TORY MANIFESTO; EDUCATION

TORY MANIFESTO; EDUCATION

No real surprises-supply side reforms, raising teacher’s professional status, more discipline and rigorous curriculum and accountability

Comment

Tory education policies have been flagged in advance so no real surprises here.  The Education Section of their Manifesto begins by saying ‘Improving our school system is the most important thing we can do to make opportunity more equal and address our declining social mobility.  “We will improve standards for all pupils and close the attainment gap between the richest and poorest. We will enhance the prestige and quality of the teaching profession, and give heads and teachers tough new powers of discipline. We will restore rigour to the curriculum and exam system and give every parent access to a good school”

Teachers ‘We will enhance the prestige and quality of the teaching profession, We will take steps to enhance the status of the teaching profession and ensure it attracts the best people. We will expand Teach First and introduce two new programmes – Teach Now, for people looking to change career, and Troops to Teachers, for ex-service personnel – to get experienced, high-quality people into the profession.’

Discipline ‘We will make it easier for teachers to deal with violent incidents and remove disruptive pupils or items from the classroom and give heads and teachers tough new powers of discipline’

Curriculum ‘We will restore rigour to the curriculum and exam system and give every parent access to a good school. Every child who is capable of reading should be doing so after two years in primary school. To make this happen, we will promote the teaching of systematic synthetic phonics and ensure that teachers are properly trained to teach using this method. To provide parents with the reassurance they need that their child is making progress, we will establish a simple reading test at the age of six. We will reform the National Curriculum so that it is more challenging and based on evidence about what knowledge can be mastered by children at different ages. We will ensure that the primary curriculum is organised around subjects like Maths, Science and History.(ie not Rose Report Vision)

Setting ‘We will encourage setting so those who are struggling get extra help and the most able are stretched.’

Testing and Accountability ‘We will keep Key Stage 2 tests and league tables. We will reform them to make them more rigorous. We will make other exams more robust by giving universities and academics more say over their form and content.’ A Conservative government will reform school league tables so that schools can demonstrate they are stretching the most able and raising the attainment of the less able. And will ‘allow all state schools the freedom to offer the same high quality international exams that private schools offer – including giving every pupil the chance to study separate sciences at GCSE; and  publish all performance  data currently kept secret by the Department for Children, Schools and Families; and, establish a free online database of exam papers and marking schemes.

Vocational ‘We want to develop proper vocational and technical education that engages young people and meets the needs of modern business. So we will establish Technical Academies across England, starting in at least twelve cities. create 20,000 additional young apprenticeships; allow schools and colleges to offer workplace training’

Pupil Premium  ..’we will introduce a pupil premium – extra funding for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.’

New Schools The Tories will ‘break down barriers to entry so that any good education provider can set up a new Academy school. Our schools revolution will create a new generation of good small schools with smaller class sizes and high standards of discipline.’ Tories are  keen on parent led groups particularly but also charities and co-ops and latterly have been warming to the idea of for profits running schools. Local authorities will no longer run competitions for new schools.

Academies They will ‘make sure Academies have the freedoms that helped to make them so successful in the first place; And any school that is in special measures for more than a year will be taken over immediately by a successful Academy provider. Best schools able to become Academies too.

SEN ‘The most vulnerable children deserve the very highest quality of care, so we will call a moratorium on the ideologically-driven closure of special schools. We will end the bias towards the inclusion of children with special needs in mainstream schools.’

Ofsted ‘We will ensure that the schools inspectorate Ofsted adopts a more rigorous and targeted inspection regime, reporting on performance only in the core areas related to teaching and learning. And any school that is in special measures for more than a year will be taken over immediately by a successful Academy provider’  and ‘ ensure failing schools are inspected more often – with the best schools visited less frequently.’

Careers Advice The Tories will establish a £100m all age  independent careers information and advice service.

TOBY YOUNG AND FREE SCHOOLS; TES DEBATE SEES NUT OPPOSING PARENTS

TIMES EDUCATION SUPPLEMENT – FREE SCHOOLS  DEBATE

NUT opposed to free schools but parents fight back

Comment

Toby Young, the author and journalist, is heading moves to set up a parent led school in West London.

Ranged against him and the parents, and much in evidence in a debate last week on free schools, sponsored by the TES, are producer interests in the form of the NUT and the Anti Academies Alliance.

The polarization of opinions was laid bare in this TES debate. However, although union activists were much in evidence at the debate, opinion for and against the free schools proposals was pretty equally divided, both at the start and finish of the debate.

Inevitably the union contingent attempted to transform the issue into right against left, and middle classes against the rest. They largely  failed in this  because it is  clear that the  500  strong parent group  trying to set up the school are predominantly working class, have mixed political allegiances   and  almost certainly  pretty much reflect the  demographics of the local  catchment area,  while the state- school  educated Toby Young, the schools champion,  has never voted Tory and only will, on this occasion, it appears, because they   propose the policy that allows him and his confederates  to set up their school. The parents involved are not happy with the curriculum provided by other local schools in the area and they want their children to have access to a broader, more traditional, rigorous curriculum which is currently not on offer in Ealing/Acton schools. Young assured the audience that the new free school will be non-selective and rigorously apply the admissions code, nor will it operate on a first come, first served basis which could advantage pushy parents.

The parent group is looking for a profit or not for profit organization to run their school and the governing body will be made up of parents and teachers who will not allow profiteering. Young seemed genuinely bemused as to what objections the NUT speaker might have to this. The NUT is adamantly opposed to Academies, in general, and doesn’t believe that any school should be established outside the accountability framework of the LA, and while believing that parents should be involved in their child’s education, this should not extend, in its view, to parents setting up schools, as these schools they claim will damage other local schools (though evidence from Sweden suggests that they help drive up standards in  all schools, both free and municipal).

The normal accusations flew over selection, segregation, fragmentation, privatization ,a two tiered system developing, along with criticism of the Swedish and Charter  school models and their effectiveness, but it is clear that there will be no meetings of minds on this, positions are entrenched and conflicting research backing both sides of the argument  can easily be invoked.

My view is that providing there is a robust regulatory environment and no selection with a demonstrable demand for a new school, then how can you object. After all there is incoherence in the argument that you want more parental involvement but you don’t want them to set up schools.

The actions of a parents group in Lambeth is instructive. They  pressed  for a new state secondary school against the backdrop of a long standing capacity shortage (many parents had to send their children out of the authority area because of a shortage of Secondary places) forcing  the local authority to address the shortage problem ,after years of evasion but not without a considerable struggle. Parents were the catalyst (not the local authority nor the unions). You would have thought from what the NUT speaker at this debate said  that the NUT were prime movers in getting this new school  up and running. They were not.

Union leaders don’t seem to like free schools because they worry about accountability and the loss of teacher voice. There is also a suspicion that quite a few teachers actually don’t much like the reality of more parental involvement and there was an inkling of this in contributions to the debate.Producer interests  feel threatened, particularly the cosy relationship between local   union reps and local authority officials who see this  free school revolution  as by- passing them.

However, tight contracts with providers deliver greater real accountability than the so called ‘democratic’ accountability model,so lauded by unions, that allows failing schools to continue  operating for years in certain local authorities  blighting the life  opportunities  of far too many children  .There is potentially huge scope for teachers voices to heard on governing bodies too, and this is certainly the case with the proposed  West London   free school. There is even scope, under Tory proposals, for co-operatives to be set up- so it’s a bit of an upside down world when the NUT oppose the establishment of co-ops, isn’t it?

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS EDUCATION MANIFESTO

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS MANIFESTO; EDUCATION

Comment

Fairness is the key strand running through the Lib Dem manifesto, which incorporates four main themes of fair taxes, more chances for children, a greener economy and cleaning up politics. Unlike the other two Parties it publishes detailed plans about future spending plans, although critics suggest that they are not half as detailed as they might be.

David Laws their education spokesman is very influential within the party and on its right wing.Pro choice  in public services and reduction in state interference in how schools are run. No micro management from Whitehall (similar to Tory view).

School Freedoms and Academies.;The Lib Dems will introduce an Education Freedom Act banning politicians from getting involved in the day-to-day running of schools. The aim is to devole as much decision-making to schools as possible.Will  give all schools the freedom to innovate. They  will ensure a level playing field for admissions and funding and replace Academies with their own model of ‘Sponsor-Managed Schools’. These schools will be commissioned by and accountable to local authorities and not Whitehall, and would allow other appropriate providers, such as educational charities and parent groups, to be involved in delivering state-funded education. Similar to Tory ideas except that local authorities would have a much  greater  role than envisioned in Tory plans . Some Academy supporters worry that this vision (given the LA role) implies less freedom for schools to run themselves than that afforded by Tory plans. Tory plans envisaged getting away from Balls  model  for Academies which sees LAs as partners.

Class Sizes Ensure children get the individual attention they need by cutting class sizes. Critics suggest that this would have heavy price tag attached  and mixed evidence about the effects of class size on secondary pupils performance.

Teachers Improve teacher training by increasing the size of the school-based Graduate Teacher Programme and support the expansion of Teach First to attract more top graduates into teaching. We will improve training for existing teachers over the course of their careers to keep them up to date with best practice. We will seek to ensure that science at Key Stage 4 and above is taught by appropriately qualifi ed teachers.

National Curriculum Replace national curriculum in England with “minimum curriculum entitlement” in state-funded schools and scale back tests at age 11. More freedom for school management .General Diploma to bring GCSEs, A-Levels and high quality vocational qualifications together [England only] to end apartheid between vocational and academic qualifications.

Pupil Premium Pupil premium of £2.5bn given to head teachers in England, aimed at disadvantaged children, which could allow average primary school to cut class size to 20 pupils

SEN Early intervention to tackle misbehaviour. Special Educational Needs diagnostic assessments for all five-year-olds [England only]

Environment Schools to get loans to improve energy-efficiency – paid back from energy savings [England only]

Standards and Accountability Independent Educational Standards Authority to oversee and restore confidence in exams. Reform school league tables and give 14 to 19-year-olds right to go to college, rather than school, if it suits them better [England only]

Higher Education Phase out university tuition fees within six years. Scrap fees for final-year students immediately. Scrap target of 50% of people going to university [England only] Reform current bursary schemes to create a National Bursary Scheme for students, so that each university gets a bursary budget suited to the needs of its students. Again, critics say HE sector needs more investment, not less at a time of high youth unemployment and with  the need to compete globally . Universities  want to keep and indeed to raise tuition fees to better reflect true costs and to allow them to remain globally competitive.

Parents To  introduce shared parental leave from work – extended to 18 months over time – and right for fathers to attend ante-natal appointments. Right for grandparents to request flexible working

Child Protection Enforce publication of serious case reviews in child protection. [England only] Support “panic” buttons on social networking sites

Train to Gain Better target spending on adult skills. ‘We will end Train to Gain funding for large companies, restricting the funds to the small and medium-sized firms that need the support. The money saved will be used to cover the course fees for adults taking a first Level 3 qualification (such as A-levels or an adult apprenticeship), allowing a significant reduction in the overall budget.’

There has been some convergence between Tory and Lib Dems education policy  particularly on supply side reforms and the pupil premium suggesting that whatever the  result of coalition manoeuvres there will probably be an Education reform Bill in the  Queen speech (25 May)  in first session of a new  Parliament.

http://network.libdems.org.uk/manifesto2010/libdem_manifesto_2010.pdf

TWO DOWN – ONE TO GO

TWO DOWN – ONE TO GO

TV debates have transformed the election;Education reform  Bill still possible  if election results in hung Parliament

Comment

David Cameron, the Tory leader, was expected to be the main beneficiary of the TV debates, but Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader has surprised most people by beating both Cameron and, less surprisingly Gordon Brown, a less accomplished public performer.  Polls suggest that Clegg was not the outright winner of the second debate, with Cameron ,in particular, much more impressive in style and substance, but Clegg’s  job was to consolidate and   not to implode, which he more than succeeded in doing.  What the TV debates have done is blown the election wide open. Electors have a pretty jaundiced view of politicians and Cleggs threat to break the duopoly is appealing to some, particular younger voters, though they are less likely to vote.  The Lib Dems are virtually level pegging now with the Tories, with Labour in their wake.  The election can produce three scenarios.  A majority government, a minority government or a coalition.  The last minority government was in 1974, succeeded relatively quickly by another election. Hamish McRae of the Independent  reminds us though  that while Minority or coalition governments may not last long the most severe fiscal cutbacks of the past century have been under them. Lombard Street Research has just done a paper pointing out that these were under the coalitions led by David Lloyd George in 1921 and Ramsay MacDonald in 1931, and under the Lib-Lab pact in 1977.

The best the Tories can hope for it seems  is a small Parliamentary majority of say 10-20 seats. Still very much  a possibility.  Current polls suggest however  it is more likely  that while  they win the most seats, they may  fall short of an overall majority, say 10-20 seats short, which would mean doing a deal with the Lib Dems. Least likely, as this stage, is a Labour Government still in power on 7 May, but it remains a distant possibility. It is unlikely that the Lib Dems would cut a deal with Labour unless the Tories prove very inflexible over issues dear to the Lib Dem heart (PR etc).  Any government though will need to make some hard decisions and this will self-evidently, be harder to deliver if it is a minority government. It does look though that our politicians may have to sit down in smoke filled rooms, cutting deals (OK maybe leave out the smoke filled  bit). The Tories approach to managing the deficit is very different from both  the other parties.  However, if one looks at education policy, and the convergence of Tory and Lib Dem thinking it might be possible, either with a minority or coalition government scenario, to push through some fundamental reforms, on the supply side, to introduce a pupil premium,to reduce centralized controls and diktats  and push school autonomy and the freedom to innovate.  So even if we get a minority or coalition government, do not rule out an education reform agenda and an Education Bill in the first session of a new Parliament.

CHOICE AND PUBLIC SERVICE REFORMS

CHOICE ARCHITECTS

Nudging people to make the right decision

Comment

Delivering more choice to consumers is a key driver in the private sector. It has also   been central to the ideas informing public sector reforms.

Politicians like in principle to improve freedom of choice. Parents should have more choice over where they can send their children to school, patients over what hospital and indeed doctor they will be treated by and so on. To enable choice the Government has sought to provide more detailed information, hence we have league tables for schools and many local authorities have choice advisers  (not enough according to critics)to help parents choose their schools and in particular to understand the differences between the schools and what they offer.

So Choice is a good thing.

But there is always an assumption that if individuals are given objective information they will make a rational choice or, to put it another way, the right choice ie one that is in their interests .But counter- intuitively  research suggests that rather too often this is not the case because it depends so much  on the context     The  world , after all is a complex place and it does a good job of keeping us busy. Most of us just do not have the time to think deeply about every choice we make. People often find it difficult to make the choices they want to make because it is hard to understand the options they have available and difficult to accurately predict the impact of those options on future experiences. In these situations, people cannot take best advantage of the freedom of choice.

And so quite often  against objective benchmarks, we make what could only be regarded as  the wrong choice given our circumstances. In their book Nudge, The Gentle Power of Choice Architecture ;Richard H. Thaler and  Cass Sunstein (2008) explain that people look for rules of thumb for decision making; these strategies often work so well for the small decisions in life, such as buying a television from a trusted brand name, that we are tempted to use similar shortcuts for more consequential choices as well, such as selecting a retirement plan, a school or  a university  because it is the one we have heard of before. If everyone had ready access to complete information, unlimited cognitive abilities, and complete self-control, we would likely deliberate much more about these choices, and demonstrate in the process unerring wisdom. However, since that is not the case, we need some help to make the best choices.  Anyone who determines how choices and options are presented to people—can help us lead more satisfying lives by considering how their presentations can move us toward different choices, and thus different experiences. Behavioral science has produced remarkable insights into human fallibility, making it now possible to give people helpful “nudges” toward more satisfying and productive decisions. People who help others to make good choices are known as ‘choice architects’. So Nudge suggests that, by following simple principles, so called choice architects can provide it. It can be both easy and inexpensive to nudge people toward better decisions and experiences. It can also save costs to the individuals, employers  and the state, resulting in greater efficiencies.  An example is given relating to a school cafeteria. The manager wants to encourage more consumption of certain (Healthy) foods. So she redesigns the cafeteria and the way food is presented and  its placement. The re-launch is a success. It  leads to a 25% increase in the consumption  of the healthy foods. The manager encouraged pupils to make a choice that was in their interests, though they were not aware of it .She was a choice architect.

Using the term architect is not coincidental. When architects design schools or any building for that matter, they are generally trying to influence behaviour as no building is design or choice neutral.  In schools they  aim to create a space conducive to learning and so might design user friendly common areas, open stairwells to encourage interaction , an accessible Headteachers office and so on  Even the choice of location of the washrooms is loaded with significance in this respect. So there is nothing neutral about the choice of location

‘Nudge’  and the idea of choice architects and architecture  has implications for every walk of life including, obviously, education whether it involves choosing a school, qualifications, college course, university or career .The argument is that it is legitimate for choice architects to try to influence peoples behaviour in order to make their lives longer, healthier  better and more fulfilled. .Self-conscious efforts by institutions in the public and private sectors and in government to steer peoples choices in directions that will improve their lives and make choosers better off is the right direction to go say the authors.  Some libertarians object to this idea and practice(though it is already firmly embedded) and interpret this as unwarranted and unwanted, with   state or big brother interference in effect limiting real  freedom of choice. But the authors see this benign approach as libertarian paternalism because it is soft, and non-intrusive. Choices are not in practice  blocked off for individuals. If you want to smoke, not save for retirement and choose an inappropriate career then that is still an option for you which you can choose- you will not be forced to anything you consciously don’t want to do –  but you may  merely be  nudged in the right direction to help you do whats best for you (and probably society too) .

SURE START-STILL PROBLEMS MEASURING ITS EFFECTS

SURE START

Seamless support a good model but difficult to measure success

Comment

The DCSF Select Committee reporting on Sure Start Children’s Centres claimed that the model of breaking down silos between professions to provide seamless support for young families is a positive influence on the delivery of all services for children, and should be considered an exemplar for services for older young people. Partnerships between education and care, health services, voluntary sector organizations and other services supporting families are at the heart of the Children’s Centre approach. The Children’s Centre programme has been running since 2004  (Sure Start Local programmes (SSLPs) were the precursors of Children’s Centres)

These partnerships are working well in many places, but are still too patchyaccording to the report.  Among health agencies, in particular, there is a worryingly mixed picture. Though  Children’s Centres have been based on research evidence and a sound rationale, they  have not yet decisively shown the hoped-for impact. The Committee concluded that evidence about outcomes must be collected more systematically and rigorously—a process hampered in many areas by lack of data. In particular, information that would allow Children’s Centres to be assessed for value for money is still more difficult to come by than it should be, although work in this area is progressing. Children’s Centres and local authorities do not yet have the data to hand at local level to be able to determine the effectiveness of Children’s Centres. Nearly all Centres can point to real successes with individual families. However, none of those inspected could provide a convincing analysis of performance based on rigorous analysis of data.

Children’s Centres host and deliver an array of different activities and services, which has given rise to some concerns that their focus can be too diffuse. However, while early education and care is clearly at the heart of Children’s Centres’ aims for child development, they should not be limited to just one way of bringing about positive change for families.

It is feared by some that implementing a universal service runs the risk of diluting the focus and resources expended on the most disadvantaged. However, the Committee believed that only universal coverage can ensure that all the most disadvantaged children, wherever they

live, can benefit from the programme;  this was the right policy to pursue. The Committee   believes it  is essential that the Government continues to fund the programme sufficiently to maintain the universal  nature of the service.

The Tories, though generally supportive of Sure Start, want better targeting and refocusing  so that disadvantaged families benefit the most and  that there is  clearer measurement of the programmes effectiveness, Labour wants to find efficiency savings in the programme and in a recent announcement said that parents will  soon be able to join with the staff to run a network of local children’s centres as part of a “federation” of Sure Start centres. The plan will see initially five federations set up, each made up of around 20 Sure Starts.

What has always been worrying about Sure Start (starting with SSLP’s) is that from the outset,  it has been difficult to evaluate its success, partly due to the diffuse nature of the delivery systems, but this is increasingly hard to justify against the backdrop of swingeing cuts across the public sector and on-going calls for greater transparency and accountability in public sector programmes. Sure Start in future will have to become more accountable, with better on-going  evaluation and better targeting and it will have  get more from less. The Audit Commission several years ago identified how difficult it was to measure the programmes effectiveness. So it is extraordinary given the amount of public money involved, running into the billions, that this complaint is still echoed, even now, by the committee in this report.

NATIONAL STRATEGIC SKILLS AUDIT

NATIONAL STRATEGIC SKILLS AUDIT

Mismatch between skills and opportunities

Comment

The first government-commissioned National Strategic Skills Audit for England, released on March 17th, revealed a serious mismatch between skills and opportunities. The National Strategic Skills Audit, which will be produced now annually, aims to provide a comprehensive and authoritative evidence base for government, providers, RDAs employers and individuals, informing their decisions about investment in education and training. It  is the next stage in the development of a labour market needs-led approach to skills development: one that not only ensures that current demand is effectively met by the skills system, but also that future demands are identified, anticipated, shaped and stimulated. To aid recovery and drive growth, the Government has set out the need for a more active industrial policy. This involves looking strategically at the economy, ensuring opportunities and strengths are maximised, and creating the conditions needed for future economic success. In terms of the things that people in England make and do – the ‘sectoral’ structure of employment – the largest sectors are public administration, education and health, together accounting for more than one job in four. Distribution, hotels and restaurants account for around another one job in five, and banking, finance and insurance a little less. Manufacturing accounts for one job in eight and construction one job in 12.

It showed that England’s fastest-growing jobs between the second quarter of 2001 and the same period in 2009 include conservation officers (up 124%), town planners (94%), psychologists (67%), and hairdressers and the like (63%). Further investigation shows a big increase in semi-professional jobs (paramedics, legal associates, teachers’ assistants) rather than professional ones. Of the top 20 fast-growing jobs, 11 mainly attract people who hold a level-four qualification—roughly, a university degree or equivalent. Only one of the top 20 waning ones did (though, perhaps worryingly, it is “quality-assurance technicians” who are going). Skills gaps—employed workers who lack the wherewithal to do their jobs properly—are prevalent. Over one in five employers struggle with staff who have trouble communicating, working in teams and dealing with customers. Perhaps 7% of those in work—or 1.7m people—are not equipped for the jobs they do, with a corresponding loss of output and productivity. Britain is producing more qualified people, at a rate that will make it around tenth best in the OECD by 2020. But demand for them is not growing as quickly: Britain’s recent record on skilled-job creation is one of the OECD’s worst.  In terms of the skills of the workforce in England, just over one in 10 have no qualifications, while nearly a third are qualified to level 4 and above. In order to reach our ambitious skills objectives for 2020 (see UKCES, 2009), the audit found a considerable growth in achievements at all levels is required. In particular, on the basis of recent trends and future projections, further improvements are most needed at level 3, in numeracy, and in acquiring at least some level of qualification.

There have been three other announcements related to a more interventionist government approach to skills policy recently.  First one more National Skills Academy, in this case for Power, was now up and running and that similar Academies were to be created in five other sectors. Second that further funding was being made available for the car and civil nuclear energy industries respectively and third that work was under way to create a new Technician Council to act as a registration and support agency for the new technician class.

http://www.ukces.org.uk/upload/pdf/NSSA_Volume%201_FINAL_BOOKMARKED_110310.pdf

ANTHONY SELDONS MANIFESTO-TRUST STAKEHOLDERS AND GIVE SCHOOLS INDEPENDENCE

SELDON –AN EDUCATION MANIFESTO

According to a new report our Education system is letting us down and its mainly to do with Trust

Quangos should be slimmed down and their influence reduced; all schools should be independent

Comment

On Monday Dr Anthony Seldon presented a BBC 2 programme on Trust informed by his recent book on the same subject ( Anthony Seldon, Trust: How we lost it, and how to get it back, Biteback, 2009)

He gives examples of the lack of trust between people  and  the institutions that purport to serve or represent them . His argument is that this has a corrosive effect on society and governance and diminishes the quality of all our lives. And an absence of trust in our relationships leads essentially to a dysfunctional society. But it doesn’t have to be like this, he says, and he looks beyond politics and to the past for answers in pursuit of greater accountability, social harmony and well-being placing power back in the hands of people at the grassroots. Fundamental reforms are needed with different approaches to re-establish Trust ( polling suggests that just 30% of the electorate trust politicians) but change must come from each and every one of us in the way we act, and interact, including for example,  through more community engagement and volunteering.

At the end of last week  the centre right think tank the Centre for Policy Studies published a Seldon pamphlet  ‘An end to Factory Schools’ –An education manifesto 2010 – 2020 in which  he argues that  too many state schools have become factories. Results (at least on paper) have improved. But, he asks, at what cost? Reluctant students are processed, says Seldon, through a system which is closely controlled and monitored by the state. No area of public life is more important than education to prepare people to live meaningful, productive and valuable lives. Yet our schools turn out young people who are often incapable of living full and students’ lack of academic and personal skills while universities find that the end products of schools can be little more than well drilled automatons who do not know how to think independently about their academic subjects. Seldon’s book (and the TV programme) and the CPS pamphlet are linked. He writes ‘If one unifying idea draws together the ensuing chapters, it is the need for more trust throughout education. Government needs to trust schools, heads and teachers more. Parents need to be trusted more to choose the school for their children and to be far more actively involved in their children’s schools. Governors need to trust heads more. Heads need to trust teachers more. Teachers need to trust students more. Parents need to trust their children more. Students need to trust adults more. Mistakes will be made, but that in a free society is how learning occurs, how progress is made.’

In his film in one particularly striking scene he talks to a Primary school Head who shows the number of policies and regulations that his school has to adhere to, vividly illustrating just how little trust politicians and bureaucrats have in his ability as Headteacher to run his school.

Seldon makes twenty recommendations in his report calling for independent state schools free to decide their own curriculum, with active learning, not rote learning.

He wants a more holistic approach too to learning, encouraging all children to   develop the ‘eight aptitudes’ , informed by Howard Gardners eight intelligences, combined with diversification of public examinations. He calls for a radical restructuring of the current exam regime and for the stranglehold of A-Levels and GCSEs in England and Wales to be ended. The Government should instead welcome alternative exam systems, including the IB at diploma, middle years and primary years level. Within schools, the focus should shift away from assessment and teaching-to-the test, towards genuine learning and understanding.  Significantly, he wants the influence of QCDA and Ofqual to be “greatly reduced.” The General Teaching Council (GTC) should be abolished and recast as a far more rigorously professional body, upholding and championing the highest standards rather than acting as a trade union protecting teachers. And ‘The education ‘establishment’ ,including the DCSF, QCDA, Ofqual, Ofsted, the TDA, SSAT, GTC and ISC, should all undergo radical restructuring before 2015. They need to decentralize power, he says, to facilitate rather than drive change and to work collaboratively rather than dictatorially. They should be far slimmer. They need to trust schools more and let creativity and individuality blossom, rather than be stifled by central blueprint.’

For those who have caricatured  happiness classes in schools, Seldon reminds them that promoting ‘well-being’ does not require special lessons, but could be emphasized in all aspects of a school’s activities, including politeness and good manners, and a smart and distinct school uniform.  On inspections, he believes that Ofsted should be cut considerably and be focused on teaching and learning, not on children’s services. . Schools which are performing poorly should be inspected regularly, while those performing at high levels should not be inspected at all. Seldon was an admirer of Tony Blair as Prime Minister (though not of his conduct over Iraq). But he comes to not so flattering, conclusions on the effects of 13 years of New Labour’s education policies.

First, the disparities in performance between the independent and state sectors are increasing, not reducing. Independents have improved more rapidly than state schools and the current mix of policies to deal with the divide between independent and state schools will never succeed in closing the gap. Second, those children from the least advantaged backgrounds who would benefit from additional funding above the average, are receiving a worse education than those who attend popular state schools or who attend fee-paying schools. Seldon concludes ‘A new approach is needed. Its ultimate aim must be independence for all schools.’

Many of his ideas find favour with the Tories, and the shadow Education Secretary Michael Gove and Seldon are members of a mutual appreciation society, with Lord Adonis (Labour) an honorary member.

http://www.cps.org.uk/cps_catalog/an%20end%20to%20factory%20schools.pdf

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSIONS-ARE THEY AFFORDABLE?

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSIONS

Big challenges- for the next government

Teachers pensions first in the frame, but little transparency overall

Comment

The Chancellor in 2009 told Britain’s 5.8m public-sector workers that pay rises would be capped at just 1% and that their generous pension benefits could not last much longer. He  said “Public pensions need to be broadly in line with those offered in the private sector. By 2012 contributions by the state to public-service pensions for teachers, local government, NHS and the civil service will be capped – saving around £1bn a year.” Public-sector workers earning more than £100,000 a year will be the hardest hit, and are expected to pay the most in additional contributions. But some economists and pensions experts believe that this is not sufficient and the growing structural imbalances must be addressed with more draconian reforms.

Public sector workers monthly deduction on their pay slips entitled “pension contribution”, doesn’t cover the actual cost of their retirement. Many, unsurprisingly, think it does. Unlike most private sector pension schemes, public sector pensions are mostly unfunded:  so that pension contributions paid by today’s workers are used to pay pensions to today’s pensioners, while tomorrow’s pensioners will be paid out of pension contributions paid by tomorrow’s workers. The cost of supporting the growing number of public sector workers may be great now, but it will be even greater in future thanks to the millstone of public sector pensions.

Policy Exchange in its report ‘The Renewal of Government’ (2010) found that at the moment the Government  ‘asks NHS employees and teachers for a contribution  which averages around 6% of pay and  employers  deliver an additional 14%, in order to help meet the pension promises it has made, i.e. 20% of total employee pay. But over 40 years a typical public sector worker would have needed to have paid 48% of his salary into his scheme, in every year of his career in order to pay for the pension payouts at the end of it. The Treasury (ie the taxpayer) of course currently covers this annual 28% gap.’ Policy Exchange has pointed out that  of  the six largest public sector pension schemes, only one (the Local Government Pension Scheme) is funded (though centrally guaranteed); the other five (those for the NHS, teachers, the civil service, the police and the armed forces) are not.

Britain’s teachers as it happens may be first in the firing line in the chancellor’s squeeze on public-sector pensions as the teachers scheme is  in the process of being revalued .A £9.5bn loss in 2007 in the teachers’ scheme was due to an increase in life expectancy that experts said should be included in the current  revaluation, and this it is estimated   could lead to a  one percentage point rise in contributions to 7.4%, cutting £300 from the take-home pay of a teacher. Teachers contribute to their pension of course (6.4%)  but there is still this yawning gap between their contributions and the payments they get when they retire.

By 2003 the net public liability caused overall by the pensions shortfall was £560billion. At that point the Government considered, but thanks to pressure from trade unions, ultimately failed to reform public sector pensions. It wasn’t Alan Johnson’s finest hour .

A report this month  from pension experts Towers Watson said that  the  real the cost of public sector pensions is  £1,200billion, which is about 80 per cent of the country’s total economic output.

To make matters worse, although their figure includes most public sector workers, it does not include all of them – for instance local government staff. Towers Watson said its figure for liabilities to retired state workers and those currently in employment is far higher than the Government’s estimate because the company used a realistic calculation rather than an optimistic one.

It also not unnaturally upsetting many in the private sector who have to make their own pension arrangements which they have seen significantly reduced in value over the last few years and who are expected in turn to subsidize gold plated public service pensions which have no risks attached to them and which have not suffered in the downturn.

In contrast to the private sector, where the vast majority of workers will retire on pensions determined by the size of the pooled funds in which their pension contributions have been invested, most public sector workers can still look forward to final salary pensions. So in retirement they will receive an income based on their salary at the time they retired – often two-thirds – index-linked for life. A report from AXA has warned that about 60 per cent of voters say it is unfair that public sector workers get a better deal than their private counterparts.

According to research by the Pensions Policy Institute, the average public sector pension is worth three times as much as the typical scheme still open to workers in the private sector. And, just 4.6% of private sector employees are in defined benefit schemes that are open, compared to 82% of public sector workers. In the Private sector many, now most, defined benefit schemes – which promise a pension related to earnings and years of service – have closed to new entrants. In their place are defined contribution schemes, which have been designed to be, on average, less generous and which leave employees formally bearing more risk, for example that investments under perform. Defined benefit pensions in the public sector are worth more as a share of the total remuneration package than they are in the private sector.  And most public sector workers are able to claim their pensions at an earlier date than workers in the private sector, which means that the accrual of extra pension rights is worth more to public sector workers.

Comparing the private and public sectors overall remuneration is difficult but certainly in relation to pensions there is a growing perception of structural imbalances between the two respective sectors.  These imbalances are drawing more and more of our best graduates into the public sector. This in one significant sense is a good thing.  We obviously need good quality people in public service but it is, self-evidently, also at the expense of the wealth creating, entrepreneurial  private sector. So there is a big downside. It limits our capacity to generate wealth, to deliver sustained economic growth and to increase the size of the tax base. As the private sector has contracted, the public sector has continued to expanded even throughout the recession and credit crunch and along with it the public sector pension liabilities.

There is a huge risk in this arrangement: the Government does not know for sure how many public sector workers there will be to pay for future pensions, neither does it know what rate of inflation will prevail over the coming decades nor how long its pensioners will live. It was precisely this kind of miscalculation which brought down the Equitable Life insurance company. If the public sector’s pension scheme was offered by a private company then it would have gone bust years ago; but instead the taxpayer simply picks up the tab for this growing, yawning gap between pension contributions and payments. Some experts say  that pensions are only “affordable” today because there are four workers for each retired person. In 20 years the ratio sinks to two per person. In effect, the burden of pension payments is at its largest at the point where there are fewer taxpayers to pay the bill.

The Government is keen that more private sector and not for profits deliver public services But there is this pension sword of Damocles hanging over all public enterprises. The CBI says that businesses are often prevented from bidding for public service contracts by their inability to pay a premium – of between 25% and 50% – to match the pension entitlements of formerly public sector staff. It also means that it is more difficult for the private sector to compete with the public sector – further reducing competition and innovation in the public sector.

But there is another problem too. Public Sector workers can, like anyone else, become disillusioned and de-motivated in their jobs but have a huge incentive to stay on in their jobs. A public sector worker might be able to increase his or her salary by moving to a private sector job, but it would, more often than not probably, compromise the value of  their  pension. So they have an incentive to stay on and become an underperforming time-server. This is known to be a problem in the teaching profession where more flexible pension arrangements have been called for in a recent think tank report for precisely this reason.

There is a strong case, of course, for honouring existing  pension obligations but at least for new entrants significant reforms to public sector pensions are essential. Politicians themselves benefit from attractive pension arrangements and both they and public servants  more generally are very coy about  telling us the nature and scale of the problems we, and lets face it, our children  are facing. This is particularly the case in the wake of the expenses scandal and in the run up to the next election where promises of future austerity are probably not on the face of it vote winners.

Experts including at the IFS believe that the Governments  is understating, significantly, the true cost of their employees’ pension costs in terms of both the liabilities already incurred and the annual cost of running the  public sector schemes. The government actuary’s department is entrusted with estimating the cost of pensions for the Treasury. However, experts say it uses out-of-date figures for life expectancy and overly generous interest rates and inflation and have called for an independent review.

The Taxpayers Alliance (TPA) has issued a report on public sector pension schemes in the UK with local government pension funding alone estimated to have a shortfall of around £53 billion. The figure for the 2008/09 tax year sees more than 15 councils with a deficit of over £500 million each which will be funded by UK taxpayers in due course. The figure of £53 billion is an increase of £9 billion on the previous tax year after investments fell by £21 billion during the 12 month period, with additional contributions making up some of the shortfall. The Alliance claims that Taxpayers do not seem to realise that these gold-plated local council pension schemes, which are final salary based, continue to grow in size and continue to place more pressure on the tax liabilities of UK consumers and UK businesses.

The first step must be to reveal the size of the problem, and prevent the Government from running up further off-the-books debt. The Government lambasts banks over the size of their hidden debts and pushes private pension funds to be more transparent but hides the level of its own liabilities. Companies have to include pension liabilities as a debt in their accounts. The Government should be held to similar standards. It makes sense that Public sector employers must make pension provision for their current staff each year, equivalent to the full market value of the pension benefits they have given out

The Government should focus on ensuring that the overall remuneration package, including   pensions offered to public sector workers serves to attract and retains suitable employees at the lowest cost to the taxpayer. And, is it really  too much to ask that they are more transparent about the challenges we face and  that we have a mature debate about how to deal with it, not least for our children’s sake.

SETTING UP STATE SCHOOLS-OBSTACLES THREATEN FREE SCHOOLS

TOO MANY PRACTICAL BARRIERS TO SETTING UP STATE  SCHOOLS

Think tank recommends measures for removing obstacles and  supports  the profit motive

Comment

A Policy Exchange/New Schools Network Report ‘Blocking the Best’ released this week examines the barriers which prevent new providers from running state schools  and claims  that Academies freedoms have been  badly eroded .

Unlike most other education systems there is  no mechanism in our  state sector by which parents and children, rather than local or national bureaucracies, decide whether a new school should be created. The report says that whatever the rhetoric of the three political parties, unless they deal with these practical barriers to setting up schools – and the limits on what those schools can do – a thriving system of independent, state-funded schools will never come into existence.

The obstacles in place for those who want to try and establish a school are identified including , for example, a  ponderous approval process and overly restrictive planning and building procedures .The report also looks at restrictions on academy independence which curb innovation, including bureaucratic and poorly-focused accountability mechanisms and interference by central and local government.

One of the biggest obstacles, of course, to providers  getting involved in running state schools is that they cant make a profit from their engagement nor will they be able to under current Tory proposals. The Shadow Education Secretary, Michael Gove ,who helped set up Policy Exchange in the first place  and was its first Chairman,  speaking at the launch this week  encouaged  suppliers such as CFBT Education Trust and Serco to become involved in  running   new free schools. But he would not give ground on the  profit issue,  which placed him at odds with the authors of this report. Policy Exchange was very specific about the profit issue.  The report states “ There is no doubt that the politics are not easy. However, if we seek a large number of chains to drive expansion in the schools sector then this is one nettle that will need to be grasped. Barring profit reduces the pool of organisations which want to set up several schools, and means those that do exist do not have a direct incentive to expand.”

Both private sector providers and charities are keen to make a surplus from any involvement with schools so they can invest that surplus in the future, building up chains of schools,creating the necessary economies of scale, as happens in Sweden and the United States .Indeed one of the  leading lights of Sweden’s free schools movement ,Anders Hultin, has gone as far as to say  that Sweden’s  schools supply revolution would not have happened had it not been for the profit motive. Perversely, in this country, though,   while we allow profit making companies to run  ‘Special schools’,  dealing with  our most challenging pupils,  prisoners education, including  that of young offenders , to  provide school improvement services to state schools  and  indeed to inspect schools ,we don’t allow them to run them. This makes no sense at all. And this constant invocation of the Swedish model is bogus  if you  remove the key driver that has made it workable and sustainable-the profit motive.

The report rubbishes the Governments new suppliers accreditation system for Academy schools introduced in February 2010. This  new process states that local authorities should be acting as ‘strategic commissioners’ of schools, and that they can now select from the pool of Accredited School Providers and Groups when looking for “a lead sponsor for an academy or lead partner for a majority trust or federation.”  So, sponsors are now divided into those allowed to run a single school and those allowed to run several.   Policy Exchange believes  this  delivers the worst of all worlds. Under the new system the organisations must show evidence of “track record, capacity and educational expertise”. As a result the type of sponsor has moved from those with business backgrounds to education organisations: further education (FE) colleges, universities, schools and local authorities themselves. It dramatically reduces too   the pool of potential providers. Many of the existing, highly successful sponsors of several academies would not have qualified with their first schools – or would not have been willing to enter – under this new system. Putting weight on existing education organisations makes it much less likely that innovation and new models will occur. Second, it confirms the local authority’s central role in deciding who should set up schools, what kind of schools they should be, and under what circumstances. Third, the new system judges a provider solely on its history, not its plans for the future. Rather than allowing any potential provider to demonstrate its vision and competence through an application and through future accountability, the Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF) will presuppose its capability or lack of it according to the type of organisation involved. So this all looks regressive.

Its well worth looking at this report in detail if you are potentially interested in running state schools. Gove  at the launch again mentioned the Knowledge is Power chain of Charter schools in the States  set up by teachers  which has  delivered astonishing  results by getting back to the basics with a robust curriculum good discipline, parental involvement, high quality pastoral care and extended school hours. If you want to know what the Tory vision is for free schools take a long hard look at the KIP model. But there is a long way to go before we get there. This report identifies pretty clearly what the main obstacles are to getting there with some useful recommendations attached but the Tories still have to work out how potential  providers can make a surplus from their engagement with state schools  and maybe the Edison model in Enfield (Salisbury school) might provide some clues  in this respect

Policy Exchange Report