Ed Miliband and the re-building of trust in politics

Today's speech by Ed Miliband is powerful stuff and an honest, appropriate response to Falkirk but this is not just about 'Labour and the Unions'. Below I share more of my personal experience than is usual on this 'company' blog - experience of Labour's Parliamentary selection process itself. I've framed it as an 'open letter to Ed Miliband'; in fact, it's an open letter to all in politics...

Trust in Politics and the selection of Labour Party Parliamentary Candidates

An open letter to Ed Miliband

Dear Ed

We worked together when you were Minister for the Third Sector at the Cabinet Office and I was CEO at the independent charity, the Citizenship Foundation.  I have been a member of the party since the age of 16 and have long held a commitment to the importance of political engagement in all its guises.

My own recent experience of the Labour Party's parliamentary selection process has, though, been extremely disheartening - not because of the behaviour of some trade unions (which you are right to tackle and challenge) but because of the behaviour of a local party so determined to install a favoured candidate (one named as such on the ‘inside’ from the beginning) that it failed to long list a range of talented candidates on the grounds that it had been overwhelmed with applications. It subsequently provided local members with a shortlist of two (which hardly amounts to a 'list' at all), who then selected the long-tipped individual, the one that the local party had sought to 'protect' from challenge throughout the process.  This individual may prove to be a terrific candidate but they deserve to pass the test of a fair, rigorous process and others deserve the right to enter the contest.

My request from the local party for feedback was refused (I was told that detailed notes were not taken and no scoring mechanism was used – it seemed that standard equal opportunities practice had yet to influence the process of selecting parliamentary candidates, at least in some local Labour Parties) and discussions with the regional party proved fruitless because the local party had, I was assured, 'followed the (now revised) rules'. Conveniently, this selection was held under the ‘old’ process, one that was revamped earlier this year.

My point is that the commitment to deal with those who seek to unfairly install candidates on behalf of trade unions  (while welcome) is insufficient if it is not matched with a commitment to reform local party selection itself, to tackle local (albeit declining) fiefdoms and to end that other privileged (and increasingly dominant) route into parliament - from intern to think tank to special adviser to safe seat.

Open primaries may or may not be an answer (and I think that it is right to explore their potential) but, as you argue, a better and more open, more inclusive politics certainly is.  As somebody who has worked on the ‘project’ of building trust in politics for over a decade and who now works as a public policy analyst committed to opening up access to politics, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with you and to assist the party's efforts in this regard.

I do hope that whoever is charged with sifting responses to your speech passes this one to you.  In any case, I welcome the debate that you have started.

Best wishes in all that you are seeking to do.

Yours,

Tony Breslin

Director

Breslin Public Policy Limited

0330 660 0525 / 07973 885 915

tony.breslin@breslinpublicpolicy.com

www.breslinpublicpolicy.com

Apprenticeships and Vocational Education programmes: destinations of choice for middle class learners?

Monday was the start of National Apprenticeship Week and, courtesy of an invitation from Fred Grindrod of the the TUC's UnionLearn team, I spent the morning at their Annual Apprenticeship Conference.  As the son of a skilled manual worker - my father was a fitter and turner in the factories of North and West London - and the recently appointed chair of a new awarding body, Industry Qualifications, the future of apprenticeships is of personal and profession interest. That future is closely tied to the value that we place on skilled manual work and, in what some might consider to be the language of an earlier age, on 'craft' and 'trade'.

The truth is that, as a society, we have never given the kind of status to craft and trade that we ought to have. No matter that today's apprenticeships lead, rightly, to far more than the factory floor and that they flourish in other areas, notably the service sectors. For too long white-collar has triumphed over blue-collar, academic over vocational, professional over technical, lawyer over engineer.  Too often young people who end up on a 'vocational' curriculum have landed there because they have fallen off the parallel but higher status 'academic' track; sometimes, they have ended up on a "work related" programme because they have been thrown off the mainstream curriculum for behavioural reasons: "throw the naughty boys a car engine" goes the cry. How, if that is the kind of curricular and behaviour management practice that we condone, will we ever 'sell' engineering and science as high status degree options?

After the better part of two decades championing the advantages of (an academic) higher education, we are beginning to question whether this is the only way to "widen participation".  Clearly, high quality, rigorously assessed vocational pathways, such as those offered by the apprenticeship framework, can offer a viable alternative - and an attractive one to young people given the emergence of university fees, student debt and graduate unemployment.

But our snobbery is longstanding.  The Education Secretary's utterances on his (not entirely satisfied) aspirations for the National Curriculum Review and his late, unlamented E-Bac have reinforced a hierarchy of knowledge in which the less conventionally academic is for the less able and in which, for the middle classes, vocational 'options' are for other people's children.

How can we, in National Apprenticeship Week, address this? Four concrete steps might help:

1. Recast what we mean by 'breadth' in curricular terms - 10 GCSEs or four A levels is not a broad curriculum but 10 (or four) variations on a theme  - "Vocational Education" should be redefined as "Professional and Vocational Education" (an unashamed re-pitch to the middle classes) with every young person having a professional and vocational element to their studies at Key Stage 4 and 5;
2. Build a new partnership between schools and FE colleges, such that we create genuinely integrated 14-19 pathways that allow us to make this new breadth a reality;
3. Place authenticity at the heart of this new curriculum entitlement with internships, mentoring programmes, work shadowing opportunities and work experience placements at the heart of what our education system offers, such that these become a central component of the education of every young person;
4. Embrace Andrew Adonis's call, made at the conference, for a root and branch overhaul of Careers Education - and of Information, Advice and Guidance services for young people more broadly - and for the extension of UCAS's role such that it becomes the national broker for apprenticeships as well as for higher education opportunities - the better integration of tracks from any apprenticeship pathway into higher education ought to be one thing that should follow from this.

Taken together, these steps might just begin to make professional and vocational pathways, such as those offered through apprenticeships, the chosen progression options for an increasing number of aspirational, middle class students and their parents.  

Only when we achieve this can we begin to move towards a better parity between the academic and vocational domains.  Lord Adonis is right to argue that as many young people should progress into apprenticeships as into higher education.  It is vital, though, that each track attracts learners from across the social range. Widening participation doesn't just mean getting working class and minority ethnic students into university; it means a broader social mix entering the full range of educational and training pathways that a reinvigorated approach to professional and vocational education can offer.

Annual GCSE results debate misses the point: passes matter when we're clear on purpose

Without the annual GCSE and A level results season, bad weather and an off-message Prince, what would the press report in August? It is depressing, though, that while (until last August, at least) the results have improved year-on-year, the media and political treatment of this story has not.

Let's start with a bit of context: we've spent the best part of 25 years building an educational culture that has replaced the 3 'R's with the 3 'T's: tests, tables and targets; not all the outcomes of this shift have been negative but we should be wary of one: exams designed to assess the progress and ability of individual students are being increasingly translated into devices for assessing the effectiveness of teachers and schools.  Against such a backdrop, a degree of 'teaching to the test' is inevitable.

Moreover, when schools are cast in competition with each other and where teachers can select the syllabuses their students follow by choosing between examination boards that are also competitors, the rigour of the examination itself is an easy victim - schools that select tough examinations will get fewer passes and be assumed to be worse schools with worse teachers; examination boards that design tough exams, or even overly innovative ones, will lose customers.  In a market that is worth more than that for secondary school text books (a sign that the system is seriously out of kilter), the testing agency, usually one of three dominant awarding bodies, is a reluctant guardian of standards.

Further, when one form of examination, the GCSE, is defined as the standard bearer (whatever that standard might be) there are other unintended outcomes.  Subjects never suited to GCSE assessment - often those with a practical, technical or creative orientation - are only able to secure their place on the timetable if they are forced into this assessment form or if an alternative form of assessment is granted GCSE 'equivalence'.  Thus, a vocational course in, say, hairdressing is granted an equivalence with a GCSE in, say, History, a fact represented without distinction in top-line school performance data.  This renders the resultant league tables less comparative than their clean A-C headlines suggest.  Although the options to do this have been much reduced in recent years (and the tables are more sophisticated), the process has claimed another victim: curriculum breadth and, in particular, the uptake and status of vocational courses: schools are discouraged from adopting courses that do not have a league table currency while, if they do adopt a course from that diminishing range of vocational qualifications that still offer GCSE equivalence, it is assumed that this is a ruse to score in the league tables rather than to broaden the curriculum.

The upshot? Young people of all abilities take a GCSE dominated curriculum in which 10 GCSEs is assumed to constitute breadth.  It does not; it constitutes 10 variations on a particular assessment theme.  Where in this is the place for good quality professional learning for all, for the development of the skills for effective citizenship, for the pursuit of a range of sports, for good quality and highly regarded personal development programmes? In short, the bright follow a curriculum that denies them breadth but gives them grades, those deemed less able chasing in their shadows. Too often, at the other end of the scale, learners are channelled onto 'vocational' programmes, there not out of informed choice but because they have fallen onto a default curriculum that confirms vocational and practical learning as a poor relation to the academic mainstream.  If the UK wants to raise the status of areas like engineering, technology and science, throwing the naughty boys a car engine is no way to do it. And nor is a narrowly academic English Baccalaureate.

The solution (or a first step towards it)? As we are beginning to argue through our Transform Education project, we need to stop obsessing simply about grades and performance measures and start asking questions about what kind of education system we need in the opening decades of the twenty-first century, what kind of young people we want to emerge from it, and what educational breadth really looks like.

Yes, let's measure the performance of this system and, yes, let's measure the progress of young people through this system  (and with real rigour using a range of tools) but shouldn't we start by asking what we want and need it to do? 

Beyond the Bradford Spring: lobbying, party-funding, trust and transforming our politics

The debates on Newsnight this evening about the Bradford West by-election and the role of lobbyists in our democracy, and the related and long-standing concerns about 'cash for access' and party funding serve only to underline the obsolescence of how we currently 'do' politics. How did we get here? It seems to me that several factors have converged to produce this state of affairs, but I'd like to make three observations in particular:

1. The professionalisation of our politics has turned Westminster into a stronger gated community than any that new-build suburbia can offer - access to this community is through a subterranean (and invisible to most) network of internships, lobbyists and think tanks, where a new generation of 'straight from college' (Oxbridge or similar PPE preferred) special advisers are honed, themselves merely serving apprenticeships for elevation (sorry, election) to Parliament itself;
2. For those seeking to influence politicians (honourably, as is usually the case, or otherwise), buddying-up to this network is vital, with the outcome that experienced business and third sector leaders spend a disproportionate amount of their time chasing these influencers - by purchasing access through the professional lobbyists, sponsoring (usually governing) party activity in some way or treading the wine reception floor, seeking to happen upon the youthful bag carrier for the minister concerned;
3. For those wanting to access politics (that is, to be politicians) , especially those who might have 'done something' beyond this Westminster Village, they find the gates all but closed - one unintended consequence of the professionalisation of our politics is the end of the parliamentary road for the mid-career trade unionist, community leader or business executive who fancies their chances at the polls.

For me, these three developments produce at least three negative outcomes:

1. Disconnected politicians with whom we share no history and for whom we have no empathy: trust in politics is the victim and every ignored protest march or expenses transgression strengthens the sense that voting doesn't change things (even if it might) and politicians don't care (even, as I suspect, most of them do);
2. Bad policy: just as voters are cut adrift from politicians, practitioners are largely ignored by these 'not so special' advisers - with the result that impractical but headline hugging policies are foisted on professionals who are often locked into performance frameworks that have come from the same planet;
3. The separation of the formal and informal political spheres: in earlier times the youthful rebel might have become the seasoned campaigner and the mid-life parliamentarian; as noted above, this is increasingly not an option. The result is a separation between the politics of protest and the politics of process, between the 'civil' and the 'civic' as some commentators put it - this separation is bad for democracy itself.

All of this produces disenfranchised citizens. Empowering citizens means creating a politics that isn't accessed through the secret codes of the gated community but through the kind of rich civil society that emerges when individuals realise that they can have an influence without writing a cheque, or selling their soul in some other way.

To do this we need to build an education system and a community engagement culture that gives potential voters the knowledge, skills, confidence and desire to hold their politicians to account, and enables them to self-organise (to lobby), personally and collectively such that the professional lobbyist is obsolete. How about a strengthened (rather than abandoned) Citizenship curriculum in schools and free to access 'social impact' courses in every FE and adult education setting, developing skills in community leadership, public speaking, negotiating and accessing the media?

The result would make for a Big Society to which might all want to belong. And we'd get better politics and politicians too.

Stephen Twigg MP, Professor Geoff Whitty CBE and Children's Commissioner Maggie Atkinson in sparkling form at the launch of Transform Education

Thanks to the masses who packed into the Thatcher Room at Portcullis House, Westminster last night to celebrate the launch of Breslin's Transform Education project (www.breslinpublicpolicy.com) and who heard Stephen Twigg, Geoff Whitty and Maggie Atkinson in sparking form - we've thrown some of their comments out through Twitter (@UKpolicywatch) but these soundbites can't hope to do their efforts justice.

Thanks also to our partners at GlobalNet 21 for helping us to stage what will be the first of three meetings and, we envisage, a much bigger project.

From the ensuing discussion a series of key questions emerged and readers of this blog might want to ponder them further. Here, in no particular order, are just some of them:

• What purpose (or purposes) do we want (and need) a twenty-first century education system to serve?
• What do we mean by 'breadth' in education, and in the curriculum in particular, and how do we ensure such a curriculum for all learners?
• What does meaningful, purposeful engagement-building learner voice or youth participation look like and how might it support the broader educational enterprise?
• What do we mean by professional, practical and vocational education and what is its place, status and purpose in the curriculum of all young people?
• How do we best support the challenged, the challenging, the looked after and the otherwise vulnerable?
• How do we introduce transformative change, especially in the highly structured context of the modern secondary school?
• What can secondary practitioners learn from those in early years and primary education, those in the youth sector, those in the 'alternative' education community and those in adult education and FE?

Comments and additions to the list are welcome. Let the discussion begin!

Stephen Twigg MP, Professor Geoff Whitty CBE and Children's Commissioner Maggie Atkinson to speak at the launch of Transform Education

We are pleased to announce that Shadow Secretary of State for Education, Stephen Twigg MP, Professor Geoff Whitty of the University of Bath School of Management (and formerly Director at the University of London Institute of Education) and Children's Commissioner Maggie Atkinson are to speak at the launch of Transform Education on the evening of Tuesday 13th March at Portcullis House, Westminster.

This is the first in a series of three meetings, staged in partnership with GlobalNet 21, exploring the challenges facing educators in the opening decades of the twenty-first century. The focus of the debate at this first session will be on rethinking policy and practice with regard to curriculum and achievement.

Further details about the Transform Education project and about the event, including how to register for an invitation, can be found on our website, breslinpublicpolicy.com.

Tickets will be allocated on a first-to-respond basis.

Breslin Public Policy Launch: many thanks to all!

Many, many thanks to all of you who helped us to celebrate the launch of Breslin Public Policy last night - really, really appreciated and a fantastic evening with lots of bustling and productive conversation. It was great to bring so many people together, drawn from across the fields of policy and practice. Connecting these too often separate realms is key to everything we do.

If you had intended to join us but were unable to do so on the evening, or if you simply couldn't make the date, do stay in touch - we hope to see you at our next event, for which you will receive an invitation shortly.

I am also pleased to confirm that, following our free charity raffle, we will be making donations of £100 to Medicins Sans Frontières, School Home Support and Age UK. We're proud to give this sum to each of these great causes, our own attempt to do Responsible Business and demonstrate Corporate Responsibility.

For those of you who were not there, the charities were chosen by our winners: Francis Sealey of GlobalNet 21, Anne McHardy of McHardy Farrell Media and Carly Mason of V. We will be making the donations this week.

The good news for the three winners is that they also get a voucher for a meal for two and a bottle of wine at Charterhouse Bar, kindly donated by Charterhouse. We will be in touch with the winners shortly to confirm how to claim your voucher.

Many thanks to Phil, Janice, Ed and the team at Charterhouse for a great evening - a lovely venue and already established as the home of one of our favourite networks, Convergence.

Thanks, also, to Richard O'Sullivan and Phil Ventre at Callisto for developing our branding and our website concept and design, to Helen Wiles at Helen Wiles Zine for building the website and to Grace Pluckrose-Oliver for making our first short film, which you can view on the site: http://www.breslinpublicpolicy.com/.

On the site you will find details about the various prjects that we are currently working on, or have previously worked on. Early partners include The Bridge Group, V, CCE England, East Sussex County Council, the Diana Award, Navigation Learning, Character Scotland, the British Olympic Foundation and the British Paralympic Association; we are grateful to each of you for your support and for inviting us to work with you.

Our next event, which we are staging in partnership with Global Net 21, is the launch of our signature education project, Transform Education. This will take place at Portcullis House, part of the Palace of Westminster on the evening of Tuesday 13th March.

This is the first of three meetings in which we will explore the challenges facing us as we seek to build education systems and develop approaches to learning that meet our needs in the first part of the twenty-first century. The focus of the first meeting will be on issues of curriculum and achievement in the school sector.

We are thrilled to confirm Stephen Twigg MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Education, Professor Geoff Whitty CBE of the University of Bath's School of Management (and formerly Director at the University of London's Institute of Education) and Maggie Atkinson, The Children's Commissioner for England, as our speakers. You can get a sense of what we will be discussing by listening to the podcast on our site, produced by Francis Sealey at GlobalNet 21.

In the meantime, thank you again for celebrating with us last night or for helping us to get to this point in some other way. Your support has been greatly appreciated.

Now the work begins.