Sunday 24 February 2013

The Case For Change

My motivation in creating this blog, Education Perspectives, is to contribute to the ongoing debate about education. Across every continent, nations are considering the sorts of changes required to establish efficient public education systems in light of an unknowable future. Whatever else we feel, we need to understand, the future does not belong to us, even though we are the ones currently influencing its direction. The decisions we make today will determine whether we create the legacy of a viable future for our successors, and public education is critical to that aim.

However, education is only one factor with a capacity to enhance life or detract from its quality. In our global society, the political, agricultural, economic and commercial choices we make will impact on the environment, and thus on the biosphere, for better or worse. Medical, scientific and technological developments will also greatly influence the quality of life for the generations not yet born. The only thing we can be certain of is that the choices we make will directly affect their opportunities and life-chances. We may not be able to engineer the future, but we need to give greater consideration than ever before to the possible implications of choices we do make.

Opinion is growing that we are already witnessing the effects of man-made changes to the global climate. Over two decades ago, having examined the evidence available to him at the time, Bill McKibben summed up the situation with profound simplicity. www.billmckibben.com/

"The tidal force of biology continues to govern us, even when we realize (as no lemming can) that we're doing something stupid." 
'The End of Nature' 1990. 

At the time, most of those aware that the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere might be reaching significant levels, failed to take seriously McKibben's dire warnings about changes to the composition of the atmosphere. We may be beginning to live with the consequences of that failure.

Today, mounting evidence is emerging as more data are accumulated across the globe. Skeptics maintain the implications of the data are inconclusive. They may be right. However, in a democracy people need the capability to review the data themselves. As things stand, indecision on the part of world leaders, strengthened by the opinions of powerful lobbying groups in favour of the status quo, risks further delay in trying to address the problems, and may even reduce available options. 

Sadly, our 'stupidity' is not confined to the issue of climate change. It's becoming clear, many of the trappings of modern life we have come to expect are sustainable only at a price. That price is someone else's future. For this reason, ordinary people need to become more aware of the ethical implications of our collective actions. Trusting that the way we did things in the past will not damage our children's legacy, is a vain hope at best. If we are to become fully involved in trying to secure a viable future, much will depend on how we transform education to meet these challenges head on.

Where governments are concerned, education reform is aimed at securing a commercial or other advantage over competitors (hence the reliance on international league tables of education outputs comparing the 'basics'). For society, in particular for families with children/grand children, the focus has to be elsewhere. It needs to be on the well-being of the young and on creating opportunities to enable them to reach their potential and live a full, rewarding life. In this regard there is an obvious clash of interests.

Transforming education will depend more than anything on perspectives and on the values that guide us in that process. The aim for the future, I believe, must be to create an efficient public education system fit for all. In subsequent postings I set out to clarify what I mean by this and explore how best to begin this process.

In my next posting, Education Reform - A New Rationale, I set out radical proposals outlining the creation of a national framework for the oversight of strategic management in education in Britain and explain why I believe this is long over due.

Education Reform - A New Rationale

Schools, their teachers and the entire education system are once again under the microscope. Decisions about the future of education are believed by many to rest firmly with governments. The direction of reform and the right to scrutinise the service, looking at both its effectiveness and its value for money are thought to be theirs to control. 

But I question, based as it is on nothing more than historical traditions, does this arrangement correspond with the best interests of individuals or of society in the global future that beckons?

The latest reforms are being rolled out in an atmosphere of mistrust, insult and polarisation. This is highly damaging to the service and to young people. But that is not the whole problem. In the last decade alone, there have been FIVE different Secretaries of State (SoS) for education representing the two main political parties. The present incumbent, Michael Gove, is but the latest to bring his unique perspective to the cause. I decline to comment here on his policies or on his style of reform and resist any temptation to indulge in the kind of character assassination so prevalent in other places. Suffice it to say, naturally, his beliefs are politically motivated, as was the case with all his predecessors. How could it be otherwise? Consistently, each SoS espouses deeply held social or humanitarian values central to the success of their policies. They come into office with a political mandate reflecting the views of their party and probably with the intention of creating a lasting personal legacy. It is this historical mechanism that I believe is reducing the effectiveness of much-needed improvements to our education system.

From my perspective, it is no longer appropriate that the strategic direction and planning of education is bound so closely to the electoral process in our democracy. There are those who agree with this analysis and others who deny there is a debate to be had. I believe the debate needs to take place and offer the following comments in support of this view.


The New Rationale

Our system of parliamentary democracy, rich in history and tradition as it may be, needs nevertheless to evolve to reflect changes in society. What worked well in the past, may no longer be appropriate, especially if we agree that the pace of global change is likely to continue and to accelerate.The system currently in place grew out of the challenges presented by the onset of the Industrial Revolution and out of the need for a certain type of work-force. As such, it was a response to circumstance and felt by many to be largely successful. I generally accept this analysis but question if it makes the present system 'fit for purpose'. (Ref. my earlier blogs) 
 
Undeniably, the demands for labour in the new industries actually shaped the education of the time. Often this was at the expense of the individual. Today, we face a very different future and education itself has changed. New structures are required to deal with these different scenarios, as I shall show. 

The inevitable consequence of the present system is a rather rapid succession of 'leaders' of change, often possessed of opposing ideas to their political rivals about what needs to happen to improve education. This makes it difficult to deliver consistency in addressing the improvement agenda. A move away from short-term reform is now necessary as it adversely affects the work of schools and teachers, with a possible impact on children's learning.

As an example, the present primary school curriculum is particularly inappropriate. There is wide agreement that different skills, attitudes and knowledge to those currently available to our young people will be needed in future. Much excellent work has been done in reviewing the curriculum for all age groups and it is not my intention to revisit the evidence here. An excellent resource is the work carried out by The Cambridge Primary Review. See also Michael J Reiss and John White, IOE Londobn Blog The National Curriculum: what’s the point of it all?.

Suffice it to say, time has to be allowed for the implementation of new curricular and assessment arrangements, once a consensus has been reached over which reforms are needed. According to the opinion of Ofqual's CEO, Glenys Stacey, speaking about the ongoing reform of the secondary examinations system, 

"Reform ...... it's risky, isn't it. Some assessment experts will tell you .... it takes 5 years to deliver (fundamental reforms) and fifteen years, or even longer to bed in. Politicians have much shorter time frames in mind." 
Reported by Angela Harrison, BBC Education Correspondent, October 11th 2012.


This statement about the 'short time frames' of politicians can be applied equally to any major education reform package at all key stages in the system. In addition, it may be legitimate to question, how well a modern democracy is served by the set-up in which a single party is able to determine the direction of education policy. There are undoubtedly problems for the long-term future if policy in this area continues to be set according to the short-term interest of a single political entity.

For this reason, young people need us to question the suitability of the proposed reforms and the way they are being conducted under this out-dated system. Opportunities for young people to engage with the future and to live fulfilling lives, depend on what we do next. The prevailing, negatively charged, political/professional environment is highly damaging to their chances.

The future of our democracy ultimately depends on the capacity of each citizen to engage in society in new and more challenging ways. We have to articulate appropriate values for a different approach to education in anticipation of this different future. We have a critically important opportunity to transform the whole architecture of education by changing the way we think and act in relation to it.

A comprehensive review of decision making in eduction is long overdue. The current stand-off reveals the bankruptcy of the existing politically biased procedures. All parties with a stake in education should have a voice in influencing how policy is decided for the future. Politicians of all parties are invited to support the establishment of a National Education Commission. Its initial task should be to draw up a proposal outlining how the responsibility for the direction of national policy for education may be decoupled from the machinery of party politics. 

 

Tuesday 19 February 2013

Ordinary Voices on Education

I have closely followed the debate over the present government's reforms of education. It has been a torrid affair. From the outset, it's been a battle of opposing ideologies. The only common ground apparently being an understanding that, if we are to build an education system fit for the new century, reforms are necessary. Beyond that general view, there is no sign of consensus. Issues of left versus right; the professionals versus politicians have dominated the debate and created division. 

Early on, I was struck by the futility of personal attacks on Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education (SoS), as the architect of the most recent reforms, regarded by many critics as belonging to a bygone age. All this seemed to be achieving was holding the opposition together. It was not having any impact on government policy - and it still isn't!

But, I also detected a growing consensus among education professionals, some journalists and members of the public. Increasingly, commentators were expressing concerns that party politics was shaping the reforms to a degree not experienced previously. Accusations that the SoS was rejecting outright the voice of professionals was further fueling the debate.

Frustrated by the situation, I have come up with an idea, set out here in 'Ordinary Voices on Education'. On two counts, I was determined to take a more constructive stance over the future of our public education system by campaigning to remove policy-making from the party political arena.

First, I understand it may help beleaguered professionals to let off steam if they attack the object of their anger. However, it takes attention away from the need to engage the wider public in a thorough assessment of the 'reforms' currently being forced through. Until this is possible, mounting damage is being inflicted on public education in our country.

Secondly, in the absence of direct action, the problem that perpetuates the current set-up, continues to operate largely unnamed and to persist unopposed. I do not find it particularly helpful that critics go on attacking the person behind the policies or publishing their extensive, scholarly findings as if it is just a matter of time before their voices are heard and they win the argument. I get the sense, from a seeming lack of urgency, that some of these commentators are indeed more hopeful than expectant, and that will not bring about the necessary change.

If my fears are well founded, our collective failure to engage with the problem carries real risks. Should we just accept that the governance of education is an inevitable bi-product of the electoral system (with the power to reform education that this brings)? I believe not. Political ideology is too crude a power to direct the future of education reform, as it has done in the past. Left unchanged, the system will ultimately damage our democracy.

With this in mind, the idea behind 'Ordinary Voices on Education' was born. Below, I set out the guiding principles and state the initial objective of the campaign.



GUIDING PRINCIPLES

'Ordinary Voices' is a non-political movement set up to encourage greater participation in democratic society.

'Ordinary Voices on Education' signals the launch of a nationwide campaign to reform the mechanism for the strategic planning of education policy.

New governments appoint a Secretary of State and Ministers for Education to oversee the implementation of their party's policies.

In the last decade, there have been five individuals from the two major political parties entrusted with this task.

Not surprisingly, this has generated rapid change, sometimes creating instability and uncertainty in the system, involving great cost for dubious returns.

The education of young people is, unquestionably, a long-term enterprise. Changes to the curriculum and to professional pedagogy should be well researched, to identify potential benefits, properly resourced and thoroughly evaluated. Short-term, quick-fix reforms have no place in such an education system. They will fail the young.

'Ordinary Voices on Education' does not argue against reform. However, it does call for a broader consensus over the role of education in an uncertain future.

'Ordinary Voices on Education' invites you to sign the petition and to keep yourself informed about the progress of the campaign.


INITIAL OBJECTIVE
(The Petition)

Politicians of all parties are called upon to support the establishment of a National Education Commission. Its first task being to draft proposals, outlining how responsibility for national policy-making for education may be decoupled from the machinery of party politics.


The petition, worded as above, is now ready. It will be made available to the general public, initially at school gates across the country. Your support in getting it into the public arena would be gratefully accepted. This is just a beginning.

Saturday 16 February 2013

Education Not Counting!

How many of us really appreciate that education is not counting? In my experience, there certainly aren't enough parents aware that education is not counting. There aren't even enough willing to question why all the counting and I argue strongly that, all the counting counts for nothing. But, enough of this, let me make my point.

With few exceptions, wherever you choose to look across the globe, governments are wanting to reform the education systems they fund and oversee and they are doing so based mainly on one objective, improving the stats. The belief is, if parents (consumers according to many) are given performance data, they will have all they require to choose the best school for their child. (Whatever that means!)

Wherever you look in our education system, it is evident that counting has assumed great significance. In fact, taken on the strength of this argument, the statistics should tell the lay person all they need to know about which teachers, schools and most recently Local Authorities are doing best. The truth is, this is not the case. The tragedy is the ease with which judgements are made and their unquestioned acceptance.

In their informative, though provoking book, "Numbers", by David Boyle and Anita Rodick, Goodhart's Law is quoted. It casts a more sober light on the subject of statistics and how data collection is not all it purports to be.

"Goodhart's law states that once a social or economic measure is turned into a target for policy, it will lose any information content that had qualified it to play such a role in the first place."
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ws/the_importance_of_goodharts_law/

Another interesting site that explores the issue of targets in education can be found at:
http://philebersole.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/goodharts-law-on-not-going-by-the-numbers/

Dr W Edwards Deming the renowned management consultant with a particular focus on quality and statistical methods, put forward his 14 Points in "Out of the Crisis".

"The (14) points cultivate a fertile soil in which a more efficient workplace, higher profits, and increased productivity may grow.
  • Create and communicate to all employees a statement of the aims and purposes of the company (school/education).
  • Adapt to the new philosophy of the day; industries and economics are always changing. (As is our understanding of how we learn.)
  • Build quality into a product (child) throughout production (learning).
  • End the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag alone; instead, try a long-term relationship based on established loyalty and trust.(Local Authorities??)
  • Work to constantly improve quality and productivity (more effective learning).
  • Institute on-the-job training.
  • Teach and institute leadership to improve all job functions.
  • Drive out fear; create trust.
  • Strive to reduce intradepartmental conflicts. (Team building/collaboration)
  • Eliminate exhortations for the work force; instead, focus on the system and morale.
  • (a) Eliminate work standard quotas for production. Substitute leadership methods for improvement.
    (b) Eliminate MBO. Avoid numerical goals. Alternatively, learn the capabilities of processes, and how to improve them. (Focus on learning and understanding not tests)
  • Remove barriers that rob people of pride of workmanship.
  • Educate with self-improvement programs.
  • Include everyone in the company to accomplish the transformation."
http://www.skymark.com/resources/leaders/deming.asp

I found it a useful exercise to consider how these points might be applied at schools' level, as clarified in some instances by the bracketed additions. Instantly, I identified the potential benefits of adopting this approach to raising standards over the current "improvement" model.

SATs, National League Tables and Ofsted Reports are all methods of collecting and comparing data to track targets from the individual through to the Local Authority. All this takes place at the expense of educational achievement, not to improve it, as the reasons identified above indicate. I cannot overstate the importance of assessment in raising standards. Neither can I overstate the confusion that arises out of conflating assessment with testing. Testing is about prioritising targets because that is how the culture of target setting is perceived by teachers, or doctors or production-line workers. For teachers, this has the potential to distort the core function of education because of the inevitable consequence of greatly inflating the value of testing.

Let me explain why I believe all this counting is suppressing rather than raising standards. Firstly, though there is value in testing secondary school pupils (at some point), it can never be a substitute for good formative assessment with younger learners who need consistent and reliable feedback. Secondly, summative assessment (testing) used too early introduces the notion of failure for some learners who may well require longer to master certain key skills or knowledge. Finally, children can be put at risk of exposure to a narrow subject-driven curriculum where testing counts for so much, thus denying them opportunities to explore their innate abilities.
I have a grandson, just turned seven, who has experience of being educated in England and California over the last four years. I have witnessed, in both systems, the misrepresentation by the relevant authorities of what secures lasting achievement. It is not about memory, even though that plays a crucial role in all learning, including passing tests at appropriate times. Neither is about knowing 'the' answers, because that suggests the 'right' questions have been asked and that there aren't other questions that may be equally as important to the learner and that 'right' answers tell us something useful.

However, I believe it has everything to do with beginnings, opportunities, provision and understanding.

All the evidence points to the negative impact of socioeconomic factors on early learning. Some children come from backgrounds where their opportunities to experience stability and find stimulation are severely constrained because of poor parenting skills. Depending on where a child is brought up there may be provision of good local support services to begin tackling some of these inequalities and they may have access to effective schooling. Also, it will be to any child's advantage if the school s/he attends understands the importance of the early years foundation stage and resists all pressures to introduce learning opportunities that are inappropriate to the child's age and stage. It is suggested by some observers that an increasing proportion of young adults see learning as a means of passing a test to reach the next level, rather than as a opportunity for personal growth. If this is so, we should all be concerned and question whether a culture of over-testing contributes to this trend.


So, What Does Count?

In the final analysis, I would like to emphasise, parents count and they always have. The children and young people also count. Society, by way of its civilising influence, counts. Educational professionals count and, finally, the future counts. We have a responsibility to stop counting what arguably doesn't count for very much and to make what counts really count!

Thursday 14 February 2013

Education - What Counts?

 Content Over Process

I believe very little is appropriate about the way we chose to educate our children and young people in the early decades of the twenty first century. I'm confident there will be those detractors who feel this is exactly the kind of sweeping generalisation so often made in the public arena without adequate justification. I do not intend to fall into that trap.

So, what exactly in my view is inappropriate about education?

Education should be one positive element in the rich tapestry of every young person's life, following close on the heels of growing up inside a nurturing family. Sadly, schools often have to work first to compensate for the lack of a nurturing family! That aside for the moment, as I will return to the subject frequently, I am not alone in declaring that, at its best, education should provide children with an enjoyable, rewarding and exciting experience that opens doors onto a lifetime of learning. (Hopefully, not too many feathers ruffled by that broad overview!)

But, what exactly does this grandiose rhetoric translate into in practical terms? How would a parent or child identify such an educational experience?

At every level, education should develop specific attitudes, skills and knowledge (ASK) that match the learner's needs, whatever they might be. Clearly, these would have to evolve over time as needs change to reflect changes in the learner and in society. Education must also anticipate the future. The broad aim, therefore, must be to prepare young people to become active participants in society, no matter what the future holds. The present climate, in which content and testing dominate (particularly in primary education), has to be challenged because it fails our children, the most needy in particular.

The regime of testing that currently proliferates world-wide is largely dedicated to identifying outcomes in narrow sub-sets of mathematical skills and language. Also, test results are widely (mis)used, often for unintended purposes. For instance, in this country tests judge first pupils, then teachers, then schools and then (most recently) Local Authorities. All are held to account over the outcomes which are widely published. Human intelligence is multifaceted. Reducing it to the collection and ranking of numerical data across narrow fields devalues it. Some argue it isn't even properly understood within the profession.

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2013/02/ofsted-dashboard-uses-the-wrong-data/

In situations characterised by rapid change, the ability to think critically is especially important. In fact, individual survival often depends on it. More effective thinking can be developed through specific programmes, as has been found (Edward DeBono, Matthew Lipman). These skills need, therefore, to be taught and practiced throughout the period of formal education. Interestingly, speaking and listening skills, much vaunted by employers and those in higher education, can be systematically improved through such programmes. But, unfortunately, there seems to be no room for them in the crowded primary curriculum. Even in the New curriculum, speaking and listening plays a distant third fiddle to reading and writing, if schools eventually decide to take it up systematically.

Teaching is a complex mix of art and science. At no time in history has there been a better understanding of the role cognitive science can play in helping to clarify how effective learning takes place. We can improve learning, understanding and recall if we commit to appropriate research in this area. If we ignore the impact of up-to-date research, the education of young children in particular will not benefit.

Predominantly, teacher training today is biased towards improving subject knowledge. Of course, there is no such thing as content-free learning. My argument is, if this was being conducted in parallel with in-depth learning about child development, questions of pedagogy would inevitably arise and trainees might not find the transition form student to teacher quite so challenging.

I do not hold teachers responsible for the current crisis in state education. Neither do I feel our political masters are responsible, despite their over-frequent proclamations professing a commitment to improving educational opportunities for all, even when they fail so miserably to deliver. (In this regard, I remind myself, they are like the May fly that appear for a day and then are gone for ever.) The present system exposes this short-sighted vision which may simply be a consequence of their short terms in office.

We're all to blame for the present situation in education. Yes, all of us! We have grown up to believe that others will act in our best interests. Nationally and globally, the wisdom of this attitude is being questioned.

The greatest thinkers have always understood that education has the power to transform lives and nations from within. Likewise they have judged that most, arguably all, our challenges and problems are better understood and tackled in a society composed of intelligent individuals who share certain traits; they are emotionally grounded thinkers, know how to negotiate and work alongside others and are possessed of the capacity to delay or even forfeit gratification in order to achieve the greater good for the greater number.

A tall order, I hear you say. It is not a utopian dream, but it cannot happen overnight. Without doubt, it must happen. If we are to survive, education is the key. As parents, we have a part to play. The most significant contribution we can make is to convince authorities we want to engage in meaningful debate. In short we have to question.

Question the relevance and balance of our children's current educational experiences.

Question why what we know and understand about the way young children learn is not being applied in our schools.

Question whether we are willing to make our views count in a wide-ranging debate about the direction of reform in education.

Question if we understand that to deliver the finest education for all our young people we need a clear vision of what education is for and a willingness to commit to long term change.

(If we accept all this, do we also accept that decisions about the direction of reform, the methods of delivery and the content of curricular can no longer be dictated by politicians?)

Increasingly employers are speaking from their perspective about the specific attitudes, skills and knowledge needed of their employees. They look to the education system to provide, but their vision may be too narrowly focused. We have to consult widely to agree what best suits our children's future and hold on to the idea that childhood is not a preparation for a life to come. 

I repeat what I said earlier, what we are doing is not working. Look beyond the headlines that confuse as often as they inform. Question your young people about their experience of schooling and their expectations for the future.

In answer to my question, what counts? Education counts! This is because all young people matter. They have a unique opportunity to progress towards independence when they are young and developing most rapidly. We are joint custodians in securing opportunities for and with them and we must not let them down.

Wednesday 13 February 2013

Primary First

Setting the scene.

Consider for a moment, what skills, attitudes and dispositions we might anticipate will be at a premium in our children's futures. Further complicate this, as will inevitably be the case, by trying to agree what working knowledge our children may need to have at their disposal in 2030 and beyond, and the scope and difficulty of the challenge facing society in planning a 21st Century education becomes clearer.

Unfortunately, as if the task wasn't sufficiently daunting, there is a further complication. A one- size-fits-all service will not work. Gone are the days when that might have been effective, even if was ever justifiable. Gone for good, as diversity is increasing in all spheres of human activity. In one respect, the present push towards more autonomous schools, on the face of it, should contribute to making the education system truly 'fit for all' because of this diversity and the impact this ought to have on strengthening the argument in favour of greater localisation. Sadly, the current direction of reform looks more likely to take us away from the objective of matching provision to the needs of individual learners. Mixed messages are emerging from central government over the balance of power in education. 

From the situation just a couple of decades ago, when most people would have made a spontaneous, fairly accurate guess at the different types of schools operating in their community, even for someone with a background in education, I was shocked to count in excess of a dozen varieties available in today's "market". (Another example of the influence of commercial/industrial language in education!)

There may be nothing wrong with this development. But a closer examination of the system reveals a complex relationship between local and national factors making it difficult for parents to know where accountability lies. In such matters as admissions, pupil exclusions, curriculum and the length of school day/term, to cite just a few examples, parents are often confused about who has responsibility and for what. With the increased powers vested now in the office of the Secretary of State for Education and a lack of clarity over the role of local authorities, families find it difficult to know where to turn for help and advice when they have a grievance.

Much, though not all of this has happened in response to the perceived need to shake up the secondary school system. This came about for many reasons, not least of which was to address Britain's standing in international league tables of pupil performance. Throughout the history of public education in our country, primary education has been viewed as a means of preparing young children for the more rigorous and important education they would receive at secondary school. Interestingly in their turn, secondary schools were valued mainly for how well they prepared young people for the world of work or higher and further education. Whereas it can be argued that education has a certain utilitarian value, that is surely not its main function. 

Education Perspectives is all about the need to advance the process of education reform. Short-term changes have for too long be allowed to distort the longer-term reform programme necessary to address persistent problems of underachievement in the system. Unlike many others, I believe this needs to be tackled at the primary phase first.

Making The Primary Case 

When referring to the primary phase, I include both the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) and Key Stages 1&2. The reasons for initially concentrating on reform in the primary phase are many. Essentially, however, it comes down to the importance of investing more in building strong foundations for learning developed around children's natural curiosity. Not enough is being done at present to concentrate on building sound foundations for learning before testing children and measuring them against their peers. There is a time for testing but it is more important that effective assessment takes place to support learning and to build confidence.

The most effective provision for young children is found in situations where clear aims generate an appropriate curriculum, where learning is accessed through structured activity (especially through play) and when children are sufficiently secure in their understanding to take risks and make progress in learning because they enjoy the challenge.

Historically, the youngest children (of the poor) were taught by a single individual in large groups. The teaching was didactic, the curriculum focused very narrowly on discrete subjects, rote learning of factual content made it easy to test what pupils could recall, understanding was not seen as particularly important and discipline was strict. It was, arguably better than no education at all, but it was a world away from what they need for their future success.

Naturally, over the decades, changes were introduced and the overall quality of education continues to improve to this day, despite concerns that more could and should be happening to 'close the achievement gap'. But, not everything changed in recognition of our increased understanding of early childhood development and the desire for greater social mobility.

Today, there is an opportunity to strengthen the foundations of learning by basing our practice on knowledge of what works in what situations and for which children. The recognition of the importance of this type of individualised learning, already enshrined in the Early Years Foundation Stage, is seen more widely to offer better outcomes for more children, but the implications of this for education funding are immense. This is why it is important to engage in a national debate about what we want and expect education to provide for children emerging from our schools at the end of Key Stage 2.

There is a greater chance of achieving this if the issue of strategic planning in education is dealt with first.

This is why action must be taken to reach a consensus over the reform of the present politically biased system. Historically we have seen that those who exercise power have had their way, and provided the silent majority has not felt itself too disempowered, there has been little serious resistance from parents and professionals about the direction of change. That will not serve us well in the future. 

Ultimately, funding primary education according to need, as opposed to historical trends, will have to be considered. I suggest before we attempt this, we should give very careful consideration to the overall aims for education. Only then will we be clear about where primary education fits in the big picture and the ideal level of funding required. We may have to agree to move by stages in redistributing finite resources if we are not prepared to increase overall education funding. The nettle will have to be grasped. The sooner the better.    

Tuesday 12 February 2013

Education - Fit For All

In The Case For Change I wrote,

"Transforming education will depend more than anything on perspectives. We have to generate values capable of building efficient public education systems fit for all."

Understanding what 'fit for all' means is central to the future of education in our country. From the outset, let me confirm, I believe every child and young person has the right to expect only the best from the system. There can be no disagreement about the need to raise standards and maintain quality of provision. Everyone responsible for managing and delivering the service has a duty in this regard. But, I fear there is a problem in translating this rhetoric into action. It relates, I believe, to the issue of perspective. Undeniably, there is little by way of a common understanding about the aims of education and the values that should shape it. (See Primary First)

It is time to address this. Unfortunately, there is little consensus about how we should be proceeding. It isn't that no one has a point of view. Indeed, as everyone has personal experience of schooling, many people have something to say about it. I would never seek to remove or challenge this right. However, there is a sense in which, rather than adding to the debate about what education is for, the fact that opinion is so widespread greatly complicates matters. We must not ignore particular views, but neither should individual experiences deter us from taking a broader perspective about our aims for education. In the present vacuum (no nationally agreed aims), ongoing reform of the system lacks strategic direction and without it there is little hope of clarity about the future.

As difficult as it might seem, what is required is just such a consensus about the aims of education in a modern society as well as a set of values that most of us would be prepared to sign up to. There are opposing ideas about the role education should perform in our time. Many look to the past for their guiding principles. There is much to be learned from doing so but, to accept that what may have worked then will work now is open to question. It isn't surprising that, growing as it did out of the demands of the Industrial Revolution, universal public education was modeled along industrial lines. Even today, this influences thinking to a degree, with talk of educational outputs and reliance on strict quality assurance measures. 

Professor Ken Robinson has argued that there is a view of schooling as functioning rather like a production line - control the inputs, apply consistent quality assurance methodology throughout, and what emerges is a pretty standard model ready to be further shaped by the world of higher education and/or employment. Whether this is accurate at anything other than a superficial level is certainly debatable but, currently, there is a sustained focus on standards that, if taken to extremes, begins to look to some like a form of standardisation of children. If this is happening to any degree, it is worrying and moreover it won't work beyond a superficial level.

Quite uncontroversially, we can all agree, there are no standard inputs. All babies, children and young people are different. First, their genes define what natural endowments they begin life's journey with. Then, through interactions with their immediate environment, rich or otherwise in stimulation and opportunity for growth and development, they progress along a unique path through life. It is a complex and unpredictable process; especially, it is unpredictable. Seldom is it a case of, if this happens, then that will result. What we have are unique individuals on different life-paths with widely different skills, dispositions, attitudes, capacities, abilities, etc. etc. Eventually, they find their way into schools that are also unique entities, constantly changing as myriad factors vary over time. Nothing is static and little is predictable. Yet there is an odd notion that, somehow, it is.

So, what does any of this have to do with the idea of an education fit for all?

Well, unless there is an understanding and acceptance of the unique dispositions, potential and abilities of the children entering the system and progressing through it, the underlying perceptions may be fundamentally flawed. It matters if this influences the planning of curricular and more importantly if it shapes our thinking about standards and attainment. A system that ignores the potential influence such views might exert, is inherently unfit. It risks putting some individuals at an immediate disadvantage. There is no level playing-field and this is why the foundation/primary stage is so important to individual children and to the system as a whole. Much too important, in fact, for it to be driven by narrow testing of a small sub-set of skills rather than guided by formative assessments across a broad range of skills.

Significantly, meaningful debate about the effectiveness of education is further hampered by the concepts of equality and fairness. These are often used interchangeably. This is a source of potential problems, both in relation to outcomes for individuals and to judgements about the effectiveness of the system. Put simply, if we wish to create a fairer society, as I believe we do, there will be instances when inequalities have to be built into the system, for example, the allocation of the pupil premium in schools. So much depends on leadership and vision at schools' level, strengthened from the outset, where necessary, by a full range of local support services for dealing with underachievement. 

If schools are to be deemed fit for all, what happens within the foundation/primary phase has to be re-though in line with a shared vision and agreed aims for early education. This should include examining everything, from the funding formula, with enhanced provision for staffing and appropriate interventions for individual children; the formative role of assessment in learning; the professional development of teachers and support staff to raise and improve the quality of teaching and the quality and range of the curriculum. 

Underpinning all this, there needs to be a debate about whether it is appropriate to expect that every child can or should perform according to the present narrow interpretation of attainment in the so-called basics at the end of the primary phase. Literacy and numeracy are important and play an central role in learning throughout life. Most children eventually achieve sufficient competence by the age of eleven to cope with the increased challenges of more formal learning at secondary school. However, there are children for whom this is not the case. What happens to help them find their strengths and construct a passport to a full and meaningful life is a measure of how well 'the big society' works. There are many skills-sets and different activities that add value to society and improve the quality of life of citizens. Achievement in the arts and sport stand alongside developments in science, engineering and technology. An education fit for all recognises the importance of this and seeks to identify and value individual differences and strengths in all children, avoiding the temptation to have them all pass through the same sieve.