Politics is education’s worst enemy

With the exception of 2 days for the annual celebrations of GCSE and “A”-Level results, media and political comment on education is constant and uniformly negative. “What is going wrong with xxx?” “What dreadful teachers!” “Labour’s way is wrong”. etc etc Even Labour spin is more about how its approach is marginally less bad than that of the Tories than visionary.

True, government initiatives over the last few years will surely damage the sector:

·         Reduction of funds for SureStart and nursery schools, so crucial as foundations for social mobility;

·         Fragmentation of school models, abandoning the comprehensive principle and universality;

·         De-valuation and de-professionalisation of teaching;

·         Loss of local strategic input, oversight and accountability;

·         Giving away of public assets such as playing fields;

·         Constant messing about with curriculum;

·         Focus on snap-shot monitoring instead of proper assessment of pupil progress;

·         Cuts and geographic variations in funding, resulting in patchy results for children;

·         Lack of proven improvement process for schools in difficulties;

·         Debt burden for students;

·         Neglect of FE sector; and more

Yet students are generally reckoned to be happy and able to achieve what they want from school and college, despite this apparent chaos. The unhappiness seems to lie with teachers, whose profession is so under attack; and with the inexpert but opinionated commentariat. Whose satisfaction should be paramount?

Labour must surely move on from its tentative critique of whatever the government proposes onto the high ground of its own vision, in education as in other fields. National standards; universal excellence in a common model; letting teachers take the lead; encouraging enquiry over information; investing in capacity to meet community economic and demographic needs; removal of divisive faith and private schools from State support; and enabling best practice to be identified, validated and shared, instead of being hidden away to protect competitive advantage. A strategic approach instead of a political, tactical one. A true alternative to the doctrinaire privatisation of the current government. And when it succeeds, education will be in the headlines only for those celebrations, without the negativity in between.

Is less more for education?

"Less is more" is a quite useful rule in some fields, avoiding over-complication and delay. The current government, though, seems to believe that such an approach should apply to public services, with less money supposed to achieve wellbeing for a growing population. How may this apply to education under the upcoming Morgan [or is it Osborne] Education Bill?

Is less qualification of teachers likely to lead to more learning by pupils? Is less Local Authority oversight of admissions and provision likely to lead to more parent satisfaction with the places their children access, especially in rural areas with fewer options, far apart and poorly connected?  How will reducing public assets of land and buildings increase State provision? Will lower pay, poorer terms of employment and working conditions for teachers raise recruitment, retention and standards? How will fragmentation of commonalities such as curriculum or teacher training give more families comfort? Will less parent and community governance end up with more village Primary closures at the behest of Trust finance directors? Could it even be that removal of education from the budgets of Local Authorities  actually reduce their very viability?

The one certainty where less will mean more is that the loss of local accountability for education will mean more central bureaucracy, more Civil Servants at the failing DfE and more opportunities for private sector contractors to profit from Academy Trusts. Lack of evidence of competence or capacity to educate in either DfE nor Academy Trusts set up by Big Capital suggests a wholesale, arbitrary abandonment of a generation of children and a denial of the State's duty to educate all. Less indeed. Let us have no more of it.

Tom Serpell

Small State for a Small Future

Political parties are defined by their view of the role of the State. States' expenditure principally concerns the security and well-being of its citizens. How there are supported depends on the flavour of those in the ascendency at any time. Those governing parties accepting responsibility for the greater burden of the people's needs perforce raise the largest funds with which to pay for these, usually via taxes as the principal repeatable source. Governments deeming taxation to be theft of citizens' hard-earned income; and believing that individuals should shoulder the burden of their own well-being, regardless of circumstance, typically tax less - though frequently with little similar compunction when it comes to paying for those outgoings they favour. It seems that Small State believers will pare back ruthlessly services for well-being whilst lavishing tax receipts on arms used to assault citizens of other States.

Small Staters take a harsh view of needy citizens, so intent are they on allowing the economically successful to keep hold of their wealth. Healthcare, education, housing, and retirement are matters for personal decision, even for those who for any reason are unable to afford to pay. Impecuniousness is a sin in a market economy - or a disaster. It is clear that in a Big State citizens want for less, insofar as services are provided for them, paid for by tax receipts; but those earning most must share more of their income accordingly. In some States the payment of taxes for such common benefit is accepted as a right and proper part of citizenship.

How politicians explain their preferences for the type of State they would create is instrumental in how the public takes sides. Small Staters tend to demonise terms regarded as anodyne by others, like "tax", "borrowing", "poverty" and "entitlement", in attempts to persuade the general public that any party suggesting increases in tax or welfare is unpatriotic. Citizens undergoing temporary shortage of income, long-term disability or simply old age are contemptuously treated in media as second-class, while those riding high on commercial success are placed on a pedestal. But in such a climate, what do we, the people, lose? Once the State has shrunk such that only the rich can afford hospital care or education, how can Big State ever be restored, no matter how desirable to the majority; and how are the ordinary people to achieve well-being?

First, the country loses the capacity to provide universal education and care of a reasonable quality. Society then polarises into haves and have-nots, with a growing risk to cohesion. Second, the failure of the State to invest for the long-term in basis science, technology and infrastructure on which depend jobs, decent pay and commerce may deprive enterprise of the platform for their future success. Third, lack of capability in meeting the needs of ordinary people within the public sector may place the country at grave risk as under-paid private sector providers fall away, leaving the State in crisis with responsibility but no means to fulfil it. The Small State will lead to a small future.

Instead of shying away from those things demonised by the Right, believers in public services and State investment must reclaim or rewrite the lexicon and ruthlessly describe the benefits of the Big State, and publicise just how they spend money for the citizens.

What is going on in Birmingham's schools?

This is not a rhetorical question but a meaningful one for all Labour supporters regardless of their knowledge and experience of education. With scapegoating, scaremongering and school-bashing – by politicians, political placemen such as Ofsted leaders and the media, all of whom should know better, we are not getting any hard evidence of what is wrong. Why not? – is it because some very plump chickens, having been fed on irrational policies are coming home to roost? Is it because academic success and Islam cannot be linked by some with a different ideological if not racist viewpoint? Is it because it diverts from a collective political fear of the economy/cost of living and electoral defeat? Or is it because actually nobody knows what to do?

The children involved - and in many other parts of the country as well, have been used disgracefully in this politically motivated free for all. It makes a mockery of the Tories (very quiet Lib-Dems on this) even mentioning safeguarding when political squabbles are being ratcheted up, personalised and  professionals demonised when children are literally just going to school to learn (and for some at the moment doing life-changing exams).

The education system in this country is a mess. It is a fragmented and unsafe environment for our children who, remember, only get one go at it – you are only seven years old once in your life. It has become the post-code lottery that we tried hard to remove from Health provision only to resurrect it within Education. We now know that the government, through Ofsted, want seven year olds to be warned about extremism….this must be part of the so-called British way of life. Does this apply to Jewish, Catholic, C of E schools? Did the country vote for that? There are so many instances of incoherent thinking at Government level.

The Labour party, rather than a half-hearted response to a government statement with Tory-lite proposals has to be clear. All state-funded schools, whether LA maintained, trust academies, sponsored academies, free, nursery, primary, secondary, tertiary schools etc. must be secular. If private schools want to be faith schools, then parents and the community must be sure how the teachers behave as professionals regarding the teaching of religious beliefs. The Labour Party could of course grasp the nettle this time around and not give charitable status to the faith schools as this is tantamount to state funding.

Birmingham schools have finally exposed the quagmire of Education policy – be courageous and reach out Labour!

Elisabeth Rumbold

Accountability - a thing of the past?

It is time we looked more closely at accountability and how it applies [or not] to matters of strategic concern. Energy companies seem to be allowed to create inflation without redress, basing their case on the wholesale prices they control themselves and without reference to any evidence of generating cost inflation. The Government has failed to require transparency, with the result that nobody can argue against the retail pricing. Looking at the rise in Big 6 share values plus dividends may be the best clue as to the destination of the higher prices charged - in other words, the consumer's loss is the investor's gain. This is why Labour's policy is right: we must take time to reset the market, with effective regulation, putting the consumer interest at the top of the priorities. If the energy companies do not like it or comply, then they or generation must be taken into social ownership.

Even more concerning is the accountability in education. Free schools are said to be accountable to their communities. Are they, though? In effect, when they start to fail, they answer to the Secretary of State, who has an  ideological agenda preventing him from being critical but without the capacity to do anything anyway; and all this in the name of decentralisation. Governors who set up free schools may (but probably do not) start with competence in governance but what happens when the initial cohort move on as their children grow up? Where do amateur governors get their expertise in running a school, recruiting teachers, understanding learning? If there are no rules for this, there is no accountability. If governors fail, how can the community have redress when the next level of responsibility is in Whitehall? Local Education Authorities were just the seat of expertise which is now so desperately needed and should be rebuilt as a priority by the next Labour government.

Then there are the probation service, the justice system, the care services - accountability is simply being accepted by Government only for their destruction.