Educational press-reports-2010-Jun-DecA new GOVErnment brings in doubtful educational freedoms
Michael Gove is keeping SATs, league tables and Ofsted inspections but promises some revisions to each. He has written to heads of all primary and secondary schools inviting them to seek academy status with freedom: over curriculum, over teachers’ pay, from local authority ‘control’ (and support), and, if already judged by Ofsted to be ‘outstanding’, from further inspection. He is actively encouraging groups of parents to set up their own ‘free’ schools in shops and houses and tearing up planning laws which might prevent such use. He is abolishing the General Teachers’ Council. In effect he is taking teacher training away from the universities - which will kill off their Departments of Education. He has rejected Labour’s decision to extend entitlement to free school meals to more low income families. He is intending to have the national curriculum rewritten by experts in the subject fields, naming Niall Ferguson for guidance on history and Carol Vorderman for help with mathematics. Presumably this will be for the second tier of schools, the non-academies, particularly the primary schools which rely on the varied advisory services of the local authorities and so reject academy status. These measures seem ideologically to amount to freedom for the able who want to run their own show and may blossom, but control for the rest who teach primary age children and in secondary schools the underprivileged, the deprived and the less able: a two-tier system reflecting conservative ideology of haves and have-nots as the natural order of things. It is difficult to decide which items in the press to report here, but these three articles summarise some of the concerns expressed in the early days of the Coalition government. FOR FLEXIBILITY AND FREEDOMS, READ ‘CHAOS’ Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, spoke out in the TES on 18 June under the above heading, with the subtitle: the Coalition’s mad academy plans could create a two-tier free-for-all that leaves state schools floundering This is how she envisages the consequences for state schools: The vast majority of state schools currently ‘buy in’ a range of services from their local authority: financial services, audit, school improvement advice on hea;lth and safety regulations, legal advice, representation and employment support and – crucially for parents and pupils – the operation of a fair admissions system. But how, under the Government’s proposals, are local authorities going to plan their provision – including staffing and resources – for the start of the next school year in September? At present, they have no sound basis for calculating which schools will ‘buy into’ their services and, therefore, what resources, including staffing, they can afford to employ. The danger is that central services will be cut for those schools that stay in the local authority family – and because these schools are more likely to have disadvantaged intakes (and hence cannot pass the attainment threshold to be judged ‘outstanding’) the gap between them and their more privileged neighbours is likely to widen.Is this what the Government wants – ‘outstanding’ schools with privileged intakes to float off to a haven of independence while poorer schools with deprived intakes are starved of the resources they need? … And what, finally, of pupils? Here the Government’s plans are barking mad. Academies will be free to teach just what they like while local authority schools will suffer the burden of a rigid and narrow ‘facts-based’ curriculum … based on a rosy past of dates of kings and queens, rivers of England and phonics [which] fails to prepare pupiuls for life and work in the 21st century. Is that what the Government really, really wants? And if so, why? WHY WE MUST STOP THIS ‘PREPOSTEROUS’ BILL Fred Jarvis, a former general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, expresses strong concern in the TES of 2 July under the above heading.
The ministers have sought to justify their proposals by quoting Tony Blair’s call for “a system of independent state schools, underpinned by fair admissions and fair funding, where teachers are equipped and enabled to drive improvements, driven by the aspirations of parents”. But the proposed fast tracking of “outstanding” schools to academy status is a perversion of Blair’s academic policy. Gove’s central purpose seems to be to assume total control over the funding of large numbers of schools with the aim of removing the local authorities from any serious role in education, regardless of the chaos that would cause and the dangers it would pose, especially for primaries. How else is one to interpret his invitation to all schools to become academies? … Shirley Williams argued cogently in the Lords that primaries are crucial institutions that help to hold communities together, are heavily dependent on local authority advisory services and require the support of their community more than secondaries do, and need governing bodies that sustain and include members of the community. Jarvis’s article carries the sub-heading: Good luck to rebel peers and bishops in their fight against Gove’s ‘ludicrous’ academy and free school plans. GOVE’S CLAIM TO BE ‘FREEING’ SCHOOLS IS A CLOAK FOR MORE CONTROL FROM THE CENTRE. Simon Jenkins, in The Guardian on 27 May writes, This dreary abuse of local democracy was tried by Thatcher and Blair. All people want is fair access to a good nearby school. After fascinating glimpses into the recent ministerial bureaucracies (Patten’s 1993 act promoting grant-maintained schools had 308 sections, with 1,000 amendments added during its passage, all to regulate what were supposedly liberated schools. … In 2001, David Miliband as education minister was estimated by Hansard to have sent 3,840 documents to each school, embracing 350 policy targets), Jenkins writes:
If Gove wants to free schools of bureaucracy he should look to the beam in his own department’s eye. He can call off his hgealth, safety and employment mafias. He can disband, as he seems minded to, his curricular centralism. He can abolish more than one measly quango. He can use his spare money on the Liberal Democrats well-conceived pupil premium. Dreary abuse of local democracy is being mounted yet agaian to cloak a bid to “nationalise” schools. The key to better education must lie elsewhere, deep within these institutions, in their ethos, morale and staffing. Good schools are underpinned not damaged by civic commitment and civic pride. RETIREMENT OF THREE KEY UNION PLAYERS IN THE EDUCATION MAELSTROM This summer sees the retirement of three union leaders who have struggled hard over recent years to try to safeguard the education of the nation’s children while also seeking to protect the professional careers of their union members: John Dunford, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, Mick Brookes, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, and John Bangs, head of education of the National Union of Teachers. Without knowing it, thousands of young people owe them much. SATS – NATIONAL CURRICULUM TESTS FOR 11-YEAR-OLDS What was the outcome of the boycott? Helen Ward reported in The TES on 9 July: The Government is to press ahead with key stage 2 Sats as usual in 2011, despite this year’s boycott. … The announcement has severely disappointed the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) and the NUT, which organised this year’s protest. … Official figures released this week show that 4,005 (26 per cent) of the 15,515 eligible maintained schools did not take the tests. The Government published a list of schools which took part in the boycott. … Education Secretary Michael Gove this week argued it was crucial the tests continued and would start next year on May 9, saying it was “unfortunate parents and pupils in the schools that boycotted the tests will not benefit from the information that can be taken from test results”. He added, “I accept there are flaws in the current testing system so I am committed to reviewing national curriculum tests”. How did teacher assessments compare with test results? In the first week of August teacher assessments were published alongside test results. Across England, for the three-quarters of the primary schools that took the tests, the average test result was that 81 per cent of 11-year-olds reached level 4 and the average teacher assessment (based on each teacher’s judgements of what a child has achieved by the end of the year) was also 81 per cent. Helen Ward, reporting this in The TES on 6 August also noted comments by the general secretaries of the NAHT and NUT, and the Department for Education:
A Department for Education spokesman said it was important to have externally marked tests to give parents information about schools because there was divergence between teacher assessment and test results at authority and school level … But Christine Blower, general secretary of the NUT, said that the relationship between teacher assessments and test scores was not the important issue. Her concern was publication of results and league tables.
ATL and NUT join forces on SATs by publishing “Make Assessment Measure Up” A report at www.teachers.tv/news/68091 tells that:
The paper states: "We believe that assessment involving all pupils should focus on enhancing their learning, not on evaluating schools. Other forms of evaluation should focus on institutional effectiveness. Sample tests should be used to help evaluate the education service as a whole. The replacement of current national testing arrangements at Key Stage 2 by moderated teacher assessment, together with sample testing, would benefit pupils, parents, the Government and teachers." Mary Bousted, General Secretary of the ATL, said: "Politicians need to understand that no assessment system can work properly if it is used for the kind of high stakes currently attached to tests and exams. They also need to look at the evidence; pupils progress better when they receive regular feedback on their work. While rethinking assessment the government should also rethink school accountability and invest in developing teachers, which is the only sure route to better achievement all round." Christine Blower, General Secretary of the NUT, said: "The fact that members in schools boycotted the Key stage 2 SATs this year, and that very many who didn't remain deeply opposed to the current high stakes testing system, is a very clear message to the Secretary of State. There is an opportunity to move forward on the basis of professionally acceptable assessment which will contribute to, not detract, from learning. I encourage the Secretary of State to seize that opportunity."
OFSTED – “END OF AN EMPIRE” ? William Stewart reported in The TES on 6 August that the Commons education select committee is to investigate Ofsted’s huge remit and its general performance and effect on schools. The inquiry will examine: • What the purposes of inspection should be (relating not only to schools but to all organisations, settings and services under Ofsted’s remit; • The impact of the inspection process on school improvement; • Ofsted’s performance; • The consistency and quality of inspection teams in the Ofsted inspection process; • The weight given to different factors within the inspection process; • Whether inspection of all organisations, settings and services to support children’s learning and welfare is best conducted by a single inspectorate; • Ofsted’s role in providing an accountability mechanism for schools operating with greater autonomy.The new chair of the committee is the Conservative MP Graham Stuart. The committee is requesting written submissions by 8 October. GOVE’S FREE SCHOOLS Education Secretary Michael Gove outlines process for setting up Free Schools On 18 June 2010 the Education Secretary outlined the process for allowing teachers, charities and parents to set up new schools called free schools. He described Free Schools as independent state schools run by teachers - not bureaucrats or politicians - and accountable to parents. The Government will make it easier to secure sites for new schools such as residential and commercial property without the need for ‘change of use’ consent. £50 million of the £201 million funding earmarked for the Harnessing Technology Grant project (for school IT systems etc) is to be re-allocated to provide capital funding for Free Schools up to 31 March 2011. The New Schools Network is to offer £500,000 of initial funding to help groups across the country get the support they need to start forming schools. The Network will be the first point of contact for groups who wish to start schools and will provide them with information as they go through the process and prepare their proposals. Education Secretary Michael Gove said:
These schools will have the freedom to innovate and respond directly to parents’ needs. The new Free Schools will also be incentivised to concentrate on the poorest children by the introduction of this Government’s Pupil Premium which will see schools receiving extra funds for educating children from disadvantaged backgrounds.In this country, too often the poorest children are left with the worst education while richer families can buy their way to quality education via private schools or expensive houses. By allowing new schools we will give all children access to the kind of education only the rich can afford – small schools with small class sizes, great teaching and strong discipline. Extracted from www.education.gov.uk/news/news/freeschools “Gold rush tactics” as organisations try to cash in on free schools Kerra Maddern reported in The TES on 30 July that organisations ‘touting for business’ are encouraging parents to sign up to free schools that do not yet exist. In one case, in Shepherds Bush, London leaflets were delivered to homes saying “A new primary school for your child! We are opening a new school in your area soon and we are enrolling now.” John Bangs, head of education at the NUT, shortly before his retirement, said:
Maddern’s article also quoted Andy Slaughter, Labour MP for Hammersmith:
Michael Gove accused of exaggerating interest in free schools This was the heading to an article by Anushka Asthana in The Observer on 1 August. She wrote:
Before the election the education secretary said he wanted hundreds of parent-and-teacher groups to open their own schools. Once in government he told parliament there had been 700 expressions of interest to the New Schools Network (NSN), a charitable organisation helping to set up the scheme. But now it has emerged that fewer than one in 10 of those who were said to have expressed interest have applied. The figure was revealed by the Department for Education in a letter responding to a freedom of information request. A civil servant said there had been 62 applications. Lib Dem call for boycott of free schools In The Guardian on 10 August, Patrick Wintour reported that the lead education motion at the party’s forthcoming conference will urge parents not to support free schools, saying that they are socially divisive, likely to depress education outcomes and an inefficient use of resources in an age of austerity. Could be difficult for the Coalition! ACADEMIES Academies were introduced by the previous Labour government as an attempt to improve weak or underperforming schools by providing better resources, funding for improving buildings, independence from local authorities, and certain curricular and managerial freedoms. At the time of the general election just under 200 academies had been established. The Coalition approach is to allow schools rated as outstanding by Ofsted to be fast tracked to academy status. The Academies Bill was presented in the House of Lords on 26 May; the day that the Queen’s Speech introduced the Coalition Government’s programme. Its stated purpose was to enable many more schools to become academies in England, the first to open in September 2010.. That same day, Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education, wrote to schools explaining that the new academy programme would be open to all schools and invited expressions of interest. Local authorities are by-passed in the Bill and have no power to block schools converting to academies. The Bill was passed by 317 votes to 225 and received the Royal Assent on 27 July. The website www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/B5194.pdf contains a detailed account of the new Act. The brief debate in Parliament on the Bill was reported in The Guardian by Jeevan Vasagar and Allegra Stratton on 20 July
Addressing concerns that his reforms will create an elite among state schools, Gove said that the academies will be required to help struggling schools. … He said he was building on plans by former prime minister Tony Blair to give academy freedoms to every school. Critics fear that the fast-tracking of outstanding schools will create a two-tier system. Polly Toynbee, for example, in The Guardian on 20 July wrote that these rushed reforms are casual law-making by arbitrary diktat that will fail the poorest and fuel the rise of faith schools. There was furious correspondence in a number of papers. Peter Newsam, who many years ago was Education Officer for the Inner London Education Authority (disbanded by Margaret Thatcher’s government in 1990) wrote in The Guardian:
BUILDING SCHOOLS FOR THE FUTURE The axe fell on Monday 5 July. In the House of Commons Michael Gove, secretary of state, announced that the rebuilding or refurbishing of 715 schools across the country would be stopped immediately. Richard Vaughan, in The TES on 9 July reported that this was not a surprise but for many is a devastating blow. He reported Gove as saying:
It is anticipated that this will save between £4 billion and £5 billion. By 6 August, Vaughan had more to report: Michael Gove experienced the lowest point of his short political career last month when he announced to the Commons that he would be scrapping the secondary school rebuilding programme. … In the days after announcing the end of BSF something slipped . While there is undoubted support from some quarters for his reform agenda, it is surely an understatement to say that things have not all been going his way. … Grumblings turned into roars of derision once errors were found on no fewer than four successive lists of schools that were to lose out on rebuilding money. One minute heads and teachers believed that their school would be rebuilt; the next, their hopes were dashed. While much acrimony about the building cuts has been directed at the Education Secretary, some of it could focus on the previous government and certainly at the officials in the department who have been responsible for creating a behemoth of bureaucracy. Speaking in the House of Commons on 5 July, (Hansard report) Michael Gove gave this account of the Building Schools for the Future programme as set up by the previous administration. The BSF process had nine meta-stages: preparation for BSF; project initiation; strategic planning; business case development; procurement planning; procurement; contractual close; construction; and then operation. Each of these meta-stages had a series of sub-stages. Meta-stage 3 - strategic planning - for example, had another nine sub-stages. Step 1 required local authorities to produce a strategic overview of the education strategy. Step 2 required local authorities to produce a school and further education estate summary. Step 5 required local authorities to produce another strategic overview - this time with "detail and delivery". Step 6 required local authorities to use the school and FE estate summary to develop an "estates strategy". Only once we had reached step 9 - once the Department for Education had given approval - did part 2 of the "strategy for change" become complete. This level of bureaucracy was absurd and had to go. He went on to refer to some 60 official documents that anyone negotiating the BSF process needed to navigate and to the various senior staff that a local authority had to employ, in addition to: a project governance and delivery structure, normally including a project board of 10 people, a separate project team of another 10 people and a further, separate, stakeholder board of 20 people. They formed the core group supervising the project. Beyond them, local authorities were expected to engage a design champion, a client design adviser and a 4ps gateway review team - a group of people who produce six separate gateway reviews over the course of the whole project. It is perhaps no surprise that it can take almost three years to negotiate the bureaucratic process of BSF before a single builder is engaged or brick laid. It seems that nearly everyone except the secretary of state realizes that enhancing poor environments encourages teachers and children to achieve better results. Why is the fabric of a school important? A survey of 503 teachers carried out by the Teachers Support Network, the British Council for School Environment with the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, between February and July, found that 96% said that a school’s environment influences pupils’ behaviour, while 26% of the sample considered that the design of the buildings in which they teach was poor in providing an effective learning environment. (http://teachersupport.info/news/in-the-press/school-environments-hit-the-press.php ) It seems likely that Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, does not share this view, since his ‘free schools’ can be set up anywhere – according to the Financial Times of 18 June in derelict hospital buildings, vacant banks and boarded-up shops. Whether he actually said that is not clear, but in the House of Commons on 21 June he said:
(Where the spare libraries, disused university buildings and observatories are in this country remains to be shown!) What Mr Gove doesn’t seem to recognize is that the ‘quality of teaching and learning’ depends, in part and for most pupils and their teachers, on the quality of the school environment. This page was last added to on on 31 August 2010 |