Last Chance for EMA

Tomorrow in the Commons, MP's will take part in opposition day debate to apply some much needed parliamentary scrutiny to the coalition decision over the EMA. The decision scrap the EMA, unlike that over tuition fees last year, does not require a parliamentary vote because it is classed as a matter of departmental spending.

This odd fact seems to run in line with the relative lack of coverage that this cut has received. Late last year it was the decision to increase tuition fees, and the student reaction, which grabbed the headlines.

In fact, there has been a sustained, articulate and peaceful campaign from students, which has been matched by a huge online campaign through #saveema and the SaveEMA website.

Research out this week from the University and College Union (UCU) with the Association of Colleges (AoC) concluded that up to 7 out of 10 students receiving the EMA would end their studies if the payments stop.

The numbers involved are relatively small -Teenagers receive £30 a week if their household income is below £20,817, £20 a week between £20,818 and £25,521, or £10 a week between £25,522 and £30,810. In its first year or testing, in Hackney in 1999, 18,000 students took advantage of the policy and it played a significant role in raising achievement.

The total cost of the EMA does add up to a weighty £500 million pull on the public purse, but the qualitative nature of the results of the EMA mean that the net effect is difficult to measure.

The political disagreement over the policy rests on the coalition suggestion that the EMA does not in fact fulfil its stated goal of encouraging people to stay on in FE, and that much of the spending is what is called “dead weight” –money spent on pupils who would have gone to university either way. The crucial flaw in this analysis, as pointed out in the Commons, is that the sample from which these conclusions were drawn consisted of 91% white middle class students; clearly not representative of the demographic that the EMA is designed to support.

Brushing off the promises he made regarding EMA during the election, David Cameron has stated that "we are not abolishing EMAs – we are replacing EMAs with something more effective.” Channel 4’s Fact Check blog on the subject revealed that the something more effective is an increase to the Discretionary Support Fund, a less transparent measure which is administered and awarded by colleges. Fact Check concluded that Discretionary Support Fund is "only awarded once students are accepted on a course. Without the promise of extra funding, some poorer students may not risk applying."

The IFS have concluded “the costs of EMA are completely offset.” Of equal significance is the previous IFS research which shows that “EMA significantly increased participation rates in post-16 education among young adults who were eligible to receive it.

What is certain is that the towering piles of competing statistical analysis which surround this decision do not adequately shine a light on the real impact on students. It should not be forgotten that these are young people for whom education is not a foregone conclusion; this fundamental and universal support gives an important safety net for those who are not sure whether to take the risk. Far from quitting education, many may never take the risk in the first place.

From a quantitative perspective the policy has other benefits which are not suitably taken into account by the analysis. “This cost-benefit calculation does not include other benefits through other routes: for example, increases in educational attainment that might arise for the EMA recipients who would have stayed in education anyway, but now have more time to devote to studying” the IFS told Faisal Islam.

The claims made by Michael Gove last month on Radio 4, that “all the academic research shows that the current support is poorly targeted” is not a fair assessment of the real situation being faced by FE learners.

On many occasions since coming to power Michael Gove has expressed very strong his ambition to bridge the achievement gap between rich and poor students, this is to be welcomed. What we need from him now is chapter and verse on how any targeted replacement to EMA will bridge the gap and what calculations and forecast have been made to back this up.

Short of a huge rebellion on the Lib Dem benches, it is likely that the EMA will come to an end tomorrow. The aspirations of some of the most deprived students in our schools must not be allowed to fall through the cracks. PEN is hopeful that the debate will provide an opportunity for some meaningful and substantial debate on what form an effective alternative provision can take.

Cameron sees sense over School Sports Partnerships

The DfE announcement of the decision to axe funding for School Sport Partnerships, which passed an opposition day motion yesterday, proved immediately controversial. Unlike many education policy initiatives SSP’s have in a relatively short time produced astonishingly good results -over 90% of children taking part in at least over two hours of sport a week. Michael Gove’s decision to end ring fencing of the entire £162 million budget threatens every one of the 450 existing SSP’s, and the vast amount of extra sports work they do in communities across the country.

Gove’s decision, which has been the apparent source of intense debate at the heart of government, has drawn derision from across the political spectrum and as far afield as Canada. Yesterday the Government defeated a Labour motion to reassess the decision by a decent majority, seemingly indicating that this policy also has support among a good number of Lib Dem MP’s.

But the plot thickened this afternoon when David Cameron gave a hint that he might intervene once again over education policy, saying that he was “looking carefully at the debate that was made yesterday” and that the government were “talking with head teachers and hope to make an announcement soon.” This was a remarkably different line from that taken by Michael Gove yesterday and oddly reminiscent of Andy Burnham’s suggestion that “the best way to resolve the argument is to ask head teachers about the effectiveness of SSP’s.”

The immediate reaction from the massed ranks of media commentators was that this language, a conciliatory response to a soft question was a clear indication that a policy U-turn was on the cards; Nick Robinson saying that “Prime Ministers are busy people and they don’t read debates unless they are worried about something.” In the aftermath of Prime Minister’s Question’s The PM’s spokesman told the BBC that the rethink was because the issue was “being raised by schools at a local level round the country.”

Having already vetoed ministerial decisions which have proved to unpalatable to the media or the public, Mr Cameron would do well to listen to the furore that has been created by this short-sighted decision.

The highly active Twitter campaign to save SSP’s reflects the genuine anger felt by the many thousands of people involved in school sport. A highly critical letter from a group of head teachers called the move “a destructive and a contradictory and self-defeating decision”. Teachers and Labour MP’s were not the only ones to spot the apparent contradiction at the heart of this decision. England goalkeeper David James pointed out David Cameron plans to jet off to Zurich to support England's World Cup bid when his government is about to cut off all funds to the country's school sports partnerships from next spring." This was quickly followed by another letter to the PM from 75 elite British athletes begging him to reconsider what they said risked “destroying everything schools, clubs and the national governing bodies of sport are doing to ensure this and future generations embrace sport."

Such a bulging letter box must have alerted David Cameron to the potential political damage this could cause in the run up to 2012. To do away SSP’s now would potentially make all talk of an Olympic legacy meaningless.

In yesterday’s Commons’ debate Shadow Education Secretary Andy Burnham did a good job of setting out just what it would mean for schools to lose this provision. He called the move a “senseless act of vandalism defying all logic, leaving people speechless.” What was striking about the debate was the number of interventions from the floor which highlighted good practice in their own area. Many of these were again backed up by passionate petitions from constituents. If public reaction is a reflection of policies worth, then SSP’s must rank as a remarkably effective piece of legislation.

When challenged by Mr Gove to name a cut in the budget which would be acceptable cut to the SSP budget he argued that he would accept “proportional cuts which would keep the infrastructure in place.

This is an uncomfortable situation for Michael Gove who has come under unrelenting criticism and growing speculation that his may be the first head to roll in the coalition’s first reshuffle. Mr Gove has been given a challenging brief, and his reforms were always likely to drawn heavy fire from the opposition, and for this reason he will most likely be allowed to see his project through; nevertheless his motivations for this damaging decision are hard to fathom. At departmental budget level the numbers involved in SSP’s are fairly small, so the motivation cannot be purely financial.

At the core of his argument seems to be the belief that the infrastructure of the SSP system, which has been proven to be effective, is unnecessary bureaucracy which can be done away with.

Although this may, on paper, fit in with the DfE’s wider agenda of reducing prescription in terms of funding streams, it ignores the complex and unique requirements of sports provision across the education system. For example some SSP funding is used to coordinate the sharing of specialist sports coaches among sports colleges and schools with no specialist PE teacher. In other cases, this money pays for after school clubs in a range of sport that children may not get the opportunity to try. Without funding these services will simply cease.

The Prime Minster's words on the subject today were welcomed by all those involved in school sport. Further briefing this evening has revealed that the final decision won't be taken until overall local government funding is finalised. Let’s hope that beyond political point scoring that MP’s from all parties can do what is expected of them and work together to come up with a solution which preserves the integrity of the SSP programme. An initiative which is important for schools, valued by pupils and is delivering remarkable results.

Review of Key Stage 2 Tests

The Department for Education today released a statement confirming that the cross-bench peer Lord Bew will lead an inquiry into Key Stage 2 Sats.

The move was welcomed by teachers, who have long expressed concerns that the exams require excessive drilling of pupils. They are an ineffective measure for assessing the capacity of schools, especially those in more deprived areas.

The boycott of the exams earlier this year won broad support. Only yesterday it emerged that there were almost 23,500 official appeals against this year's English and Maths Sats results. Nearly ten percent of these complaints were upheld.

Having been roundly criticised, it is lightly that this report will lead to significant reform of the current assessment process.

The small panel will consist of the respected Lord Bew, two education experts, primary, secondary teachers and headteachers, some who boycotted the exams and observers from Ofsted.

The remit for the inquiry covers a variety of issues including how to make sure parents receive the best quality information and how to avoid the “perverse incentives” of teaching to the test. Key will be how best to retain accountability while implementing the coalition agenda of freeing schools from excessive external regulation.

Michael Gove has made it clear in the past that he is no fan of the tests in their current form, but believes in a need for 'rigorous' assessment at the end of KS2. Having rejected the calls from teaching unions for a system of internal assessment, it remains unclear which alternative the report will recommend.

The NUT welcomed the announcement, with Christine Blower calling the move “encouraging”, although she rightly criticised the fact that no practising teachers would be sitting on the panel.

The NAHT press release reflected the significance of the announcement for teachers who it said “feel deeply about this review. In the minds of most, its outcomes will be the key measure of trust in the profession.”

In terms of an immediate impact for schools, this review will come too late to affect the 2011 tests, and it is unclear if the unions will continue their boycott, and if the government will seek to enforce participation in what may by then be a redundant system.

Today’s announcement should be applauded as it represents a willingness to engage in dialogue over a very issue important issue. We are encouraged by the inclusion of education practitioners at the decision making table. Drawing on the wisdom of leading education professionals and school leaders is such an important feature of good education policy making.

The report is due to publish its conclusions in the middle of next year

Education in the Spending Review

The devil is in the detail. This was the cliché of choice for the pundits commenting on the long awaited Spending Review, which George Osborne announced yesterday.

In a speech that was peppered with small concessions designed to balance the bad news there was also a blinding amount of detail. This had the effect of obscuring the scale and breadth of cuts to the welfare system which will have a disproportionately large effect on the poorest 10% of our society.

From an education perspective the news was less severe than had been feared. The Chancellor made specific reference to his success in achieving a personal goal of seeing if it was possible “even when spending was being cut – to find more resources for our schools and for the early years education of our children.”

The decision to protect the education spending and increase the schools budget from £35bn to £39bn was a political one, but as with much of this budget, closer analysis of the figures revealed a more complex picture.

The supporting documents from the Treasury, which were released immediately after the speech revealed that the actual increase in funding was "£3.6 billion in cash terms by the end of the Spending Review period - this is a 0.1% increase in real terms in each year.”

A 0.1% increase in real terms will in many cases seem like a cut for school budgets used to a decade of year on year budget increases; however this settlement must be seen as broadly positive news considering the draconian cuts being faced by other departments.

Of real significance to the schools budgets will be effect of the 7.1% cuts to local government budgets. If schools are forced to face the brunt of the cuts which are devolved to LA's schools could still suffer.

On the morning of the announcement, a report surfaced indicating that the nature of the settlement “means 70% of the youth budget, which includes youth clubs and after-schools activities, will be cut. But the most alarming figure is that the 40,000 teachers now find themselves in insecure positions.” If the back room savings which this speech promised do result in teachers losing their jobs, it will be difficult to resolve this with the coalition pledge to protect front line services.

On capital spending, the Chancellor sought to frame the decision to do away with the “wasteful” BSF programme as rolling back expenditure to 1998-2005 levels - £15.8bn over the spending review period. The promise that “ there will be enough funding to meet demographic pressures and to address maintenance needs” does little to negate the undeniable impact of a real terms 60% cut to capital investment over the coming years.

An interesting element of the funding structure that these details reveal is that while the school budget is ring-fenced, the DfE its self will have its budget cut by 3.4% in real terms. Included in this is a huge 33% cut to DfE administration budget through “closing NDPBs, reducing headcount, reducing the costs of the DfE estate and cutting non-essential expenditure.”

Osborne argued, that “Sure Start services will be protected in cash terms” which of course amounts to a cut in real terms. The same kind of unclear language clouded the meaning of the decision to “replace education maintenance allowances with more targeted support.” The decision to scrap the EMA at a saving of £0.5bn may come to be seen as another disguised attack on the support for the poorest in our society.

There will be a real and gaping hole in the provision of services for those post 16 learners, with a huge cut of 25% to the FE budget and the Train to Gain programme scrapped.

It is unlikely that the promised increase in the numbers of apprenticeships and “targeted support” for those most in need, will balance out the cuts in this vital area. More so when you consider that many of these functions, now devolved to councils battling a 7.1% budget cut, are non-statutory.

Much remains unclear about the true implications of this highly complex restructuring of the nations finances. The reality of how school budgets and bottom lines are ultimately effected may not become clear for some time. It is almost certain that other programmes not mentioned directly yesterday will face the axe in coming months. For example, the ending of School Sports Partnerships was announced in this separate press release.

Most interesting of all are the figures relating to the 'Fairness Premium' which was announced with much fanfare by Nick Clegg as one of the key prizes to justify the Lib Dem role in the coalition. Immediate analysis of the documentation seemed to dispute the claim that the fund is 'new money'. This was later confirmed by the definitive Channel 4 Fact Check which concluded “In June, David Cameron promised to 'take money from outside the education budget to ensure that the pupil premium is well funded'. But now it looks as if the lion’s share of the money is recycled from within the education department’s budget. A senior education department source told Fact Check £1.7bn of the £2.5bn comes from other education cuts – things like the educational maintenance allowance. Only £800m comes from elsewhere – the welfare budget.”

Not only is this policy of taking from one group of children to benefit another fundamentally regressive, it may present a very hard sell to Lib Dem activists who had been promised that this was a uncrackable red-line for the party hierarchy in the Coalition agreement.

There are real concerns about the longer term impacts of this restructuring and the significant cut in support for younger people in FE. What remains to be seen is how schools choose to allocate the many revenue streams for defined groups which will now fall under one 'Dedicated Schools Grant' and how the cuts to LA budgets impact on individual schools – something which is unquantifiable at this stage.

Michael Gove speaks to the Conservative Party Conference

On Tuesday Michael Gove stepped back into the political spotlight to deliver a rousing speech to delight the delegates at the Conservative Party Conference.

Proceeded on stage by Geoffrey Canada, CEO of the Harlem Children’s Zone, a influential American Charter School group, Mr Gove sought to position himself as a great education reformer set against a backdrop of entrenched interests. “The Conservative party is now the party of the teacher, the party of higher standards, the party that is driving the reforms” he said.

But the speech, which received two standing ovations, was also highly critical of the past government and so called “bureaucrats and ideologues” who Mr Gove insisted bore responsibility for “[crushing] the spirit of the best in the profession.”

In damning language he insisted that“these ideologues may too have been inspired by generous ideals - but the result of their approach has been countless children condemned to a prison house of ignorance”.

For many this was a thinly veiled attack on the unions and pressure groups which have sought to block the progress of his academies bill. This message was reinforced by key note speaker Geoffrey Canada, who used his address to suggest that unions “kill” teaching innovation.

However there were very obvious mixed messages in a speech which on one hand praised teachers as heroes and on the other claimed that drastic reform was needed to “free children from a culture of limited horizons, levelling down and low expectations.”

For the Education Secretary, the world is inhabited exclusively by passionate hard working teachers and outdated establishment dinosaurs who are hell bent hobbling him at every turn. In reality the situation is much more complex than that. It suits the coalition narrative to frame the debate in this way, but in reality much of the objections to the academies bill have come from teachers. Teachers who are dedicated not just to their pupils but to the education system as a whole.

Mr Gove must acknowledge the passion that education practitioners have for what happens in their school is not driven by a nefarious desire to maintain a unjust status quo, but by a real passion for pupils outcomes. Teaching groups represent those interests and teachers must be engaged and involved in this period of transition. To attack the broader education establishment in such strong language, as parts of this speech did, runs the risk of ostracising the teachers the coalition wish to engage with.

This apparent unwillingness to see the multiple shades of grey which define the realities of education policy was a theme which ran throughout this speech.

Mr Gove claimed that by “scrapping the curriculum quango” he is giving a 'new deal' to teachers and the freedom they deserve to influence the curriculum. This seems to contradict his claim that he wants to put classical literature such as Swift, Byron, Keats and Shelly at the centre of English teaching. Nor is it in line with his recent centrally issued diktat on music education. No one would argue against the benefits of either argument, but it is not possible for Mr Gove to inhabit both places. The coalition must be either in favour of a classical traditional curriculum or in favour of freedom for teachers to do what is best for their learners.

There was also confusion over his announcement that teachers would be given increased powers to intervene in events outside the schools gates, with the the NUT insisting that "pupils are already subject to disciplinary powers when outside of school grounds. Michael Gove's sweeping pledge is presently without substance." Schools minister Vernon Coaker was also critical stating that “teachers already have very clear powers to use reasonable physical force where necessary and to discipline pupils for bad behaviour on the journey to and from school. To imply otherwise is misleading and undermines the confidence of teachers.”

But there was no doubting Mr Gove's passion for his brief, as he spoke of his desire to push through his reforms at pace, claiming that he couldn't live with himself if he didn't move quickly with his reforms, “children only have one chance. Five years for them is their entire life at secondary school.”

This was a speech in which Mr Gove sought to regain his title as one of the coalition’s high achievers and reassert the control of his brief that was lost during the fiasco over the cancellation of BSF. And there is no doubting the Secretary of States passion for his task.

Whether or not this passion reflects a willingness to engage dissenting voices will come to define Mr Gove's time as Education Secretary. In the face of controversial reforms, it will be crucial that teachers unions and education practitioners are engaged at the highest level of policy making, rather than excluded as barriers to change. The teaching community is a diverse and passionate body and to ignore its views is to deny its strength in diversity. A new curriculum or 'new deal' that does not draw on our full gamut of skills will be no more uniting than the work of the “bureaucrats and ideologues” maligned by Mr Gove.

PEN Summer Reading #5

Friday 3rd September


Over the last few days, as pupils and teachers head back into the classroom, the media has once again turned its attention to what is happening in our schools. Much of this weeks coverage was dedicated to the schools which are opening their doors for the first time as academies. This first round of academy transformations was either a qualified success or terrible failure, depending on your choice of newspaper. We can expect such partisan argument for the both sides of the debate until new schools start to generate useful data, which may take years.

The definitive numbers, taken from the DfE's own press release are:

• 142 schools converting to become academies: 32 are opening this week and a further 110 schools have had Academy Orders signed which means they are on track to convert to academies over the coming months.
• Of the 142, there are 7 primary schools which become the first ever primary academies to open. The Government has said that special schools will also be allowed to become academies from next year.
• 64 new academies replace failing schools this September plus a further 10 opening by April 2011. This is record progress; it took five years for 15 city technology colleges to open, and four years for the first 27 academies to open."

• Academies will give more children a chance

Writing in The Telegraph, Michael Gove argues that his reforms will allow schools to "educate without the burden of bureaucracy".

• Gove's schools revolution begins with a whimper

In The Independent Richard Garner mirrored the views of much of the media, questioning the judgement of rushing through the academies bill with the justification that schools were clamouring in their thousands to take advantage of the powers.

• Academies surge falls short of expectation

Some of the most measured analysis of the first wave of academy openings came from Chris Cook writing in the Financial Times.

• Blair's education revolution bears fruit

Another take on the academies story from Conor Ryan, who argues that the Labour legacy of focusing the academy programme in failing schools has been a success for disadvantaged children.

• Academies and GCSE performance

Academies appear to have upped their game this year, across the board, posting better than expected improvements in GCSE results write Patrick Watson.

• Michael Gove's odd schools obsession

American education writer David Plunkett looks at the performance of the US charter schools which have inspired coalition education policy.

• Schools must earn poor pupil payment, charity tells Gove

Report submitted by the Sutton Trust says that disadvantaged children should be given priority in order for schools to get incentive rewards of pupil premium.

• Education leaders guide to the year

The final PEN reading list item of the summer is a great resource from the NAHT, with a timetable of planned government policy changes and action in the coming year.

PEN Summer Reading #4

Friday 27th August

• GCSE results: Trends explained

Alongside the usual avalanche of opinion on this week's GCSE results, this interesting piece from the BBC shows the most significant trends, based on real data. You can view the equivalent piece for A Levels here .

• Guess what? The state sector is closing the gap

Guest post from the Chair of Governors at a London school points out that this years results actually show a relative improvement in the state sector compared to private, at both A Level and GCSE.

• The No-win Generation

Writing on the Public Finance blog, Conor Ryan argues that when prospects are so bleak for those getting their results this week, the usual criticism of dumbing down should be eschewed in favour of congratulating our young people.

• We must not let the recession kill our faith in education

Writing in The Guardian Estelle Morris argues that we must not let the recession and cuts cause young people to lose faith in the power of education to change their lives.

• Headteacher Charlie Taylor's unconventional approach pays off

Interesting interview with a headteacher who has used strong leadership and unconventional methods to turn around a challenging school.

• School that refused to become academy is most improved

Another school success story, The Independent reports that strong leadership helped Perry Beeches become "the most improved school ever over a three-year period".

• Primary cause for concern

Excellent article in Prospect magazine argues that introducing another type of school is not the way to improve educational standards system wide.

• 10 strong claims about successful school leadership

Great resource from The National College. Results of a research project which investigated a sample of schools which had improved pupil learning outcomes over at least three consecutive years under the leadership of the same headteacher.

• Ed Hirsch - a big influence on traditionalists

Schools Minister Nick Gibb has made no secret of his admiration for this American academic and his views on core knowledge and 'cultural literacy'. Patrick Watson explores the detail behind these ideas.

PEN Summer Reading #3

Friday 20th August

• A Levels and university entrance

Coverage of the A Level exam results dominated the headlines this week. Some of the most level headed and insightful analysis of the reality behind the numbers comes from Mike Baker.

• Who's to blame for A Level science success

Short post on some of the interesting stats found amongst the wider results, from Conor's Commentary.

• A Level results improve (again)

Politics.co.uk reports on David Willets response to the results and his thoughts on the 'dumbing down' argument.

• Re-sits undermine the A Level

This piece on the Civitas website argues that it is the re-sit culture of A-Level modules which is affecting the legitimacy of the qualification.

• Watch out for private school spin and dodgy statistics

The Truth About Our Schools blog argues that coverage of exam results reflects a marketing blitz by the private sector which talks down the great achievements of many state school pupils.

• Make spirit of enterprise your business

This weeks TES reports on government research that shows that there needs to be a curriculum wide approach to teaching entrepreneurial skills in schools.

• Virtual CPD for teachers

Great blog post from Alastair Horne on how teachers can use technology for CPD.

• Dawkins is wrong: faith schools don't blinker children

Teacher Irfana Bora argues against Richard Dawkins position that religious schools serve to indoctrinate children.

• VAT, funding and academies

Another interesting blog from Patrick Watson on the details behind the academy funding and tax structure.

• Coalition education: 100 days

A comprehensive round up of the coalitions performance, 100 days into their education reform agenda.

PEN Summer Reading #2

Holiday Reading: Friday 13th August.

• Are new academies a return to GM schools?

Patrick Watson blogs an interesting response to last weeks Mike Baker piece on the similarities between academies and GM schools

• Behaviour and attendance partnerships put on hold

Sec-Ed Magazine on this weeks under-reported news that these new systems have been put on hold by the coalition

• Playground plans shelved under government spending cuts

News of more cuts to schools infrastructure in the pipeline, as reported in The Guardian

• Stop knocking Comprehensives - they work

In praise of the Comprehensive school. Kevin McKenna writes in The Observer

• A response

A short critique of some of the points in the above article, from 'Ron's Blog'

• The perils of comparing 'like' with 'not like'

Excellent blog from Warwick Mansell on the realities and data behind last weeks headlines that science standards are at their lowest for 10 years

• Children will lose out under new education policies

Phil Beadle with a interesting take on the impact of the coalitions education policy so far

• U-Turn over headteachers pay cap

The Telegraph reports that Michael Gove has gone back on his pledge to cap headteachers salaries at the level of the Prime Minister, calling the plan 'unworkable'.

• The dangers of a paltry pupil premium

Conor Ryan on the dangers associated with setting the pupil premium too low.

• Focus on results can make children do worse

An Institute of education released today shows that children do better in exams when teachers focus on learning rather than grades.

PEN Summer Reading

The summer holidays are a time for unwinding and recharging batteries. This year, despite the recess, the constant stream of education news and opinion shows no sign of stopping.

In light of this, throughout the summer, PEN is bringing you a concise weekly selection of 10 great articles from the past 7 days. The best, most interesting or overlooked reads from the education blogosphere. Check this PEN blog every Friday afternoon for everything you need to keep up to date on developments in education policy.


Holiday Reading: Friday 6th August

• The Academies Act Round Up

Patrick Wilson's Montrose42 blog with an informative article on the different clauses in the academies act and what they mean.

• Sats test results -analysis

BBC article on the trends and information revealed by this week's test results and the impact of the boycott.

• Boycotts, testing, targets and cuts

Conor Ryan on this week's results, effectiveness of the teachers boycott and what the future may hold for the examinations.

• Michael Gove's School Report

Nick Seaton explains to Conservative Home why he only gives the Secretary of State 5/10 for his first weeks in office.

• Gove's academies: a 1980's idea rebranded?

Mike Baker's piece for the BBC on the similarities between the new academies and the GM schools of the 1980's.

• The low points of high office

TES on the difficult first weeks for the Secretary of State

• First primary school prepares for academy status

First of a series of features from the Guardian following Goddard Park School as it races to open as an academy in September.

• National test results - a press release

The NUT responds to the test results which were released this week

• A take on the summer holidays

A light-hearted blog from Arthur De Caux on the end of term and the summer holidays

• Rebuild plans for 77 schools given the green light

The BBC revealed on Friday that 77 of the axed BSF schools under consideration will get Green light to rebuild

Final Day of Term...

Last week, Michael Gove and his Permanent Secretary David Bell, appeared before a House of Commons education committee . The two men at the top of the DfE were questioned on a wide range of topics, from the Secretary of State's overall vision for education to the calamitous errors around the decision to suspend the BSF programme.

Taking place on the same day that the academies bill passed into law, this committee gave the impression of inspecting the gate after the horse has bolted. Nevertheless the scrutiny applied by the panel showed clearly why these expert committees are so important for democratic scrutiny. The lack of the combative accusation throwing which characterised the debate in the Commons was refreshing for those education professionals keen to tease out the real key details behind the new coalition education policy.

Mr Gove, setting out his agenda for change, spoke at length of his desire to increase social mobility in school. "Rich thick kids to better than "poor clever" children, said Mr Gove. This unwise use of language generated criticism from teachers unions and grabbed the headlines.
Despite this there were some interesting points were raised and some long running questions clarified:

• Permanent Secretary David Bell took responsibility for the failure to cross check the BSF list with Mr Gove. Bell said: "I think it was a mistake not to put to the secretary of state the possibility of checking the list with local authorities and I take responsibility for that."

• Michael Gove said that he would welcome applications to open atheist or 'free thinking schools' under the new legislation. This specifically related to a statement by Richard Dawkins that he would be interested in

• Nearly one third of the expressions of interest in the free schools legislation have been from religious groups or institutions.

• Despite the 'haste' with which the bill was pushed through parliament in order to ensure that academies could open in September, it is unlikely that any will be open on the time scale the government desires.

• Labour MP, Graham Allen, will chair a new independent commission which will examine how to increase social mobility in schools.
  

• Despite the claim from the DfE that over 1000 schools and expressed interest in the academies programme, only 153 have actually applied to being the process, raising serious questions about the need to rush through the legislation at all.
  

The debate, which you can watch in full here, was the closing act to the frantic first period for the new DfE. As summer recess begins, there are still a lot of unanswered questions, which educators will be keen to see resolved before the coming term.

The Academies Bill

The run up to summer recess in the Commons, much like the end of the school term, is usually a relatively sedate period. But this year in the Commons the mood is anything but relaxed. MP's are today voting on the academies bill, which has controversially flown through the house thanks to legislation designed expressly for emergency anti-terrorism measures.

The speed of the bills passage has drawn criticism from both sides of the Commons. While Ed Balls called the decision an abuse of parliament, Chair of the Education Select Committee, Conservative MP Garham Stuart, told the BBC that 'it is unusual to push through legislation in this manner, particularly when it is not to do with a crisis.' Adding that people 'will ask whether enough consideration has been given to the system-wide impact of this'.

While Michael Gove and Ed Balls butted heads in the chamber on Monday last week, outside the DfE hundreds of teachers were in an equally vociferous mood, taking part in a large protest against the cancellation of the BSF programme.

In the DfE - the post election honey moon is well and truly over.

The governments desire to see the academies bill passed into law by the summer recess is understandable, if only from a political perspective. Of the schools which have confirmed their desire to become academies, Michael Gove is desperate that at least one should be open by September, in order to show his ambitious programme of reform is under way. It's difficult to imagine many headteachers vying for that prize and the inevitable media circus that will accompany the first day of term.

Certainly there are elements of the bill which are warmly and universally welcomed, the increased emphasis on CPD for teachers is key among them. But the lack of clarity on the wider implications of the reforms is worrying for teachers and pupils alike.

Because of how new schools will effect local funding arrangements, this bill will impact on every student in the state education system. Without passing judgement on the bill itself, it is right to argue that simply not enough is known about this far reaching legislation.

Last Monday's debate in the Commons, was the last chance to debate the content to the bill. Sadly for all concerned, the session generated more heat than light, with little new detail on the more controversial elements. This combative debate showed clearly why the expert committee stage, which was abandoned for this bill, is so crucial for parliamentary scrutiny in our democracy.

The capacity of this bill to help some pupils is not in doubt, but there is concern that the current plans do not amount to a coherent strategy to improve standards in all our schools.

Michael Gove has suggested that all academies would work with a struggling school in their area. But the text of the bill reveals that this is merely an expectation of the government, and no ruling or structure exists to ensure that they do.

The same expectation exists around consultation between schools and parents on the decision to become an academy. The bill states that governors must "consult such persons as they think appropriate" but that this consultation can take place "before or after an academy order is made".

The impact on those schools left behind when a neighbour becomes an academy should have been closely examined before this bill becomes law. We simply have no idea what will become of the shared networks and organised provision provided by the LEA if schools in their area opt out and begin to draw money, pupils and future funding away from existing schools.

These changes are of huge significance to the education landscape in our country. With all reforms of this scale, the real impacts will take many years to reveal themselves in data on the ground.

These proposals should have been expertly and impartially examined, rather than pushed through parliament with a haste previously unheard of for such complex and far reaching legislation.

BSF - The Argument Everyone Lost

The decision to scrap BSF was a rare political event – an argument that everybody lost. The government was bruised, Gove and the DfE were humiliated and the staff and pupils of over 700 cancelled schools were left devastated.

The DfE is struggling to regain the momentum it had worked hard to develop since the election. A quick search of Google news shows that more, and not less column inches are being devoted to the story as local communities come to term with the decision. Take the case of Enfield, where funding for 5 schools was cut, including a pupil referral unit (PRU) which served the entire borough. The Chair of the PRU’s board yesterday called the decision a “disaster” which “effects every school in Enfield”

There has been more pain for the coalition as Conservative MP’s have come forward criticising the cuts and defending BSF in their own constituencies. Patrick Mercer MP challenged Mr Gove in the House on how he could justify stopping investment in a school that when it rains “children have to stop being taught in order to hold buckets under the leaking roof."

When taken along side some of the vitriolic criticism from the Labour benches, including the rather unparliamentary assertion that the Education Secretary was a “miserable pipsqueak", it capped a terrible period for Mr Gove.

Yesterday in the Commons, Mr Gove appeared to indicate that he would bow to pressure from all sides and agree to a review of future capital spending in schools. While Lib Dem education minister Sarah Teather added "just because some projects have stopped under BSF, it does not mean they will not happen in the future"

If this is indeed true, what was the political rationale behind making such a high profile and damaging statement in the first instance?

Yesterday, Conservative MP for Bridgewater Ian Liddell-Grainger seemed to indicate that he had talked a concession from the Secretary of State, who he claims has agreed to “review the whole scheme”.

Do these developments mark a tactical climb down in the face of unexpected pressure or an attempt to draw a line under the issue? If so, the MP's suggestion that “Michael wasn't aware of all the facts to do with the Bridgwater scheme” will do little to help repair the damage.

The Education Secretary will certainly look back on these past days with some regret. Despite his recent attempts to turn the fire back onto the Labour party, and Ed Balls in particular, his reputation as one of most studious and rigorous members of the coalition cabinet has taken a real hit.

But as with all things inside the Westminster bubble, this storm will pass. The real losers will be the pupils, teachers and communities which had been anticipating a new school. A case in point is Sandwell, the community in the West Midlands who were told their schools would go ahead only to find out the next day that in fact all nine planned schools would be cancelled.

These short-sighted cuts will be felt most harshly across council boundary lines. Authorities which applied early to the BSF programme will see all of their schools built while their neighbours, like Sandwell, will get nothing. Student migration is an inevitable consequence of such an imbalance.

In the long term, this decision will damage UK PLC. Germany, which is also dealing with a large deficit and the need for universal cuts, has managed to significantly increase education spending (7.2%) sighting the need to maintain German economic competitiveness in the future. The BSF programme was an attempt to ensure that our children were educated in facilities which were fit for the next century, not the last.

The argument made by Phillip Hammond, that great teaching does not need "sparkling, architect-designed buildings" is correct in so far as it acknowledges that teaching is the most important aspect of any child's education. The government's mistake is to take this argument to the illogical conclusion that environment and facilities has no impact on the quality and breadth of education a school can offer. It most certainly does.

Although this is an intellectually necessary leap for a government desperate to legitimise a free schools agenda that may see classes taught in converted office blocks, it completely ignores the power of the teaching environment to inspire students and raise aspirations. Surely this is a point that would not be lost on the Eton alumni which inhabit the coalition benches.

Sadly, the emotive nature of the debate has obscured the real issue – the question of whether or not the cancelling of the entire programme was the result of reasoned argument or an ideological decision.

Certainly there was scope to reduce the costs associated with BSF, but to cancel the scheme at the drop of a hat, while promising new funding for the free schools programme smacks of political dogma.

BSF was a unique opportunity to prepare the state education system for a changeable future, and to equip all of our children with the skills and resources they need to compete in an uncertain world.

By moving so decisively against a capital investment that would bring universal benefit, Michael Gove has used up a lot of goodwill among teachers.

It is this goodwill, which the coalition will need to rely on if they are to successfully implement their education reform agenda in the coming years.

Six Areas of Change in Education

Barry Bainbridge, Director of the Consortium of All Through Schooling (CATS)
was recently taking part in a conference at the DfE . The keynote address came from Permanent Secretary to the DfE, David Bell.

Bells speech was a analysis of the first 50 days of the coalition, but of greatest interest was his outline of the areas of education policy where the changes would be taking place in the future.

Beyond the current uproar over BSF funding, there will certainly be many fundamental changes in education policy across the board; from a ‘very significant’ announcement on bureaucracy, a shrinking role for Ofsted and moves to put much more school information in the public domain. In the classroom teachers can expect a stripping down of the national curriculum and, depending on who you listen to, more or less freedom to teach.

Barry has kindly agreed to share his notes and interpretations of this important speech with PEN. It provides a fascinating insight into the thinking at the top of DfE, and good indicator of the policy area's which are likely to come under scrutiny in the coming parliament. Essential reading....

David Bell outlined 6 areas where things are happening or about to happen;

1. Creating a freer, more transparent “school system with collaboration based on choice rather then coercion”. This is happening very quickly with the creation of a “permissive regime” in this parliamentary session (by the end of July). “Permissiveness” is very important. It is not the Government’s intention to force academies or to break up existing networks. Its approach is to encourage rather than force. It will look to remove requirements to collaborate but not looking to reintroduce the isolation of the old GM schools. Collaborations are essential for successful schools.

2. The Government want the best qualified workforce and they see this as school’s led with school based training at the heart of practice. There will be a strong emphasis on schools leading their own Teacher Training in collaboration with HE. With regard to Leadership and Teacher Learning, the Government is very keen that central initiatives will go. Schools will now take this forward and centrally driven programmes will go. This is part of the drive to lessen the interference of politicians and reduce bureaucracy. On the question of capacity, groups of schools will be essential to deliver this. Providers from outside will operate in a marketplace, along with LAs and other providers.

3. There will be a move to a streamlined knowledge based curriculum with a profound review of the National Curriculum in the autumn. This will strip out much of the detail and create a curriculum much thinner in content. It will be left to schools how to teach it along with other skills and concepts. The Government sees the curriculum as overcrowded. This is a big task for schools and too much for individual schools.
There will be an age 6 reading age for all children but at the moment, no decision on KS1 SATs. Key Stage 2 tests will remain but probably not in their present form. There is more to come on 16+ qualifications.

4. The Government will seek to simplify accountability and reduce bureaucracy, but maximise information to parents. Ofsted will change back more towards its original format. There is a “very significant” announcement to come on bureaucracy. This will reduce the mountains of stuff schools are required to produce. Transparency will mean that virtually everything about schools will be in the public domain.

5. The Government is determined to enable Headteachers and Teachers to be tougher on discipline and to maintain good order in schools. This will go hand in hand with better provision for pupils who cannot survive in mainstream.

6. The ‘pupil premium’ will target funding for deprived pupils but it is for schools to decide how to spend that money. Funding will be determined by individual pupils on free school meals not in blocks. Schools will be free to spend this money as they wish. This is a prominent part of the coalition agreement.

The details will become clear over the next few months. “Collaborations will become an even sharper focus”. “Maximise your collective knowledge and expertise for the benefit of the children”. There will be tough decisions on capital spending.

-Many thanks to Barry Bainbridge for the informative notes.

Certainly many of the initiatives mentioned here will be welcomed by the Progressive Education Network and teachers alike. These ideas represent the ideological direction of the coalition, without addressing the significant upheaval that will come with implementing them. In this era of much tighter financial constraints, the money for each new initiative must come from an already shrinking pot. These are significant reforms that will cost money, money which must come from existing budgets. it is too early to say where, but as we have seen with the doomed BSF programme, there are no sacred cows in education policy.

The Education Debate: What Did We Learn?

Not much is the short answer to that question. Unsurprisingly yesterday’s education debate was one of the most heated of the series so far. As a result, the viewers were treated to a substantial amount of bickering which was in some cases reminiscent of scenes in the rowdy classrooms that all three spokesmen claim to understand. The immediate reaction among viewers seemed to be disappointment that there was not more in the way of constructive debate. Nevertheless, some, thought not many, clear policy statements did emerge. Less than 24 hours till the polls open, PEN offers a brief run down of what was said and by who:

Opening Statements:

Sticking to the mantra of ‘change’ Michael Gove used his opening remarks to warn of the dangers of 5 more years of Gordon Brown and promise tougher discipline and increased choice for parents and a pledge to eliminate illiteracy.

Ed Balls took the opportunity to restate the undoubted achievements of labour: 4000 schools built or refurbished, more investment and teachers than ever before and increasing standards. While he acknowledged that more was to be done, he was clear that the pledges made by his governments: such as one to one tuition for failing students and a place in college or training for all 16/17 year old's cannot be matched by the Conservative party. A key pledge was that per pupil funding would rise ahead of inflation.

David Laws agreed with Balls that there was much to be proud of in the schools system in the last 13 years. However, he criticised both the Labour and Conservatives failure to tackle inequality, and rammed home two highly progressive Lib Dem education policies: an extra 2.5 bn for schools to lower class sizes and a new body to take education outside of political meddling forever.

Topic: Have standards improved in our schools?

Michael Gove paints a picture of a system “which overall has profound problems” To support his argument he cites the claims by some employers that new recruits do not have basic literacy and numeracy skills.

“It is certainly higher” is the concise response from Ed Balls who cattacks Gove for running down the work of our teachers.

“They have gone up but not by enough”, say David Laws, who comes out on top in this first question by distancing himself from the early bickering.He suggests that what is needed is an independent body to monitor and depoliticise the debate around exam and education standards. “What we need to do is set up a truly independent education standards authority”

Topic: How would you deal with this explosive issue of the Sats Boycott?

Laws is very vague in answer to this issue saying he “would not bow to the boycott, but would appeal to teachers to respect the situation as it now is.” He goes on to outline the wider policy of internal assessment with external checks. This position was popular at the NAHT conference delegates at the weekend

Ed Balls is clear on this issue, he believes in the assessment and believes a boycott would be “really unfair to children who have worked hard this year.”

Gove’s position is that “we need external tests” and even though assessment is improving all the time, “we are not absolutely sure, at the moment that teacher assessment is sufficiently good”

This draws a tangible line for voters on policy, with Gove and balls on ‘the side of rigour’ against the Lib Dem's who, according to a TES interview with Nick Clegg, would scrap the tests.

Laws counters by saying, pointing out accurately that the internal government research suggests that teacher assessments in fact stricter than external testing.

It is worth noting that none of the spokesmen give any meaningful answers to the question they were actually asked, which is how they will tackle the imminent reality of this boycott.

Topic: Are 60% of schools just ‘satisfactory’?

As the incumbent, Balls is legitimately challenged to explain this issue. He argues that this is not the case. His position relies on statistics which are much harder to convey with any passion but his numbers are strong: “while in 1997 half of schools were unsatisfactory, now the number is down to one in 12.” His argument that the Ofsted inspection regime has recently became more rigorous and risk based in its assessment is accurate but fails to address the real concerns teachers have about this issue and the effect it can have on morale.

Michael Gove quotes the OECD paper which he claims indicates that education system is getting worse relative to other EU countries. “The gap between our private and our state schools, between the rich and the poor is wider in this country than in any other wealthy country” ED Balls, critics this, claiming that C4 fact checker has concluded that this statistic is misleading. He’s right, they analyse it here.

Laws once again hits his key argument that Lib Dem spending will be directed at the schools which require the most assistance. “Additional money going into the schools that need it most is crucially important”

Topic: Is there a problem with discipline in our schools?

Ed Balls believes that school discipline has got better. He argues against Conservative plans to give teachers more powers. “Michael says give the teachers more powers, when I speak to teachers they say we have all the powers we need”

Another real dividing line in policy here: Michael Gove believes that “teachers don’t have the powers they need”. Gove claims the support of teachers on this issue, quoting the ACSL as saying “new power is no power”

Once again the answer for the Lib Dem spokesman is again less not more legislation “The idea that the answer to the problems I our school is more government legislation is bizarre and very odd from a Conservative”

As part of their plan attempt to increase discipline The Conservatives propose to do away with the right for appeal against expulsion. Gove is challenged on this by moderator Mike Baker on the legal issues this raises. “I’m happy to fight in the courts for common sense.”

Topic: Freedom for schools

On the hot issue of the campaign so far. Michael Gove is first to pitch the benefits of his model “we have proposal to give more state schools the academy freedoms that Ed has curtailed and David would deny them.”

Mike Baker, who clearly has his own view on this issue, takes him to task on his statistics, arguing that the most comprehensive reports from Sweden shows no real improvement in the majority of schools.

Sadly, considering that election debate has focused on the legitimacy of this idea, the debate moves onto funding far too quickly.

Interestingly a key area of debate is an article that Pen commented on earlier in the day, in which the Swedish opposition leader criticises the Conservative interpretation of their model.

Ed Balls and David Laws were both critical of the conservatives spending plans calling them “dishonest” and “difficult” respectively.

“Michael is saying one group of parents saying we will build a new school has not being honest that he will take away the funding and teachers from other schools in the area."

“If the Conservatives are shrinking the education budget it’s very difficult to pay for that new capacity with out penalising existing schools I think the other problem is that it want sot give freedom to only a small minority of these schools. While giving n even more prescriptive curriculum for others”

The most compelling sound bite in relation to this whole debate comes from Laws when he says “If the power to innovate makes sense it must go to every school in the country”

Challenged on weather his policy of school freedom is essentially the “freedom to do what you want them to do” Gove argues that “I’m saying that’s what parents want and that is the way to give it to them.”

However he comes under criticism from all sides for his comment that the only place you can find these values today is in “private fee paying schools and independent state schools.”

David Laws counters that the “best school in the state system is an ordinary state school which isn’t in the categories you’ve just sighted, which is insulting to many of the schools in this country.”

The debate has been really heated during this question, Prompting moderator Andrew Neil to score the best line so far “now I know what its like to be a teacher, speak when you are spoken to!”

Topic: Funding

Funding is a crucial issue in the next parliament. PEN wrote a press release to plead for clarity from the speakers.

Refusing to be drawn on whether head teachers will lose jobs under the ‘mergers’ element of his cost cutting, he restates his three year commitment to protect schools funding, “we will guarantee this year, next year and the year after, per pupil money will go up by more than inflation, by more than 2% a year.”

Gove’s response is that his pupil premium will be additional money into the system, not re-branded existing money as the IFS has suggested may be the case under the other parties.

Laws holds up well as his parties education spending planks come under real scrutiny, when asked if education spending will be ‘ring fenced’ he makes the solid pledge “Better that ring fencing, its additional money.”

Closing Remarks.

“Only the Lib Dem's are promising, even in these tough times, to put more money into education and to put the politics out.”

"If a conservative government is elected, then an emergency budget in June will cut schools budget and teacher numbers as well – only party which says every child matters is Labour."

"A new spirit in our education system, one where we trust professionals and parents and we have a new generation of smaller schools with smaller class sizes, better discipline higher standards and heads who know every child’s name."

You can listen to the closing remarks in their entirety here.

Progressive Education Network was pleased that voters were given the opportunity to scrutinise in detail the three men who want to lead our education system over the next few years. However, as anticipated, the debate was heavy on bickering and light on policy detail. We are disappointed and concerned that as we move towards what could be a pivotal change in our education system, the parties are not willing to clearly identify the decisions that must be made.

PEN believes that it is vital that the we build on the progress of the last 13 years and protect front line services. At the end of a period of unprecedented education investment and improvement, the potential damage that could be caused to the system by dangerous budget cuts is a real concern.

We are already part of an exciting educational landscape that is evolving into a powerful coalition of educators, families and government. We have a generation of front line leaders and teachers with much to offer the education system as well as their own individual schools; a group of professionals who cooperate as a matter of course and who are motivated by a vision beyond their immediate school boundary.

The potential of locally driven collaborative trusts, groups of schools, executive headships that span several institutions and efficient business models for groups of schools, answerable locally and nationally, are only just beginning to be appreciated; these hugely promising approaches coupled with serious investment in early year’s provision must be developed further and not sidelined for yet another structural overhaul.