PROSPECTS JOINS MUTUAL JOINT VENTURE TO DELIVER PUBLIC SERVICES-GOVERNMENT KEEN ON EMPLOYEE OWNED MUTUALS DELIVERING PUBLIC SERVICES

Company part of a joint venture mutual ,offering school support services

Comment

Nick Hurd, Minister for Civil Society at the Cabinet Office was at the launch of the first ever joint venture mutual, 3BM ,in April. It provides a range of critical school support services. The business is made up of staff from three London boroughs; Hammersmith & Fulham, Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster. They are delivering services such as financial management, IT and building development to schools allowing them to focus on education.

3BM is the first ever mutual joint venture to spin out of local government. The business is owned by a partnership between the employees and the the education employment company, Prospects. The employees own 75.1% of the business, giving them a controlling stake. Prospects has a 24.9% share and brings capital and business expertise needed to make the business grow. As a result of 3BM spinning out, the local councils could see £1 million in savings over the next four years. The mutualisation project has been supported by the Cabinet Office which had previously designated Hammersmith and Fulham  Council as a national Pathfinder in 2010 to explore new ways of delivering public services more efficiently. Prospects is an  employee- owned  private company,   and was chosen in an innovative “dragons den” process but with the partner’s shareholding capped at no more than 25% in return for their input and support. All mutual staff will own shares, with Prospects, as stated, owning up to 24.9% of the company,  but subject to them meeting key performance targets to the satisfaction of the mutual.

Ministers have talked in glowing terms about the John Lewis model in business. All 84,700 permanent staff of John Lewis  are Partners who own the  39 John Lewis shops across the UK and the 291 Waitrose supermarkets  , an on-line catalogue business a production unit and a farm.  Policy Exchange, the Prime Ministers favourite think tank, published a report recently ‘ Social Enterprise Schools’ championing the John Lewis model in education.  The report said Private companies should be encouraged to take over and run state schools as profit making enterprises under a “John Lewis-style” business model. It argued the new schools, in which teachers and staff are encouraged to become shareholders, would create strong incentives to drive up standards. Under the proposals, half of any profits made by the schools would be distributed as a dividend to its partners on an annual basis, while the remaining half would be reinvested.

There are quite a few ‘ co-operative schools’  operating in England. The Co-operative College, a Manchester-based organisation, is helping to support and promote the ground-up, democratically driven growth of Co-operative trust schools. The Co-operative College has over recent years worked with the Co-operative Party and schools to develop a distinct co-operative trust model that enables schools to embed co-operative values into the long term ethos of the school.  These schools  are part of the Co-operative movement, with a history dating back to the 19th century. Despite some legal challenges, in just five years, co-operative schools have become the third largest grouping within the English education system, with currently over 450 operating. 30 have become co-operative converter academies, a small number are co-operative sponsor academies and we have seen the creation of the first co-operative multi-academy trust.

Cabinet Office Minister, Francis Maude, has launched a programme to introduce employee mutuals into public services and has endorsed the aim of a million public sector workers – around 15% of the total – transferring to staff-led mutuals by 2015.

Patrick Burns, Director of Mutuals Development for Prospects says that the reason for this Ministerial enthusiasm is the increasing evidence that employee ownership can help organizations perform better than conventional counterparts in the private and public sector; as well as the  micro and macro benefits to the wider economy. Prospects had elected to make the transition from conventional ownership to employee ownership. It is a former spin-out from the public sector – formed  from the careers services of four London boroughs in 1996 – which now offers advice and support to  authorities and staff groups interested in forming employee-led mutuals [ELMs] alongside its extensive  other work  in education, training and employment. Prospects services include careers services for adults and young people; the Government’s  Work Programme initiative to help long term unemployed people back to work; the largest Ofsted Early Years Inspection Services  contract in the country; advice and guidance for offenders; and an extensive range of education consultancy and school improvement services.

Patrick Burns was until December 2011 Chief Executive of the Employee Ownership Association. He written a paper about employee ownership  (see below) in the private and public sector of the British economy, and how Government can help it spread.

Knowingly Undersold- How Government can spread the John Lewis effect-Prospects Policy Paper-Patrick Burns

http://www.prospects.co.uk/Portals/0/PDF-Docs/Knowingly%20Undersold%20Prospects%20policy%20%20paper%20pdf%200512.pdf

EDISON LEARNING AND THE NAHT UNION LAUNCH A SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVE WITH DFE BACKING

ASPIRE-THE  NAHTS SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

Comment

Private operator, EdisonLearning, has secured a major contract with The National Association of Headteachers (NAHT) to help improve student achievement in schools across the country as part of the NAHTs Aspire School Improvement Project. The project was briefly referenced in Michael Goves 25 April speech.

Working closely with the Department for Education and the Strategic Programme Board at the NAHT, EdisonLearning has been working with   30 primary schools, organized into three clusters of schools across three geographical areas in the UK.

Schools involved in the project in the western region are located around Bristol and Reading, in the southern region around West Sussex and Kent and in the northern region around Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield. The schools are very different in their size, diversity and urban and rural locations. To illustrate this, one school in a rural location near Bristol has less than 100 students and a large urban school in Sheffield has more than 500 students.

The NAHTs President, Steve Iredale flagged this  idea up in  a speech in 2012,   when he said that NAHT  ”is taking the radical step of looking at the possibility of offering a school improvement service to support schools which find themselves in challenging circumstances.

“It’s a big challenge, but it’s something we’re interested in exploring. We can see massive benefit but there’s a long way to go. Trade unions tend to operate as trade unions and offering that level of support is a form of CPD linked to improving teaching and learning. There’s a massive challenge in there as well. There’s no question of schools escaping: there would be the same challenges from us. School improvement would be the driving force as opposed to the current Ofsted regime.”

At the launch  of Aspire, on 1 May, the NAHT said the project aims  to fill the gap between higher expectations and declining levels of support, offering schools access to advice, resources and support as they continue to improve the outcomes they provide for their pupils.

Russell Hobby, general secretary of the NAHT, who has experience in senior management in the private sector, said: “Every school wants to be good but many lack the support and networks to achieve their vision. The Aspire project is designed to fill the gap with a collaborative, sustainable model of school improvement. Schools joining the project will work in small clusters to help and inspire each other, assisted by NAHT officials, their local authority and external project management.

“What is dramatic about this is who is doing it. NAHT is a trade union dedicated to the protection and representation of our members. But we know that our members want to do the best for their pupils – that is part of their ‘reward’. The NAHT Aspire project shows that no-one is more ambitious for the young people of our country than those who work in our schools. The profession holds the answers and has the resources; it is trust, collaboration and inspiration that will trigger the innovation we need.

 

“This phase, now going public, is a pilot project to prove the concept can work. Ultimately, we plan to expand the reach of NAHT Aspire more broadly. The scale is already significant however: if this was an academy chain, it would be the seventh largest in the country.

The Edisonlearning team has already begun the initial Collaborative Quality Analysis process with many of the schools.

The project has been part funded for three years by the Department for Education .It will be independently evaluated by the Open University.

Michael Gove, Education Secretary, said: “I am pleased to commit my department’s support for it. I wish the project and those schools taking part in it every success as they seek to raise their performance to ‘good’ or better. I will be following this initiative with particular interest over the next two years.”

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE REPORT ON ACADEMIES-SOME CONCERNS OVER FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

Committee expresses concerns over poor cost controls and financial oversight

Comment

A Public Accounts Committee report on the Academies programme describes a system peppered with overspends and errors, but subject to little oversight.

Millions of pounds were wasted on England’s rapidly growing academies programme because of over-complex and inefficient funding systems, according to the Select Committee report.

It urges the Department for Education to tighten its financial grip on these privately run but state-funded schools.

Committee chairman Margaret Hodge, who has gained a reputation for her forthright attacks on government waste,  said inefficient funding systems and poor cost control had driven up the cost of the programme.

“Of the £8.3 billion spent on academies from April 2010 to March 2012, some £1 billion was an additional cost which had to be met by diverting money from other departmental budgets.

“Some of this money had previously been earmarked to support schools struggling with difficult challenges and circumstances. £350 million of the extra £1 billion represented extra expenditure that was never recovered from local authorities.”

A DfE spokesman said the report failed to acknowledge “the significant progress that we have made in improving our systems.

“The academies programme has been a huge success. There are now almost 3,000 academy schools – more than 14 times as many as in May 2010 – with more than two million children now enjoying the benefits that academy status brings. The programme is proven to drive up standards. Sponsored academies are improving far faster than maintained schools.

“We make no apology for the fact that so many schools have opted to convert, and no apology for spending money on a programme that is proven to drive up standards and make long-term school improvements.

“The Department for Education has made significant savings in the last two-and-a-half years and has also set aside significant contingencies, which have been set against the growth in academies.”

He added that the costs of converting academies have already fallen by more than half per academy and that further savings were expected in the future.

Conclusions and recommendations

1.  The value for money of the Academies Programme will ultimately depend on its impact on educational performance relative to the investment from the taxpayer. The Department has chosen to expand the Programme rapidly, incurring an additional cost of £1 billion since April 2010. While it is too early to assess the impact of the expansion on school performance, the Department will need to be able to demonstrate whether value for money has been achieved. It has yet to state how it will do so, or when. The Department should set out what outcomes it aims to achieve from the expansion of the Programme, and how and when it will demonstrate whether progress is on track and value for money has been achieved.

2.  Inefficient funding systems and poor cost control have driven up the cost of the Programme. A large part of the £1 billion additional cost since April 2010 has been caused by the excessively complex and inefficient academy funding system which has reportedly led to overpayments and errors in payments to Academies There was around £350 million extra paid to Academies which was not recovered from local authorities. This system does not operate effectively alongside the local authority system, and makes it hard for the Department to prove that academies are not receiving more money than they should. The Department has not yet brought other types of cost growth under control, for example academy insurance. It should report back to us by the end of 2013-14 on how its funding reforms have reduced systemic problems such as the under-recovery of academy costs from local authorities, and on how far it has brought down other additional costs.

3.  We are not yet satisfied that individual academies’ expenditure is sufficiently transparent to parents, local communities or Parliament. Despite some improvements, key information on what academies actually spend is still only available at trust, rather than individual academy, level. This limits the ability of parents to scrutinise how their child’s school is spending its money, and of communities to hold their local school to account. The Department must publish data showing school-level expenditure, including per-pupil costs, and with a level of detail comparable to that available for maintained schools, so that proper judgments can be made and comparisons drawn to assess value for money. The Department should state how it will make robust, line-by-line information on individual academies’ expenditure publicly available in the most cost-effective way.

4.  New governance, compliance and oversight arrangements for academies remain vulnerable to failure. Some serious cases of governance failure and financial impropriety in academies have gone undetected by the Department’s monitoring, raising concerns that central government may be too distant to oversee individual academies effectively. Irregular expenditure by academies and gaps in the oversight framework led the Comptroller and Auditor General to qualify the 2011-12 accounts of the Department and the Young People’s Learning Agency. Academies’ compliance with mandatory monitoring is not good enough, and it is not yet clear how well revised audit arrangements will address these issues in future. The Department and the Education Funding Agency should review the operation of the new audit and oversight regime put in place this year, and assess whether it is reducing risks to regularity, propriety and good governance.

5.  Forthcoming staff cuts at the Department and its agencies may threaten effective oversight as the Programme continues to expand. We are sceptical that the Department has sufficient resources to properly oversee the expanding Programme, especially as schools now joining are less high-performing and may require greater oversight and scrutiny. The Department should review the Programme’s central resource requirements, and the extent to which efficiency savings expected from new IT systems and assurance processes are being realised, and are sufficient to offset the need for further resources.

6.  The Department has still not made completely clear the roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of different organisations across the changing schools system. Roles previously carried out by local authorities around accountability, performance monitoring and intervention are unlikely to be operating consistently and effectively across different localities and academy structures. We are particularly concerned that interventions in failing academies may be delayed if the respective roles of central and local government, as well as academies and academy trusts, are not clear. The Department should clarify and properly communicate the roles and responsibilities of local authorities, academy sponsors, the Education Funding Agency, the Department, the Office of the Schools Commissioner and Ofsted regarding these aspects of the Programme.

Department for Education: Managing the expansion of the Academies Programme – Public Accounts Committee-April 2013

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpubacc/787/78702.htm

Note

These are telling criticisms. They suggest the need to rethink the scrutiny and oversight of academies, while preserving the principle of school autonomy. Surveys suggest that around a third of converter schools opted for academy status for financial reasons. As part of the Budget Statement 2013, the Government announced that it would conduct ‘a review of school efficiency’. To inform that review, the government said ‘we have launched a call for evidence to learn more about how schools and academies make financial decisions and the techniques that they find particularly useful. We particularly want to hear your experience of how academies make financial decisions and your opinions/ideas of how academies can improve their efficiency.’ This suggests some concerns in government over the financial management in schools (not just academy schools by the way)  and the additional risks that autonomy might bring.  There is an on-going debate on the accountability of autonomous schools and whether or not another tier is required to ensure greater accountability, given the reduced role of local authorities.Academies are directly responsible  of course to the Secretary of State, through individual funding agreements. Critics say that the Secretary of State , along with a slimmed down education department, cannot possibly  hold these schools  properly to account , even with Ofsteds support.

 

IS CAREERS ADVICE IN SCHOOLS EFFECTIVE OR IS IT TOO EARLY TO SAY?

Too early to say?

Comment

The new duty on schools to secure access to independent and impartial careers guidance only began in September 2012 . The government believes that  it  important that sufficient time is allowed  for the duty to bed in before any firm conclusions  are drawn about the effectiveness of the new arrangements. Lord Nash recently indicated in the Lords (22 April) that ‘We are evaluating the impact of the new duty in a range of formal and informal ways.’

The Government have also commissioned Ofsted to carry out a thematic review of careers guidance, which will report this summer.

In addition, according to Lord Nash,  the government is ‘publishing education destination measures to show the percentage of students progressing to further education or training in a school, further education or sixth form college, apprenticeship, employment or higher education institution. The measures provide us with evidence of how effective schools are in supporting pupils to move successfully into the next phase or their education or into sustainable work, including through the provision of independent careers guidance.’

Ministers and officials meet and correspond regularly with a range of stakeholders on issues relating to the delivery of careers provision in schools, says Lord Nash, which is true, but Ministers are not taking on board what stakeholders and the experts are telling them. No independent report from a reputable source on government reforms to careers advice and guidance in schools has endorsed government policy in this area and international evidence suggests that school based advice  is the least effective (see the research from  Professor Tony Watts and OECD). There are grave concerns  too that  only limited access to face to face advice  is being offered to pupils which may have a negative effect on  the social mobility, access, skills and inclusion agendas. Evidence suggests that the most appropriate form of  advice for  disadvantaged pupils is face to face advice from an independent fully qualified  professional.

The government defends its policy by saying that it trusts in school autonomy. Schools themselves must make these decisions. But schools are not as autonomous as the government would have us believe. The government through its individual funding agreements with academies, for example, prescribes what schools have to do in certain areas . And if schools believe that they are autonomous when it comes to the way they use their extra funding for disadvantaged pupils, through the pupil premium, then they ought to look  very carefully at recent speeches from the schools minister,  David Laws and  Sir Michael Wilshaw of Ofsted.

Lord Nash  is confident that the government has  detailed enough  evidence ‘relating to the effectiveness of school-based careers guidance to  inform future improvements in the quality of provision,’ while concurrently telling us that there is not yet enough evidence  to gauge  whether the new school- based  service has bedded in. You dont need to be a rocket scientist to work out that schools, under budgetary pressure, will go for, the most part, for  the cheapest option, and that is not face to face advice.

It will be particularly interesting to see what Ofsted has to say in its thematic review. However, there are no plans to make a specific graded judgement on the quality of careers guidance in respect of the school inspection framework and the common inspection framework.

 

EDUCATION EXPORTS-NEW GOVERNMENT STRATEGY IN THE WINGS?

BIS to launch a new education industrial strategy

Comment

The BIS is taking the lead in developing an education industrial strategy. Three workshops have taken place so far, with stakeholders, to help inform this process. Two last year, one this (February). A group of education service providers met the exports Minister, Lord  Green, last year complaining that not nearly enough was being done to support UK education exports, and what support that existed was piecemeal and lacked strategic direction, unlike our main competitors. (US, Canada, Australia etc).Our officials could ensure better information about  local  opportunities, potential partners,  help with access  and research and arrange targeted sector specific delegations. It is now  anticipated that a   new Strategy will be published in late May, or June of this year.

The BIS has tended to focus mainly on Higher Education, without paying much attention to other education export areas. UK providers are not only opening and running  schools abroad, where our independent schools enjoy a formidable reputation, but are  also involved with providing advice and  support  to governments,  managing programmes  on school improvement,  schools inspections, curriculum development, teacher training, examinations and testing  and so on. English language teachers and courses are also much in demand. A more activist approach towards industrial policy might help – if directed towards industries such as education where the UK has a competitive advantage.  The Government talks big on the need for exports to help drive our recovery but has been remarkably slow about providing support and advice for companies looking at these potential markets, particularly in education. Hopefully the new  BIS strategy will lead to a step-change in   UK Plcs approach.

INSPECTING ACADEMY CHAINS-ON THE AGENDA

 

Ofsted currently has no explicit powers to inspect academy chains

But much will be expected from Chains

Comment

Sir Michael Wilshaw told the Select Committee recently (13 February) that he thinks Ofsted should have powers to inspect Academy chains . He also believes the DfE has accepted the need for this. Indeed he doesn’t see why Academy chains shouldn’t be subject to some sort of performance table as LAs are. Wilshaw said “We should inspect academy chains as well to make sure it’s equitable with LAs. I’ve made that clear to the Secretary of State  and it’s been accepted”

David Laws, the schools Minister of State, in a PQ on 10 April, said ‘Ofsted does not have an explicit power to inspect groups to which academies belong but has a duty (section 5 of the Education Act 2005) to inspect individual schools and a power (section 8 of the Education Act 2005) to inspect individual schools outside of normal inspection schedules. Ofsted may therefore take a view on the support and challenge provided by an overarching body during an individual school inspection.’

In short, academy chains will have to demonstrate in future that they add value in educational terms. It should also be remembered that Ofsted will, in future,  be looking carefully at how schools narrow the achievement gap. In his 5 March 2013, speech David Laws said “Ofsted is also doing much more to hold schools to account for closing the attainment gaps. Solid overall attainment is no longer enough to secure a “Good” or “Outstanding” classification, if there are large performance gaps. The Chief Inspector for Schools and I both agree that a school simply cannot be regarded as “Outstanding” if it is failing its disadvantaged pupils, and he will look at this when he next revises the inspection framework.”

DEBUNKING MYTHS IN EDUCATION

Common practice in schools is often not based on sound evidence ,according to a new book

Comment

Albert Einstein defined insanity as: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. In education, it is fair to say that some practices are repeated again and again without much change in outcomes. It is also true to say that   rather too often common practices are not backed by any evidence. They happen because that’s the way its always been done.  Insanity-maybe not- but a desperately poor and counter-productive  use of resources, certainly.

“Bad Education, Debunking Myths in Education”, is a book  of research essays addressing widely-held educational myths and examining their gossamer-thin evidence-basis. It canvasses the existing research on everything from teacher assistants, through learning styles to ability grouping, and in most cases demonstrates convincingly that these practices have no sound basis in evidence. The  mantra -evidence based practice- trips easily off the tongue, but has been  honoured as much in its breach as in  its observance.

A striking conclusion from Professor Dylan Wilam in the first chapter – is that  the PISA studies suggest that teaching is slightly less good in independent schools on average than in state schools (p12), despite attainment being much higher in private schools  Wiliam says ‘… controlling for the social class of the students, students in state schools and private schools in the UK perform about the same…’  Wiliam, as it happens, is a frequent debunker and  clearly rather enjoys being  counter-intuitive. The data suggests that schools are more or less the same all over and that it doesn’t really matter which school you go to as long as you go to school. In terms of progress, there is little difference. So, instead of measuring the number of A’s our students get we should be looking solely at the progress they are making. The only factor we should be really addressing is the learning they are doing rather than the best grades overall.  Wiliam believes more generally, that we should focus much more on the quality of teaching as this has a big effect on outcomes,  both good and bad. There are poor quality teachers in the system, but rather than demonise them, says Wiliam,  help them to improve .

Then there is the issue of ‘Grouping pupils by ability in schools’. Ed Baines tries to make the case that setting is done for all of the wrong reasons and, in some circumstances, can be detrimental to the education of some. Ability grouping is the most common form of setting in Secondary schools in the UK. It seems to be accepted that it is ‘best’ for all children  as we can focus on individual needs more appropriately if there is less of a disparity in ability in one class. The data though doesn’t seem to back that up.

Ed Baines claims that, in the higher ability groups, overall average effect seems to be negligible. There is evidence of slight improvements in some cases, for sure – when a curriculum is specifically designed for that ability group –  but more often than not there is very little or no effect. In some circumstances the pace of curriculum coverage can cause some students to fall back in higher ability groups.

But in  lower ability groups, setting can prove close to disastrous according to Baines. The pace of work drops as it is believed that lessons need to be more structured and repetitive for lower ability groups to function. This breeds boredom and disengagement at a time when creativity and inspiration is needed more than ever. Add to this the removal of the advantages of working with those who are more able and you can see who gets the bad deal here. It doesn’t help that, as Baines found in his research:

‘… schools may tend to allocate the most knowledgeable and experienced teachers to the high ability groups and the less knowledgeable or experienced teachers to the low ability and difficult classes.’

This particular chapter on grouping by ability by Baines suggests that, since it is disadvantageous for the least able it should be avoided. (again, as  is often  the case  the needs of the more able pupils, if not ignored, are given little weight) The more successful setting by ability seems to happen ‘Within Class Ability Groups’, which is rare in Secondary school but very prominent in Primary. The ability to differentiate group tasks with the advantage of changing to mixed ability peer groups seems to be the most successful model.

This is an interesting read and useful for Heads, teachers and governors. If you want to know what interventions work best based on evidence look at the recent toolkit provided by the Education Endowment Foundation.

Bad Education: Debunking Myths in Education [Paperback] Philip Adey (Author), Justin Dillon (Author)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Education-Debunking-Myths/dp/033524601X

THE BLOB AND ENEMIES OF PROMISE

Gove hits out at left wing academics

But why is the education debate so polarised?

Comment

Millions of school pupils are being actively denied success by a cabal of Marxist academics, according to the Education Secretary, Michael Gove. Gove ,writing in The Mail on Sunday, accused “a set of politically motivated individuals” who run university education departments of a campaign to undermine traditional schooling because they are in favour of far left-wing ideology. These individual and those who support their  views had populated the quangos, some of which have been scrapped by this government, and university education departments and have encouraged some of the brightest teachers to join them. Gove writes ‘We have abolished the quangos they controlled. We have given a majority of secondary schools academy status so they are free from the influence of The Blob’s allies in local government. We are moving teacher training away from university departments and into our best schools. And we are reforming our curriculum and exams to restore the rigour they abandoned.’

Collectively they are known as the Blob.  Gove made his comments in reply to the 100 academics who co-signed a letter in The Independent  a few days ago  warning that the new curriculum risks eroding educational standards. The letter   says that the new curriculum promotes “rote learning without understanding” and demands “too much too young”. The academics, all of whom are either professors of education or teach in university education departments, write: “This mountain of data will not develop children’s ability to think – including problem-solving, critical understanding and creativity.”

Gove said: “You would expect such people to value learning, revere knowledge and dedicate themselves to fighting ignorance. Sadly, they seem more interested in valuing Marxism, revering jargon and fighting excellence. “He called the group the “new Enemies of Promise”, referring to the book by Cyril Connolly, a 20th-century intellectual, which described how talented young people were prevented from reaching their potential. Whether such a conspiracy theory is credible is a moot point but it is certainly the case that many of those academics who signed the letter to the Independent would not be embarrassed to be called left leaning.

Simon Kelner, a left leaning former editor of the Independent , wrote ‘My problem is that I don’t see why these different approaches are mutually exclusive. Surely, children can be encouraged to develop a creative and individual outlook on life while still being taught the correct use of a bloody apostrophe.’  John Rentoul also of the Independent wrote in the wake of the letter ‘Gove’s proposals are, to me, socialist in their intention, which is to equip every child with the sort of education that has traditionally been available to only a very few. How is that wrong? And what do left-leaning academics think they’re doing when they say, “Ooh, no, the children won’t understand any of it; it’s bad for them”? What? As bad as the fact that state-school students are still shamefully under-represented at our top universities?’

Ironically, the academics letter was criticised for its syntax and grammar.   What seems to be happening is that curriculum reforms are becoming an ideological battleground between progressives and conservatives ,which is worrying. When education becomes a battleground children’s interests become a secondary priority. The NUT conference, over the Easter break, reminded us just how polarised and adversarial debates on education  have become in this country. If you look at Finland, which we often do, one of the key pillars of its success has been that unions, officials and politicians work seamlessly together towards shared education  goals. It just doesn’t happen in this country. Nor does it seem to matter which government happens to be  in power (remember the grief that  the Labour Secretary of State David Blunkett received  from the NUT). One has to ask the question, why? Because until  this changes, it looks unlikely that outcomes for children  will change much for the better.

Meanwhile the Spectator is holding an education conference this  month that  will be looking at the schools revolution,  and the concept  of ‘the Blob’.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/03/school-wars-is-gove-defeating-the-blob/

Note

The idea that universities education departments  were training teachers in  ’progressive’  ideas and that these ideas  and the practices they spawned damaged the education of children  goes back to the late 1980′s and  early 1990s.  Traditionally Universities and schools had collaborated closely in the provision of training. Critics of the universities then  fought to shift teacher training away from universities (there were also technical concerns about the quality of teaching and the lack of balance between theory and practice)  with, for example,  more school based teacher  training.For the record very few of the academics who signed the letter to the Independent are teacher trainers, or involved in the design of teachers training.

A LATE QUARTET-USEFUL METAPHOR FOR SCHOOLS?

New film focused on a Quartet struggling to stay together  might provide a metaphor for schools

Comment 

The film  ’A  Late Quartet’ , directed by Yaron Zilberman, sees a Quartet begin to disintegrate following a life changing diagnosis for one its  members  (the cellist-played by Christopher Walken). The main work  in the film is Beethoven’s Opus 131 in C -sharp minor a notoriously demanding  piece for even the most technically gifted  musicians, mainly because Beethoven indicated that it should be played “attacca”, so  without pause between its seven movements. It was regarded by   Beethoven’s contemporaries as a masterpiece   and Schubert asked for  it to  be played  for him on his deathbed.

The Director Zilberman says “When playing a piece for almost 40 minutes without a break the instruments are bound to go out of tune, each in a different way. What should the musician do? Stop and tune, or struggle to adapt, individually and as a group until the  end. I feel it is a perfect metaphor for long term relationships” ( Zilberman draws from Walkens speech at the beginning of the film-Zilberman also co-wrote the screenplay)

It could also be a metaphor for a school  . Teachers  have to adjust individually and  collectively  (through collaboration etc) to ensure that their performance remains  in tune, is sustained  and doesn’t suffer  in quality, over time.( disciplined practice also helps)

Just a thought!

ps Its a beautifully crafted  and  well observed film  without falling into the trap of  being too sentimental . It also  avoids  a corny end .

INTERIM EXECUTIVE BOARDS AND FAILING SCHOOLS-AN INTERVENTION THAT IS RARELY USED

Local Authorities and Ministers seem reluctant to use Interim Executive Boards

Comment

The   Schools minister, Lord Nash, giving  evidence to the  Education Select Committee, on 20 March, said that local authorities are  reluctant to use  Interim Executive Boards (IEB)  as an intervention to rescue failing schools.  Lord Nash claimed  that 70 local authorities have never issued a warning notice, which is the step towards having an IEB. He  said that local authorities are loth to use their IEB powers. And, he  clearly  thought that IEBs should be used more often .

He said “They do not feel the obligation that, frankly, we feel they should. We are talking about children’s futures. We need to send a message at every turn that we expect all schools to do what good schools do. We all know what those are. I could list them..”

However, this  rather begs the question  why,  given the Ministers concerns about children’s futures , and his  admiration for IEBs ,  the Secretary of State ,who  has the power to impose an IEB, has  chosen to use   them on just   four occasions so far. Ministers are as ‘loth’ , it would seem ,as local authorities are, to go down the IEB route.

Ministers are, in practice, keen that failing schools are placed under the wing of an academy chain to help raise their performance or, alternatively, a strong local school. A decision is made on what route to take  following discussions with the local authority but that rarely means  opting for an IEB.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmeduc/uc850-iii/uc85001.htm

Note

Where schools are eligible for intervention, local authorities may exercise their powers to: require the governing body to enter into specified arrangements with a view to improving the performance of the school; appoint additional governors; suspend the delegated budget of the school; appoint an Interim Executive Board (IEB).  Where schools are eligible for intervention ,the Secretary of State (ie Michael Gove) has the power to appoint additional governors; appoint an Interim Executive Board, or direct the local authority to close a school The IEB has a duty to conduct the business of the school in such a way as to secure a sound basis for future improvement. It carries out the functions of a governing body of the school for the time that it is in office.IEBs may vary in size but should be a small, focused group with at least two members appointed for the full period which it is expected to return the school to autonomy .

There are two key triggers for a school to come into a category for intervention, one being an Ofsted report, and the other the school’s performance in relation to floor targets. The Ofsted inspection system is risk-based, so the frequency of inspection is linked to the track record of the school