LAMPL CALLS FOR MORE BURSARIES-A RESPONSE

Responding to Sir  Peter Lampls call in the Times on 25 October for independent schools to provide more bursaries to disadvantaged pupils

LETTER PUBLISHED;THE  TIMES 27 OCTOBER 2011

Sir, I doubt that increasing bursaries is the best way to improve access for our most disadvantaged pupils to our best schools and universities. Bursaries will benefit a relatively small number of pupils and will serve to damage the state schools from which pupils are poached.

Independent schools with charitable status have a duty to satisfy the public benefit requirement and it is up to the trustees to determine how schools deliver that benefit. There is more that the independent sector can do to break down the barriers between the sectors, but trying to push trustees to pursue one course of action is counter-productive, as the one thing they prize above all else is their independence.

Patrick Watson

London SW8

 

THE OPEN PUBLIC SERVICES REFORMS-MINISTERS MUST LEARN FROM THE LAST GOVERNMENTS MISTAKES

History repeating

The government’s revolutionary open public services white paper actually covered some very familiar ground. The coalition should learn from its predecessor’s mistakes, says Patrick Watson in EducationInvestor (September 2011)

July’s Open Public Services white paper promised more choice, more accountability, more diversity and fairer access to services. Two reactions sprang immediately to my mind. The first was, what’s not to like from a plan that offers such clear benefits for consumers and suppliers alike? The second, though, was a strong sense of déjà vu.

We have, after all, heard all this before. The previous Labour government committed itself to public services reform. Centrally driven reforms, aimed at moving services from poor to adequate, were supposed to be followed by bottom-up ones, which would personalise services and deliver more choice. But something got lost in translation. If the poetry, in politics, lies in generating ideas, then the prose lies in delivering them, and for all its talk Labour ended up with half-baked reforms with producer interests still firmly entrenched. One has to ask, then, will these coalition reforms be any different?

Some of the proposals are certainly eye-catching. Every adult receiving social care will have an individual, personal budget by 2013. Also on the cards are personal budgets for those with chronic health problems, for children with special needs, and those in housing for vulnerable people. Funding will follow the pupil in schools, the student in further education, the child in care and the patient in the NHS. Consumers will be empowered to choose where the money is spent.

In order to improve access, the government will introduce a pupil premium, offering extra funding for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, with the money available increasing over time. There will be easier access to data, too, so that people can make informed choices about services. Crucially, there will be a new system of redress, provided through the beefed-up powers of ombudsmen, who will step in when choice is denied. In short, the reforms envisage putting the needs of the consumer of the service first.

So far, so good. But these reforms will come to nothing if the government fails to open up the supply side, encouraging entry from both the private and not for profit sectors. That means removing barriers to market entry, while simultaneously ensuring that the market is seen to be both fair and transparent. In this respect, the previous government failed to deliver. Labour, indeed, went so far as to ignore a blue print for change it had itself commissioned from PwC in 2006, ‘Overarching Report on Children’s Services Markets’.

This report has as much relevance today as it did at the time, and its findings could help this government to get its reform proposals off the drawing board. It found that some local authorities were neither meeting the needs of children and parents, nor delivering value-for-money’, and listed a number of barriers to effective market operation. These included a lack of transparency on costs; a shortage of experienced commissioners; limited dialogue between suppliers and commissioners; inconsistent application of national policies; and, “crucially, conflicting roles of local authorities acting as both commissioner and provider”.

Six years on, an Ofsted report published this August – ‘An evaluation of approaches to commissioning young people’s services’ – echoed some of the PWC report’s findings. The regulator found that only two local authorities “systematically managed commissioning as a strategic process… and took into account the full range of alternative providers”. In other words, most local authorities do not even consider the option of an alternative provider, and whether they could offer an improved service.

Even when local authorities do choose to outsource, they can bring services back in-house at a whim, without the need to market test or to demonstrate best value. This inflexibility increases the risks for alternative providers, and so limits the development of a diversified supply market. It also makes it harder to secure value for money for taxpayers.

If the reforms outlined by the white paper are to succeed, the government must combine strong leadership with incentives for those who reform, and sanctions for those who don’t. Simply issuing guidance is not enough: guidance can be ignored with impunity, and local authorities have a vested interest in keeping services in–house.

The key to changing this lies in the transformation of local commissioning and procurement practices. The government must drop its reluctance to become involved in market management. If the coalition is to deliver on its reforms it must ensure a clear distinction between those who commission services and those who provide them. If it doesn’t, it is doomed to repeat the mistakes of its predecessor.

Patrick Watson is managing director of Montrose Public Affairs Consultants, which specialises in education and skills policy. He also runs the education blog montrose42

OXBRIDGE IS NOT THE ONLY OPTION-PUBLISHED LETTER EVENING STANDARD 22 AUGUST 2011

OXBRIDGE IS NOT THE ONLY OPTION

Published Letter; Evening Standard; 22 August 2011

You report that schools are to be officially ranked in league tables by the proportion of sixth-formers they send to Oxford and Cambridge universities. This is one of the governments nuttier ideas- reflecting the obsession with Oxford and Cambridge-that didn’t deserve to get off the drawing board. Given how few schools send pupils to Oxbridge ,in any quantity, it will  do nothing but irritate heads and governors. UCL, Imperial, LSE, Durham, Bristol and others will also be understandably aggrieved. Imperial frequently tops Oxford in League tables and  is thought  to  have better science courses overall.  There are also plenty of very bright pupils who could easily go to Oxbridge but choose other universities because Oxbridge doesn’t offer the options they want   , or the courses  simply suit them better. Their schools now stand to be penalised. The Sutton Trust, which exists to improve access for disadvantaged pupils disapproves of this measure which speaks volumes. Ministers should change their minds and quickly.

Patrick Watson, London

TEA AND SYMPATHY FOR GREG MORTENSEN

Tea and sympathy for Greg Mortensen

Published Letter; The Guardian ;25 April 2011

Madeline Bunting is somewhat harsh about Greg Mortenson of Three cups of Tea fame, who allegedly made up parts of his book (Comment, 22 April). He hasn’t had, as yet, much time to defend himself. His book’s basic message, though, isn’t to do with imperialism or feminism. It is that by building schools – especially girls’ schools – in Afghanistan andPakistan, local people, and particularly moderate tribal elders, can rescue and protect their people from extremists and the influence of fundamentalism, while fostering sustained local economic development, better health and quality of life – not least because educated women are powerful agents and catalysts for change and progress. All this can be achieved with a bottom-up approach, largely avoiding bureaucrats, politicians and the military, who tend to be either inefficient, brutal or corrupt, or all three. Hopefully his book, which is an uplifting read and a much-needed antidote to cynicism, can still, when the smoke clears, demonstrate these essential truths.

Patrick Watson

London

SWEDISH SCHOOLS HAVE RAISED THE BAR

SWEDISH SCHOOLS HAVE RAISED THE BAR

The Sunday Times; 30 January; Letter

The government’s admiration for the Swedish model of education is right, despite criticisms from some of the teachers’ unions. For instance, the most recent evidence from the Institute of Economic Affairs shows that Sweden’s free schools and the competition they helped introduce into the system have raised standards in all schools — and they are non-selective and socially inclusive.

With regard to Finland’s schools, which the unions so admire, they are comprehensive in the sense that they are non-selective, but more than half of parents in Helsinki opt to send their child to a secondary school different from the one the local authority allocates to them — so school choice is operating in Finland to drive up standards.

Unions are, of course, against school choice, and even against teachers helping to set up co-operative schools in which they would have a stake — an option under the free schools model. Nothing is done to protect our children from incompetent tutors and poor teaching, and — worse — poor teachers are recycled around the system. Research shows that our most disadvantaged pupils are taught by the worst teachers.
Patrick Watson, London

PS The unedited version of this letter  sent to the  Sun Times  was  in response to a published  letter from the NUT , which, interlia, attacked  the Swedish system. I wholly accept that  other unions  and their leaders do not necessarily all  share the views of the NUT  and my letter was attacking specifically the NUTs   position which  may not be  obvious  in the final published version of the letter. Research undertaken in the last Labour administration by the  DCSF  provides evidence that our most disadvantaged pupils are taught by the worst teachers.

THE IB AND THE EXAMS SYSTEM

EXAM SYSTEM

Letter; Published ;The Times;6 October 2010

A good GCSE or equivalent in maths and sciences is more than enough to see most people through their professional lives

Sir, Anthony Seldon is largely correct in his analysis of what has gone wrong with the exam system (“A levels are just instruction, not education”, Opinion, Sept 29). But as to his remedy — introducing the International Baccalaureate — I beg to differ. It cannot be right to oblige pupils to study maths and sciences post-16. This would alienate many pupils and even persuade some to opt out of school altogether.

We already have one of the highest drop-out rates at 16 in Europe. A good GCSE or equivalent in maths and sciences is more than enough to see most people through their professional lives. The IB is also acknowledged to be more demanding, requiring self-discipline and more teaching time, meaning that it is more expensive to deliver. On cost grounds, alone, is it likely that the IB will be seen as a viable option for state schools?

The IB has its place in the qualifications spectrum. The key, though, is to have a range of robust qualifications that cater for an individual pupil’s needs.

Patrick Watson
London SW8

Postscript Note;  Seldon,  an eloquent supporter of the IB-both the Middle Years Programme and the Post 16 Diploma-  having introduced them at Wellington College, importantly,  still offers   pupils the choice   of GCSE and  the AS/A2 level.

RESPONSE TO SACKING OF GENERAL McCHRYSTAL-’GAGGING OUR BEST GENERALS’

Published  by The Evening Standard 25 June 2010

Dear Sir

Chris Blackhurst contrasts how we deal with turbulent generals with the
brasher American way.
There is another difference. Whatever General McChrystal’s travails
following his Rolling Stone interview American generals are freer to
discuss publicly issues related to the conduct of the war and are held
publicly to account by Congressional Committees. Ours are expected to make
do with below the radar representations, in frustration at which General
Dannatt came out in the media to express his concerns about the breaching
of the military covenant. Important debate about tactics, strategy and
indeed war aims has been stifled and this is reflected on the ground. How
will our leadership respond to the Taliban’s more direct, aggressive recent
tactics engaging our troops with small arms fire which suggest they are
better trained and motivated?
The US mission in Afghanistan will now be led by a great strategist with
finely tuned political instincts; the generals who make it to the top in
our Army are conformists who politicians think will toe the line. General
Dannatt slipped through the net and has paid a heavy price.
Patrick Watson

FREE SCHOOL DEBATE ENDS IN STALEMATE

Free school debate ends in stalemate

Letters | Published in The TES on 23 April, 2010 By: Patrick Watson

The live debate on free schools held by The TES this week – in which campaigner Toby Young was opposed by Kevin Courtney of teaching union the NUT – did more, as the chairman pointed out, to clarify battle lines than to create bridges. Opinion was equally divided between the two camps before the debate started, and that’s how it remained. However, there was much nonsense talked about free schools equating to the privatisation of state education. If unions are worried about private providers using taxpayers’ money to make a profit in the state sector they ought to wake up because this is now widely accepted. Providing there is a robust regulatory environment and no selection plus demonstrable demand, how can you object to parents setting up a school? There is an incoherence in the argument that you want more parental involvement, but you won’t allow them to set up schools. There is a suspicion that some teachers don’t much like the reality of more parental involvement – and there was an inkling of this in contributions to the debate. Union leaders don’t like free schools – mainly, it seems, apart from the profit issues, because they worry about accountability and the loss of teacher voice. However, accountability can be delivered by imposing tight contracts over providers. There is potentially huge scope for teachers’ voices to be heard on governing bodies, too, and this is certainly the case with the proposed free school for Acton. There is even scope, under Tory proposals, for co-operatives to be set up. It is an upside-down world when the NUT opposes the establishment of co-ops, isn’t it?

Patrick Watson, Managing director, Montrose Public Affairs Consultants.

TES

PROFIT MAKING STATE SCHOOLS

 

Letter -Published; The Independent 8 December 2008

Michael Gove’s admiration of the Swedish model of education is justified.

 However, what he doesn’t explain is that the Conservative variant would not permit private schools, supported by state funding, to make a profit, a key characteristic of the Swedish model. Opposing the profit motive in the running of state schools doesn’t make much sense.

Not only are many special schools profit-making, with local authorities perfectly happy to send pupils to these schools, but a whole range of support services for schools, including teacher recruitment and supply services, are run for profit. Schools are also being designed and built by private companies, under the BSF programme. The national strategies that directly impact on a daily basis on what happens in the classroom in state primaries and secondaries are managed by a profit-making company on behalf of the Department for Children, Schools and Families. Schools inspections are carried out by private contractors on behalf of Ofsted, too. Private companies can build and inspect schools apparently, but can’t run them. There is no intellectual or policy consistency or coherence here.

 The Tories, rather than proposing a Swedish-lite model missing its most essential ingredient, should go for the full monty and allow state schools to be run for profit. This would free up the supply side, improve choice, enhance social mobility and drive up standards in all schools. It’s worked in Sweden, so why not here?

Patrick Watson London SW8

IT NEEDS TO BE EASIER TO SET UP A SCHOOL

Letter; Published The Independent 14 January 2008

It needs to be easier to set up a school

 Sir: Professor Alan Smithers’ observation in “Late baptisms soar as parents chase Catholic school places” (12 January ) that faith schools do better in exams because they can be more selective over their pupil intake – rather than because of their faith status – has some resonance and is backed by recent joint research from the Institute of Education and the LSE, which found that religious schools in London are educating a smaller proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals and have more affluent intakes.

 There are too few good state schools to satisfy parental demand.

Most of the best state schools have some form of religious affiliation, and are at least partially selective. This forces many parents to be deceitful in order to secure a place at a good school. The solution to the problem is to make it easier to set up schools – to free up the supply side.

If parent and community groups or not-for-profit organisations were allowed access to state funds to set up schools on the same basis as faith organisations, providing they meet regulatory requirements, then choice would improve and standards would rise. Moreover, it is demonstrably inequitable that in a secular society faith organisations are given easier access to public funds to establish schools compared to other organisations, including those specialising in education.

Opposition parties now seem committed to supply side reforms, so the ball is now in the Government’s court.

Patrick Watson London SW8