Education Policy

21 Mar 2016

Is Academisation Undemocratic?

Teachwell Democracy, Education Policy Academisation, Accountability, Centralisation, Conservative Party, Education Policy, Labour Party, Local Authorities, Local Democracy, Primary School, Secondary School, Teachers, White Paper 9

As could have been predicted, there are a lot of people who are angry about mass academisation. The last time I saw the word privatisation this many times in a day, I was reading about Thatcher for an essay. If that isn’t 1980s enough, some people are threatening to flee the country and go live abroad, mimicking celebrity reactions to the idea of Labour being elected. Mary Bousted is tweeting every bit of the white paper that she thinks is ridiculous. The NUT are going to fight academisation to the death (or near enough).

There’s a petition which has over 100,000 signatures. People power to the rescue? There will have to be a debate about a public inquiry into academising all schools. Nevermind that there was going to be a debate about the white paper regardless.

In EduTwitterWorld revolution is in the air but how educators from EYFS to Higher Education are going to manage it given their breathtaking lack of understanding of the British political and electoral systems, is beyond me.

Here’s a guide from an ex-political scientist.

UK Population: 63 million

Electorate: The exact number who are eligible to vote depend on who is eligible to vote and this differs (see: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/total_number_of_registered_voter).Before anyone spots a conspiracy theory – actually go ahead – if the trains heading to Paranoia Central I’m not going to stop it reaching it’s destination.

The BBC’s election 2015 website stated 46 million (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results) however it’s not clear if this is registered or eligible voters.

Electoral System:

“It’s not fair – we need PR”

Well there have been many attempts to reform the electoral system – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform#United_Kingdom for a quick overview. It is worth noting that demands for PR usually come from those whose party have lost the election and really don’t like the party who won. It is rare that such arguments are made when one is happy with the results, government or policy being implemented. Neither has the electorate penalised any of the political parties for failing to introduce electoral reform.

“Not enough choice. They’re all the same”

Sigh – will come to this later.

“But the Conservatives don’t represent the country they only won a minority of votes”

Indeed they got 36.9% of the vote share but crucially in a first past the post system it is winning constituency seats that matter. They did get a majority – with 331 seats overall.

Is it unfair? Let’s look at the 1945 election in comparison:

Your eyes are not deceiving you – the Labour Party won a majority of seats with a minority of the overall votes. Yep – just like the Conservatives in 2015.

47.7% is better than 36.9% I grant you, but still a minority of the votes and any argument that hinges on a government needing a majority of the votes applies here too. The turnout was better but not by much 72.9 % compared to 67.7%. Still roughly a third of voters did not vote in either election.

“The majority did not vote for the Conservatives or their policies”

The majority of those (registered or eligible) to vote in 1945 did not vote for the NHS, the system of welfare benefits for the sick and unemployed, free secondary education for all, nationalisation of industries or full employment.

Now if you are Labour and you have a beef at the moment, then the Conservatives in 1945 would have had an even bigger one – they won 36.2% of the vote compared to Labour’s 30.4% in the last election. Oh I know the Corbynites think that they have the third of voters who didn’t vote in the bag but proof of the pudding is putting x’s on ballot papers.

“But it’s not in their manifesto – no one voted for it”

Well here’s the Labour Party manifesto from 1945. There are many things the Labour Party did in their term of office, including maintaining rationing, that were not in the manifesto. Manifestos are rarely adhered to in their entirety, usually because circumstances influence what you can implement.

“But they should stick to their manifestos.”

Should they? In which case the Conservatives should not have agreed to fly in 20 000 refugees – wasn’t in their manifesto.

“That’s different”

Remarkable how it always is.

“Attlee was different, he ran the government for the whole country”

Well it’s clear from the fact that a welfare state was introduced that he didn’t give a fuck about the overall percentage of votes, the opposition or those who did not vote. Neither did he worry about representing the entire nation’s views.

If you don’t like first past the post, fine. You live in a country where you can do something about it. If you think that you can only choose from the main political parties then let me show you the 2015 results again.

Even the stoneheads managed to get their act together, started up Cannabis is Safer than Alcohol and stood some candidates. All political parties start somewhere.

Democracy does not lead to utopia. It involves compromise. It involves putting up with the occasional government you don’t like. It involves the implementation of policies that you will not always agree with. If you think the Conservatives are evil incarnate so be it. I think I have a greater claim than most on having been adversely affected by the Conservative governments in the 1980s – but they are not on a par with undemocratic regimes I studied and spent years writing essays about.

First Past the Post may not be ideal for some but PR systems ultimately have winners and losers too and their own lists of pros and cons.

The anomalies of the first past the post system have existed for a long time. Change it by all means but retrospectively delegitimising governments because they are not to your liking does not wash.

The 2015 elections were free and fair (fair in the way they were held rather than fair to you personally and if that is patronising – well I am doing my best here in the face of what is utter ignorance of the system we live in, it’s history and evolution over time).

Personally, I would rather have an imperfect democracy – Conservative government and all – than exist under the dicatatorship of the self-appointed righteousnous police made up of educationalists (who think votes only count if cast by people they agree with for MPs they want in parliament).

And if I am going to live in a dicatorship then of course I want it to be to my liking and sure as hell not yours!

20 Mar 2016

EEE – Principle 1 – Great Teaching

Teachwell Education Policy Academisation, Centralisation, Conservative Party, Education Policy, Local Authorities, Primary School, Secondary School, SLT, Teachers, Theory, Unions 1

Last Thursday, I, along with other bloggers, was invited to a meeting with Nick Gibb at the DfE. It involved discussing and clarifying the new White Paper – Educational Excellence Everywhere. I don’t know why I was asked. I don’t know all the bloggers who were asked or who declined. The other bloggers that did attend can identify themselves if they wish but I don’t think it’s for me to list them. I was told that I might get a bit of “who do you represent” from a twitter friend – well, of course, I represent no one other than myself and am unashamedly looking at this from a primary perspective, in which I am a minority in most ways (except being female).

It was interesting to meet with Nick Gibb, who I was impressed by. Certainly he was more optimistic than I about primary schools and their leadership, their capacity to change and become an evidence-based profession.

I think it will take more than autonomy to wean off many from their way of working. I appreciate that Ofsted has made many changes but these are still not trusted sufficiently in my neck of the woods. But I think the only real solution to that is time and consistency. Habits that have formed over decades are not going to be changed over the course of a year or two. It’s about the long game.

Which is what the White Paper is about – the Conservative Education policy set out bare. The reality is they can do this with confidence given the state of the opposition and the non-policies of the Labour Party. I don’t know what Lucy Powell’s alternatives are. Education policy does not win elections – the economy does – but having some plausible policies is still important. But then where can Labour go? The Conservatives quote Hirsch and Old Andrew, have working committees which you can’t accuse of being politically bias or even necessarily conservative.

My initial thoughts on Principle 1 are as follows:

(I couldn’t copy and paste with all the colours so jpeg-ed this – there are two links won’t work in this format which are as follows:

Sinead Gaffney’s post on part-time work
A link to an organisation that assesses whole classes for attachment disorders.)

One of the things that did occur to me is how despite some of the shambles over assessment, they have not lost hold of the reins. In all fairness, they keep developing their education policy and all anyone else can do is play catch up. The unions, and the Labour Party, are thrown the most predictable of curve balls which they go for every time, every time. Academisation is a case in point. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are changing ITT, CPD and QTS as they wish. In the end, the white paper is a list of things they want to do – the question isn’t will it be implemented but how much and how soon.

29 Feb 2016

Structure Vs Action?

Teachwell Education Policy Theory 3

During my Sociology at A-Level and later on for my Masters in Political Science, I studied both Structure and Agency (or Action) theories.

Structuralists would include Marxists, Feminists, Critical Race Theorists emphasise how the structures in society form, how ideas and rules are made normative and how this results in bias and discrimination towards certain groups. However, it is also the case that by focusing only on gender, for example, one can miss other structural elements that affect individuals – e.g. working hours. A culture of long working hours is not sexist per se but it can and does exclude women with children all the same.

These theories are best when explaining systematic biases within systems and why certain divisions exist as well as the ideas that emerge from them to maintain systems. For example, the use of stereotyping to impact on our beliefs about certain groups of people and how it restricts them.

The structure preserves itself. Therefore, such theorists have tended to favour revolutionary ideas to enact social change. The structure needs to be torn down root and branch so that all the ideas associated with it are gone because while they remain they can influence people who will then be more likely to believe and reinforce these structures.

Structure theories lend themselves to ‘false consciousness’ narratives and create a zero-sum game situation. The current prevalence of the idea of oppression also stems from this idea that we are, in essence, at the mercy of the structures in society.

Agency theorists on the other hand, such as Parsons, focus on communication, purposes, beliefs and their impact on our actions. These theorists don’t accept that we are products of structures alone. These theories best explain why changes do occur without radical change, why societies evolve and affect the social structures and systems. There is greater emphasis on the importance of change within individuals, communities and societies not just through leadership but changes in how we think. However, they fall down on the issue of where the content of our beliefs come from and the extent to which structures influence them. It is also an assumption that all people are able to exercise agency in roughly similar ways so does not take into account structural factors which inhibit agency.

Gidden’s Structuration Theory was an attempt to bring the two together. I recall one International Relations lecturer likening it to a tennis match. The ball is being sent back and forth across the court so fast that the ball begins to blur but in the end, while close, synthesis does not occur. The essential question of which is more important remains and the more one goes into it, the more chicken and egg it becomes.

I think individual differences here are important. It seems evident that some find it harder to think outside the norm, shed stereotypes, push boundaries, change their thinking and, therefore, circumstances. I also believe it is true to say that no person does this constantly in all aspects of their life. A person may be willing to do this as a teacher but not as a parent. Change their ideas at work but not their ideas about Art. We are all a mixture of the radical and the conservative. It is probably necessary for our mental health.

I just saw it all as a Carroll Diagram so threw one together.

Ultimately, both structures and actions matter. There is no point pretending that we live in an equal society where everyone has the same opportunities. Equally, to state that we have no control over the choices we make reduces us to mere puppets. No one way of looking at things is without exception.

It is with this in mind that my next post will focus on structure and agency as I see it affecting Behaviour Management in schools.

P.S.: I know that there are gaps in my knowledge on this so feel free to suggest reading or links to more recent developments.