Grammar schools don’t make the grade for social inclusion

Boris’s Big Idea

Amidst all the excitement about Gove’s possible changes to the GCSE system, there was very little comment on the latest idea from Boris Johnson to take control of education in the capital.

This offers Labour a difficult conundrum: on the one hand, moving education powers from the London boroughs into the hands of the Mayor enormously expands the scope of an individual Tory politician’s power over London’s schools, at a time when the majority of them are presently in Labour’s hands because Labour controls the majority of councils in London; on the other hand, there is a significant attraction in bringing London’s schools into a single system of oversight with common lines of communication between schools and the most widely-recognised political figure in the city.

Until the late 1980s, there existed an Inner London Education Authority with significant powers over schools (although its remit did not cover the same geographic area of the present Greater London Authority); ILEA was disbanded by Thatcher for allegedly being a bastion of left-wing educational practice at the same time as the Ken Livingstone-run GLC, and as a result London education was devolved to the boroughs. This creates very perverse situations where schools on the borders of boroughs are administered by one council, whilst the majority of their students live in a different one. There are significant funding differentials between boroughs with very similar needs. Then there’s the amount of local bureaucracies involved: there are 32 separate ones in London to manage the schools.

This is in stark contrast to England’s second largest city, Birmingham, which is a single educational unit and – until Gove’s 2010 Act precipitated a swath of new academies – was the largest employer in British education.

Clearly, the new landscape of academies and free schools is weakening the position of local authorities such as the London boroughs to administer education in their area. Stephen Twigg has spoken a great deal about the need for a “middle tier” between the new breed of academies and the Department for Education.

Could the Mayor’s Office be that “middle tier” in London? And if so, what role will the London Assembly play in this system? And if the powers Boris acquires go beyond those presently given to local authorities, will they be rolled out to other parts of England with directly-elected mayors?

Boris’s big idea may prove to be a very good one, but Labour needs to engage thoughtfully to ensure the system is built to last.

John Blake is a comprehensive school teacher in London and chair of Labour Teachers

The Future of Education

Amidst the hubbub of leadership questions, short-term poll obsession and questions over the future of the Union, members of the shadow cabinet have been very busy of late laying out exactly the kind of concrete policy views that some have said were previously missing from Labour.

One of the most interesting of these was provided in Stephen Twigg’s speech on reforming the education system. In it, he called for a longer school day, more teacher mentoring, and a focus on “soft skills” to better prepare students for life after school. The announcement coincided nicely with a review of the curriculum currently under way and due to be concluded later this year.

There is a broad consensus on what the outcome of education should be; namely, well- informed, well-rounded young people who have the capacity to advance themselves in whatever direction they choose. Sadly, in too many areas the wealth of a child’s parents still determines their success in life. There are serious debates taking place about the structure of schools and the deliberate attempts to carve them away from local authorities, but in this piece I want to focus on how education is delivered rather than the legal wrapper under which the school functions.

There are two examples of policies which can be implemented and cost very little that can help further both education and social progress. These are introducing debating at the heart of the curriculum and using peer-mentoring as a way to help the continuous professional development of teachers.

Firstly, we should put debating at the heart of our curriculum as a way of encouraging children to develop vital critical thinking and communications skills. People on the left often frown upon the idea of school as a place to teach workplace skills, but it is in work that we spend most of our lives, and as the one million unemployed young people in the country would surely attest, little is more dispiriting and eroding of an individual’s self-worth than the recurring rejection of unemployment.

Rhetoric and debating are typically seen as the purview of elitist independent schools, and as a skill with little relevance to daily reality. Nothing could be further from the truth. Debate is part of the curriculum in many ways anyway, from analysis of history through dissection of English and the understanding of competing scientific theories. The contestation of ideas is a vital part of what it means to get an education.

Teachers often worry about anarchy in the classroom if they allow students to debate, but many programmes both here and in the US have shown that students, when given ownership of a position and the right to advocate for it, are more likely to take their education seriously. Indeed, a major review of education conducted by the Irish Economic and Social Research Institute showed that across a multitude of regions and cultures, interactive classroom learning is the most effective way of teaching students.

With some schools failing to teach students basic reading and writing skills, focussing on oral presentation is an alternative way to engage reluctant students. There is nothing like the fear of making a fool of themselves in front of their peers to make students work hard. Debating also has the added advantage of teaching exactly the kind of “soft skills” that Stephen Twigg talked about. Recent talk of getting Britain manufacturing again is heartening, but Britain’s comparative advantage lies in services, and the more children are able to think and provide in these areas the better their chances in later life will be.

Mentoring for teachers is another area where there have been promising results of late. Teachers do receive training, but it is rarely based on observation of their classroom performance. In a thought provoking New Yorker article, Atul Gawande discusses the parallels between teaching to surgery and how, even as a top surgeon, he sees many opportunities to improve. Teachers should not view mentoring as an imposition, but rather as an opportunity to improve their performance. Experienced teachers should be encouraged to offer their services as mentors, in order to perpetuate best practice among new recruits.

These are just two ways in which education in Britain could be improved. There are many others out there, and politicians should start listening to them. Together, they point the way towards a more open, student-centred and successful school system.

Stephen Boyle is a Young Fabians Member

The pensions generation

In this member post, Young Fabian member James Gill argues that it has never been more important for young people to consider savign towards their retirement.

Last Tuesday, I attended a rather eye-opening Young Fabian Future of Finance Network discussion on the issue of Pension Reform and what it means for young people. Rachel Reeves MP, Shadow Minister for Pensions, attended the roundtable.

Before the meeting, I was but another lost young soul unfamiliar with the intricacies and importance of the need for young people in today’s economic climate to become engaged in pension discussions. Now I’m a sprightful Young Fabian committed now to increasing the knowledge that young people have of pensions.

Before, the word ‘pension’ seemed distant and something associated with retirees, or with people seeking to start building for their retirement in their mid-40s. But – as we discussed at the roundtable – as job insecurity and increased living costs kick into graduate life, saving for a pension should increasingly become a habit of younger workers as well as elders.

Knowledge of pensions is more vital than ever as we lurch towards another year of stiff job competition, a sluggish economy and a squeeze on the lifestyles and choices of many low and middle income citizens in this country.

As a recent graduate in history who has been looking for job opportunities for just under two months – and who has got £23,000 worth of student debt to pay off on top of maintaining a sustainable lifestyle for a young person – I will be looking for the earliest opportunity to start saving up for a good pension for later in life.

Yet only 15% of 16-24 year olds are currently saving for pensions in comparison to 58% of workers in their 40s and 50s, with the consequence that most people in their working prime of their 30s have no or very little pension wealth. This does not bode well for the future generation of young workers, in particularly those attending university from 2012 onwards who will leave with a prospective debt of around £53,000 and with predictions of an increase in graduates competing for jobs (the current average being 80 per job).

Shifting between occupations has to be considered as well. Some people in the mid-twenties have had up to four jobs (one per year) since leaving higher education, making the ability to save towards a pension considerably more challenging compared to previous generations with greater longevity in employment with specific employers.

The need to educate our fellow young on the need for pension saving is more pressing than ever.

In a world of constrained finances, we need to save and scrimp our pennies. And while pensions may seem to many a concern only for the elderly, they are increasingly linked to broader economic issues such as whether we can remain in employment, downward pressure on wages and increases in the cost of living.

James Gill is a member of the Young Fabians.

We need common sense not ideology in education

In this guest post, Young Fabian Martin Edobor challenges the Tories’ flagship schools policy.

Official figures have revealed that only 153 schools have actually signed up to Michael Gove’s academy plan, despite the Education Secretary claiming last month that 1,114 schools across England had applied to become academies.

Despite the clear lack of support, Gove used emergency parliamentary procedures to rush through the Academies Bill during the final days before Parliament broke up for recess. MPs from both the Labour and Conservative parties have attacked Gove for using these measures, as the Bill has not yet been fully scrutinised. Due to the small number of schools which have actually applied to become academies, Michael Gove should not have used emergency procedures. Instead this Bill should have been, reviewed and scrutinised in parliament.

Ed Balls, the Shadow Education Secretary, has demanded an explanation from Gove on why he misleadingly claimed that over 1,000 schools had applied for the academies programme. It is time for Gove to apologise to Parliament for his misleading figures.

The government is rushing through educational reform, which has not been properly thought out. Gove is trying to introduce a free market model of education in a time of austerity. Clearly ideology is overriding commonsense.

The Diploma debacle

The September of 2008 was witness to a quiet revolution in British education. That month, the Diploma was launched, with the promise to offer “14 to 19 year olds practical, hands-on experience as well as classroom learning…designed to help young people develop the knowledge and skills employers and universities want”. These new semi-vocational, semi-academic qualifications were intended to challenge the virtual monopoly orthodox academic qualifications held over secondary education, and perhaps even eventually replace them as the qualification of choice among students nationwide. However, the promised revolution has not materialised. So, what went wrong? And how can the Diploma be made to work?

This is a real tragedy as Diplomas have the potential to remedy our outmoded qualifications system. The Tomlinson Report, published in 2004, announced that A levels lacked breadth and challenge, and proposed the introduction of an all-inclusive vocational and academic qualification, such as the Diploma, to combat their narrow focus. The education establishment’s adherence to the “safe” duo of the GCSE and A Level has, however, yet to be seriously challenged by the different conception of the Diploma that the Labour government introduced.

The Diploma has the potential to play a role in tackling the rising number of “NEETs” (young people Not in Education, Employment or Training) which reached one million for the first time last year, while a recent report revealed that Britain “ranked 25th out of 27 OECD countries in the proportion of 15-19 year olds in education”. Such figures are a source of national embarrassment, but also entail material costs. A report by the Prince’s Trust in 2007 signalled that NEETs “costs the economy upwards of £90m per week”- a financial expense incurred in the present to challenge the social expense faced in the future.

The means to transform the Diploma into a more effective qualification rest in the government’s hands.

Firstly, it can ensure that the Diploma is granted equal status with A Levels and GCSEs by universities. Time and again, the most prestigious universities have wilfully ignored the “tariff” that standardises qualifications for university entry, admitting students with academic qualifications in preference to those with vocational equivalents. It is the duty of the government to make such institutions play fair.

Secondly, the government should review the structure of the course to make the Diploma both simpler, and more cost effective. A report published last December by Kathleen Tattersall, head of England’s exams regulator Ofqual, suggested that “simplification” would make the Diploma more attractive to a larger number of schools and students.

Sadly, the government’s position on the Diploma remains ambiguous at best. In June, it pulled the plug on the Diplomas in humanities, language and science due to be launched next September. In July, the right of students to enrol in all the established Diploma courses was abolished along with the Extended Diploma – a prospective addition to the programme worth 4.5 A Levels. Nick Gibb said that students should “be able to sit the qualification that is right for them” and not “be told by government what they can and cannot take.” Under the guise of student choice, he has actually reduced young people’s options by abolishing their entitlement and reducing the range available.

The Budget – Whats in it for young people?

Alistair Darling wants to ‘lead the young back to work’ in tomorrows budget, with incentives for re-training and re-skilling. But with career prospects and job opportunities looking worse as the recession deepens, it will be young people who will suffer the most in the tough economic climate.

Many Young Fabian members may have an undergraduate degree, or like me may be taking post-graduate qualifications to boost their employability, but for the thousands of new graduates leaving university in a couple of months, the employment opportunities that were available only a few years ago are disappearing fast.

Companies that are looking for new staff (and many are not) will be overwhelmed with quality applications from people with experience, knowledge and qualifications to match. Recent graduates and those in entry-level jobs will find it more difficult than ever to push forward with their careers and may decide to stay-put on a lower salary until the recovery starts. Anecdotally, after advertising recently for an intern in my office I received three applications from PhD students who were struggling to find employment which utilised their skills.

But this is not all doom and gloom, it offers Alistair Darling a real opportunity to make lasting changes to the prospects of young people in the UK economy and to release their potential rather than stifle it.

Young people are more likely than any generation before them to volunteer and offer their time to community causes and activities. This should be built upon by Labour and new incentives and rewards should be offered to young people to get involved with rewarding projects in their communities if paid employment is not always an option. Practical and essential skills and experience can be built up through volunteering at a charity shop or in a community project involving financial management skills and other soft skills like communication and presentation which employers are quick to pick up.

But the downturn must not be an excuse for pushing young people out of the classroom and into the job market. Education and training continues to offer a strong route to success for young people – across the board, from accounting to bricklaying – and should not be seen by Government as expendable. The Tories promises to slash public spending smack of knee-jerk reaction to a long-term problem. The most damaging thing government could do in the current climate would be to pull-back from funding projects like Building Schools for the Future, educational maintenance allowances, Train to Gain and other investments in education for young people. Now is the time to invest in future generations, not cut them adrift.

If you want to have your say on how the Government should respond to the recession, why not attend the Young Fabian seminar with Treasury Minister Stephen Timms on 6^th May?

Or if you can’t make it and want to ask a question, then post it here as a comment and we’ll make sure it gets raised.