Home > General Politics, Labour Party News, Terrible Tories > The educationally challenged Conservative Party

The educationally challenged Conservative Party

Reading over the speech Michael Gove made to the Conservative Conference, I’m glad that I’m already trying to get out of teaching. If the period of the last twelve years in education has been marked by increasing spin, pointless bureaucracy and policy announcements, the next five under a Conservative government appear unlikely to be any different, judging by the Shadow minister for Children, Schools and Families. In fact, in some aspects, the future promises to be worse, with plans to turn our kids into ‘patriotic’ automatons.

Most of the words that come out of Gove’s mouth are in fact piffle; meaningless. They only have meaning and relevance to a lot of people who for years have been imbibing every scare story printed in the Daily Mail about riotous kids and political correctness gone mad. Gove praises a headteacher who apparently spoke to the Conservative conference:

“He insists on a proper uniform – with blazer and tie – respect for authority, clear sanctions for troublemakers and no excuses for bad behaviour. He sets classes by ability – so the brightest can be stretched and the weakest given special support.

He teaches traditional subjects in a rigorous way and when the bureaucrats try to insert the latest fashionable nonsense into the curriculum he tells them where to get off.

There are fantastic extra-curricular activities, proper competitive sports and an amazing team of teachers – who work into the evenings and on Saturdays to give their pupils the best possible chance in life. Why isn’t every state school like that?”

Except that most schools have a proper uniform, “respect for authority”, clear sanctions, classes by ability and support for the weakest. Except that not every school is funded to the same degree and thus you have secondary schools which can afford special units for literacy and so forth, while others languish. So in the first sentence above, Gove is not proposing anything new – and he will find, if he gets his feet underneath the ministerial desk, that his hot air counts for very little when set against the cuts by which the Tories are promising to outdo their Labour equivalents, against even capitalist economic sense.

Of course it wouldn’t be Conservative conference is someone didn’t get a dig in at the curriculum. Yet, perhaps overcome by the sort of adrenaline-testosterone high that waving your cock about on stage tends to give, Gove has said something patently stupid. He has conjured up the image of the heroic headteacher fending off the bureaucrats; except that the headteacher in question is from an Academy, a group of schools to which Labour gave specific powers to shape their own curriculum. Whoops.

Not that I’m praising the system of Academies: despite double-figure millions being poured into such schools, some forty of them are still failing. Apparently the all-conquering initiative and cost-efficiency of private and third sector enterprise isn’t so all-conquering. As for the rest, where Gove discusses extra-curricular activities etc, every State school is like that. I have spent my fair share of evenings after school and friends of mine have spent their fair share of Saturdays running activities for the kids.

Even where there are no Saturday activities, the government’s Extended Schools programme is pushing every state school to offer more services during the week – whether it is breakfast club or track and field competitions. Even some of the worst schools in this part of the country are fiercely competitive at sport – the Abbey School in Faversham, for example. So Gove is laying out nothing new – but what I suspect will happen is that even more pressure is piled on without funds or personnel to achieve the goals, and yet more teachers will suffer.

Gove’s not done there though. Other pointless declarations include giving “teachers effective power to confiscate banned items and restrain violent pupils”, powers which we already have and which are clearly laid out for every new teacher. We can confiscate anything and we can restrain any pupil who is a danger to themselves or others. Plenty of state schools even have teachers given a free period once a week to wander the halls and to call into classrooms to ensure that the teacher has an effective grip on classroom discipline.

There’s also the claim that the Tories will

“…change the law so that when a head teacher expels a violent pupil– that pupil cannot plead that his human rights have been violated and then stick two fingers up to authority.”

When I was at school, I was part of the movement which organised a walk out on Day X, the day the bombing of Iraq began in 2003, I was lucky, in that some three hundred pupils walked out of my school and there was safety in numbers. A friend of mine was expelled from his school, however. He took the school to court, arguing that the expulsion was a victimisation of political dissent – which it was, whatever bureaucratic language one wishes to dress it up in. School kids, like any other section of the workforce, have the right to withdraw their consent from the State.

Walking out of school was our way of showing it – and it was remarkably successful. Literally thousands of school kids all around Northern Ireland took a (brief) interest in what was going on when people their own age began getting interviews on local and national radio stations in the run up to the outbreak of war. When war happened anyway, interest waned, which is to be expected – but the actual gesture changed the attitude of many young people. Protecting that right is important – and the basic point is that authority is not always right.

I was threatened with expulsion not just for organising the walkout but also for speaking on the radio and identifying myself as a student of Our Lady and St. Patrick’s College, Knock. The principal was raging because I brought the school into what he called ‘disrepute’ and he and the Vice-Principle kept me behind school one day in order to lecture me about appropriate behaviour. If I had been kicked out of school, it would have been a flagrant breach of my right to free speech. The sort of human right which kids don’t have, when it comes to school, according to Michael Gove.

Other elements to Gove’s speech are simply the re-announcement of existing policies, such as city technical schools to supply apprenticeships, which have existed since John Major’s government if not before and have continued under Labour. The only seeming exception is covered by Lee Griffin at Liberal Conspiracy.

Talk of social mobility rings a bit hollow in the mouth of Michael Gove when we know the cap for third-level education fees will be coming off under the next government. It rings hollow when we realise that no matter how hard anyone – everyone – works, poverty, deprivation and worklessness will continue to exist under capitalism and potentially get worse if George Osborne gets his wish to attack the deficit by massively slashing government expenditure – some of which keeps people in socially useful jobs. Like, er, teachers, teaching assistants and their support.

Then there are the elements to Gove speech which are plain fabrication or wishful thinking:

“Teachers have been deprived of professional freedom, denied the chance to inspire children with a love of learning and dragooned into delivering what the bureaucrats decree.

And we’ll ensure that experts in every field – especially mathematicians, scientists, technicians and engineers – can make a swift transition into teaching so our children have access to the very, very best science education”.

Teachers do not deliver what the bureaucrats decree. Most teachers, though I will explicitly limit this to my own experience, deliver what they want – and so long as it gets results, no one asks any questions. So long as the teacher controls the class and the exam results reach the expected target, teachers are left to do what they want. Even in terms of teaching methods, which Ofsted can be shit-hot on seeking, so long as a teacher makes a few gestures towards active learning (which actually works), then they’ll get a grade one on their observations.

As for ensuring that “experts in every field…can make a swift transition into teaching” I will be watching that policy with eyes glued. The few “experts” in their field – PhDs in history and chemistry and so on – that I’ve seen try and cut it as teachers failed miserably. They weren’t cut out for speaking in front of a class, or class discipline or some other aspect of teaching. Which isn’t something to be ashamed of because teaching is a hard job. These experts were weeded out at PGCE or GTP or NQT level, during training. So any policy planning to fast-track experts better have exactly the same safeguards as the extended training, and I doubt that it will.

This rant could continue but I shall end it with the following:

“There is no better way of building a modern, inclusive, patriotism than by teaching all British citizens to take pride in this country’s historic achievements. Which is why the next Conservative Government will ensure the curriculum teaches the proper narrative of British History – so that every Briton can take pride in this nation.”

What is surprising is just how similar this is to Labour ideas from the most recent version of the national curriculum. So similar, in fact, that there’s no difference. Every Key Stage 3 class studies British history from 1066 to late 20th Century. All the key periods are there: the wars with France, the English Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, the world wars and so on. The ‘historic achievements’ notably left off are the millions of people the British Empire killed through mass starvation, war, colonization and the occasional genocide.

Which seems to match up precisely with what Gove wants us to teach. It’s bullshit. Any self-respecting academic would choke to see the sort of drivel that gets ladled out for KS3 history. Names, dates, places, inventions. Causes are occasionally talked about but these are largely focused on individuals; Did Charles cause the English Civil War? The fight between crown and church becomes a tiff between Henry II and Thomas Becket. Actually some of this is unfair; on subjects like the Crusades, the new Folens books are excellent, especially on religion.

My point, however, is that the “achievements” of this country are often achieved or paid for by one part (the rich part) employing another part (usually poor) to slaughter and rob the rest of the poor part, or the Catholic part, or the ancestors of the immigrant parts: Pakistani, Indian, Middle-Eastern, African or Afro-Carribean. I’d teach that til the cows came home, then point to the Tory Party with the words “And those fuckers are the ones who sat back and got rich off all of it”. Then see how happy Michael Gove is when confronted with a generation aware of real ‘British’ history.

Truly there is little difference between Tory and Labour education policy. They’re both equally rubbish. The only difference is in emphasis; whereas the Tories want teachers to construct a semiotic civic code based on “modern patriotism”, Labour call that “multiculturalism”. Where the Tories simplistically emphasize “discipline” and attack “bureaucracy”, in their bid to win Daily Mail approbation, Labour are more about the multisyllabic spinning into six paragraphs of what could be said in one – but the actual proposals are relatively similar.

So once again the country seems set to elect a party which can talk a good show to its supporters whilst fundamentally changing nothing. The real change is being exacted by ‘economic circumstances’, forcing cuts, in which Labour are equally complicit. The bottom line: if you want education reform don’t vote for New Labour MPs and certainly don’t vote Tory.

  1. October 9, 2009 at 1:45 pm | #1

    Good rant, Dave. I didn’t read the speech, but there doesn’t seem to be anything in there other than Daily Mail rhetoric based on uttelry invalid assumptions about real life in schools.

    Reflective of the whole Tory conference – devoid of any policy-focused substance whatsoever as they try to avoid all possible risk in the run up to the election.

    giles at Freethinking Economist appears to be of a similar mind on the history teaching issue, which is refreshing at least. The whole dates/names/kings thing is so ludicrously and obviously not proper education that there could be a decent campaign against it.

  2. October 9, 2009 at 2:16 pm | #2

    Actually what I’m particularly shocked at is just how empty the whole thing was. I mean, sure, it’s the Tories, I don’t expect to support it – but surely the more thinking Right-wingers realise that most of what Gove said to appease them is utter rubbish?

  3. freethinkingeconomist
    October 9, 2009 at 2:24 pm | #3

    Quick one: do you like the Pupil Premium idea?

    On the whole, apart from my rather idiosyncratic views on history (I did a Global History masters recently), I tend to like the decentralising instincts of Gove – I like Academies, and I think tuition fees are actually progressive – abolishing them overwhelmingly helps richer students.

  4. October 9, 2009 at 2:31 pm | #4

    Gove’s “decentralizing” instincts are no different to those of the current government – and I personally think that Academies have been a disaster.

    As for tuition fees, if it is our goal to ensure that the wealthy subsidize the education of the poor, why does it have to be in the form of tuition fees? Why not simply tax the wealthy over the course of their lives?

    And incidentally, tuition fees are far from progressive. I don’t come from a rich family, but I don’t come from a poor one either; I would not have received any help to go to university beyond a loan – a loan which is repayable even when someone is earning poverty wages.

    But no, I dislike the Pupil Premium idea. Surely the whole purpose of comprehensive education is that wealthy, poor or middling, there is the opportunity for the same education? I am all in favour of schools in deprived areas being awarded extra funds to supplement the sort of social services which we should build into them through the Extended Schools programme – but the idea of school funding changing from year to year dependent on the socio-economic characteristics of the pupils is ridiculous, inconstant and could endanger services which benefit many by such short term planning.

  5. freethinkingeconomist
    October 9, 2009 at 2:55 pm | #5

    Perhaps I’m more optimistic, Dave, but I don’t think the Academies have been a disaster:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/28/mossbourne-academy-gcse-results

    The progressive point as much reflects the fact that it is overwhelmingly kids from better off backgrounds that get to choose whether to go to uni or not: the ones that fail to get good enough A levels are normally poorer.

    The maths is done more here

    http://www.centreforum.org/assets/pubs/times-up.pdf

    What you are saying is that you came from a median family. Helping median families is neither progressive nor regressive. But charging the person who benefits most directly from the decision to study is fair, and treating them like an adult, which is what most are.

    On the whole, the way tuition fees are paid back is “taxing the wealthy over the course of their lives”. It is a 9% surcharge to your income tax about £15,000, but one that ends after you’ve paid your due. Sounds fair to me: more fair than throwing it into the general taxation pool, which already hits a whole bunch of people who cannot hope to benefit from that education.

  6. October 9, 2009 at 3:07 pm | #6

    I have other grounds than simply results on which to judge academies – but even judging by results, there’s literally no research to show that the decoupling from LEA control is what is responsible for the improvement (as opposed to various other reforms usually enacted simultaneously). I suspect that serious case studies by reliable educationalists will take many years before they filter through.

    As for tuition fees:

    1. Because someone went to university, it does not follow that they benefit economically (except on average, which is not the same thing) and it therefore does not follow that someone should be forced to repay what they have only socially benefitted from in an economic fashion.

    2. I don’t see how any of it has anything to do with being treated like an adult. Most kids don’t see any of the money paid directly to their university on their behalf; the half they do see, they have to manage – but this is no different from when the money was simply paid as a grant.

    3. Adding an extra bill to someone earning £14,999 per year is not fair. £14,999 is barely enough for someone to live on, never mind adding a 9% surcharge to their outgoings.

    4. By throwing the cost of tertiary education into the general taxation pool – especially through increased corporation, capital and inheritance taxes rather than by yet another income band – the wealthy pay for third level education.

    I’m not particularly bothered if that seems ‘fair’ on the basis that most of those people cannot hope to benefit from such education, because the very act of getting wealthy doesn’t seem fair to me. It only occurs through the appropriation of a surplus from a value produced by somebody else.

    Edit: you didn’t mention my reply to your question about the Lib-Dem policy for funding…

  7. freethinkingeconomist
    October 9, 2009 at 4:00 pm | #7

    On £16,000, the bill would be 9% * £1000, or £90 per year. On £20k, it would be £450 per year. This for an education that has people queuing up to take.

    ‘Treating like an adult’ means – make the decision yourself whether to go to Uni. If two kids face that decision, one goes straight off to work, starts paying taxes, the other goes off the university, gains a discounted future bill: I don’t see why the first should have to pay for the second.

    When people don’t benefit from their education, they tend to pay back far less.

    Loads of stuff from the IFS on that.

    You may be right about Academies – years of results needed. I’m not going to fly off and give a judgement till then, but I like the idea.

  8. October 9, 2009 at 4:05 pm | #8

    Giles

    I think what you refer to as Gove’s ‘decentralising instincts’ are part of this ‘straw man’ thing that Dave refers to, referring to the way in reality teachers deliver a curriculum as they see fit, making the odd bow of convenience to central diktat but largely just getting on with the job. It’s very convenient for the Tories to have us believe that there’s always a government (ofsted) bureaucrat breathing down the neck of teachers, but it just isn’t true. What is true is that teaching and learning research is used to guide teachers, but that (again as Dave says) is or can be a good thing.

    (In passing, as a theoretical underpinning to this relative, and strategically defended, autonomy on the part of teachers, I think Lipsky’s semiinal ‘Street Level Bureaucrats; Dilemmas of the individual in public services’ is very useful

    And as with teaching methods, so with the rest of a school’s operation, in my experience (which is of primary school governorship/chairmanship of finance). I’ve written about this at my place a while back, when primary academies were mooted by Gove (but no concrete proposasls set out) , so I’ll be lazy and just quote from there:

    ‘First, I’m not even sure what the Tories mean when they say ‘political interference’. It’s a vacuous phrase based on the notion that all politics is necessarily bad, but other than that I really have no idea. They are simply insinuating that all schools are prey to lefties, as far as I can work out. If only.

    As for the notion that schools don’t currently control their own budgets, that is simply nonsense. There is already very tights (though complicated) legislation about the very high percentage of overall budgets from central government to local authorities which must be ’passported’ straight through to school budgets, and most local authorities actually pass on a much greater percentage than the minimum requirement.

    In turn, governors of schools have total authority over how they spend their budget allocation already. While schools do ‘buy back’ into centralised functions such as finance support or grounds maintenance, which are generally considered more effectively delivered across lots of schools, they are at absolute liberty not to do so if they want to arrange it for themselves

    To suggest that schools need more budget freedom is, put simply, based on a lie about the current situation.

    As proof, look back at the story of my school (part 1). Although the school adviser advised us as a governing body against taking what we considered a calculated financial risk by maintaining a three class structure as the school roll dropped, there was nothing she could do to stop us.

    The real issue was about whether we, as parents and governors, were prepared to take the power we had in our hands and use it, because we knew more about our school and its future than the LEA did.

    We were prepared to do so, and it worked. The question is whether the governing body or ‘Local Education Partnership’ of an academy, made up not of parents and teachers but by private sector representatives and sponsors would have taken the same steps, based on the same feelings of solidarity and wider understanding of the dynamics of our area. I suspect not, and our school might now be closed.

    Of course the Conservatives might counter that academy schools will bring on private sector funding.

    Let’s just look at the facts, though. The secondary academies had to raise 2 million pounds in sponsorship to attract 25 million in central government investment. So the private sector brings 10% of the start-up budget, and gets control of the school by doing so – a pretty good commercial deal, I’d say.

    Meanwhile, PTFAs up and down the country, year in year out, raise huge amounts of money, many between 5% and 10% of the overall school budget at primary level. Yes, thy do exactly the same thing as the private sector sponsors, and what thanks do they get?

    And what of freedom over the curriculum? Again, this is just a vacuous insinuation that primary school curricula are a matter of absolute diktat from the state, and this is simply not true. Certainly there is a national curriculum based, perhaps a little too much on the ‘basics’ of reading and writing, and there is guidance that literacy and numeracy should figure in most school days, but there is no centralised timetable, and primary schools have just about as much fleixbility as they need on the basis that children learn (though it is all far too geared towards SATS 1 and 2).

    In my school, there is no local authority bureaucrat hanging round telling us that we can’t devote a bit of time each May to practising the Maypole dancing, part of a 150 year old tradition of the Village Treat Day.

    Essentially, what the Tories are saying about primary schools is hokum, devoid of facts, designed to have just think all our primary schools are Stalinist Institutions which need liberating from the ever-oppressive state.

    Yes, additional flexibilities for teachers and parents just to get on with stuff – to be empowered – would be good, as would a greater shift to redistributive funding.

    But to suggest that this will be achieved through a string of academies prepared to out-market neighbouring schools and bully them into submission under the rhetoric of ‘competition is good for us all’, and to do so by insinuating things about the current state of affairs which are simply not true, is something of which the Conservatives should be ashamed.’

    It’s at http://www.bickerstafferecord.org.uk/?p=748 if you can (again) be arsed.

  9. ronniegordon
    October 10, 2009 at 9:13 am | #9

    What about Gove’s ‘interesting’ idea that the thing we most need in schools now is more ex-soldiers as teachers because there are so many transferable skills.

  10. October 10, 2009 at 9:32 am | #10

    I don’t disagree with that; I know a couple of ex-service teachers and they are very good. Naturally this won’t be universal, but so long as they pass the same teacher training qualifications the rest of us need, then absolutely.

    What I wonder, though, is if Gove is planning to simply foist the ex-service personnel on schools as a means to cut the cost of teaching staff – non-qualified teachers earn less than teachers who have their QTS.

  11. October 12, 2009 at 5:33 pm | #11

    @Dave (4)

    – The loan is repaid on income £15,000 p/a, as an extra 9% on top of the basic rate. Although you’re quite right that it isn’t progressive (it’s actually a “regressive” tax in that those on the poorer end of the repaying scale pay the tax for longer) you’re very wrong to claim that “[the loan] is repayable even when someone is earning poverty wages”. It isn’t — it’s a repayment plan that is tied to income, and has an allowance worth 15,000 p/a before someone even has to start repayments.

  12. October 12, 2009 at 5:38 pm | #12

    I’m in the middle of writing an article, so I can’t write an extended response – but what I will say is that I’m well aware of the value over which people begin paying back that loan – which is $14,999 – but that I still consider that to be too low to be taking yet more money out of it. I thought that was pretty clear in comment #4.

  1. October 10, 2009 at 7:52 pm | #1

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,183 other followers