HOUSE – ON EARLY YEARS LEARNING AND THE CURRICULUM

We start formal education too young, he  and other experts claim

Comment

Dr Richard House of Roehampton University says that the UK has, according to UNICEF, the lowest levels of childhood well-being in the developed world, and some of the highest levels of teenage disaffection and distress. So it’s not surprising there’s fierce debate in the UK about what constitutes good early years practice and care. A book edited by him and published in 2011 ‘Too Much too Young’  provides a collection of essays by childhood experts from around the world who believe that our tendency to over-focus on cognitive development (at the expense of social, emotional and physical development) is the main reason things have gone wrong in the past. At the moment, most English children start school in nursery or reception classes at the age of three or four and are taught using the Early Years Foundation Stage – a compulsory “nappy curriculum”. They then move into formal lessons at the age of five. How young is too young to start your child’s formal education? In France, Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden Finland) and Russia, children don’t start formal education until they are 7. Finnish pupils start formal education at seven, and when they start school they spend less time in the classroom than most  and then enjoy 11-week summer holidays – and they end up with the highest educational standards in Europe. Apart from the Netherlands and Malta, the only other education systems beginning at five are Scotland and Wales (with Northern Ireland even earlier at four).

Dr House believes that when it comes to our youngest children there is too much too soon, with too little genuine play and too much assessment, and that this eroded childhood. The overwhelming conclusion of the book is that the ‘schoolification’ of early years in England has not improved most children’s chances of success in the educational system, and may be doing long-term damage. What  Dr House and some other experts want including such heavyweights as Professor Susan Greenfield, Penelope Leach , and Camilla  Batmanghelidjh (Kids company)   is  the establishment of a genuinely play-based curriculum in nurseries and primary schools up to the age of six, free from the downward pressure of formal learning, tests and targets.  They share a concern  too that our  children are subjected to increasing commercial pressures, and that  they begin formal education far earlier than the European norm ,spending  ever-more time indoors with screen-based technology, rather than in active outdoor activity and play.

Much of the discussion in the book centres on the role of children’s play in early learning – and how far adults should intervene and direct that play. Although there is now widespread agreement that young children’s self-directed play springs from their essential human learning drive, and is vital for every aspect of development and well-being,  House claims that adults without a background in early years tend to see it as mere ‘messing about’ and to look for ways of making it more ‘educational’. The constant refrain of contributors to Too Much Too Soon is that such attempts to accelerate or force development inevitably backfire. Dr House, has presented  his most recent  findings this week  at a major conference in central London .He quoted, according to the Telegraph,  a major US study – carried out over eight decades – that showed children’s “run-away intellect” actually benefited from being slowed down in the early years, allowing them to develop naturally. Many bright children can grow up in an “intellectually unbalanced way”, suffering lifelong negative health effects and even premature death, after being pushed into formal schooling too quickly, he said. when he called on the Government to launch an independent inquiry into England’s school starting age. He said: “The conventional wisdom is that naturally intelligent children should have their intellect fed and stimulated at a young age, so they are not held back.“Yet these new empirical findings strongly suggest that exactly the opposite may well be the case, and that young children’s run-away intellect actually needs to be slowed down in the early years if they are not to risk growing up in an intellectually unbalanced way, with possible life-long negative health effects.”

Earlier this year, a coalition of 50 leading academics, authors and childcare organisations launched a campaign group – Early Childhood Action – to push for an alternative curriculum focused almost entirely on a play-based approach.

http://www.earlychildhoodaction.com/

HEADS AND BULLYING

HEADS AND BULLYING

Did you know that Heads have a legal duty to stop bullying? Last  week was  anti-bullying week, by the way.   Here is chapter and verse from the  Education and Inspections Act 2006:

Clause 89

Determination by head teacher of behaviour policy

(1)The head teacher of a relevant school must determine measures to be taken with a view to—

(a)promoting, among pupils, self-discipline and proper regard for authority,

(b)encouraging good behaviour and respect for others on the part of pupils and, in particular, preventing all forms of bullying among pupils,

(c)securing that the standard of behaviour of pupils is acceptable,

(d)securing that pupils complete any tasks reasonably assigned to them in connection with their education, and

(e)otherwise regulating the conduct of pupils.

(2)The head teacher must in determining such measures—

(a)act in accordance with the current statement made by the governing body under section 88(2)(a), and

(b)have regard to any notification or guidance given to him under section 88(2)(b).

(3)The standard of behaviour which is to be regarded as acceptable must be determined by the head teacher, so far as it is not determined by the governing body.

(4)The measures which the head teacher determines under subsection (1) must include the making of rules and provision for disciplinary penalties (as defined by section 90).

(5)The measures which the head teacher determines under subsection (1) may, to such extent as is reasonable, include measures to be taken with a view to regulating the conduct of pupils at a time when they are not on the premises of the school and are not under the lawful control or charge of a member of the staff of the school.

(6)The measures determined by the head teacher under subsection (1) must be publicised by him in the form of a written document as follows—

(a)he must make the measures generally known within the school and to parents of registered pupils at the school, and

(b)he must in particular, at least once in every school year, take steps to bring them to the attention of all such pupils and parents and all persons who work at the school (whether or not for payment).

 

Some schools have fairly straightforward documents concentrating largely on behaviour, but schools are increasingly turning to particular methods, including the no-blame approach, peer counselling, restorative justice and circle time. There is a handbook on these methods  The Anti-Bullying Handbook by Keith Sullivan, Oxford University Press,  is,  apparently, a  good source of information for teachers and parents.  What about the Restorative justice method which has many supporters? The web site Bullying.co.uk has the following view on this – that it is ‘Supposed to ‘empower’ young people as its practitioners believe punishments don’t fit the bill. Peer mediation and circle time are often part of the process. Restorative Justice has been used for some time for offenders to try to make them understand the effect they’ve had on people they have burgled or mugged. It continues – Our experience of the method  ’No-blame bullying policy by another name. Sadly, bullies don’t always have a better nature and don’t want to make amends but they do find it useful to learn more about their victim through mediation so that they can use that in further bullying.’ 

There is advice on bullying for schools and parents at the site below.  There is a new Live Online Support service for every member of the family to get advice direct from its Expert team, ‘our advisors are standing by to support you with a wide range of bullying problems.’ http://www.bullying.co.uk/

 

 

ASCL – SHARES CONCERNS ABOUT THE LACK OF CLARITY ON FUTURE CAREERS ADVICE AND GUIDANCE

The ASCL union in its submission for the Report stage of the Education Bill says it would like to see the parts of Clause 27 that relate to repealing the duty on schools in England to provide careers education removed from the bill. It said ‘We strongly believe that the provision of careers education must remain a compulsory part of the curriculum. This will leave careers education in the position it currently occupies; schools are required to teach it but free to determine how to do so. Removing the requirement to teach careers education it claims is not cost effective because careers advisers will have to cover a good deal more ground in individual interviews and group sessions with pupils who not have been prepared through a programme of careers education. ASCL would prefer a single, simplified duty on schools to secure access to independent, impartial careers guidance for all pupils aged 13-18 through the new all-age careers service. We strongly believe that the duty should continue to age 18, particularly in light of the raised participation age, and that it should be secured through the all age service. ASCL supports the principle of an all-age careers service but is extremely worried about the lack of clarity regarding core funding, transition arrangements and new expectations placed on schools. The requirement that the bill places on schools is based on a service that does not yet exist and about which few details are available. There is huge uncertainty at a time when careers advice and guidance is of critical importance due to the cumulative effect of many changes to the system (particularly the loss of the Education Maintenance Allowance and increase in tuition fees).

FREE SCHOOLS – THE REVOLUTION STUTTERS

The number of new schools now likely to open their doors this September is around 10. Not a particularly impressive number, given that Primary schools are also part of the FS initiative.

It is already clear that the Government is shifting its main effort to expanding the Academies programme which has its own momentum. A momentum that is signally lacking, for now, at least, in the FS programme. The Independent has learnt that since the Free School programme was launched last year, just 40 out of 323 proposals have been accepted for consideration. Of those, just four have received a promise of Government funding. Another application has been withdrawn and most of the remaining 35 schools will not open until 2012. The remaining 283 have been turned down and the applicants told they must re-apply under stricter criteria. These are designed to show they are “fit and proper” people to run a school. The high failure rate is regarded by some as reflecting much needed rigour in the vetting process, identifying flawed bids early on, so saving time effort and resources.   However ,some close to the FS programme suggest that it has little to do with quality control and everything to do with money. Or lack of it.
There are two big interrelated problems facing Free schools and their supporters. Lack of money,and buildings. Of course there have been some dubious bids and bidders but can that seriously explain the punishingly high failure rate? And what effect will such a failure rate have on prospective bidders and confidence in this initiative,  more generally ,one wonders?
Advisers behind the scenes have been saying that you don’t really need much money to set up a new school. Taking a leaf out of the Charter School movement in New York, they point out that there is no reason why new schools need to own a building. They can rent. And some districts in New York provide incentives to do just this. There is the potential too to make clever use of other property, old office blocks, apartments and shops for instance, to set up a Free school. And, of course, where there are empty classrooms in existing schools, these too might be utilised. This ignores two important points. First just how appealing will it be for parents to send their child to a school in an old shop when set against all those shiny new neighbouring £20m Academies. Secondly, and of greater import, converting old buildings, and getting planning permission, into a school that is fit for purpose and safe is as much of a logistical challenge as it sounds and requires capital too. (interestingly the Guardian points out that a majority of Free schools are taking over listed buildings which is clearly potentially expensive) . It all looks quite attractive on paper but in practice, well, its not quite so easy. As Jonn Elledge of Education Investor has pointed out ‘Free school groups don’t have a credit history, so no one will lease them a building. (The government has said it’ll guarantee such leases; but it’s yet to put its money where its mouth is.) And, unsurprisingly, neither free schools nor existing comprehensives seem all that keen on shacking up together.’ The fact is most of the first tranche of new free schools look like they’re mostly going to be in buildings purchased for the purpose, using government money (which is as we know limited). It is still not clear how much money will be added to the initial pot for Free schools. The Partnerships for Schools quango, looks to have a new lease of life on the property front though. It had supported the recently abolished BSF schools building programme, and had looked to be on its way out as part of the government’s quango cull having been heavily criticised for presiding over its waste and profilgacy. It also caught the blame for embarrassing the Secretary of State when he issued a flawed list of school building projects that were being cancelled or put on ice. Now, however it seems to have found redemption and been given the job of finding buildings for these new schools. This Government like all before it talk tough on quangos but then keeps most of them in place. Its a painstaking task seeking the right place for a new school and the Partnership for Schools is hardly renowned for its speed of delivery. For a time the Government thought that the big Academy chains might move in and help but although they have the expertise and mostly a pretty sound track record they are short of capital and are heavily committed already to the Academies scheme. They would also encounter too the problem of a shortage of appropriate buildings. Yes, some are backing Free schools, but on a small scale. (There aren’t very many of them)

And the Government’s flirtation with the big chains, although making much sense in terms of seeking to secure efficient delivery, has sent out confusing signals to parents groups intending to set up schools. The original Free schools scheme came out of the Big Society mould. It was conceived to encourage and empower groups of local parents fed up with the choices being offered in local schooling to set up their own schools –essentially community driven and from the bottom up. But new regulations look to make it much harder for parents to do this (see above). Indeed some critics are now asking what the Free schools initiative is for, if its main raison d’ Etre appears to have been put on the backburner. Its future looks to be as a very junior sub set of the Academies scheme. But what some people forget is that the DFE is not awash with capital and this while obviously affecting the FS initiative it will also impact over the medium term on the Academies scheme too.

Looking to the private sector for support in terms of both expertise and investment could provide one way out but has been dismissed, it seems, by the government as too politically contentious. Indeed the private sector is generally fairly miffed that the Government is perceived to be cold shouldering them more generally in other public policy areas too. The Cabinet office, the Department taking a lead on public sector reforms and procurement, trips over itself in championing mutuals, co-ops, social enterprises and the third sector (look at its Business Plan) but barely mentions the private sector. Essential though the charities and the third sector are in public service delivery, it is surely bizarre that this Government appears to have turned its back on the private sector, at a time when public money is in short supply and those responsible for delivery are suffering significant cut backs. Joined up thinking it  certainly isn’t. Jonn Elledge editor of Education Investor wrote in the New Statesman (9 May): ‘The government wants three things: to create enough new schools to really shake up state education; to keep the profiteers out; and to keep the cost to the taxpayer down. But it can’t win on all three fronts. One of them is going to have to give. And right now, it looks like the revolution will be the one to get tossed aside.’ Possibly overstated-but there is no doubt that the Free schools initiative is facing significant short term challenges.

Note Katharine Barbalsingh has just formally launched a campaign in support of the setting up of a Free school in Lambeth, backed by Wellington College.

STATE RELIANCE ON PRIVATE SECTOR REVEALED

The Guardians front page headline today was a classic ‘State Reliance on Private Sector Revealed-shock, horror and a large  dollop  of awe thrown in. Whats in store for Guardian readers   next?    Mans  reliance on oxygen for life  revealed? Cant wait.

THE PROBLEM WITH BOYS

THE PROBLEM WITH BOYS

As  the performance gap opens up between boys and girls- is it time for a re-think on how to educate boys

Advances in neuroscience may help here

Comment

Tony Little, Eton’s Headmaster,  claimed at a recent conference  that the different sexes required different teaching methods to bring out students’ potential and that GCSEs favour girls more than boys. GCSE exams became much more verbal than the old O-levels, he said, thereby favouring girls over boys.  Boys, he believes, require a more physical and active style of learning. He said that an increased verbal element of GCSEs favoured girls over boys and that educational techniques had become skewed because of the male-dominated society of the past. In short, Little’s argument  is that, when it comes to learning, boys need to be taught in particular ways, which take account of the fact that “they are hardwired differently from girls and they need different approaches in terms of their education”.

Research submitted  to the same  conference  claimed that boys and girls benefited from different teaching techniques which could be administered either in single-sex environments or at mixed schools. It also said that boys were more likely to be labelled “disruptive or rebellious” in mixed classrooms where the presence of girls might encourage them to try and be “cool” rather than studious. This situation affected the learning experience of both girls and boys, it stated.

Concurrently it emerged that  one of the country’s biggest exam boards is developing different GCSE courses for boys and girls.  The Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA) said it was looking into creating a science GCSE with more coursework in it for girls, and one which gave more weighting to exam marks for boys. Studies have shown that girls perform better in coursework than boys, while boys do better in exams.  AQA said it would not prevent boys from taking the girls’ course and vice versa. The courses in English, maths and science could be available from September next year.

Dr Tony Sewell who has a particular interest in addressing  Afro-Caribbean  boys underachievement  claims that boys are being failed by schools because lessons have become too “feminised” in recent years. Dr Sewell   called for more nurturing of traditional “male” traits, such as competitiveness and leadership.

Schools focus too much on “feminine” qualities such as organisation and attentiveness, he  told an NASUWT union conference in  2008.  Sewell, a former lecturer at Leeds University, said some coursework should be replaced with final exams and there should be more emphasis on outdoor adventure in the curriculum. He also wants extra efforts to recruit more male teachers and to introduce more “excitement” to lessons.  Interestingly, new  figures show a surge in pupil numbers at single-sex prep schools in the independent sector  which cater for boys up to the age of 13.  This  trend is a reversal of the picture only a decade ago, when demand for girls’ schools was growing strongly. And  some schools   felt the need to become co-educational as demand shifted.

John Gray’s book Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars was  a best-seller for a very  good reason.  It struck a chord .Anecdotal evidence   has long suggested the case that males experience – and react to – life quite differently  to females .And the corollary of this is that  boys learn differently from girls . Neuroscience is catching up on this. Over the past decade or so, researchers have attempted to determine what, if any, natural differences exist between male and female brains when it comes to learning. Research in neuroscience has found  clear gender variation in human brain anatomy, chemical processes and function. In girls, the corpus callosum, which connects the two hemispheres (or halves) of the brain, is generally larger than in boys. This enables more “cross talk” between the hemispheres of the brain. Boys’ brains, on the other hand, are structured to compartmentalize learning. As a result, girls are usually better than boys at multitasking and can make quick transitions between lessons and tasks (Havers, 1995). On the other hand, a boy’s ability to compartmentalize learning might result in better clarity and focus in certain situations. Studies have shown that girls tend to use the areas of the brain devoted to verbal and emotional functioning, while boys generally use the areas of the brain geared toward spatial and mechanical tasks. (Moir and Jessel, 1989; Rich, 2000).

In 2008 researchers from Northwestern University (USA) and the University of Haifa showed  both that areas of the brain associated with language work harder in girls than in boys during language tasks, and that boys and girls rely on different parts of the brain when performing these tasks. The findings suggest that language processing is more sensory in boys and more abstract in girls –  and  they suggested that this could have major implications for teaching children and even provide support for advocates of single sex classrooms. Given boys’ sensory approach, boys might be more effectively evaluated on knowledge gained from lectures via oral tests and on knowledge gained by reading via written tests. For girls, whose language processing appears more abstract in approach, these different testing methods would appear unnecessary.

The male brain needs to recharge and reorient by entering what brain scientists call a rest state. Boys may naturally drift off or “space out” during a lesson. However, they are able to stay engaged in visual or hands-on learning that involves symbols, objects, diagrams and pictures but zone out when too many words are used (Gurian, 2001).  There is also evidence that different areas of the brain develop in a different sequence in girls compared with most boys. So, while it’s too simplistic  to say that boys mature more slowly than girls it is probably correct to say  boys mature faster than girls in some areas,  but slower in others. Self-evidently this should be taken into account when deciding how to teach ,what to teach and when to teach.

Professor Alan Smithers, director of education at Buckingham University, is somewhat sceptical  about all this, though. He  believes  that we already know the main variables relating to exam success-these  are pupil characteristics, social background and  the quality of the  teacher. So  this leaves very little space for gender in the classroom to make any  real difference.   This has all re-opened the debate about single sex  versus co-ed  education and whether, for instance, boys should be taught separately from girls  either generally or in certain subjects.  But  a greater understanding of how the brain works, and what neuro science tells us about gender differences and the way we learn  and its implications for the  learning  environment and teaching, is  becoming the new frontier in education . As more information becomes available  Professor Smithers may have to adjust his position.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE PRIMARY CURRICULUM?

PRIMARY CURRICULUM UP IN THE AIR

Rose proposals popular with teachers but in limbo

Comment

At the end of the last Parliament in the final horse-trading over what legislation  would  be rushed through to completion and what clauses would  be dropped from Bills to fast track  Bills onto the statute book  one of the biggest casualties was the new Primary curriculum .

Most Primary teachers  had clearly warmed to the  idea as they see it  of a more flexible, joined up  and less prescriptive curriculum as suggested in the so called Rose Review . Indeed many had already invested time and energy to curriculum planning and development to incorporate the changes,   given that officials were indicating until the eleventh hour that the proposals were signed and sealed. Apart from the wastage involved in production, distribution and digestion of a primary curriculum that is now not to be implemented, many Heads are bemused as to how the Government managed to run out of Parliamentary time with such a key piece of legislation. The Conservatives and Lib Dems blocked the measures.

The Tories believe that the Rose approach lacked rigour and did not afford sufficient weight to key academic subjects and, crucially, a sound knowledge  base. The Tory position itself has been misrepresented by some in the media. With ‘Knowledge’  grossly parodied as not much more than trading obsolete facts.

So ‘what now?’ for the primary curriculum.

There were two recent fine reviews  of  Primary education and the curriculum. The broader, independent review, led by Professor Alexander known as the Cambridge Primary Review was almost instantly dismissed by  a  Minister  in the last Government as out of date, to the Governments shame . The remark was patently untrue and such lengthy definitive research from some of the top academic experts on Primary education was clearly deserving of a more considered response. It certainly wasn’t a knee-jerk reaction to the  Rose Report.  It  was  part of a three-year enquiry into primary education as a whole, the most comprehensive for 40 years. It drew  on its own considerable evidence, provided its own analysis, proposed its own solutions, and above all keeps in view that basic question: what is primary education for? It talked of eight curriculum domains : arts and creativity; citizenship and ethics; faith and belief; language, oracy and literacy; mathematics; physical and emotional health; place and time; science and technology.

The other Review, under Sir Jim Rose, had been commissioned by the Government ,with a narrower remit. Rose said that  the problem is ‘quarts-into-pint-pots’: finding ways to cram 14 subjects into a finite week or year. Sir Jim proposed six areas of Learning- Understanding English, communication and languages; Mathematical understanding; Scientific and technological understanding; Historical, geographical and social understanding; Understanding physical development, health and wellbeing; Understanding the arts

And you would have thought from the simplistic media coverage that the two reports were entirely different in their conclusions and recommendations.

In truth there were considerable overlaps.  Both called for more holistic curriculum, incorporating more flexible approaches to teaching and learning that facilitated pupil and practitioner creativity and cross-disciplinary connections. While the two reports differed slightly in their recommendations concerning curriculum subject areas, they effectively shared a pared-down model, with Rose reducing the current thirteen subjects to six areas of learning, and a devolution of responsibility to schools for shaping delivery. This reduction of course worried the Tories as they interpreted it as eroding academic rigour and pupil’s knowledge base. The Tories want to sort the curriculum out on their terms and don’t want to be painted into a corner by a Review that took place under another Government.

Within the teaching profession and among educationalists   there is a feeling that the Tories have actually misunderstood what the Rose Review is actually saying, preferring to see it through the prism of media reports and scary headlines .  Indeed within the teaching community in the maintained sector (this doesn’t seem to apply though to the independent sector) there is considerable consensus and momentum towards the embrace of a more flexible and devolved curriculum, in policy but more importantly ‘on the ground’ in schools and even local communities.

Schools seem to want to take more responsibility on themselves and for making a new Primary curriculum more relevant, engaging, flexible and innovative and there was a degree of excitement surrounding the proposed reforms.

Tory policy, of course, is to help raise the status of the teaching profession, to give teachers back their professional voice in the classroom, to stop central interference in the running of schools, to give schools more freedom over the curriculum they deliver,  and what happens in the classroom and to deliver real  schools autonomy.  But the paradox is that they also want to prescribe the content and structure of the Primary curriculum and ignore most of the advice afforded by two expert reviews.  We know that Primary curriculum reform is needed- but are we really going to see the launch of another review? It seems so-certainly the coalition government wants fundamental changes at primary and secondary level, and both  Michael Gove and Nick  Gibb are intent on prescribing a core, more traditional curriculum to be enabled by an (Second) Education Bill in the autumn but with schools being  given flexibility outside this core

The Lib Dem manifesto talked of getting rid of the “overprescriptive” National Curriculum and replacing it with a 20-page minimum curriculum guarantee but said  nothing about the Rose recommendations. They are also in favour of less centrally driven initiatives and school autonomy. If pushed the Tories  lean towards the Cambridge Review  but fall short of  giving  its recommendations  their unqualified endorsement.

There will be efforts made by the education establishment to persuade the Coalition  to re-think   approaches  to  Primary curriculum reform , for sure and not to entirely drop its approach.

WHO IS DAVID LAWS?

WHO IS DAVID LAWS?

Comment

David Laws was a high-flying investment banker with JP Morgan and Barclays who gave up six-figure bonuses for a backroom research job with the Liberal Democrats. Born into a banking family, Laws was educated at St George’s College, Weybridge and Kings College, Cambridge. He was elected as MP for Yeovil in 2001 after Paddy Ashdown stepped down. Laws co-edited the ‘Orange Book’, which was instrumental in politically re-orientating the Lib Dems and shedding high tax-and-spending traditions for a more economically liberal platform. His right-leaning instincts have prompted several invitations to join the Conservatives, all which have been politely, but firmly spurned.(Similar to Clegg in this respect). Laws earned his spurs leading delicate negotiations resulting in the early coalition north of the border with the SNP. Widely seen to have won the TES pre-election education debate, he is anti-state interference in education, wants powers devolved to schools, to ensure that all schools have Academy freedoms but also sees local authorities as important for the accountability framework. (differs from Tories on LA role)He believes that some education quangos can be cut back-and feels that most are unaccountable.  An economic and social liberal, but fiscal conservative, Laws is an advocate of more competition and choice in public services . He shares Michael  Goves view that the Government has largely failed the most disadvantaged pupils and he wants a pupil premium which will be part of the new coalitions education programme. Also keen to reduce class sizes and to abolish, over time, tuition fees. He was a key member of the Liberal Democrats negotiating team forging a new coalition with the Tories. He has a cabinet role in the coalition Government  as First Secretary to the Treasury. Michael  Gove has been one of the most impressive performers in Cameron’s shadow cabinet and would like to see his free schools reforms through , so although it was initially rumoured  that Laws would get Education, it has just been confirmed that Gove is the new  Education Secretary.

THE BRITISH COUNCIL-UNDERMINES THE EDUCATION MARKET ABROAD

THE BRITISH COUNCIL

Helping sell UK education abroad? Well not quite

Cull it or Reform it

Comment

It has long been part of the British Councils remit to represent British culture and education abroad. It has described itself as the UK’s international organisation for educational opportunities and cultural relations, and operates in over 100 countries.

In support of its role, it is given taxpayers money in grant form. And allowed to undertake commercial operations too, by most accounts of variable quality.  But there’s a big problem.

For at the core of the BCs operations lies a corrosive conflict of interests that is damaging  for UK commercial interests, stifles the development of an education market abroad  and tarnishes the reputation of the BC to such a degree  that it raises serious  questions over its  very purpose and whether it actually works against rather than for the UKs commercial interests.

The Council’s main activities in English teaching and exams comprise seven main product areas; adult learners, young learners, professional learners, online content, peacekeeping English and teacher development. Some of the work it does is quite good, certainly according to the National Audit Office and it works from time to time with highly regarded UK education specialists. A Commercial Director was appointed from the private sector in mid-2007 to  develop a new strategy, a key element of which is a new network of 40 in-house champions to stimulate activity in each business area and region.

However, while this quango  claims on the one hand to represent UK education abroad, it has a rather  perverse, one might even say  counterintuitive way of going about it.  It competes directly against UK suppliers in these markets.  More than that, because it is, in part, grant funded it competes against them at a considerable advantage, and it does not have to demonstrate there is no material cross-subsidy of its commercial activities out of public funds.

It is doubly advantaged because it  gets the active support of local diplomats with BC offices often co-located  with the local  British Embassy, tied as if by an umbilical cord. It has privileged access too and early warning   of new information of new local business opportunities which as it happens  is not passed with alacrity to competitors.  And the Council derives a cost advantage in particular countries through its diplomatic and charitable status, and can use this to offer better terms and conditions to attract good teachers and centre managers, and students. Its charitable status also means it is not subject to Freedom of Information requirements, which militates against full transparency and accountability concerning its operations, although funded in part by taxpayers.

So, one has to ask a pretty basic question -is it possible for it to wear two hats at the same time? To be on the one hand a disinterested promoter and champion of the education  sector and concurrently a direct, in your face,  subsidised competitor? Certainly, not on the face of it. And, if you ask UK suppliers, not in practice either.

Significantly, a 2008 National Audit Office Report ‘ The British Council: Achieving Impact’ said that the Council ‘ needs to demonstrate more clearly to its stakeholders and competitors how growth supports the Council’s mission and charitable purposes and that it does not represent unfair competition. The Council can draw on methods used by, amongst others, the BBC, to give added assurance on fair competition.’ Something of a strange observation given that most of the BBC’s competitors whinge about its anti-competitive practices.  Since the reports publication,  needless to say ,the BC   has done nothing to act on this recommendation.

The BC is, of course, aware of the charges against it. It thinks it has got around this little issue of conflicted interests by claiming, at least that is until now, that it maintains Chinese walls between its cultural and contracting activities (remember, these ‘walls’ have worked so well in the City context! Or not).

But a new pamphlet out from the BC appears to blow this claim right out of the water. In its booklet titled ‘2010/11 Our Scale of Ambition’ the BC says that ‘the British Council gets its revenue from many different sources including a number of contracts with external bodies.  Even though those contracts are large, worth £87 million in 2008/2009, we believe the scope exists to increase them in number and value.  Specifically we plan to increase their value to £197 million by 2014.   The aims are for the British Council to be seen as an important player in our priority markets and sectors by clients and competitors and to present our contracts business as a fully integral part of our cultural relations programme.’

Some Wall! A sieve springs to mind.

At least the truth is now out there.

One of the major constraints on the development of an education market abroad has been  the presence of the commercial wing of the  BC in those markets. It uses its subsidized position and political leverage and patronage to get pretty much what it wants with its diplomatic top cover. However, its presence and threat to other UK companies increases their costs and  the risks of UK companies entering markets where the BC is operating.  But there have also been instances  too  where British companies have sought to exploit a market, taken on the up front development and marketing  costs   with the attendant  risks, established themselves, bedded in , only to watch  the BC come in on their coattails and undercut them.

Who cares about this? Well, the taxpayer should care because quite often a service being provided, subsidized by the taxpayer, could be provided but at no expense to the taxpayer. Politicians should care because their job is to ensure that taxpayers get value for money and should be keen to see the development a mature education market abroad (good for our balance of payments) and in an area where the UK should have a competitive advantage. They should also care if markets are not fair and are not competitively neutral because, if they are neither of these things then the end user, normally in the third world, will not be getting value for money. And perish the thought that we should be exploiting the most disadvantaged!  And, needless to say education providers in both the profit and not for profit sectors   aren’t happy about it either   because it denies them business and they worry about much of the quality of provision being offered by the Council, which might tarnish the UK education brand .They are particularly unhappy that politicians don’t seem to care very much about it. But then again that’s not so hard to understand .If you were an MP or Peer (in previous Parliaments at least) you would probably  get up in the Commons, or other place  and support an organisation that has just given you an all expenses paid trip to an exotic location abroad to attend a ‘cultural event’ ,with partner in tow.

One well known critic of the BC is David Blackie an education service provider. He has highlighted, interalia, the perceived inadequacies of the  Councils  Education UK web site (ie its rubbish) .  On the Council, he said on his blog,   “It cannot be dependent as it is on government funding and be independent of government. It cannot be dependent on government funding and be a charity (which it is of course). It cannot be dependent on government funding, operate out of diplomatic premises, enjoy civil service pension arrangements, and compete on a level playing field with genuine risk-taking enterprise either at home or abroad. It cannot have monopoly powers and multiple privileges in any sector while also being allowed to compete in that sector. It cannot both explore business links…..on Britain’s behalf, and then unilaterally decide to exploit those business links for itself, as in North Africa for example’… Well actually it can.  But, maybe not for much longer.

Maybe, just maybe, we are seeing the dawn of a new politics ,where accountability and transparency and value for  taxpayers money really does matter. Certainly it’s a new age of austerity which  has forced the n government to look for new efficiencies, greater productivity and   a big reduction in waste.

The  Government needs to get quickly to a rather fundamental question in its review of quangos. What actually is the point of the BC? Is it vital to our national  interests? If so how?  If it has a point ie promotion of culture then  make it an arm of the FCO, grant funded and a lot smaller, leaner and more focused. Stop pretending its independent of the Government. Few abroad thinks that’s the case.  If it is so vital to education abroad make it a genuine commercial enterprise, with no subsidies, competing freely in an open market and  with no special privileges. If there is demand for its services, it will thrive. Let the market decide.

The BC has been afforded deference, privileges  and patronage in equal measure for far  too long . As with any protected producer interest it is complacent, bureaucratic and  largely unaccountable .  Worse though, it stands charged that it damages UK commercial interests abroad.  Its surely time for a reckoning.

HEADTEACHERS LEADERSHIP PROGRAMME -ACCELERATE TO HEADSHIP

ACCELERATE TO HEADSHIP

Fast track leadership scheme seeks to attract successful managers to Headships

Comment

Accelerate to Headship is an intensive leadership development programme run by the National College for School Leadership for ‘ outstanding individuals with the ability and commitment to follow this accelerated route to becoming a headteacher’. There are two main routes through the Accelerate to Headship programme.  First, Tomorrow’s Heads. Teachers, former teachers and other non-teaching professionals who have the drive to lead primary, secondary or special schools in England should apply through Tomorrow’s Heads. If you’re not a qualified teacher, you’ll need at least two years’ suitable management experience to take part in Tomorrow’s Heads. So, Non-teachers could be taking up heads’ positions in primary and special schools within just four years. Classroom experience will not be a prerequisite for those participating in this new fast-track course, being developed by the National College.  The NCSL also wants people to apply who have experience of working with children, perhaps as a business manager or governor, or have worked in children’s services. About 170 people a year will participate in the programme, which is made up of one-to-one coaching and residential courses.

The second route is through Future Leaders. Current or former teachers committed to managing a challenging urban secondary school in London, the North West, the West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, Bristol, or on the south coast are advised to  apply for Future Leaders.  The first route prompted a shock Daily Mail Headline this month  ‘Managers with no teaching experience will be given headteacher posts’. The policy of putting non-teachers in charge of schools was kicked off by a Government-commissioned study into school leadership three years ago, which suggested that splitting the tasks of administrative head and head of teaching and learning would make the job of school leader more feasible, as well as enabling the senior teacher to focus on their role as lead practitioner.

The National Association of Headteachers, however, has campaigned against appointing school leaders with no classroom experience. Mike Welsh, NAHT vice president, claimed the course was an attempt to ‘cut corners’. He said: ‘Those who are not trained teachers will not be able to raise standards. This is a way of having a “chief executive” style role, which is wrong. ‘It’s all in the name “headteacher” – they should lead teaching and learning. Recruitment difficulties are a separate issue and the best way of solving that is to give heads more support and make the job more attractive.’  Both routes are described as ‘ intensive, demanding, three-year leadership development programmes, which will give you all the knowledge and experience you need to apply for the National Professional Qualification in Headship (NPQH), the mandatory qualification for headship.’

On completion of NPQH, they will then be eligible to run a school – and as the NCSL puts it ‘change thousands of children’s lives’. Applicants who apply have to pass cognitive ability tests, a one-day assessment process, give personal references and submit an essay. They will also need a reference from a head.  Those selected will then spend three years training, supported by a “leadership development adviser”. They will receive one-to-one coaching, work experience in outstanding schools and residential courses.  Both programmes are built around individuals personal development needs, with an emphasis on school-based activity, learning on the job, and coaching and mentoring. Throughout, individuals receive one-on-one support from their own personal leadership development adviser who will act as a ‘critical friend’ and coach.

This is the first attempt by the National College to run a fast-track course since a previous version ‘Fast Track Teaching’ was dropped two years ago. Fast Track was a programme developed and funded by the  then Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (eventually becoming the responsibility of the NCSL) and sought to identify, develop and retain talented individuals from within the  teaching profession by offering an enriched professional development route to early positions of senior school leadership .Although evaluations of this  programme determined that  it was broadly meeting its objectives, it was nonetheless  judged to be too expensive – costing £43,000 per participant.  Tomorrow’s Heads will cost around £11 million a year. About 170 people a year will participate in the programme.