Labour Teachers

Reflections on Stephen Twigg’s speech to the RSA 17th June 2013

This was a significant speech, setting out much of Stephen Twigg’s key policy ideas. It  was a drive to move the debate around education from an ideological one about structures to one about standards for all; as he said “’we shouldn’t fall into the trap of equating structural change with school improvement”, something he clearly feels Gove has promoted.

Twigg spelt out three ‘radical reforms’ he wants to make:

“Where a school freedom promotes higher standards, we will extend those freedoms to all schools”
He showed how he would level the playing field for all schools, academies, free schools and maintained schools; equalizing opportunities for innovation, curriculum freedom and spending control, “In a One Nation system, freedoms would be granted to all schools and innovation would spread across the system.”

“No one cares more about a school than the community it serves.”

He intends to deliver “a radical devolution of power from Whitehall” and increased local accountability for all schools, academies included. David Blunkett has been “asked to lead a review into the local oversight of schools. He will look at the role of the local authority…I am clear that local authorities should be able to issue early warning notices to academies and Free Schools, in the same way as they can for maintained schools”. In this he has rightly identified a key weakness in Gove’s Academisation programme – what do you do when they fail? “Contrary to the Government’s rhetoric, Free Schools and academies are not a panacea for school improvement”, “We need stronger local oversight for all schools so that struggling schools are spotted much sooner, local support is on hand to drive up standards, and schools have a clear relationship with their community.”

“We will ensure that every school plays its part to raise standards across their area and meet the needs of their community.”

There was a strong emphasis on the development of mechanisms to ensure schools collaborated with each other, “a lack of collaboration poses a risk for schools standards”. Quoting Andreas Schleicher and referencing evidence from PISA Stephen set out why he feels formalised collaboration is essential to school improvement. “The evidence on school improvement, from home and abroad, demonstrates that partnerships and federations between schools are key to raising teaching standards, leadership skills, and sharing best practice”. “That is why under Labour, we would make it a requirement for all schools to partner with weaker schools as a condition for attaining an Outstanding rating by Ofsted, taking forward the recommendation of the Academies Commission. Academies have an important part to play here…I would introduce greater emphasis with regard to collaboration in academy funding agreements. Not new duties, but giving teeth to existing responsibilities. Indeed, I also want to make sure that new academy funding agreements, and the renewal of existing ones, are subject to these schools demonstrating a real commitment to playing their part in collaborating with other schools in their community.

There was also a clear message valuing the role of teachers and school leaders in realising his vision for school improvement, Gove “has lost sight of the most important thing for driving standards forward: the people in our schools and classrooms across the country. The professionals. They are the true enablers of promise.” In questions afterwards he restated his commitment to evidence based policy through the setting up of an ‘Office for Education Improvement’ and to enhancing the status of the profession through a proposed ‘Royal College of Teaching’.

On Free Schools “Labour will not continue with Michael Gove’s Free Schools policy. Existing free schools and those in the pipeline will continue. But in future we need a better framework for creating new schools.” He will however allow for parent promoted schools to open where they are needed most. But in a distinct diversion from Gove’s Free Schools policy “Labour’s vision for creating new schools is one where parents and local communities will have a greater say.” The nature of a new school would not be pre-determined, “there will be no bias for or against a school type- so new academies, new maintained schools, new trust schools- all options.”

He book-ended the speech with comment and policy plans to ensure schools took responsibility for improving social mobility, “admissions of working class children into Russell Group universities remain shamefully low. Unacceptably low.”

“Every school must play its part in ensuring fair admissions. The comprehensive ideal, within a mixed economy of schools. That’s the challenge”. This would be tackled partly through a strengthening of the admissions code, and extending the office of the school adjudicator’s jurisdiction to cover academies and free schools.

So what wasn’t in the speech:

• The curriculum – giving maintained schools the same curriculum freedoms afforded to academies would seem to signal the death of the National Curriculum.. or is it? In questions after the speech Stephen said that Kevin Brennan was looking at questions around the curriculum and we should “watch this space”.

• Teachers pay and conditions – apart from the return to all teachers needing to have a recognised teaching qualification this wasn’t mentioned. Again in questions afterwards he did say “I think a combination of nationally negotiated pay with in-school flexibility is the way forward”. Many will read this suspiciously, but my guess is he wants to allow Headteachers to use pay flexibility to recruit and keep their best teachers. Pupil premium, which he is clearly a fan of, combined with this flexibility could be a powerful tool for Headteachers.

• And pensions? – Nothing. I think the message is pretty clear. Don’t expect a new Labour government to reverse any of the changes made to teacher pensions by this government.

There was a lot covered in a tight speech, packed full of policy that in my view signalled a significant shift from Gove’s ideologically driven attempted revolution. It reads like a Labour agenda for school improvement with a distinct focus on improving opportunities for social mobility through education. But I would urge you to read it for yourself and make your own mind up.

You can do so here.

John Taylor (@John_H_Taylor) is a London secondary school teacher and Co-Editor of Labour Teachers

This blog was original posted on Andrew Adonis’s own blog

Labour created academies to improve state education radically. We are proud of their success and we stand resolutely behind the sponsors, parents and local communities who have created and sustained these independent state schools founded to provide a first-class education to children of all backgrounds.

Academies are One Nation Labour in action, and Stephen Twigg today reaffirmed Labour’s support for an expanded academies programme – both academies to replace failing or underperforming schools, and academies which do not take over from an existing school, like Mossbourne Community Academy in Hackney, and Peter Hyman’s School 21 in Newham, set up where there is a demand for extra school places.

Stephen also made clear that Labour would support successful schools which have changed to academy status, and would extend academy freedoms to all schools.

Free schools are academies without a predecessor school, like Mossbourne and School21. Stephen rightly pledged to support all such schools open or in the pipeline in 2015. Labour will enable more parent-led academies, like the West London Free School, to be established where there is a local demand for places.

Where we differ fundamentally from the Conservatives is that they are allowing ‘free schools’ to be established anywhere, whether or not there is a need for additional places, whereas Labour will rightly locate new academies in areas – and there are plenty of them – where there is a shortage of good quality school places. Pressure on public spending is intense; in 2010 Michael Gove cancelled 715 priority building projects for academies and community schools in desperate need of new or modernised facilities. It cannot be a priority to establish new academies in areas where there are sufficient good quality places while existing academies and community schools lack the facilities they need to do a good job.

Stephen was also right to say that a Labour government will not tolerate failing academies, and that where an academy does not have a sponsor able to govern the school effectively, they should be replaced with a sponsor equal to the task. Academies were never about independence alone but about investing in high-capacity governance – through sponsors such as Ark, Harris and United Learning – and giving them the freedom they need to achieve excellent educational standards. Where a sponsor does not deliver, they should be replaced.

Stephen rightly praised London Challenge and the critical contribution it made to transforming education in the capital by focusing attention and support on under-performing schools, partnering them systematically with successful schools and their management teams. We need an equivalent of London Challenge for every region of the country. As a former Minister for London Schools, nobody is better placed than Stephen to bring this about.

So the academies programme will continue to flourish under Labour.

The next key priority for school reform is technical education and a transformation of youth apprenticeships to serve the ’forgotten 50 per cent’ – as Ed Miliband has graphically described them – who are not on track for higher education. On this, the Conservatives are nowhere to be seen.

While Michael Gove tinkers with the grading structure of GCSEs, and the precise order in which periods of history should be taught to children, there is mass youth unemployment caused in large part by the weakness of technical education and the shortage of youth apprenticeships. The government should be tackling this crisis with bold action – action on a par with the drive to create academies over the past decade – in particular to transform youth apprenticeships. This requires a mobilisation of the state, working with the private and voluntary sectors in innovative ways, to reform the quality and quantity of apprenticeships. Yet the government is standing idly by and presiding over a REDUCTION in the number of youth apprenticeships.

Ministers are completely off the pace. Just look at their record as an employer. In parliamentary replies to me last week, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills – the department responsible for apprenticeships – revealed that four of its largest agencies – the Ordnance Survey, the Met Office, Companies House and the Land Registry – have no apprentices – not one – between them, and only four – yes, four – staff under the age of 21 between them. That is no apprentices, and four staff under the age of 21, out of a total staff of nearly 9,000. At the last count BIS itself had only one apprentice under the age of 21, out of a staff of 2,500.

If the state does not lead in creating apprenticeships and employing staff under 21, how can it expect the private sector to follow?

Michael Gove and the government are twiddling their thumbs in the face of this great crisis of youth unemployment. It is One Nation Labour’s duty to act on apprenticeships with the boldness and passion we demonstrated in the creation of academies to replace failing comprehensives. We will do so.

Andrew Adonis (@Andrew_Adonis) is a Labour peer and a former education minister.

The full text of Stephen Twigg’s speech today at the RSA

Stephen Twigg MP, Labour’s Shadow Education Secretary, said today at the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts:

Thank you to Matthew and the team at the RSA for hosting us in this magnificent venue.

Your work in education is vital and your contributions are significant.

Your two reports ‘No School an Island’ and ‘Unleashing Greatness’ offer important answers to today’s exam question: How do we achieve an excellent school place for every child?

That’s what parents want to know.

I had the privilege of serving as the Minister for Schools between 2002 and 2005.

Education is a very personal passion.

I want to share with you a quote:

‘Education means a way to escape deprivation. It symbolises a better, more stable life for us and those who surround us.’

Continue reading →

This blog was originally posted on Joe’s own blog.

The case against performance related pay has now been made.  While, the case will go unheeded, and it is doubtful that greater energy or coherence would have changed that fact, it does serve to illuminate the many levels on which the policy is misguided. More important than the variety of criticisms that can, and have, been directed at the policy however, is the insight it gives us into the mistaken principals that underlie the whole educational reform programme of the Coalition.

The extent of the problem of using performance related pay for teachers is evident.

• As a teacher, it is insulting, misguided and shows a lack of appreciation of professional motivations and relationships.
• Academically, the research suggests that the effectiveness of such a system is doubtful, certainly limited and potentially negative.
• From a governance perspective, the practicality issues of performance related pay for teachers are pervasive; what should we measure? Who should measure it?
• In terms of governing, it has been crudely implemented and so is already acting as a divisive force between educators and policy makers at a time when great collaboration is needed.

On top of these issues there are questions around the unintended consequences of introducing the forces of individual competition into the education system, will top teachers abandon struggling schools? Will monetary incentives encourage gaming the system to the detriment of education? What is certain is that the questions surrounding the utility of performance related pay are weighing heavily on its successful implementation.

Yet, while all of these criticisms are valid, they fail to identify the issue at the heart of the policy and the broader overhaul of the education system. The pursuit of performance related pay for teachers is symptomatic of an overreliance on individualism as a source of power for change.

Educational improvement is a complex problem, that is to say, it is interminable; it can’t be solved, merely addressed, it is unpredictable; cause and consequence are difficult to ascertain, and it is continually evolving.

Complex problems, such as educational improvement, cannot be addressed with elegant solutions; there is no perfect solution, no system or incentive that will solve the problem alone. Instead, solutions must draw on a range of power sources to address the problem effectively. They must draw on the power of hierarchical structures, they must incentivise and empower individuals and give them room to innovate and they must encourage collaboration, empathy and collective experience.

The problem with the coalition’s education reforms is that they are rooted in individualistic competition at the expense of collaboration. Performance related pay is merely the most recent and most overt manifestation of the coalition’s belief that individualistic competition is the most effective source of power.

Performance related pay, like encouraging schools to compete, fails to acknowledge the benefits of schools and teachers working together, of educators cultivating collective intelligence and investing in a community of fate that is built on empathy and experience.

So while others are creating collaborative solutions to the problem of education improvement, the coalition is doing its best to discourage them. Performance related pay then, is not simply a misguided policy, it is symptomatic of a misunderstanding at the heart of coalition policy and a misdiagnosis of the nature of the problem of educational improvement itself. The complex problem of educational improvement requires a clumsier approach, one which draws on the power of hierarchy and the responsibility and drive of individuals but also encourages solidarity and values collaboration.

Joe Lane (@joeAlane) is a Labour member in Yorkshire.
He is in his first year of Teach First (ITT) in a secondary school.
He blogs at joealane.wordpress.com/

This piece was originally posted on John Tomsett’s own blog

I have been a teacher of English for 24 years, a Headteacher for 9 years and, at the age of 48, this much I know about bridging the independent-state school divide.

All our certainties seem to be crumbling away. In our complex, changing world hang on to your values and do what’s right for your students.

Headteachers like talking about themselves; what follows is relevant to my theme – promise! I played golf for Sussex against the Worthing Golf Club on 11 December 1982; on the way home, having changed from Farahs into drainpipes, my dad dropped me off outside the Brighton Centre. I touted a ticket and spent three glorious, sweaty hours in the mosh-pit at the Jam’s last ever concert. I have spent my life walking that line between vastly different cultures. They played Eton Rifles, of course…

The class divide is exemplified beautifully in golf. The Artisan Golf Associationhas 70 clubs on its membership list and is for working class golfers. Each Artisan club shares a golf course with the “parent” club; each one has a separate, modest changing room-cum-clubhouse, reduced fees and limited times to play at weekends. As a youth I was a member of the Artisan Triangle Golf Club based at Piltdown Golf Club in deepest Sussex. We got changed in a well-kitted out shed across the road from the spacious, rambling country house which is still the Piltdown Golf Club’s clubhouse:

The Artisan changing rooms are beyond the parked cars on the right

As a 12 year-old golf fanatic I was oblivious to the class apartheid of my golfing world. Only when I became good enough to play for Sussex did I realise what being an Artisan golfer meant; it meant I couldn’t play for Sussex. I couldn’t join the Piltdown parent club as I hadn’t been to private school (one of the main qualifying criteria for membership) so I joined Crowborough Golf Club, ten miles and a bus journey up the road. I went on to be the course record holder at Piltdown, to captain the Sussex U18s & U23s and play for the full Sussex team.

The true gentry amongst the Piltdown parent club in the late ’70s treated the Artisan members with the greatest courtesy. Captain Bartlett’s gin-filled eyes dripped with affection when he conversed with my dad; when dad died the parent club flew their club flag at half-mast. It was the bourgeois middle-class members who were snobby.

The impact of the class divide upon young people is indelible. Upon returning to Piltdown Golf Club fifteen years ago, as a 33 year-old Deputy Headteacher and father, I was still deeply reluctant to use the only available pay-phone – it was located just inside the front door of the parent clubhouse. And that experience crystallises for me the enormity of our students’ journey from the estate at the bottom of Huntington Road to a professional career.

You can’t aspire to something you don’t know about. Despite my three grade As at A level in the early ’80s, my comprehensive school teachers never once mentioned Oxbridge to me or my cleaner mother and postman father.

The difference between what you want to do and what you think you can do if you’re a working class kid is the key. We are all bound by our own self-imposed limits. The thing is, when I walked the hallowed corridors of the remarkable Whitgift School last Saturday I could imagine its students feeling that the world was theirs. Just look at the first team cricket pitch…

If the UK were more equal, we’d all be better off as a population. That’s the conclusion of Professors Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in their seminal text on the socially corrosive effects of income inequality, The Spirit Level. If one of our boys I spoke to yesterday, who is talented, good-looking, charming, funny, but with a chaotic home life, is going to thrive in a socially immobile world we have to give boys like him personalised, aspirationally different experiences. Doing what we have always done is nowhere near enough any more.

The Independent-State School Partnership in York is thriving. Bootham, The Mount and St. Peter’s are great schools and I have not one single reservation about working with them in the York ISSP, because, as Wilkinson and Pickett make clear, we all benefit. Together we provide our students and staff with great experiences – educationally, culturally and socially – which break down any divisions that might exist between us. I reckon what we’re doing is pretty special – click our logo below and see the opportunities available to our youngsters.

Reach for the Michelin stars, not McSchools. Sir Ken Robinson’s piece in the TES encapsulates the fundamental problem we have in state schools; his article in this morning’s Guardian is equally apposite. Our students’ futures depend upon us all beingtruly great teachers but the ridiculous sense that there is a formula to teaching we have to adhere to has crippled state school teaching for too long. Jonathan Taylor, Headteacher of Bootham School, said to me at Wednesday’s ISSP meeting that he spends his time encouraging his teachers to capture their students’ imaginations in whichever way they can, rejecting any notion that there is a standardised way to teach. Lesson objectives, smectives…

I wish my school, 35 years ago, had had HOAP. We have the Huntington Oxbridge Application Programme which encourages our Year 9s to begin thinking about which top university they would like to attend and supports them through to securing a place at their chosen HE institution. My only slight disappointment was being unable to find a name for the programme whose acronym is CERTAINTY.

Raising aspirations doesn’t cost anything. As the biggest school in York we used to receive £160,000 a year to maintain our premises; two years ago that was cut by 80% and £28,000 doesn’t go very far these days. Our students will never enjoy the quality of facilities their private school counterparts are used to, but they can have dreams. Working with our ISSP colleagues we have to do all we can to help keep our students’ dreams alive rather than let them be crippled by a sense of inferiority. That pay-phone still haunts me…

John Tomsett (@johntomsett) is a secondary school Headteacher and education blogger. He blogs at johntomsett.wordpress.com

This blog was originally posted on LabourList

Stephen Twigg, Labour’s Shadow Education Secretary is one of the more thoughtful and pragmatic individuals to hold this vitally important brief for some time. To his credit Stephen has been out and about these past two years listening to pupils, teachers, parents and governors and finding out more about the challenges they face on a day-to-day basis. In addition Stephen has been looking closely at some local, regional, national and international programmes that have had a demonstrable impact in raising levels of attainment particularly with groups of vulnerable leaners such as free school meals pupils, white working class boys and children in care.

However he is also astute enough to understand that the intelligence gathering, policy formulation phase will soon have to end and that both he and the party will need to outline a creative and compelling vision of what our school system will look like under a future Labour government. More importantly he will need to articulate how as a nation we will seek to meet the needs, ambitions and aspirations of the young people our schools and colleges are meant to serve.

The pragmatic Twigg realises that, rightly or wrongly, one of the most contentious areas for a future Labour government and a future Labour Education Secretary will be how we ensure that state funded schools are accountable to local people. When Labour wins the next election and, as I hope and expect, Stephen is appointed as Education Secretary he will come under significant pressure from various wings of the party to either keep his foot firmly down on the ‘structural reform’ pedal or to apply the handbrake, do a U-turn and find a way of bringing academies and Free Schools back under local authority control. What should he do?

First of all I think it is important that both in opposition and in government he articulates the difference as he sees it between ‘state control’ and ‘state accountability.’ Should local or national governments control and micro-manage what happens in our schools or should the emphasis be back on ‘standards not structures’ on the holding of professionals to account for outcomes not processes? The Left should be mindful that what the past fifty years of school reform shows us is that the road to securing better educational opportunities for all is paved with good intentions but the impact has been minimal. Almost all of the post-war restructuring of the secondary school system in England: grammar schools; city technology colleges; grant maintained schools and even specialist schools mainly benefited the middle classes and not the urban poor. Those on the Right of the party need to be honest and admit that all of this is primarily because the advantaged and educated have always known how to ensure that their children attend the establishments that will help them become advantaged too. In this context Twigg will need to make clear where he and the party stands in relation to academies and Free Schools. In recent years I have been arguing that Labour should seek to accelerate the sponsored academy programme for failing schools when it gets back into government.

I firmly believe – and have seen at first hand – that academies provide the best means by which education can truly make a difference to the life chances of young people regardless of their background. The last Labour government deserves huge credit for making the case for the setting up of so many of the first academies in areas of significant social and economic deprivation. The truth is that for numerous, often working class communities trapped in a cycle of educational failure and under-achievement Labour’s academy programme provided new energy, new purpose and new opportunities for thousands of young people who deserved better. Yet I know that many fellow party members and supporters feel differently and often their concerns relate to what they see as the lack of local ‘control’ or the lack of clarity as to ‘who’ these state funded academies are accountable to. In fairness they have a point; academies do not always succeed and some sponsors do not see why they should be accountable to anyone other than the Secretary of State.

In my view Labour needs to take these genuine concerns seriously and should consider strengthening – via legislation if needs be – the existing role of local authorities (LAs) as children’s’ champions. For example a future Labour government could do this by:

• Making clear that LAs have a crucial role in ensuring that all children have access to high quality educational provision;
• ‘Requiring’ all poorly performing schools in a LA, including academies and Free Schools to produce twice yearly reports for local children and young people scrutiny boards on the progress the school is making in terms of standards of attainment;
• The creation of ‘Independent Local Education Scrutineers’  (ILESs) in each LA who will be tasked with the role of challenging local providers to improve but only if their performance is a cause for concern – either in terms of standards, access or community cohesion. ILESs are likely to be former headteachers or principals and will be appointed by a panel of local elected members, headteachers and academy principals, parents, governors and students for a fixed term (possibly 4  years) and  accountable to local children and young people scrutiny boards. ILESs would be tasked to produce termly reports to the scrutiny board and have regular meetings with regional directors of Ofsted.

‘ILESs’ would be contracted for around 50 days per year and paid a flat daily rate of something in the region of £300 per day in line with other public service appointments. Central government would fund 50% of the costs with LAs funding the other 50% with the option of increasing the number of days if needed or required.

Accountability in all areas of public life is important and there is a real and in my view genuine concern about  the lack of transparency at a local level in relation to academy sponsors , their aims and values and exactly how they are helping to ensure that the young people they serve make rapid, systemic and sustainable improvements.

Stephen Twigg cannot afford to get bogged down in endless debates about school structures or governance arrangements in his first years as Education Secretary. He needs to make clear that what matters ultimately is the impact that state funded schools have on the life chances of the pupils they serve. By all means strengthen local accountability structures but in doing so let us also be clear about what it is we want to hold schools and academies to account for.

Mike Ion (@MikeIon) is a Labour Party member, councillor and former PPC, who has written on political and educational matters for the Guardian, Tribune and Progress.
He blogs at mike-ion.blogspot.co.uk

My name is Emma Hardy and I am a passionate supporter of both the NUT and the Labour Party and though it may seem to some that this is a contradiction I want to prove that it is not. Neither the NUT nor the Labour Party can represent me completely and unless I choose to set up my own organisations with the membership of 1, then I must accept that there are some things that both organisations do that I think are misguided.

Continue reading →

This is a cross post from Ramblings of a Teacher

Having posted this:

Gove is realising that the NC is a very blunt tool for achieving his (not all unreasonable) intentions. But blunt tools do much damage!

— Michael Tidd (@michaelt1979) May 10, 2013

I felt that a more detailed clarification was in order.

So firstly, let me deal with the part in brackets: I happen to think that a lot of what Mr Gove says is… reasonable. This is not always a popular view, but actually there is much that he says that it is hard to argue with, without sounding foolish. He talks frequently of having higher expectations of students in English schools. With that, I agree. He talks also of the importance of providing opportunities for those who come from poorer, or otherwise educationally-disadvantaged backgrounds. Who could not agree with that? He also speaks of the importance of a sound understanding of grammar. That is perhaps a more contentious point in some senses, but I happen to agree.

I also happen to think that there is some merit in his calls for increased focus on knowledge acquisition. It is too easy to talk about Google, or 21st Century learning, or of ‘skills’ without giving this point of view the credit it deserves. It is not enough to say that proposals are old-fashioned unless you can also demonstrate that what we have now is unquestionably better. And I’m not sure it always is.

I have met with Mr Gove’s former ministerial colleague, Mr Gibb, who has explained clearly to me his concerns about lack of knowledge. He bemoans the lack of quick recall of things like Victorian Prime Minsters. I struggle to share his concern, and happen to think that in an information-rich world, the analytical skills of interpretation, source evaluation and analysis are vital for our young people . But I do understand that there is a risk of the emphasis on skills in some areas being at the cost of some knowledge in others.
Take the Geography curriculum. At present the KS2 curriculum requires that we teach children to “ask geographical questions”. This strikes me as a rather meaningless objective in a world where children’s curiosity should be assumed and fostered. In the draft proposals for the KS2 Geography curriculum we will be required to teach children to “name and locate counties and cities of the United Kingdom”. That strikes me as a perfectly reasonable aim for 11-year-olds – and one that is likely to be of some use to them. And it’s been lacking.

I have no objection, therefore, to a review of the National Curriculum. Indeed, I welcome it.

However, I rather suspect that Mr Gove hopes to achieve a good deal more with curriculum reform than is possible. He seems to yearn for a return to a golden heyday of Latin and Dickens which probably never existed, and certainly isn’t appropriate to 2013. And he seems to believe that the National Curriculum can achieve that. Or at least, he did.

He was wrong.

The National Curriculum is merely text on a page. It has no soul, no life, no real embodiment. That can only come from teachers. Even that other over-used lever of central government – the examination framework – is only a screwdriver in the workshop of education. And it too is blunt.

And as I’ve said already: blunt tools can do more harm than good.

The real power of the education system rests in its professionals. What happens in classrooms, what is taught to our children, what is achieved in schools, remains almost wholly outside of the control of the Secretary of State for Education. And rightly so.

Sadly, what Mr Gove has chosen to do is to try to force his views upon schools. A curriculum drafted in secret, re-drafted in his office, and presented as a fait accompli will not work. Worse, it serves only to fit the caricature of a power-crazed autocrat from the past.
And it could have been oh so different.

Mr Gove could have worked with teachers. He could have used the expertise of people like Willingham to whom he so often refers, and he could have tried to build a consensus view of the purpose and value of the sort of education he desires. And it may even have worked. Not everyone would have been persuaded, of course. And never would there be total agreement. But he might just have managed to take the profession with him on some of those common sense issues; even persuaded a critical mass on some of the more controversial matters. But most importantly, he might have created a common force for improvement, rather than creating a battlefield for opposing arguments.

Politicians come and go. Their ideas often come and go with them. If Mr Gove had really wanted to have achieved real and lasting transformation for the better in our education system, then he should have tried to work with the parts that really make the difference: the people standing at the front of those classrooms, not the folders on the shelf in the cupboard.

Just think what he might have achieved with a more collaborative approach, a good use of real evidence and maybe even some investment in those teachers who wanted to join the journey.

In 2012, Ofsted said
In schools that are not yet good,leadership focuses too much on organisational management and not enough on pedagogy and the leadership of teaching.

I’d like to suggest that Mr Gove change his attention away from attempting to force change through organisational management and turn his attention to the pedagogues. If he can persuade them on the key points then he’d find his journey much easier.

Michael Tidd (@michaelt1979) is a teacher and Labour Party member in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. He blogs here.

Is cheating endemic in our schools? This anonymous teacher offers a view:

In February this year, a survey of Teach First graduates found that respondents had experienced the pressure, or indeed the command, to cheat during GCSE assessments. In January, Atlanta became the focus of an outbreak in teacher cheating through the alteration of test scores, the latest in a steady drumbeat of similar news coming from across the pond. Finally, according to the Daily Telegraph, last year five schools in this country were stripped of the freedom to run their own exams, with one school having had its exam entries suspended, whilst 130 penalties were handed out for malpractice at GCSE and A level. In a system that does not try very hard to look for such things, that is rather a lot. Yet you can be sure it is just the tip of the iceberg.

Which means cheating exists, and it is a problem. Not just because it is a bad thing to do, but also because it undermines the examination system itself. If we cannot trust that the grades our children receive are reasonably accurate reflections of their ability, then the whole principle of testing becomes suspect. Additionally, there is the issue of natural justice: students working hard to achieve the top grades are lumped in with students whose coursework and assessment grades were at least part secured by frantic teacherly intervention.

Yet this is not just a tale of amoral and immoral teachers busily cheating because they’re Very Bad People. The truth is rather more simple than that: teachers are under pressure. Serious pressure. In a system that stacks the odds against them then holds them to account for things often beyond their control.

And so teachers enter the ethical borderlands. The problem is particularly acute with coursework and controlled assessments. All the incentives exist to encourage a teacher to ensure that particular outcomes are delivered: very few exist to preserve the ethical integrity of the assessment system. In fact, it goes deeper– to stand against this particular tide is actively disincentivised. Deliver the grades or you have some serious explaining to do.

To call this cheating might make some within the profession wince and recoil, but that is what is. Some, having known little different and seeing their own career rise tied up with it, see it as the necessary means of doing right by the kids. Others simply fear for their jobs and so obediently do what is deemed necessary. Placed in an increasingly competitive system, it takes remarkable constancy to stand resolutely by whilst knowing a correction here or a bit of editing there might just be what keeps your head above the water. Especially when you know that many other teachers are not quite so determined to uphold those high ethical standards. Delivering results has developed into an arms race, pitting teacher against teacher: if another teacher is having success being creative with the rules, then one better follow suit or prepare to withstand the scrutiny of a school management inquiring into why your results are not so good as the classroom down the corridor.

Of course, for those teachers repelled by such a reality, they cannot realistically speak out. To do so would be professional suicide, perhaps causing a ripple of controversy for a day or two but leading to the dole queue when, 48 hours later, your career lies in tatters and everybody else has forgotten about the principle you decided to sacrifice it for. The bank manager would not forgive you a mortgage payment for the sake of a failed crusade.

Which brings us to why this practice remains in the shadows, with only the odd foray into popular debate, usually when one of our number is unlucky enough to get caught. The answer is simple – because it suits everyone that way. All the way along the production line, people benefit.

As I have mentioned, there are the teachers who have embraced this as part of playing the game, as necessary for delivering results, as doing right by the kids in their care, as a means of jinking their way up the professional ladder. For others, it is easier by far to turn a blind eye, since challenging it would bring down the whole edifice on their own heads, without changing all that much in the process. Lastly, others, stuck in between these two poles, prefer to pretend it is not there, since it calls into question their own professionalism and integrity, implicating them in a practice which they may still instinctively feel is not quite right. After all, what teacher would sit down with their grandchild and proudly boast of the number of controlled assessments they, even unwillingly, falsified? Who would boldly profess to doing nothing about the cheating they had witnessed in their schools? Who would wish to propagate the unspoken truth that pervades the system: that we, as a profession, cheat? Better by far to deny it exists and screech at anyone who dares pop their head above the parapet and suggest otherwise.

Then there is school management, also inclined to pretend it is not there, since they and the wider school benefit from it through league table standings, and to acknowledge otherwise would suggest collaboration in corruption. They are largely uninterested in hearing tales of dubious practice – they would much rather have results in the bag. So long as nobody is caught, then everyone is a winner, and we’d like to keep it that way thank you very much. Do remember that the Teach First survey which revealed concern about ethically dubious practices also identified dubious ‘performance management’ schemes and bullying from school management as key concerns. Should anybody suggest there is a cheating problem, then the response of the school is to suggest that this is a lone wolf, rather than the reality of the system they operate within, before bringing to a swift resolution the career of the person who blew the whistle in the first place.

Following this, there are the Education Secretaries who would prefer to paint this as the irregular practice of individual fallen teachers, rather than the internal enticements of the system, since to do so is far easier than questioning the order they have created, or the pernicious impact many of their pet policies have had in disincentivising integrity and authenticity as virtues to be upheld within education and assessment.

Then there are the exam boards, who prefer to look the other way since they do not wish to expose the intentional laxity of their examination procedures nor put off potential customers by doing anything that would either inhibit the achievement of top grades nor make that achievement more awkward than it might otherwise be. To do so, alone, would cost them customers, which also means it would cost them money, and that would be an eccentric business plan.

And lastly, there are the students themselves, and indeed their parents, who do not wish to pursue any concerns (save for the handful who lose out by it), even when they know about it, since it is they who ultimately benefit, who get their job offers and college courses based on it, and who increasingly feel that it is the job of the teacher to secure these grades for them anyway.

All of which means nothing is likely to change any time soon. Nor indeed are the lonely voices alerting people to the realities of the system likely to be given much sustained credence. But it exists nonetheless. And the recent escalation in stakes for teachers has simply made it more difficult for those teachers seeking to keep their moral compass intact to operate in a system that has and will become increasingly hostile toward them for doing so.  With league tables, beefed up management and now performance related pay, results-at-all-costs will continue to overwhelm anybody seeking to remain authentic and honest in the assessment of our children.

It would be glib to say, as many without knowledge of the education system do, that results should be delivered without the need to cheat, or that teachers should be honourable enough to resist the temptations placed before them. Yet in a system that prioritises grades above all else, those who gain an edge through gaming the system are those who reap the highest rewards, whilst those who fail to do so are the ones who have to answer accusations of incompetence. So the demarcation line between the ethical and unethical becomes noticeably less distinct. And with it, the integrity and honour of the teaching profession.

 Anonymous is a working teacher

This article was originally published by Progress

The Department for Education’s vision is for a highly educated society in which opportunity is more equal for children and young people no matter what their background or family circumstances. I recently presented my cooperative schools bill to parliament with the aim of bringing forward this vision.

I believe part of the vision is a society that values self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity. These are the values of the cooperative movement and of the Cooperative party.

The Schools Cooperative Society, the coordinating body of cooperative schools, shares these values which are evident in cooperative trust schools. Parents, teachers, pupils and the local community all work together for mutual benefit. Performance improves: pupils learn and are more engaged with the life of the school.

The best possible environment for young people to learn and develop is created – where everyone is encouraged to take responsibility for their own actions, the local community has a say in how the school is run, and with a commitment to equality and equity everyone is helped to be the best they can.

In 2008 the prime minister, then leader of the opposition, spoke of the desire to see a ‘new generation of cooperative schools … funded by the taxpayer but owned by parents and the local community.’ However, there is no sign that this has been attempted by this government.

Michael Gove has made academies the centrepiece of education policy and furthermore the free schools policy hasn’t led to a new generation of parent-owned cooperatives. To date, just one of the free schools is expected to operate as a cooperative. Much is said about choice in education, but if this is to become a reality we need to allow cooperative school trusts to flourish and remove hurdles that make that difficult.

At the moment the legal forms of cooperatives are determined as Industrial and Provident Societies, or cooperative or community benefit societies, and there is no provision in the relevant acts for cooperative schools. They have to work around the existing legislation in a clumsy and confusing way.

The first clause of my bill seeks amending future education legislation to make provision for Industrial and Provident Societies, ensuring a level playing field with other school structures.

Despite the legal difficulties, in just five years cooperative schools have become the third largest grouping within the English education system, with currently over 450 operating. Thirty have become cooperative converter academies, a small number are cooperative sponsor academies and we have seen the creation of the first cooperative multi-academy trust.

They have developed a distinct model that enables schools to embed cooperative values into the ethos of the school. This also includes ethical values in keeping with the founders of the cooperative movement – openness, honesty, social responsibility and caring for others.

As the secretary of state for education has recognised, when extending the academies programme to primary schools, it is vital that children get the best foundation at primary level to realise their potential at secondary level. I agree, and I think we also need to get it right at nursery level.

Many cooperative networks and cooperative trusts are based on strong geographical clusters. They wish to raise achievement by supporting young people from nursery to school leaving age. Yet the Education Act of 2006 prevents nurseries setting up as school trusts.

Consequently, clause two of my bill would remove the relevant clause in the act enabling nursery schools to be established as school trusts.

Cooperative schools are very well placed not only to ensure high standards of education, but also to teach children that the values of cooperation have a great deal to offer. Pooling resources across schools is something to be welcomed at a time of austerity, but doing so at any time ensures a productive collaborative approach and the most effective use of resources.

Meg Munn (@MegMunnMP) is MP for Sheffield Heeley.
Please see here for more on the Schools Cooperative Society