Conservative Party

5 Apr 2016

What Now for Education?

Teachwell Education Policy, Political Parties, Progressive Education Conservative Party, Education Policy, Labour Party, Methods, Primary School, Secondary School, Teachers 0

The left needs to rethink. As I have argued here, much current thinking and practice in education can hardly be considered left-wing in the first place. There are certain truths that we need to face whether we like it or not.

1. There will be academisation of schools that are special measures or require improvement.
2. There will be 500 more free schools.
3. There will be some changes to Ofsted.
4. Whoever the Secretary of State is there is, for once, an acceptance that workload is far too high, and this is a bad thing. Whatever actions are (or are not as the case maybe) taken this is still an important statement from a Conservative government, who lets face are not known to be bothered by such things. It is something tangible that they can be held to account for. It is our job to hold them to account and let’s think of some solutions here.
5. It is not all about the government. If school leaders do not act to improve workload issues, then no amount of legislation or changes to Ofsted are going to matter
6. PRP is here to stay. Again the extent to this will be corrupted is down to school leaders, not the government. We need to direct action and anger wisely and discriminately if we are to negotiate these rough waters. However, a cursory glance at teacher vacancies shows that already there is a difference between schools who are considered to be good or outstand and those that aren’t. The schools opting for paying less and who don’t ask for experienced teachers even when this seems like a good idea (i.e. they are not doing well) is there. The effect on poorer children is not one to ignore. I agree there are NQTs that do brilliantly and experienced teachers who do not. However schools that inordinately take on NQTs, who they can’t support well lead to poor outcomes for children and teachers lost to the system.
7. The national curriculum is here to stay for state schools, and that is no bad thing. Hopefully, all the detractors who were hoping for a reverse will now get on with the task. Teachers and schools who have lost that fundamental purpose need to think about how their dumbing-down only leads to deprofessionalisation. If you are going to argue that we should spend our time tending to the emotional needs of pupils above their learning then what are you doing to the profession? Yes, emotional development affects learning, but our interventions need to be to support their learning. Anything else requires skilled professionals from other fields. Stop trying to save souls and start asking for more support from mental health professionals, even if the school has to buy into that.
8. We need to seek solutions that work from Speech and Language Therapists, Behaviour Specialists, etc. This means schools need to invest in them coming to us and jointly coming up with solutions that work for the classroom and not what may work if we were one-to-one with a challenging child or one with learning difficulties.

Labour needs to distance itself from the fads and the progressive nonsense. The Greens seem happy to step up to promoting pseudoscience so let them. We have always been the party to promote opportunities for all and we need to do so once again. The ‘soft bigotry of low expectations’ is real. Those of us from poorer backgrounds who are now teachers encounter this all the time and struggle precisely because we know we are giving them less than what we had. It is not our role to instigate and reinforce a two-tier system where the poor are treated fundamentally different to their middle and upper-class peers. We need to be the ones to tackle social inequality not embed it. We need to remember and reinforce the moral purpose for having a system of education for all in the first place.

22 Mar 2016

Not Waving But Drowning

Teachwell Democracy, Education Policy Academisation, Conservative Party, Education Policy, Labour Party, Local Authorities, Local Democracy, Primary School, Secondary School, White Paper 3

Having argued that the ability to mass academise schools is not undemocratic, I read this today from @dutaut – here where he argues that it is not undemocratic but anti-democratic.

First things first:

“Simply put, it (democracy) is a governmental system which allows people to hold their political leaders to account. They do this at the ballot box, but, as my Year 10 reminded me today, in a myriad of other ways too: protest and demonstrations, petitions and letters, campaigns and advocacy, litigation, membership of parties and pressure groups.”

Except that the ballot box is what counts. All the other means that JL points out are valid ways for individuals and groups to make their voices heard but it is not un or anti-democratic for a government to ignore these and make policy regardless.

No doubt those who take part in the anti-austerity marches feel their ideas and beliefs should influence policy but so does the EDL when it protests against Muslims and immigration.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Now I am sure that many of the righteous will baulk at this but the truth is that it’s anti-democratic to say the protests of the former are ‘right’ and those of the latter are ‘wrong’ in some objective way. The former did not get a mandate at the ballot box any more than the latter. They do have a right to their views whether I like it or not. Freedom of speech, thought and conscience are universal human rights – specifying the content would make them redundant.

JL goes on to state that a key argument against PR is that it loses the local link. I think he means those advocating for first past the post. There are many ways of maintaining a link between the local and national even in a party-list PR system.

Even if you do agree with the link between constituency and MP, it doesn’t mean that you are contradicting yourself if you favour more centralisation. The fact is that there are many ways of selecting national representatives in a democratic system – geographical is only one of them. In some countries representation is linked to social classification (as in India). You could have a system where the representation is based on height, weight or shoe size of the population. Silly? Maybe but does not make it anti-democratic. Representing regions in parliament is a historical legacy.

The other argument he proposes is that it is anti-democratic to centralise power. Except it isn’t.

I spent many months over three years researching the arguments for and against devolution. Both in theory and practice unitary states are not inherently less democratic than federal states, or highly centralised systems inherently less democratic than highly decentralised ones. There are pros and cons for each system – take your pick and accept both the good and the bad that goes with it.

The government is well within it’s right so centralise as it is to decentralise. It’s not even true to say that there is an optimal place for power to reside on any issue. It depends on circumstances, the nation and society in question at any particular point in time.

Ultimately JL has played to his audience perfectly. They think it’s wrong on principle and no matter how awful the LAs are they are considered preferable to MAT’s. If they can add the accusations of it being anti-democratic then all the better.

Instead of analysing localism and democratic accountability, JL reifies it, even more so when blaming liberal economic thinking of robbing us all of local democracy.

“Who will you vote out if you’re unhappy?” he asks as though it is the norm in this country to vote out councillors when LAs have dire records. Jonathan Simons highlights that the idea of local democratic accountability is a sham when it comes to education.

Who will we vote out? If we vote out anyone at all, then it’s only MPs from the governing party (in this case the Conservatives) who have anything to fear.

Actions speak louder than words.

We expect the Secretary of State to take ultimate responsibility for problems in education so why shouldn’t she have the power to match?

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!