Need for Assessment Reforms

The Times -Letter Published 10 June 2021

Sir, It is comforting that Professor Louise Hayward (“It’s time to shake up the English education system”, Red Box, Jun 8) is looking at the future of assessment. The present system places a ridiculously high premium on students’ short-term memorisation while barely acknowledging the need for critical thinking or collaborative work to problem-solve, a requirement out there in the real world. The ability to get the best out of yourself and others in a collaborative environment is not valued, let alone assessed. We know that a scaffold of core knowledge and concepts is required by all students to problem-solve and progress in education, but a better balance can be struck. After formal education our young people have to work, not in isolation but with others, and with constant access to changing information. Hence it is essential that future accountability and assessment frameworks properly reflect this.
Patrick Watson
London SW8

The Purpose of Education

Politicians generally pay lip service to the need for a rounded education, while supporting the delivery of a utilitarian vision
It’s a given, among our politicians, that when it comes to Education – more means better. So the more you educate your children, the more skills you will have in the economy, and the better your success will be in creating a knowledge-based competitive economy of the future. Better educated populations, it is also claimed, improve productivity (although UKs productivity improvements in the last generation have been pretty poor despite massive investment in education). It is accepted too, because the evidence is there , that the more educated tend to earn more than their less educated peers and education economists ,correlate extra years at University, with significant increments in income. Graduates, tend to earn more than non-graduates, although there is quite a lot of evidence accumulating that the graduate premium is narrowing significantly , and the number of graduates in non-graduate jobs is increasing. In a recent Commons Robert Halfon, chair of the Education Select Committee, said that “ Department for Education careers advice must be about skills, skills, skills. It must ensure that all the way through schooling pupils are taught about apprenticeships and FE and given more opportunities for work experience. “ So thats it then. Or is it?
Not everyone, sees a clear connection between education and better economic performance. Professor Alison Wolf has argued that “the simple one-way relationship which so entrances our politicians and commentators — education spending in, economic growth out — simply doesn’t exist. Moreover, the larger and more complex the education sector , the less obvious links to productivity become.”, she claimed. However Politicians still broadly hold to the view that their policy decisions and investment in education efforts benefit the economy and GDP and that education is mainly a means to secure economic advancement.
So at least in modern times, covering maybe the last couple of generations, politicians, across the piece ,have consistently valued education primarily as a means to increase GDP growth, while also paying lip service to its broader purposes. The Dearing Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (1997) a seminal work on the future of Higher Education and its value, in its first few pages ritually claimed that education ‘contributes to the whole quality of life’ . The report then omitted to mention or explain why this might be the case in its remaining 400, or so, pages. This is fairly typical of most politically inspired reports on education.
It’s a vision, if one can call it that, informed by prioritisation of the so-called STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), leaving little room for the arts or humanities or for deeper reflection on what it is that makes us human and creative . In short, its reductive and utilitarian. You educate children for the job market, for employment and the needs of the economy. There is little to be said about the intrinsic good of education for the individual, and their personal development, or anything that is not contingent in some way on an expectation of some economic value.
Robert Maynard Hutchins, a one time Chancellor of the University of Chicago ,observed that the wisdom a democratic community needs is the wisdom of an entire population. (its an idea that is articulated ,but in a slightly different way ,by ED Hirsch). One of the most important elements, in the strength of a country, is its educational system, provided that the educational system is directed to ‘moral intellectual aesthetic and spiritual growth’ . Instead, he saw back in the 1950s, that people had been seduced by the idea that that the prime aim of life, and therefore education, was the development of industrial power. Its an arresting truth that this is how most politicians including our current Secretary of State Gavin Williamson see it, as he currently seeks to cut back on university courses that have little perceived longer term economic value, which is seen as an attack on the arts, and to a certain extent too, on the humanities.
Professor Harry Brighouse in his book On Education;Thinking in Action ( 2005) urged us to reject governments singular aim to equip pupils with the skills to grow the economy. Instead he saw educations main purpose as enabling young people to become autonomous self-governing adults, so that they can flourish and lead, on their own terms, rich and fulfilling lives.
By contrast what Williamson sees (and to be fair he is by no means alone in this) is a world of STEM, of practical and technical courses, to fill the skills gaps that need to be filled for a thriving 21st century economy. High worth courses, are perceived as those that fill these skills gaps. It’s a perception given greater weight as we are in the midst of The Fourth Industrial Revolution, with the advent of Artificial Intelligence.
Historically, of course, there has always been a very different view of what education is for. Cardinal Newmans vision (call it liberal), and ideal for a university education, was of a community of thinkers, engaging in intellectual pursuits not for any external purpose, (ie economic)but as an end in itself. He championed a broad, education, which teaches students “to think and to reason and to compare and to discriminate and to analyse” Newman held that narrow minds were the product of narrow specialisation and stipulated that students should be given a solid grounding in all areas of study. Here was a vision of university education to develop the individual and their potential ,in all areas, and, significantly, in ways that far exceed the narrow limits of academic ability.
Matthew Arnold the great education reformer of the 19th century, had his own view of a liberal education – that of the achievement, through proper education, of a cultured middle class. And this culture , once fully realized, would eliminate classes by eliminating man’s desire for exploitation of his fellow man:
it.. […]seeks to do away with classes; to make the best that has been known and thought in the world current everywhere; to make all men live in an atmosphere of sweetness and light, where they may use ideas, as it uses them itself, freely, – nourished, and not bound by them.’
In the early part of the 20th century, John Dewey believed education was not to serve an economic goal. Instead, he argued ,that education should serve an intrinsic purpose: education was a good in itself and children became fully developed as responsible people because of it.
At this juncture, its worth remembering that the word “education” comes from a Latin word which means “to draw out”. Certainly if you ask teachers , many of whom, at least when they start their careers with some vocational zeal aim to draw out their students , to reveal their abilities and enable them to fulfil their potentials. Sadly, the reality is that too many are subsequently ground down by the realities and workload of day to day teaching, and the various hoops they are obliged to jump through , otherwise known as accountability measures. Ask any teacher though whether they think their job is about simply preparing their pupils for the job market and you will get short shrift. The individual is not simply a potentially productive economic unit, or agent, to be developed and exploited, but a human being with immense potential, and possibilities that a good education can help develop and fulfil. Done well, it’s a great equalizer of opportunities too.
Our forebears ,including, of course, Newman, were really interested in, and engaged with, the moral ,cultural and intellectual purposes of education. They understood what a broad curriculum actually meant, unlike many politicians who, in practice , seek narrower, ever more centrally proscribed curricula with one eye firmly fixed on the economic imperatives, as they see them.
So, Utilitarian’s believe in preparing pupils for the demands of the 21st century and, more often than not they see this through a STEM lens. The irony about this view is that by focusing almost entirely on the need for STEM, they are missing the point. The assumption by many is that the Fourth Industrial Revolution and AI means there needs to be much more of a focus on STEM, more digital literacy for example and of course ,more coding. Up to a point, they have a point. But there is another side to the AI coin . Ever more sophisticated machines will beat humans in most tasks ,by a country mile. But you need to look to those areas where Humans will probably always have the measure of machines. In creativity, in creative and critical thinking and enterprise . Professor Rose Luckin of UCL, an expert on AI and its potential impact, particularly on education, talks about the continuing importance of creativity in this emerging world. She thinks that the humanities will be increasingly important. You only have to look, she says, at the way that big tech companies are looking to employ people from the humanities more and more. Humanity and compassion will be crucial ; as, will be. emotional intelligence and social intelligence , unique to humans. Joseph Aoun, who heads North Eastern University in the USA , argues in his book Robot- Proof(2017) , that, of course, students will need technical ability: understanding how machines function and how to interact with them, as well as data discipline: navigating the sea of information that’s generated by these machines .But they will also, crucially , need human discipline: “which is what we humans can do that machines for the foreseeable future, cannot emulate.” He argues that this includes creativity, cultural agility, empathy and the ability to take information from one context and apply it to another. In educational terms, this means less emphasis on the classroom and a greater emphasis on experiential learning.
So, essentially, rather than seeing the future in terms only of STEM , its important to see that the arts and humanities, and by implication a broader education, will remain important in the digital age. STEAM-that’s is STEM plus the arts , is what a rounded education means in the modern context.
So returning to the question -what is the purpose of education ? It has a vital intrinsic importance for the individual and their personal fulfilment. And, yes, there is an important element in preparing young people for employment ,a decent job and income, during their lifetimes. But, even utilitarian’s have to realise the importance of a broad education, and any conception of a broad education has to include a grounding in the arts and humanities . As humans we are also social animals, who are members of families ,friendship groups and communities, with some shared values and common interests. Education, therefore, has a role in preparing us for the roles we have to fulfil in this broader context , and in reinforcing these roles in our lives. We are global citizens and education is a lifelong process . And Learning doesn’t just happen in institutions Maybe we can retrieve a bit of the original meaning of the word ‘ education’- and the idea of -drawing out , our humanity as much as our potential.
So whats the purpose of education?( Here is a definition I made earlier)
The purpose of education, which is a lifelong process , is to support individuals in fulfilling their full potential , and in supporting them in acquiring the knowledge, attitudes, values skills and competencies to positively contribute , to economic, social and cultural life , as responsible and informed citizens .

Note on Competency

The concept of competency implies more than just the acquisition of knowledge and skills; it involves the mobilisation of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values to meet complex demands (The Future of Education and Skills OECD 2018)

Why Social Justice is Integral to Education Policy

 Its not just about schools but they do have a role

David Cameron claimed, back in 2007, that without education there can be no social justice.  Nicky Morgan, when she was Education Secretary, added that schools were no less than  ‘ engines of   social justice’ . Robert Halfon MP, the Education Select Committee chair, in the last Parliament ,   believed  that “tackling social justice is the central objective of the Education Committee “ (2018)  and   that ‘social injustice inhabits every part of our education system.’  Indeed, so keen was Halfon to push the social justice agenda that he  sought to introduce a Bill in the Commons that would have strengthened the Social Mobility Commission, broadening its role  to assess  all domestic legislation for its impact on social justice ,  giving it  additional  powers to hold ministers’ ‘feet to the fire.’ He even wanted to change the name of the Commission to ‘The Social Justice Commission’ helping it create  much more of an equal opportunity environment , across public policy.  Against this backdrop,   two  things are clear.  First,  that  the pursuit of  social justice is not  just the preserve  of the left, in politics. It is a cross party issue. Second ,that politicians see the pursuit of  social justice as integral to informing  education policy.    To an extent  though, social justice means different  things to different people, and groups, for that matter. It is seen through many different lenses, particularly in this  era of  ‘identity’ politics. That said,  there is some  measure of   consensus around the idea that it focuses on the needs of the individual, on  equalising  opportunity, and in promoting fairness and equity throughout society.

It transpired that the new Social Mobility Commission didn’t much want Halfons unsolicited help in getting its remit extended. It reasoned that  it already had  more than  enough on its plate, given its resource constraints. As for  Ministers , they are never very keen for their feet to be held to the fire by anyone, on any issue.  So, the idea was quicly kicked into the long grass.  Nonetheless, Halfons efforts served a useful purpose. He had correctly focused on equality of opportunity as being central to any conception of social justice, as well as  the fact that the pursuit of social justice  had to be broad and cross cutting to have any chance of success in  knocking down barriers and improving outcomes.  In seeking to change the remit of the Commission he was  simply suggesting , implicitly,  that someone, or  some organisation, needed to provide leadership and co-ordination to advance an agenda that was making limited headway.

Like it or not, our education system, including schools, colleges  and universities, are  crucial to realising any  conception of social justice that focuses on equalising opportunities. So, stripping  it back to its essentials, social justice means ensuring that every individual is given an equal opportunity  to succeed  in life,  regardless of their economic  background,  class, age, gender, race or ethnic origin.  And this is where education (and early education, particularly) come in. Implicit in this, is a   focus on the individual student, providing a personalised  teaching and learning environment,  with  the necessary interventions and support  that go with this,  ensuring  that they  have  real opportunities to succeed and meet their potential. Children clearly need a holistic education that prepares them not just for vital cognitive tasks, but for the broad gamut of personal, social and professional opportunities, challenges and duties in life.So, Personalisation is about the need to  tailor education to individual need, interest and aptitude so as to fulfil every young person’s potential.

 For those who seek more clarity on how schools are relevant to social justice, SSAT- the schools and teachers  network – has done much  work  this year, building on the framework  of  some of their   previous work with Professor David Hargreaves  ,  in identifying  what schools, their leaders  and others might be doing to improve social justice. SSATs annual conference next month, has Social Justice as its main theme. https://www.ssatuk.co.uk/nc19/

SSATs working definition of social justice embraces a commitment to’ ensuring that all young people leave school fully prepared to lead fulfilled and purposeful lives’. The premise is that this can be achieved by returning to a personalised approach to education. Professor David Hargreaves grouped nine gateways of personalisation (see note below)  into the four ‘deeps’- learning, experience, support and leadership to give schools a  loose framework to work with, adaptable to different models of school organisation. These  four ‘deeps’ adapted for social justice are  

Deep learning for social justice: the role of pedagogy in nurturing fulfilled lives.

Deep experience for social justice: what knowledge, opportunities and outcomes will end the disadvantaged gap?

Deep support for social justice: taking a broader view of the inclusion agenda to embrace all young people.

Deep leadership for social justice: placing social justice at the heart of your educational vision, philosophy and practice.

Fighting for Deep Social Justice: Publications

If you accept that equalising opportunities is important (not everyone does ,to be fair ) then it is best started early on, meaning that  schools, and even pre-schools  have their  part to play.  That is not the same thing as saying that the   responsibility for social justice rests just with educators . Remedying injustices and inequities is not, and never can be, the responsibility of teachers and other educators alone.  Unfairness extends well beyond the school gates. As things stand, Teachers have to seek, as best they can, to manage their consequences, too often with insufficient resources and understanding from politicians regulators, and the accountability framework itself.    Poverty, deprivation,  social dysfunction, ill health, poor parenting and other structural issues  all impact on a childs opportunities   life chances and broader   social outcomes . Any strategy to advance social justice has to be joined up, and  cross cutting, involving schools and groups of schools, of course,  but also other community based organisations, welfare agencies and the third sector . Understanding precisely where schools can play their  part,  and where their interventions can have an impact, where they cant , and  where they should leave it to other agencies, or  indeed work with these agencies, is vital.

This requires combining a top down ,and bottom up approach. National politicians have got to  have a better understanding  the importance of  stable forward thinking  leadership , of long term strategic planning , of cross departmental working  , of   dumping the silo mentality, of evidence informed policy  and of  allocating resources to back a coherent joined up   strategy. At the moment, because the political bandwidth is so narrow, the enabling environment for change, at the national level at least ,  just isn’t there, for now , but we have to look ahead beyond Brexit . But, at the  local level , perhaps  more can be done , and there is potential  for change over the short term. There needs to be local   leadership and better collaboration between the education sectors, between schools and groups of schools, with local authorities , community based organisations  and  welfare services and the third sector.

Not so long ago there was  a government initiative  called the extended schools programme. These were  schools serving the most disadvantaged areas offering  a wide range of services or activities outside of the normal school day to help meet the learning and development needs of pupils, their families and local communities. These schools were given additional funding from the government. Possibly we should dust off this idea and develop  a variant , community hubs , of which schools are  very much part, where resources are pooled,  and where there is partnership working, from the  bottom up.  . Good schools and groups of schools   are already embedded in their communities and have a range of productive relationships with others ,outside the school gates, to help support their children’s development and for mutual advantage.    So we don’t need to re-invent the wheel.   But  we do need to change the way the system works if we are to improve our young peoples life opportunities.

As far as schools are concerned and their role, have a look at SSATs series of pamphlets on  deep social justice. These   suggest where schools and school  leaders can make a real difference to individuals and their opportunities.,  and where progress can be made  through personalising learning.

Fighting for Deep Social Justice: Publications

Note

Professor  David Hargreaves’  nine Gateways to Personalised Learning (2008) are   1. Student Voice 2. Assessment for Learning 3. Learning to Learn 4. New Technologies 5. Curriculum 6. Advice and Guidance 7. Mentoring and Coaching 8. Workforce Reform 9. Design and Organisation

A Comprehensive University system? Why is the selection debate only focused on schools?

 

Professor Tim Blackman ,Vice-Chancellor of Middlesex University , a Professor of Sociology and Social Policy , argued for a truly radical and democratic reform of the HE sector, last year, in a HEPI booklet The Comprehensive University.

We should ,he says , require all universities to have more diverse intakes – socially, ethnically and by ability. Comprehensive reform of higher education is long overdue, with its likely social and educational benefits from a ‘diversity bonus’ in all our institutions. The advocacy of selection in education he claims is driven by an impulse to separate people into deserving and undeserving, ‘us’ and ‘other’ As things stand, students at the ‘not high status’ institutions know that they are, in effect, in a low-status university and, by association, are ‘low status’ people who possibly should not be at university. These low-status students are more likely to be working class and black. They are advised to head for ‘high status’ universities if they are ‘talented’. The higher education sector currently both extends opportunity and entrenches class privilege, with the latter effect far outweighing the former. This, argues Blackman ,is a pretty shocking state of affairs that needs to be addressed on equality grounds alone, but ,he points out, there are likely to be significant educational and productivity dividends from ending it too. All students would benefit from replacing a stratified higher education system with mixed-tariff institutions where the diversity of cognitive abilities and identities would be a resource for everyone’s learning. This could be achieved through open access or basic matriculation quotas. Blackman says that a variety of admission mechanisms could be used to desegregate universities and move to all but a few being comprehensive. The simplest would be to require a fixed proportion of entry to be open access along the lines of the school academies that are allowed to use selection but only for a fixed proportion of their intake. Alternatively, there could be a minimum matriculation requirement, based on minimum threshold standards across the sector, but low enough to make a significant impact on the barrier to access created by high-entry requirements. Excess demand could then be managed using a lottery. This system could be combined with a levy, creating more diverse and more successful learning communities in all our universities.

It is interesting that debate on selection is currently almost entirely focused on the schools system and the expansion, or not, of grammar schools. . Blackman has opened up another front. About time too

HEPI Occasional Paper

See also Blog

http://www.hepi.ac.uk/2018/04/17/comprehensive-free-university/

WHY DID GREENING HAVE TO GO?

 

Why did Greening have to go?

Several theories are in circulation about why Justine Greening had to go as Education Secretary.

Firstly,she was not loyally carrying out the wishes of the Prime Minister. More than  this,  she was delaying and obstructing.  The Prime Ministers  wishes can pretty much be summed up as  the proposals in the  pre-election  education Green Paper drafted by her former adviser Nick Timothy.

And its also known that Greening, along with Jo Johnson ,were not entirely in agreement with May on her approach to tuition fees.   Given the joy expressed by Nick Timothy in the Daily Telegraph  at  Greenings departure there seems to be some mileage in this. Timothy has urged Damian Hinds, the new education secretary, to be “brave enough” to cut tuition fees.

Greening was not radical enough, the argument goes, in pursuing the  structural reforms —  that is more academies, free schools , faith schools  and of course  grammar school expansion . Instead, she wanted to see an unrelenting focus on the lot of the most disadvantaged pupils. So  not so much the other group,  favoured by May, those who are  just about managing to get  by.  So Greening realigned DFE Policy to focus on improving social mobility.  May is also keen on social mobility, of course,  but has a rather different approach to achieving it.

It was something of an open secret that Greening was uncomfortable with the structural agenda and increasing selection in the state system. This was  hardly surprising . The  response to the Green Paper was underwhelming.  Experts lined up to rubbish its proposals  with  a coalition of education professionals, across the political spectrum, saying, that the proposals did nothing at all to advance the government’s own agenda , providing more good school places. Significantly, we are still awaiting the government’s response to the public  consultation on the Green Paper.

On grammar schools, analysis is pretty clear . Though grammars, which by and large are good schools, might deliver a small exam grade benefit to those who gain entry, this is at a significant price to those,  often poorer children, who do not pass the entry test. More grammar schools are therefore likely, if anything, to worsen the country’s social mobility problem. So to invest time, scarce resources and political capital in this area really doesn’t make a lot of sense, and rides a coach and horses through the evidence base.

Its true that the initial academies scheme saw significant improvements in student outcomes. But the  most recent expansion of  the academies programme  has shown mixed results . Indeed LSE research points to  little, or no, significant attainment effects .Nor have  academies significantly narrowed the achievement gap, certainly at  secondary level. Greening understood this.

As far as tuition fees go Greening  and  Johnson blocked an attempt by the prime minister to overhaul them — cutting fees and possibly the interest rate charged to students.  They had argued that although the system was sound in principle, sharing the financial investment between the state and the student, as both accrue  benefit, the 6.1 per cent interest rate on loans should be reduced and maintenance grants for poorer students restored immediately, rather than after a lengthy review.  But, Mrs May’s advisers wanted to use the review to challenge Labour’s appeal to young people, which hurt the Conservatives in the election. Damian Hinds, the new  education secretary, and Sam Gyimah, the new universities minister, are understood to be more sympathetic to No 10’s ambitions for the level of fees to be reconsidered.

Post-16 education funding needs reform , but cuts to university fees and loan rates would in effect  direct more government subsidies to the disproportionately privileged children who attend the UK’s universities. This would use up scarce resources that could be applied to make a real difference to social mobility. Social mobility in this country has stagnated. But most agree that there is no silver bullet to addressing the challenge, nor is it just up to schools.  It is widely accepted, for example,   by those who look at the evidence, that if you want to improve social mobility some of the best returns come from early pre-school interventions. If England is to address its social mobility problems, it needs to intervene earlier and increase the supply and development of good teachers and school leaders. We are having real difficulty in recruiting and retaining both.  If you don’t have a sustainable supply of good teachers and leaders no amount of tinkering with structures and selection is going to make a jot of difference to  outcomes across the system.

Some in government had complained that Greening was a charisma free zone. But since when has charisma been a requirement for cabinet ministers.? Think,  Chris Grayling ,Jeremy Hunt  and  Philip  Hammond.  They    are still in the Cabinet ,arent they (and two of these three are probably less competent than Greening)

So, some observers see the appointment of Hinds as an attempt by May to seize  back some control of the education agenda- so more selection, more free schools a lifting of the cap on  religious school admissions and so on . In other words re-establishing and relaunching the pre-election Green paper agenda. That would be curious politics given that the architect of the Green paper Nick Timothy was sacked following the near disastrous  election and the Tories lost seats based on their platform including of course a commitment  more selection and grammars.

Greening deserved better treatment, frankly.

Interestingly, Mr Hinds is also passionately   committed to  social mobility. He wouldn’t do too much harm if he took on  board the  strategy that his predecessor was developing. It is worth looking at the APPG on Social Mobility report that ,as Chair, he published a couple of years ago. It reveals a sensible acknowledgement of what evidence tells us about where the priorities should lie in education to improve attainment, narrow the performance gap and to improve social mobility. Not included  in the reports  check list of actions  was  the need to  expand  grammars, increase  selection throughout the system , increase the number of  faith schools nor indeed  the need to lift  the admissions cap on faith schools.

Its hard to believe that the government would embark on a policy that is not evidence based,  but stranger things have happened in politics recently.

Just in case, the anti selection lobby  is girding its loins.

Knowledge, the Curriculum and the Substance of Education

 

A joint pamphlet has just been published by ASCL and Parents and Teachers for Excellence (PTE)- The Question of Knowledge- practicalities of a knowledge-based curriculum’. It reiterates just  how important the curriculum is , and how it is increasingly  seen as central to education reforms, reinforced by  the backdrop of recent speeches and commentaries from Ofsteds Amanda  Spielman, in  which she has made  it clear how much she rates the importance of  the curriculum –“One of the areas that I think we sometimes lose sight of is the real substance of education. Not the exam grades or the progress scores, important though they are, but instead the real meat of what is taught in our schools and colleges: the curriculum.”(23 June 2017)

There has long been debate about what the curriculum in schools should look like and offer . With Nick Gibb as Schools Minister there is much promotion of the knowledge based curriculum, heavily influenced by the thinking and teachings of ED Hirsch. Gibb firmly believes that the pendulum has now  swung  towards knowledge,  and away from skills .The alternative   ‘progressive’ view of the curriculum  is that it  should be more about skills development and cross cutting thematic approaches, in which core  content is more about  activities and skills,  fitted  specifically to the  needs of the 21^st century , rather than relying so much  on traditional,  detailed subject-based content ,and the need for memorisation that goes with it.

Leora Cruddas ,until recently  Director of Policy and Public Relations, ASCL, now Chief Executive of FASNA ,  says of ED Hirsch “The influence of E. D. Hirsch on educational thinking has been profound. At its heart is the idea that returning to a traditional, academic curriculum built on shared knowledge is the best way to achieve social justice in society. His work has also encouraged schools to focus on the concept of building cultural capital as a way to close the attainment gap.”

This booklet arises from a series of lectures, publications and public panels in England over the last two years on the subject of the knowledge curriculum.’ The centre right think tank Policy Exchange for example  published a pamphlet on Hirsch  in 2015 (see link)  When PTE and ASCL decided that they wanted to commission and publish this booklet, their  aim , apparently,  ‘ was to give a voice to the many educators who have attempted to answer these questions in their schools. We hope it is a useful contribution, particularly for those school leaders who are looking to explore the question of knowledge and the practicalities of a knowledge-based curriculum.’

Michaela Katib, Head of Cobham School, articulates the thinking behind the knowledge based curriculum well when she says  “ We believe that students need a knowledge-based curriculum to ensure they have solid foundations across a range of subject areas. We feel that a structured, well-planned curriculum, which offers appropriate progression and builds on prior learning, is the best way to prepare students for success in public examinations and equip them for their future careers.” And she introduces an important caveat “ The focus on imparting knowledge does not mean that we dismiss the value of pupils acquiring skills and, indeed, we feel that schools should offer a balance of approaches. However, we also recognise that pupils cannot be taught skills in a vacuum and benefit from expert, teacher-led instruction in order to acquire secure subject knowledge as a platform for their learning.”

Luke Sparkes and Jenny Thompson, of Dixons MAT say the secret to success isn’t the socio-economic make up of your cohort or the location of your school. For them:

“A knowledge-based curriculum is about harnessing the power of cognitive science, identifying each marginal gain and acting upon it; having the humility to keep refining schemes of work, long term plans and generating better assessments.”

 

The Question of Knowledge practicalities of a knowledge-based curriculum –Parents and Teachers for Excellence and ASCL  

The Question of Knowledge

 

See Also

Knowledge and the Curriculum: A collection of essays to accompany E. D. Hirsch’s lecture at Policy Exchange Sep 17, 2015

Report

 

Note

Parents and Teachers for Excellence (PTE) is a new movement to promote reforms within the education system and to spread good practice to help deliver excellence in schools across the country focused mainly on academy and free schools  as  engines of change

Web Site

WHAT NOW FOR EDUCATION POLICY?

What  now for education policy?

With no Education Bill in the Queens speech, what will be keeping Ministers busy?

The minority government  and reshuffle that never was  means that Theresa May now has little freedom of movement. So what might this mean for education policy? It seems rash in this climate to make firm predictions, but here goes.

Funding

We know that May had planned no real terms increase in per capita funding for schools. If pre-election policies stick, there will be a decrease of around 3-6% over this parliament unless the government really is wedded to less austerity, as implied by our new environment secretary Michael Gove. The increase in pupil numbers will place pressure on schools both primary and secondary. Some further marginal cost savings and efficiencies might be squeezed out of schools but for many, probably most, there is no wriggle room left. Also, bear in mind inflation is close to 3% and rising. If more funding is not available and Greening wants more there will be two consequences.

Firstly, the curriculum offer will be narrowed, as teachers and assistants are lost, pastoral support reduced and some school days shortened. Secondly, more schools will be tempted to join chains to afford some protection against cuts, although there may be limited capacity and few incentives for those running chains for this to happen at scale. My guess is there will have to be some adjustment in schools funding, to ease the burden, but it will not be as much as headteachers want and feel they need.

As for the free schools and academies programme, the programme remains the main delivery mechanism for much needed additional school places, regardless of the government’s stance on grammars and increased selection, which has been   radically scaled back  , will probably be    dropped altogether. Graham Brady, chair of the influential 1922 backbench committee, has suggested that there might be pilots on increased selection but that seems the best that the pro-selection lobby can expect. But even that in the current climate is a big ask

And, as far as the much vaunted new school funding formula is concerned, this will be placed, yet again, on the backburner. Clearly a new fairer formula is needed as the current system is unfair but as any new formula will create winners and losers, a minority government just cannot afford to upset even a minority of its backbenchers. Schools Minister Nick Gibb suggests that a new Formula will still be introduced, but this is unlikely as things stand .

Teacher recruitment and retention remains a big challenge. Getting enough leaders identified, trained, supported and deployed where they are most needed, is becoming a major priority and that will be Nick Gibb’s responsibility. Efforts to date have proved disjointed and piecemeal. There is currently no sustained pipeline of good heads, although there is some funding available  and a  new leadership college may be  in the wings. So, watch this space.

On the skills front there will be efforts to improve the quality and scope of apprenticeships as well as promoting higher degree apprenticeships and alternative routes into employment, beyond traditional degrees. Disappointingly, for the guidance sector, junior minister Robert Halfon was sacked. One of his main tasks had been to present a new careers strategy, which would be welcomed by all parties and employers particularly if informed by  all the so called ‘Gatsby benchmarks’, but this may be delayed further.

Mental health  is now seen as an issue from the Primary phase right through to Higher Education. The issue now is resources and  capacity within the system to address the challenge of identifying early  those with issues and getting them professional support before its too late.

Higher education

In higher education (HE), the new Higher Education and Research Act will be implemented, whether universities like it or not, they will be in a more competitive and accountable environment. The new Teaching Excellence Framework has  clearly embarrassed one or two leading universities, strong on research but poor on  teaching quality,  who  have  been  found to be wanting.  The TEF will be reviewed, and its metrics fine- tuned,  but,  make no mistake,  its here to stay.  With increasing numbers of students feeling they don’t get value for  money for their courses, and destination measures being published, as well as future earnings, the age of increased accountability in the HE sector is upon us. Vice Chancellors will be hard pressed to justify their inflated pay packets, under increased scrutiny.

May’s hard-nosed attitude to international students and tightening up visas will undoubtedly come under renewed attack and she is likely to have to concede some  ground under pressure from businesses, the research community and vice-chancellors, as UK universities slip down international league tables and Indian students, among others, no longer feel welcomed.

Brexit brings its own worries for the sector around access to  research funding, and in   attracting and retaining  both staff and students,. But there are also new opportunities for   collaboration, and for  transnational  partnerships around research,  enterprise , teaching and learning, and expect more satellite campuses abroad. .

Labour’s popular offer of no more tuition fees, which helped secure the support of the young vote, means that university funding will be back on the agenda. Expect think tanks to focus  in on this issue over the coming months.The interest rate that students now have to pay on their loans  is widely regarded as unacceptable.

The findings of the Sainsbury Review, which proposed the creation of T-levels and 15 technical routes for vocational and technical education, had been met with wide support both inside and outside the skills sector. While there are still crucial details about the implementation of the reforms, notably the content and progression routes around the proposed “transition year”, the spirit and substance of the reforms have been broadly welcomed. Institutes of technology should be up and running in this parliament, employer-led, with a STEM focus and operating on a hub and spoke model.

Schools

As far as the private sector is concerned, stagnant incomes, falling output and rising inflation could mean a tougher time for private schools. Demand from domestic consumers will probably remain at best, flat. But it’s always been a resilient sector that has weathered many other storms and will continue to attract international students and open satellite schools abroad to support its income streams. The biggest worry is obviously the prospect of a future Corbyn-led government that would threaten a school’s charity status and tax breaks. The higher education reforms mean more opportunities for private, alternative providers to enter the sector, and more two year degrees are in the pipeline, offering more choice to all students, and less debt. This could be attractive to the private sector but don’t expect a mad rush. It will be incremental.

The University of Buckingham, which was the first fully fledged private, non-profit university to be established 40 years ago, is expanding, and has seen an increased number of applications this year, so the private sector is not all gloom and doom. More competition, choice, new market entrants, better accountability and information for students is all good. Vice chancellors are even now scouring the horizon for new opportunities outside Europe and the UK education brand remains a strong card to play, in spite of sharper global competition.

But with all this, there is a huge caveat attached. Minority governments rarely last long. And don’t have a great back story. May, as leader, is much diminished, with limited freedom to act. There is likely to be a leadership contest within months. If the DUP arrangement doesn’t hold, and there is no guarantee that it will, we will have another general election and possibly by the end of the year. But the world still turns and there are still new opportunities out there

CMRE THINK TANK – INCREASED SELECTION IS NOT A VIABLE STRATEGY FOR THE EDUCATION SYSTEM

 

Centre Right think tank, CMRE, says increased selection is not a viable strategy for the education system as a whole

This is what Gabriel Sahlgren the Director of Research at the CMRE think tank said  about selection   in  an opinion  piece  in the Daily Telegraph on 8 May.

‘Conservatives have proposed academic selection. In this model, children would compete for places based on their performance. Parents wouldn’t just choose schools – but schools would choose pupils, too. This is not a viable strategy for the education system as a whole. Indeed, research suggests that between-school selection doesn’t raise performance overall, but often decreases equality. Rather than promoting a more cohesive country, selection may therefore merely divide us further.

Most importantly, academic selection decreases parental choice and risks the competitive incentives in the system; it induces schools to focus more on picking pupils than on improving their performance.’

I  suggest  it  would be helpful, and appropriate ,  before any future government decides  to increase selection in the schools system, for it to set out clearly the evidence base that informs this policy decision.  At present, as far as I am aware ,there is no think tank,   no reputable academic or research organisation or institution , nor  any organisation promoting social mobility which  either backs the policy of increased selection or has provided evidence that such a policy  will  do any of the following: improve performance across the system, raise the performance overall of disadvantaged pupils, narrow the performance gap between disadvantaged and mainstream pupils ,increase social mobility, improve equity,  or significantly help ‘ordinary families’ educationally, all of which appear to be  priorities on the current  education  agenda.  If evidence informed policy and practice  has any meaning, then this should be a minimum requirement, before any government wastes scarce resources, political energy and capital on introducing and driving through any such policy in the face of   available evidence and expert opinion

SELECTIVE SCHOOLS AND THE QUALITY OF TEACHING

The Government says , with respect to its recent Green Paper, ‘ Within our new proposals, we have been clear that we expect selective schools to support non-selective schools, looking to them to be engines of academic and social achievement for all pupils, whatever their background, wherever they are from and whatever their ability’ So the clear presumption is that selective Schools have better teachers and teaching than non-selective schools.. but where is the evidence? The fact that selective schools perform better could be entirely due , or due at least in significant part, to the quality of their intakes, surely?  You would have to demonstrate that selective schools add more value to their pupils than non-selective schools across the board to justify such a claim.  In which case, where is the data that shows us  that this is the case?

FSM PUPILS STILL BEING FAILED

One reason why Theresa May seems now to be focusing more on those’ hard working families just about managing’ rather than on the most disadvantaged cohort, as refllected in her speech to Conference and the recent Education Green Paper,  is for sound political reasons, in that they are the voters disillusioned with establishment politicians, who feel they are not being listened to, are on stagnant incomes  and who voted in huge numbers for Brexit . She  wants to attract them back into the fold, with what she sees as more ‘inclusive’ policies.  Another reason could be that despite successive governments best efforts and attempts to intervene to help the most disadvantaged and to close the attainment gap between them and their mainstream peers , only  glacial progress is being made in this area. Could it be that the government has all but given up on narrowing the achievement gap between pupils on Free school meals and mainstream pupils ? As Sir Michael Wilshaw pointed out recently the attainment gap between FSM and non-FSM secondary students hasn’t budged in a decade. It was 28 percentage points 10 years ago and it is still 28 percentage points today. Thousands of poor children who are in the top 10% nationally at age 11 do not make it into the top 25% five years later. He added that the fact that a quarter of a million youngsters leave school after 13 years of formal education without a GCSE in English and Maths is a national disgrace.
One interesting issue raised ,and question put, in the recent Green paper, was how to identify and target these hard working families who don’t quite qualify for FSM. The short answer is that ,at the moment it  is difficult and it seems pretty widely accepted that the FSM measure is too clunky and indiscriminate to be an accurate indicator  for the most disdavantaged, and isnt much use for the group that  May seeks to target, . Neither The Pupil data base nor the standard returns made by schools give the granular details necessary. However work is being done behind the scenes with HMRC and other agencies to improve the metrics and data to enable more forensic targeting. So watch this space.