Categories: uncategorized
Date: 05 September 2011 11:52:30
Nick Clegg today made this speech regarding education. It is a speech which I find interesting from both a personal and professional point of view, as a teacher and as a parent. Therefore, this is an indepth response rather than a blog post response if you get my article. Think broadsheet feature indepth analysis.
Firstly, I want to agree with Mr. Clegg there are a set of assumptions made regarding education and educational achievement which do have some aspect of truth to them but which are essentially flawed. I too do not believe in the inevitability of disengagement and underachivement and certainly do not believe that we can write children off simply because of the postcode they are born into. I also believe young people can be trusted and I certainly agree with him when he says, "And we cannot let our anxieties about some parts of our society undermine the hopes and dreams of a generation."
I also support the twin aims of the government which he stated as: "A decent start for every child and a good local school for every family." and certainly agree with the comment that, "To get there, Government needs to be innovative. Schools need to step up to the challenge. And, crucially, parents need to do their bit, supporting teachers, too."
I also agree with his assertion that spending on education makes a difference and that not everything which happened to education under New Labour was bad.
In terms of the reference he made within the speech to the Lib Dem commitment at the 1997 and 2001 elections to put a penny on income tax for education spending I was one of the people who paid their membership to the party and voted for them on this basis. It was the Lib Dem commitment to a fair taxation system, which increased income tax, which I supported. It was the abandonment of this principle, together with others that led to my abandonment of the Lib Dems. Something I did with a heavy heart.
He refers to the " unprecedented pressure on the public purse" was amongst those who led the Lib Dem abandonment of a policy which would have helped ease this pressure - slightly higher income tax. A slight tangent but relevant for Christians, yesterday I preached on Romans 13: 6 - 14, I used John Henson's Good As New Translation, but the Message is good here to. Verses 6 and 7 say: "That's also why you pay taxes—so that an orderly way of life can be maintained. Fulfill your obligations as a citizen. Pay your taxes, pay your bills, respect your leaders". Fair taxation and appropriate rates of taxation are required by the government and so orderly ways of life can be maintained. This instruction is in the bible because God loves us - it's why all his rules and instructions are there for us. We need as Christians to take this on board.
Moving back to the main thrust of the speech, Clegg says, "But, what Labour’s record also shows is that big budgets, directed from Whitehall, aren’t enough. And if your aim is simply to get a bit better, that isn’t enough either. We live in a globalised age; if we are to thrive in the economy of the future, we need our children to excel. And we cannot afford to leave some behind." I too agree with that. Yesterday in my post I referred to those we cannot afford to leave behind.
The question is how is all this achieved and this is where I and the coalition government have areas of difference aswell as agreement.
Clegg outlines how many of the poorest children in our country do not even get entered for the top academic subjects or the exams where they can get top grades. One of the reasons for this, although certainly not the only one, is the pressure on teachers to manage their achievement rates. If a child is a C/D grade student you are more likely to enter them for a lower level paper to ensure achievement rather than allow them to take the top paper where a higher grade is possible but total failiure is also more likely. What we do here is try to get the C grades, but not at the expense of our overall achievement. The key to changing this to bring back one GCSE paper which all candidates sit and stopping the game teachers have to play. It was one of the key things the move to GCSE's from the O Level/CSE system was meant to avoid, but which league tables have actually reinforced.
In terms of the focus of some schools on voccational education and subjects again the changes in the education system and funding have helped reinforce this. What we have seen is the move back to secondary modern schools through the back door. This is something the Conservative Party actually encouraged and so does the New Right thinking they endorse.
Clegg, in his speech, supports the increased use of individual learning and individual learning plans. This is something I too support, but it is something which requires investment in more staff to be done properly. Learning mentors are great and the way they help support study skills and personal management is something I think deserves more recognition, but more subject staff to provide individual support are also required if we are going to truly embrace this model. This is something that Clegg is giving recognition to but I do not think the coalition are truly properly funding.
In terms of the feedback given to students - I also agree wholeheartly with what he is saying. However, this takes time and a willingness amongst higher management to let teachers use more paper to give the feedback. I know it can be given on screen but in my experience as a teacher giving assignments back with a workbook style sheet outlining feedback on diffferent aspects in line with the different areas they will be assessed upon and asking the student for their own response is what works. This requires more time and more printing - again more staff per school are needed if this is going to be effectively done. I doubt "the pupil premium" will be effective in this, although we are already seeing the way the numbers of learning mentors are being increased and this is to be supported.
In terms of the discipline thing - it is one I also agree with. However, I think that it is one which needs to be taken up hand in hand with the pastoral care element and individual learning plan. I also think we should not believe all the "moral panic" about the lack of discipline in our schools. I want to outline here the way I have found successful in running classrooms. I start tough and set down the rules, but I explain the rules to my students. I do not simply rely on the college rules, I set out the rules for my classes. Students understand that I run a working environment and so certain standards of behaviour are required. They also know though that I will go that extra mile with them and that if they have a problem I will work creatively to sort it. Sometimes this means stretching the rules as far as they can go. I have seen the benefits of this through seeing one of Third Party's teachers take a similar approach this year. What works is consistency in discipline and being seen to be consistent but also being aware that there are situations where one size cannot fit all.
I welcome the way that they are talking of dealing with disruptive pupils - but again I worry because whilst I know that there is some truth about it being related to chaotic home lives there are wider issues of labelling by teachers and so forth which also come into play. One of the biggest issues I think occurs when "good" pupils are advised not to go around with pupils who have been labelled as disruptive. Don't get me wrong here - I am not advocating us letting one pupil bring down another I have routinely in my classes of 16 and 17 year olds used the method of dictating who sat together or who didn't when behaviour or standard of work was suffering. However, I have also been in the position of explaining to staff, as a parent, that I refuse to give up on certain people and so have refused to discourage or try and stop certain friendships. Rather as a parent I wanted to encourage those friendships to try and support the young people in question.
In terms of the restrictions of who can teach I can see the wisdom but do worry. A high achiever is not always a good teacher and a good teacher is not always a high achiever. When David Cameron first detailed his thinking on this I explained my view in detail in a post in January 2010 which if you have time I would encourage you to read.
The autonomy spoken of is something which is comendable and which I agree with, but which I think is unrealistic - largely because of the demands of league tables and so forth. If a qualitative measure were being used regarding the success of our young people then this would be ideal, however the reality is the measurements made are quantitative and primarily revolve around exam grades achieved. The syllabuses we teach to dictate what we can and cannot do and the way we do or don't enter people for exams. The retention and achievement rates also dictate what courses we put people onto.
In terms of the plans for academies I think on one hand these are good and recognise the power they have to spend money wisely. However, I also worry regarding the way they become associated with choice when often they do not give choice, rather they take it away from some parents. Let me explain what I mean by that. Academies are often started by taking over "failing" schools and so are located in or near areas of economic deprivation. They are started with the good intention of providing excellent education for those who cannot afford to travel to other schools and so lack a basic choice parents with more economic freedom can give. However, what happens as these schools start to achieve their aims is that the catchment which children can get into them from becomes more restricted. The desirability of social housing in those areas and the cost of private housing in the areas surrounding increases and we start to see selection by mortgage occuring. Those children who live on the edge of catchment areas are those who start to suffer. The reality is that these children are often those living in privately rented accomodation and quite often the children of lower paid public sector employees. This is not spoken just out of my own experience in Kent when the only solution for us was to "use the church attendance card", but also out of the experience of others I have observed.
I welcome the strengthening of admissions codes but feel that the only fair way to sort out the division is to restrict private schools. Only when true equality of opportunity is available will these problems be dealt with. I know it is utopian but I still support the socialist ideal of everybody going to a state school and am ideologically opposed to private schools on this basis.
I await to see the outcome of the review of special needs education and the responses of wibloggers with more knowledge on this issue.
With regards to his comments on parenting I welcome these. However, I wish to point out the realities and want to sound a note of caution that hopes this is not going to turn into more political bashing of single parents. The fact is we are often having to work longer hours in part time jobs to meet the needs of our parents and along with many other married parents our hours are less likely to fit into the professional day. Studies show parents in lower income families are more likely to be doing shift work. This means that we need creative support in helping our children. We need to be helped to use time creatively rather than feel bad about how we don't do it.
When Third Party was young we did her reading on the bus. The reality of the situation was that I would rush in to collect her from after school club just before it shut and then we would get the bus home before I would make the tea whilst she played and then settle down to mark or study in front of the tv, pausing to put her to bed. The bus was the only time we had to share together and so initially the word tin would come out, and then the reading books and then again as she got older the spellings. Interestingly in later years before I left Kent I would come across people who would remember me and Immy because they would apparently silently observe her progress noting how well she was progressing. I think we need to encourage people to take these creative approaches - perhaps introducing family bus passes for during the school run?
Also I am saddened that in the discussion of the role of parents there is no acknowledgement of the way material deprivation does impact our children and the way that parents with a lower income need to be supported rather than kicked. Interestingly in light of certain events, speeches and reports that I have commented on lately it has to be noted that mobile phones, computers and Facebook can provide excellent learning environments and can actually help support young people in their learning if used properly and appropriately.