Time for a new approach to education, a long-promised 'great debate' on education and a focus on educational purpose?

An edited version of my piece on Labour's failure to offer a coherent narrative on education at Election 2015 has just been published on the website of Progress, the progressive think tank aligned to the Labour Party but not part of it. You can access the Progress website at www.progressonline.org.uk, but for ease I reproduce the full piece below:

“Directors of School Standards - I mean, is that it? Is that all Labour can offer on education?” Not my words but those of an experienced and exasperated headteacher at a secondary school in Hemel Hempstead, where I stood in May as Labour’s Parliamentary candidate. I was sitting in his office with the Conservative incumbent, Mike Penning - who was subsequently re-elected - and the candidates from the Green Party, the Liberal Democrats and UKIP. It was about three weeks before the election and we were there to take part in a school ‘question time’ event for parents and the local community, organised by the school’s AS level Citizenship Studies students.

The head in question ought to have been a sympathiser, as should the senior staff members at two other Hemel schools who offered similar unsolicited appraisals of Labour’s education offer. In fairness, he gave us all a hard time; not so much “you’re all the same” as “prove to me, you’re not all the same”. And, in a world of homogenised politics and same-size politicians delivered to us through the slip stream of PPE, internship and a stint or two in the think tanks, it’s a fair challenge. Labour’s offer on education, and I say this as a teacher by profession who has spent thirty years in the system, was unimaginative to say the least, and all the poorer because we had had five years to think it up.

What sort of stuff did we put forward? No more than thirty in a class in primary schools, something that we’d pretty much delivered in the post 1997 years and which remains broadly in place, the afore mentioned school standards directors, qualified teacher status for all (surely, a given rather than a ground-breaking policy), a poorly explained Technical Baccalaureate that promised to reinforce rather than bridge the academic-vocational divide, an obligation to make students study English and Maths to 18, and a consumerist offer on childcare and student fees that did little to address how each system works - and its inequities. The foregoing ‘long’ campaign had seen reference to a clunky approach to teacher registration that felt like another device for policing the profession, the usual strategy-free platitudes on standards, a promise to stop the creation of new free schools, and to tweak the current A level reforms.

Talk of a new School Leadership Institute, support for the notion of a College for Teaching and plans for Master Teacher Status sounded like a direct rehash of three (good) post 1997 innovations - the National College for School Leadership, the General Teaching Council and Advanced Skills Teachers. Only the pledge to maintain education spending in real terms stood out, but, frankly, this wasn’t believed on the doorstep or in the staffroom: “Come on, you’re all going to cut spending, aren’t you?”

For many in education, politicians on all sides are starting in the wrong place. Educationalists at every level have had two generations of largely technocratic reforms - some good, some less so - but no discussion of why we do what we do, and no real attempt to involve professionals and parents - or students and their future employers - in any discussion.

From a Labour standpoint this is all the more galling because, in one of the most recognised addresses from a Labour premier, James Callaghan - speaking at Ruskin College, Oxford in October 1976 - had famously sparked calls for a “great debate” on the future of education”, although he never used the phrase itself. Almost twenty years ago, in the run-up to the 1997 election, I contributed a chapter to an Association of Teachers and Lecturers sponsored collection, Take Care, Mr Blunkett, entitled, Twenty years on – the great debate that never was. I could have given this piece almost the same title. Labour progressives should spark and lead that debate and do so now.

The focus of our conversation should not be on how GCSEs, AS and A levels are structured, whether fees are reduced or how many we have in a class, or even how we feel about performance tables and Ofsted. This is absolutely vital stuff but it should flow from our debate, not precede it.

 Critically, discussion should start with a focus, as Callaghan did almost forty years ago, on educational purpose and it should involve education’s many stakeholders asactive participants. We should start by asking, “what do we want”, in the phraseology of the great British educationalist Richard Pring, “the educated 19 year old to look like?” Whatever their perceived ability, what qualities, skills, knowledge and values do they need to prosper as individuals, and what characteristics do weneed them to have to prosper as a society? Literacy and numeracy, yes. But what about physical and mental wellbeing, self-confidence and citizenship, creativity and compassion, drama and dance, enthusiasm and enterprise, an appreciation of the arts and humanities, an exposure to professional and vocational learning? And if we can’t deliver all of this, let’s discuss priorities, and how we can be creative in our approach to these.

 And, finally, let’s wonder aloud about the kinds of schools, colleges, training providers and universities – and the kinds of professional – that we need to deliver our agreed priorities. Education, Education, Education? Yes, emphatically. But more than this: what kind of education, when, where, for whom, and with what purpose?

So, what is great leadership? Some thoughts inspired by the Windsor Leadership Trust

I've just responded to an e-mail from the Windsor Leadership Trust (http://www.windsorleadership.org.uk/windsor-programme) who are marking their 20th anniversary by compiling a series of essays and shorter pieces on leadership to be published later this year.

It's a really valuable initiative from a great organisation. I've responded to their invitation to talk about leadership in 200 words. Go on, why don't you do likewise, whether you consider yourself a leader or not? And if you don't fancy 200 words, you can offer your thoughts in 20!

Here is my 200 word submission:

Leadership is lonely but collaborative, charismatic but systematic, strategic but opportunistic. Leadership is about being in control but having the confidence to let go, about taking risks while ensuring the wellbeing of others, about the crossroads between courage and commonsense. Leadership means understanding the tensions and contradictions in leadership itself, rather than seeking to airbrush these from existence.  Most of all, leadership is untidy and messy, utterly refusing to accept the order and structure of the textbooks sold in its name, but always willing to learn from these sources, and every other.

Great leadership is about creating independence rather than requiring dependence, about enabling people to fulfill their potential but as part of a more widely shared dream, about building teams that pull together rather than fall apart, about sharing success without always getting the deserved credit for it. It’s about the ability to respond to challenges while maintaining direction, about the willingness to consider alternatives, about doing the dull stuff too.

Maybe we should stop seeking great leaders – a search destined to end in disappointment and disabling to us all. Maybe we should focus on acknowledging great acts of leadership. Maybe we are all capable of such acts. Maybe.

So, where did it all go wrong? My reflections on being Labour's candidate in Hemel Hempstead

It is almost a year since I've posted on the Breslin Public Policy blog, but with the election behind us, the business about to be relaunched and my adventure as Labour's candidate in Hemel Hempstead complete, if ultimately unsuccessful, I thought that I'd share my thoughts on the campaign, as published on the New Statesman website yesterday. You can read the full piece here: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/candidates-lessons-hemel-hempstead

In it I offer a candidate’s eye view of the challenges facing Labour in the wake of our May 7^th defeat. As a former CEO at the education and participation charity the Citizenship Foundation, I connect arguments about the rebuilding of Labour as a mass party with the broader issue of renewing democracy. In particular, I explore the thorny issue of how Labour combines a message about challenging inequality and poverty with one that is positive about supporting the aspirations of many who should or could be Labour supporters. Set in the specific context of a post war new town, one in which Labour has had recent electoral success, I pose questions about how Labour has lost the ‘affluent worker’ and how it might re-win this group, and constituencies like Hemel Hempstead, in the years ahead. 

Enjoy the read, and welcome back to the Breslin Public Policy blog - the long silence is over!

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.