but having it written-off bytaxpayers at the end of therepayment period is progressive.While in strict economicterminology this may be thecorrect, when explained to mostpeople this money merry -go-round makes little sense. To addinsult to injury it is hugelyinefficient, costly to administerand leaks like a sieve.

The fact remains that highereducation is being funded by theGovernment but smoke andmirrors accounting methods makeit appear that the deficit anddepartmental spending is lower ifhigher education is funded viastudent loans.

including by lowering advertisedgrades while universities that havebeen the heavy lifters in terms ofmore socially inclusive studentprofiles including by offeringopportunities to older less mobilestudents, have seen their resourcesand income cut.

Everyone knows that moneytalks. A University and HE GrantsCommittee could link fundingallocations with the recruitment orotherwise by universities andhigher education institutions of amore diverse population ofstudents – or face the prospectthat a reduction in grant wouldresult if this was not achieved.

There is every reason to believethat those universities which havemade a dash for growth,sometimes at the expense of staffhours, contracts and the studentexperience and in some cases withdamaging impacts on localcommunities, might well changetheir tune.

But a Grants Committee shouldalso be tasked by a LabourGovernment with ensuring thatuniversities address by action andnot just warm words the dismalfailure to date to ensure that blackstudent attainment matches that oftheir white peers with the samepre-entry qualifications.

The abolition of tuition fees forundergraduate and other highereducation qualifications wouldopen up new possibilities forpostgraduates. The GrantsCommittee should have a remit to

‘universities must ensureby action and not just warmwords the dismal failure todate to ensure that black

student attainment matchesthat of their white peers’

27


The same applies to historictuition fee debt. While much hasbeen made of Jeremy Corbyn’sreference (without commitment)to this during the 2017 electioncampaign, the stark reality is thatthe majority of this debt is nevergoing to be repaid. There arestrong arguments for Labour tobite the bullet, change how thisappears in the accountingcolumns of the Treasury andcommit to its write-off.

While unlikely to catch thepublic imagination, universitystaff and unions are likely towelcome a commitment toabolish the Teaching ExcellenceFramework. (TEF). Manufacturedby Conservative Ministers toallegedly provide students withmore information and promote‘consumer’ choice, the TEF is ahuge waste of time and resourceand is not, and never can be, areliable measure of teachingquality.

Disappointingly the NPF report

there is now no funding fourresearch judged to be of nationalsignificance. Nor is there any linkbetween research allocations andthe number of students taught inany institution even thoughresearch funding provides capitalas well as revenue resources andunderpins investment in facilitieswhich students use includinglaboratories and learningresources.

There is little chance thatLabour’s commitments to delivera robust regional strategy will befulfilled if the status quo ismaintained in the allocations ofthe public funding for researchand innovation. This will requireradical new thinking from theshadow Treasury, Education andBusiness teams. The benefitswould be immeasurable andwithout it, Labour is unlikely to beable to fully tackle historicpatterns of lower growth andproductivity in regions outsideLondon and the South-East.

refers yet again to academic andvocational routes and bemoansthe lack of quality vocationalpathways. Although popular, this‘sheep and goats’ approachignores the fact that the majorityof students now enter universitywith a vocational qualification andthat many university and otherhigher education qualificationssuch as HNCs and HNDs have aprofessional and technical focus,require the input of employersand work placements not tomention degree apprenticeshipsand sandwich courses.

There is however another nutthat the Labour needs to crack.The overwhelming majority ofresearch funding provided bytaxpayers is allocated to 12universities. Research funding hasbeen further concentrated underthe Conservatives who usedHERA to hive e research fundingoff to a new organisation, UKresearch and Innovation (UKRI).Unlike other European countries,

THE NATIONAL EDUCATION SERVICE

FROM VISIONTO REALITY

Social i s t Educat ional Associat ion | Conference Fr inge

Sunday 23rd September 6.00 to 7.30 ACC Concourse Room 4

(in the main conference centre so passes are required)

Speakers: John Bolt (SEA General Secretary)Louise Regan (Past President, NUT)Emma Hardy MPMelissa Benn (Campaigner and Writer)

The aim of the meeting is to share and promote the SEA’s visionof what a radical National Education Service should look likeand to encourage the party to produce the detailed policiesneeded to bring this about.

The Socialist Educational Association is the onlyeducational organisation affiliated to the Labour Partyand can be described as its critical friend.

You can join here: socialisteducationalassociation.org/jointhe-sea/

You can follow us on twitter at: @SocialistEdu

An up to date list of local events can be found here: socialisteducationalassociation.org/ category/events/

September 2018, No THE NATIONAL EDUCATION SERVICE FROM ...€¦ · Education Politics Journal of...

Documents

Transcript of September 2018, No THE NATIONAL EDUCATION SERVICE FROM ...€¦ · Education Politics Journal of...