Ofsted herald new focus on "the curriculum, SMSC and governance" and "preparing pupils for life in modern Britain"

The following note - about the soon-to-be-published inspection framework - has just been circulated to inspectors who have been told to expect summer training in anticipation of a September launch:

"The revised (inspection) handbook will ... place a greater importance on the curriculum, SMSC development and governance, with the expectation that inspectors really understand how schools are tackling these areas, developing their pupils and preparing them for life in modern Britain. Much more robust evidence will need to be gathered so inspection teams are in the position of being able to make secure judgements on these essential aspects of the evaluation schedule."

Those of us who have campaigned for SMSC, Citizenship, PSHE and Community Cohesion or who have warned about the risk of an emerging governing gap in our schools in the Academy and Free School era will allow ourselves a wry smile; the long overdue focus on "preparing (pupils) for life in modern Britain" is precisely what effective Citizenship Education is all about.

Perhaps Michael Gove might now acknowledge that marginalising areas like Citizenship in the curriculum and Community Cohesion in the inspection framework was an error of judgement and policy. He could go further and recognise that through building inclusion in our classrooms and our school communities, these areas of activity are not a distraction from the achievement, standards and school improvement agendas; they are the foundations - the social glue - that creates the environment in which the achievement of a much wider group can and should be built.

Tackling the rise of the "SPAD-ocracy"

We reproduce below a letter from Tony Breslin published in The Guardian on Monday 23rd June: 

How ironic that in a week when Michael Gove has become the latest politician to disown the outpourings of a (former) Special Adviser, or "SPAD" (Gove forced to disown senior adviser after attack on Cameron, 17 June), the Guardian’s investigations reveal that almost half of Labour's candidates in key marginals are “ex-special advisers, party workers, researchers, lobbyists or former MPs” (Labour picks Westminster insiders for key seats, 18 June).

The emergence of what might be termed the "SPADocracy" confirms the absence of meritocracy and enshrines an inequality of access and influence at the heart of our politics; it is bad for democracy.

While the rise of the so-called "professional" politician has brought some benefits, the dominance of the SPADocrats across both front benches and beyond leaves Parliament more cut-off and remote than ever, and confines policymaking to a clique of bright young things who know everything and anything except the price of a loaf of bread.

Dr. Tony Breslin

Director

Breslin Public Policy Limited

Sport in schools: levelling the playing field

Another day, another set of unfavourable comparisons between the state and independent sector, but if ever there was a playing field that needs to be levelled, it is the sports pitch. During London 2012 I had the privilege of working on the Get Set education project, a multi-faceted programme developed by Nick Fuller and his education team at LOCOG. One of my tasks was to prepare a set of 13 case studies, spanning the whole of the UK and highlighting great practice in primary, secondary and special schools.  Our focus was on how these schools had used London 2012 to engage their pupils and their communities in sport and in extolling the kind of Olympic and Paralympic Values that Michael Gove might now, post Trojan Horse, want to define as 'British'.

I don't know if Ofsted have picked up on the resultant publication, Get Set Case Studies,  in their report - like most busy practitioners, I'm forced to live off the headlines. Whether the inspectorate did fall up on our paper or not, every opportunity should be used to highlight the great work at these state schools: castigation has its place but is not always the best route to improvement - the kind of detailed exemplars that we provide, across over 50 pages, might offer a different way forward, notably for those schools keen to learn how success might be achieved.

That said, Sir Michael Wilshaw is right to point out the shortcomings of sports provision in too many of our state schools, right to point out the link between sporting success and academic achievement  and right to say that this is not all about funding and facilities (even if the playing fields of Eton, Rugby and Harrow are credited not just with the production of our sporting superstars but many of our politicians, our captains of industry and our military elite), but he is wrong to allow these observations to contribute to an ongoing narrative that continually paints the state sector as always the poor relation.

Yes, too few of our Gold Medals were won by state educated competitors and the worlds of cricket and rugby union, in particular, are sports in which state educated pupils are under represented but we do need to celebrate those state schools - and those inspiring state school based PE teachers - that have given us Ennis, Farah, Pendleton, Rutherford and many others.

The School Sports Partnerships that Michael Gove so hastily abolished on coming to office enabled state schools and state school based practitioners, often without the best facilities, to share resources and coaching expertise and to work with local independent schools and colleagues based there. Perhaps Mr Gove could make a start on the national strategy that Mr Wilshaw rightly calls for by reversing this decision, and re-energising those partnerships while the memory of London 2012 is still fresh and while many of the relationships that formed the partnerships remain in place. That might level this particular playing field, and give competitive sport and high quality physical education its proper place at the heart of every child's education.

From 'Trojan Horse' to 'Great Debate': time to decide what we want from our education system?

There is an inevitability about the Trojan Horse tale that ought to act as a warning to all involved in education reform, especially those promoters of freedom who wish to release schools and their governing bodies from an onerous state, casting them free to flourish in the 'big society'.

Let's just look at the sequence of recent educational reforms: first, promote a reductionist view of the curriculum in which the wider social purpose of schooling is ignored or marginalised as a distraction from the standards agenda (rather than as the means of building the inclusion from which greater achievement for a wider number might grow); second, 'set schools free' from what remains of this reduced curriculum as part of a broader package of freedoms that come bundled with academy status; third, allow local authorities, over a period that dates from the early 1990s, to wither from their role as the builders of bridges between local schools and some sort of check on standards (not that they were every especially good at this); fourth, do all of this against the backdrop of a mantra of parental choice, a model that leaves the communities with the lowest levels of social and cultural capital to fend for themselves without support, sometimes against those who might not act in their best interests. Finally, and just for good measure, remove Ofsted's responsibility to inspect statutory duties, such as the responsibility to promote community cohesion - a duty inspected until Michael Gove deemed this unnecessary in 2010. The introduction of the duty had dated from the last Government's response to the London bombings.  As I and a group of colleagues at the Citizenship Foundation discovered a few years back, it had begun to have just the impact that Michael Gove now seeks. Our findings are summarised in a report for CFBT, School Leaders, Community Cohesion and the Big Society.

So, where from here? Well, as Joe Hallgarten and his colleagues argued in a recent RSA report, Schools with Soul, and, from a different standpoint, as former Labour Premier James Callaghan called for almost forty years ago, let's have a debate about the purpose of education; yes, grades matter (and they matter most to those in our poorest communities) but schooling has a wider purpose, and in a publicly funded education system, every young person has the right to a broad and balanced education that prepares them to succeed as employees and thrive as citizens in a diverse, multi-cultural and multi-faith society. And, if we're going to place parent power, school freedom and autonomous governance at the heart of the reform programme, let's make sure that we have the support and development structures that enable those who step forward into governance and related roles in this new landscape to develop and apply the considerable skill-set required to do the job effectively. Let's also be clear about where any constraints on this freedom sit. What do we want our schools to be free from? What do we want them to be free to do? What demands do we make on all schools, whatever their intake or objectives? And what support systems will schools, especially those serving our most marginalised communities, need if they are to deliver on these shared system-wide responsibilities?

Finally, let's take a long hard look at our inspection system. There can be little doubt that Ofsted has played its part in improving practice in our schools over the past twenty years, but as Sir Michael Wilshaw has recently conceded, a service delivered by third party out-sourcing businesses is hardly one that is easy to quality assure. And the tumble from 'outstanding' to 'special measures' that some of the Birmingham schools have experienced within the space of a year or so underlines this point, raising questions about the reliability of the inspection system across the board in the process.

These questions about how we inspect schools need to be addressed, but let's start with the question of what schools are for, and what statutory duties we require all schools to fulfil. Our schooling system, and our public services more broadly, ought to be open to public scrutiny. But school leaders, classroom teachers, governors, and parental and community activists have a right to know what is expected of them, and what they are being scrutinised for; those who feel wounded by the Trojan Horse inspections have a point about shifting goalposts. Perhaps it is time to redefine where these goalposts sit, and to do so not on the whim of ministers at the heart of a moral panic but through a public debate about educational purpose, and the freedoms and constraints that we need to deliver whatever we decide this might be.

Why UKIP might have done us all a favour

None of the main parties can be complacent about UKIP's support in this week's local and European elections and none should presume it will simply disappear. This is about much more than migration or Europe; UKIP are the lightening conductor for a public mood that sees nothing for it in a disconnected, professionalised politics staffed by the bright and young but hopelessly unworldly children of the think tanks. It is hard to find a frontline politician in any of the main parties that has worked outside the Westminster Village, or it's own weird suburbia. 

This separation of politics from everyday life is accentuated by the tendency of these frontbenchers to surround themselves with 'Special Advisers' and think tankers who come from the same exceptionally narrow demographic and through the same career path as themselves and who, as Ed Miliband may now belatedly realise, can't tell you the price of a loaf of bread. The current one dimensional track to a Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet post (you know: Politics, Philosophy and Economics at one of three or four universities, followed by a Westminster internship, a few years in a favoured think tank and appointment as a Special Adviser) is no longer cutting it. It emphases that 'politics' is another world and, more importantly, excludes those beyond its boundaries from playing their part.

This kind of politics explains how we got to a place where the leadership of the governing party met in a university drinking club and the leadership of the opposition was contested by two brothers. Do we need any further evidence that the routes into politics are too narrow, too disconnected? Where in modern politics do we find the former business leaders, trade unionists, teachers and journalists for whom politics is a second career, informed and inspired by the experience of a first on the 'outside', in factory, office or community, in industry, commerce or the third sector?   

The problem is especially acute for Labour precisely because of its claim (and genuine aspiration) to represent what the PR people now demand we call 'hard working families'. We need to reopen and broaden the routes into politics and engage individuals and communities in discussions about the kind of politics and communities that we need; as we've seen in these elections, if we don't, UKIP will step into the gap. 

Of course, Labour did better in London, but national politicians would do well to remember that London is not typical of the country as a whole. It's time to look again at how we 'do' politics, and from where we recruit our politicians. If this week's UKIP surge makes us do that, it might have done us all a favour; let's wait and see.

Research and the Teaching Profession: important new report launches today

Today marks the launch of the Final Report of the British Educational Research Association (BERA) and Royal Society of Arts (RSA) inquiry into the the role of research in teachers' initial and continuing education.

The report, Research and the Teaching Profession: building the capacity for a self-improving education system, which I was asked to draft for the Inquiry's Steering Group, argues for a renewal of teachers' professional identity - one which has research literacy and research engagement at its heart. It contends that a profession equipped in this way is required if the UK's education systems are to develop and sustain the capacity for self-evaluation and self-improvement.  

Focused on teachers in Early Years, Primary, Secondary and Further Education, the report offers recommendations on a range of issues for policymakers and public agencies in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Taken together these recommendations are designed to encourage the development of a research-rich culture in schools and colleges, settings in which practitioner-led research informs and renews practice in the classroom and beyond. 

The report also calls for a stronger relationship between teachers and school leaders involved in research in different schools and colleges, and between educational practitioners and members of the wider research community, based in universities and elsewhere.

Read the full report at the BERA or RSA websites.

Schools with Soul: time to give SMSC its proper place at the heart of the school improvement and transformation agenda?

Although attending to the “Social, Moral, Spiritual and Cultural” development of the pupils and students in their care has been a statutory responsibility for primary and secondary schools since 1944, what counts as ‘SMSC’ has had, as the Citizenship Education expert Ted Huddleston has noted, various iterations over the years.  At different points the initials and emphases have changed and in different periods the nuances and meanings ascribed to terms such as “social”, “moral”, “spiritual” and “cultural” have meant different things. In addition, particular themes have periodically emerged that might either be seen as a legitimate part of the wider terrain that SMSC occupies, or which have significant implications for those working on this terrain. For example, in recent years initiatives focused on Citizenship Education, Employability, Values Education, Resilience and Character Education have all come to the fore, and all have a contribution to make to the broader and evolving SMSC agenda. Whatever its precise articulation, though, SMSC has been viewed as a good thing. The challenge for policymakers, school leaders and practitioners – and all who work with them – has not been its ‘worthiness’; it has been the fact that it’s meaning has rarely been scrutinized or ‘nailed down’, either by schools or those charged with supporting or inspecting them.

This has been the concern of the authors of a new RSA report on this issue published this week, a team led by the RSA’s Director of Education Joe Hallgarten and which I have been proud to support as part of a broader advisory group, one that has included heads, middle leaders, classroom practitioners and others who have an engagement in the broader SMSC enterprise, including a range of national figures in the field.

Nobody would suggest running a school that does not attend to the social, moral, spiritual and cultural well-being of young people but giving SMSC its proper place in a culture dominated by ‘tests, targets and tables’ has proved especially difficult for school leaders and all who work with them.  Schools with Soul reminds us of the costs of failing to do so, as have the efforts of those concerned with what might be broadly termed the wider social curriculum over many years.  Schools with Soul calls into question not just the unintended consequences of the justified aspiration that every young person should achieve their full academic potential but the very way in which we organize schooling, and secondary schooling in particular.  You can read about Schools with Soul and download the full report and associated papers here: Schools with Soul

The dominance of the subject curriculum and of a very particular view of what constitutes a school ‘subject’ has continually marginalized (and sometimes ridiculed) so-called ‘newer’ subjects (think sociology, media studies, citizenship) while confining anything that cannot be packaged so neatly (think PSHE in its many iterations) to the often-lost world of cross-curricular themes or the margins of tutor time, in there with the register and the homework diaries - ‘everywhere but nowhere’ as I have been heard to claim on more than one occasion. So it has been for SMSC, and with the old hierarchy of knowledge firmly re-established in the new English Baccalaureate and a firm commitment to developing teachers’ subject knowledge (that’s certain teachers and particular subjects), the prospects might not look good for something as broad and apparently undefined as SMSC often has been.

That’s why this new report does three really important things: first, it makes us pause for thought about the purpose of education – grades are vital (I know, I went to a secondary school in the 1970s where four of us in my year group got five or more A-C grades) but so are the qualities and skills of confidence, character and resilience and dispositions that are pro-social, culturally-diverse and values-rich. Forget that and we end up with the ‘greed is good’ culture that has given us the banking crisis, the debacle of the MPs’ expenses scandal and the ‘have it all’ attitudes of celebrity culture, whatever the grades achieved by the protagonists.

Second, it proposes that we put the educational reform bandwagon on hold while we reflect on what the purpose of our educational endeavours might be. As Professor Richard Pring asked a few years ago in the report of the Nuffield Foundation’s Review of 14-19 Education, “what does it mean to be an educated 19 year old at the beginning of the 21^st century?” Seventeen years ago I published a short chapter (in a book anticipating Labour’s 1997 landslide entitled Take Care, Mr Blunkett), that reflected on James Callaghan’s Ruskin Speech and carried the heading “25 years on: the great debate that never was”. Schools with Soul makes it clear that that debate remains to be had, and that it remains as important as ever; we should take the report as our starting point.

Third, it offers strategies that teachers and school leaders might use to bring the distinctly un-soft skills at the heart of the SMSC agenda to reality in our classrooms and our school communities. Everywhere but nowhere is not good enough; thankfully, the report offers some pointers that might be of benefit not just in addressing the ‘non-subject’ components of SMSC (and, yes, the subject curriculum can play its part here) but in supporting other areas afflicted by the curse of cross-curricularity: work-related learning, students’ physical and mental health, careers education and guidance, employability and so on.

The report’s deeper message is simple though: attending to the social development and personal wellbeing of students, which is what good SMSC does, should never be an after-thought or add-on from the ‘fluffy corner’, to be dealt with when we’ve met our targets numeracy and literacy, or whatever. It must sit at the heart of school improvement and transformation strategies designed to close the cap, raise attainment and build inclusion, especially in our most-challenged schools and our most deprived communities. 

SMSC is not a distraction from the ‘standards’ agenda; it is the new standards agenda, the new standard by which we should judge the success of our educational efforts – attainment and achievement flow from inclusion and wellbeing; they do not precede it. Requires improvement is the report’s clarion call: without attending to their social, moral, spiritual and cultural development – and their physical and mental wellbeing – our attempts to ensure that all of the young people that we work with fulfill their potential are surely destined to failure.