Friday 20th August
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.
Short post on some of the interesting stats found amongst the wider results, from Conor's Commentary.
Politics.co.uk reports on David Willets response to the results and his thoughts on the 'dumbing down' argument.
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.
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.
This weeks TES reports on government research that shows that there needs to be a curriculum wide approach to teaching entrepreneurial skills in schools.
Great blog post from Alastair Horne on how teachers can use technology for CPD.
Teacher Irfana Bora argues against Richard Dawkins position that religious schools serve to indoctrinate children.
Another interesting blog from Patrick Watson on the details behind the academy funding and tax structure.
A comprehensive round up of the coalitions performance, 100 days into their education reform agenda.
Friday, 20 August 2010
Friday, 13 August 2010
PEN Summer Reading #2
Holiday Reading: Friday 13th August.
Patrick Watson blogs an interesting response to last weeks Mike Baker piece on the similarities between academies and GM schools
Sec-Ed Magazine on this weeks under-reported news that these new systems have been put on hold by the coalition
News of more cuts to schools infrastructure in the pipeline, as reported in The Guardian
In praise of the Comprehensive school. Kevin McKenna writes in The Observer
A short critique of some of the points in the above article, from 'Ron's Blog'
Excellent blog from Warwick Mansell on the realities and data behind last weeks headlines that science standards are at their lowest for 10 years
Phil Beadle with a interesting take on the impact of the coalitions education policy so far
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'.
Conor Ryan on the dangers associated with setting the pupil premium too low.
An Institute of education released today shows that children do better in exams when teachers focus on learning rather than grades.
Patrick Watson blogs an interesting response to last weeks Mike Baker piece on the similarities between academies and GM schools
Sec-Ed Magazine on this weeks under-reported news that these new systems have been put on hold by the coalition
News of more cuts to schools infrastructure in the pipeline, as reported in The Guardian
In praise of the Comprehensive school. Kevin McKenna writes in The Observer
A short critique of some of the points in the above article, from 'Ron's Blog'
Excellent blog from Warwick Mansell on the realities and data behind last weeks headlines that science standards are at their lowest for 10 years
Phil Beadle with a interesting take on the impact of the coalitions education policy so far
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'.
Conor Ryan on the dangers associated with setting the pupil premium too low.
An Institute of education released today shows that children do better in exams when teachers focus on learning rather than grades.
Friday, 6 August 2010
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
Patrick Wilson's Montrose42 blog with an informative article on the different clauses in the academies act and what they mean.
BBC article on the trends and information revealed by this week's test results and the impact of the boycott.
Conor Ryan on this week's results, effectiveness of the teachers boycott and what the future may hold for the examinations.
Nick Seaton explains to Conservative Home why he only gives the Secretary of State 5/10 for his first weeks in office.
Mike Baker's piece for the BBC on the similarities between the new academies and the GM schools of the 1980's.
TES on the difficult first weeks for the Secretary of State
First of a series of features from the Guardian following Goddard Park School as it races to open as an academy in September.
The NUT responds to the test results which were released this week
A light-hearted blog from Arthur De Caux on the end of term and the summer holidays
The BBC revealed on Friday that 77 of the axed BSF schools under consideration will get Green light to rebuild
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
Patrick Wilson's Montrose42 blog with an informative article on the different clauses in the academies act and what they mean.
BBC article on the trends and information revealed by this week's test results and the impact of the boycott.
Conor Ryan on this week's results, effectiveness of the teachers boycott and what the future may hold for the examinations.
Nick Seaton explains to Conservative Home why he only gives the Secretary of State 5/10 for his first weeks in office.
Mike Baker's piece for the BBC on the similarities between the new academies and the GM schools of the 1980's.
TES on the difficult first weeks for the Secretary of State
First of a series of features from the Guardian following Goddard Park School as it races to open as an academy in September.
The NUT responds to the test results which were released this week
A light-hearted blog from Arthur De Caux on the end of term and the summer holidays
The BBC revealed on Friday that 77 of the axed BSF schools under consideration will get Green light to rebuild
Thursday, 29 July 2010
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:
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.
Tuesday, 20 July 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, 15 July 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, 13 July 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)