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

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.

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.’

These are the words of the then 15 year old pupil who spoke at Labour Party Conference last year. She said:

‘I came to this country with nothing but the clothes on my back – a six year old political asylum seeker. I was powerless, hopeless. But what gets you through it is that in Britain we can change our fate; we can alter our future and mould it into whatever shape we want.

‘I discovered that the best way to do this is through education. To me education has a simple meaning. It’s simply a key. A key that will open a bright future. A key which betters me in every way. A key that nobody can take away from me.’

This is a very powerful message and one that was drummed into me by my late parents.

My Dad personified all that is great about education.
He spoke many languages, learning French and German at school before teaching himself Russian, Italian, Greek and at one point Catalan.

His constant pursuit and enquiry about how we build a better world left an indelible imprint on me and my sister.
Likewise my Mum’s determination to ensure we had the best education.

She came from a working class family, went to a grammar school but had to leave education at 15.

She didn’t get the opportunity to go to university. I remember her telling us when we were very young, that door would not be closed off to us.

My journey in education, from Southgate Comprehensive school to Oxford University is one that is all too often the preserve of a narrow few.

It remains the case that social background is the biggest determinant of people’s life chances in this country.

Under the last Labour government we made important strides but admissions of working class children into Russell Group universities remain shamefully low. Unacceptably low.

And, as Ed Miliband and I have argued, there is currently no gold standard route through education for young people studying vocational education – their talents too often go unrecognised.

For too many people, the odds are stacked against them from day one.

I joined the Labour Party at 15 because I believe that politics is the pursuit of social justice.

The endeavour of opportunity for all- irrespective of your situation when you came into this world.

It is wrong that too many young people in this country are denied the education that I benefited from.

I am in politics to change this.

It’s what drives me.

It’s what gets me out of bed in the morning.

So how would a future Labour government deliver an excellent place for every child in every school?

I want to make three radical reforms.

First, where a school freedom promotes higher standards, we will extend those freedoms to all schools.

So if a freedom is afforded to an academy and it drives up standards, that freedom should be available to all schools.
A school should not have to change its status to earn the permission to innovate.

Second, no one cares more about a school than the community it serves.

Therefore, we will deliver a radical devolution of power from Whitehall.

It is not feasible, nor is it desirable, for thousands of schools to be accountable only to the Secretary of State.
Local communities will have a greater say about education in their area.

Third, we will ensure that every school plays its part to raise standards across their area and meet the needs of their community.

Schools working in collaboration. A proven recipe for success.

Networked schools in a networked world. No school left behind.

That’s how we raise standards across all schools.

As we look ahead, our starting point is an education system that is all too often talked down by politicians.

Yes, there are huge challenges but we start from a position of strength.

This is where Michael Gove gets it wrong.

He has invested so much into talking down the education system.

He 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.

Dragon Slaying

Michael Gove tells us he wants to slay the dragons that hold back our education system.

Now, I know the Secretary of State is a fan of Dungeons and Dragons, so he’s used to fighting make-believe battles in his living room, but this is no way to run our education system.

Although he has tried to cast himself as a warrior for freedom in our schools, Michael Gove is in fact the classic centraliser, an armchair general, taking back freedoms, undermining head teachers and centralising power around his desk in Sanctuary Buildings.

Of course there are problems in the system, but this is not the way to deal with them.

He tells us that decisions on schools are best made by central government, not the communities they serve.

He tells us that schools operate best as islands.

He tells us that the problem in the teaching profession is Qualified Status and that the answer is fewer qualified teachers.

Wrong.

He says look to Finland and Shanghai. Well let’s do that.
They have schools working in partnership, they have empowered their communities and they have dramatically raised the status of the teaching profession.

Freedoms for all schools

Labour will learn from the best schools systems around the world and bring order to the chaos Michael Gove has created in our schools system.

We will put an end to the fragmented, divisive system under this Government and ensure that every school can excel and every child is given a great education.

We know that giving schools more freedom over how they teach and how they run and organise their schools can help to raise standards.

Innovation excites, it uncovers new ideas and breathes life into the system.

Innovation challenges the historic inheritances that mean schools do things that way because they always have.

So why should we deny those freedoms to thousands of schools? All schools should have them – not just academies and Free Schools.

A school should not have to change its structure just to gain freedoms. In a One Nation system, freedoms would be granted to all schools and innovation would spread across the system.

So Labour will give all schools the same freedom over the curriculum that academies currently enjoy while continuing to insist that all schools teach a core curriculum including English, Maths and Science.

Academies say freedom to innovate in the curriculum has given their teachers a new sense of confidence and professionalism. All young people should benefit from the positive impact this brings – trusting teachers to get on with the job.

And where a maintained school wants to offer longer school terms so it can offer extra classes to improve results, why should they have to jump through a series of bureaucratic hoops when academies can, working with parents, change their term dates to deliver better education? All schools should be able to do this so we will let them.

And school leaders, not politicians, know best what kind of ICT or speech therapy services they need for their staff and pupils. So just as academies can choose to buy in tailored support that better meets their needs, so should maintained schools.

We’ll give all schools, not just some, the option to shop around and get a great service for their school.

So, giving all schools freedoms to raise standards, this is key to a One Nation system where all schools are valued.

A devolved system

But while freedoms can play a key part in raising standards, we should never fall into the trap of simply equating structural change with school improvement.

Michael Gove does. That is why he plays a ‘numbers game’ with how many Free Schools and Academies there are – as if you simply change the type of school and standards magically improve.

If only it were that simple.

Contrary to the Government’s rhetoric, Free Schools and academies are not a panacea for school improvement.

We are seeing that they can and do underperform, just like other schools.

I believe that a key problem today is that academies and Free Schools are overseen only by central government.

The local authority does not have a clear role in monitoring and challenging their performance.

This might have been viable when there was a more focussed academy programme.

But you can’t run thousands of schools from Whitehall.
As the numbers of academies and Free Schools rise, underperformance and mismanagement are being spotted and acted on much too late.

Under this Government, local oversight only exists for maintained schools.

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.

Evidence shows that local challenge is important to drive school improvement.

In Shanghai, top of the 2009 PISA international league tables in reading, maths and science, there is strong oversight at local level – with district leaders working with schools to spread best practice – which is central to their school improvement.

Currently, too many schools are coasting, yet because he is fixated on academy conversion, Michael Gove has no credible plan to drive up standards in schools once they have become academies.

I pay tribute to the excellent work of many chains, like ARK and United Learning. But being part of an academy chain does not guarantee improvement.

Sir Michael Wilshaw has argued that there are real concerns about the quality of some chains.

So more local challenge to help drive improvement would benefit academies too.

We need to demonstrate that we put high school standards over and above any dogma regarding school structures.
That is why Labour introduced sponsor academies in the first place.

If sponsored academy status is the best solution for a failing school, it should happen.

But Labour also wouldn’t tolerate failing academies and Free Schools.

They should be held to the same high standard – any that fail will be given a chance to turn things around, or they will have to take on a new sponsor and leadership.

That is why today I am asking David Blunkett to lead a review into the local oversight of schools. He will look at the role of the local authority and how we better harness the positive benefits of interplay between central and local government.

For example, 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, so underperformance is challenged early.

And local authorities should be the champion of children and parents in all schools – irrespective of their type. David will look at how we can provide a stronger local accountability framework for schools, respecting of course the autonomy of schools and the freedoms we will expand.

He will also recommend how we best give local communities a bigger say when new schools are being created.

Labour strongly believes parents have an important role to play in calling for and setting up new local schools.

As part of David’s review, he will be setting out the best way to encourage parent academies. Labour started the academies programme to bring outside energy and expertise into the schools system, we want to extend that to parents.

So David will examine how we harness that enthusiasm within the local community and use it to best effect to create more good schools.

Some of the best schools have been set up by brilliant teachers.

Like Peter Hyman’s School 21 and Patricia Sowter’s Woodpecker Primary School. And we have fantastic Head Teachers of maintained schools like Tim Sheriff who heads the outstanding Westfield School in Wigan.

Tackling disadvantage, raising standards and providing extra schools places where they are needed.

I want to see more schools like this.

Labour’s vision for creating new schools is:

* One where parents and local communities will have a greater say.
* Where priority is given to setting up new schools where they are needed most, particularly in areas with a shortage of places.
* And it will be one where we insist on high standards for our children, with qualified teachers in every classroom.
* Above all, it is a vision that will bind communities together, not divide them.

Compare that with Michael Gove’s Free Schools policy:

* Under Michael Gove’s policy, he decides which schools open – even if communities don’t want them.
* Under Michael Gove’s policy, millions have been spent opening schools in areas with a surplus of places, while children elsewhere face a shortage of places. This is not just wasteful, it is a scandal. It should be the first duty of any Education Secretary to ensure that every child has a place at one of their local schools.
* Under Michael Gove’s policy, increasing numbers of schools are able to employ unqualified teachers. When we know the key to standards is the quality of teaching, this is the wrong approach.
* Perhaps worst of all, Michael Gove’s policy has become a symbol of ideology and division. In some parts of the country, it has set school against school, and parent against parent.

That’s why 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, like the vision I have set out above.

There will be no bias for or against a school type- so new academies, new maintained schools, new trust schools- all options.

A school system based on evidence not dogma.

That is what a One Nation schools system is about.

Networked schools in a networked world

No school left behind.

That means schools working together.

Working in collaboration to spread excellence.

We used to hear a lot from the Education Secretary on collaboration.

But he has failed to deliver on the commitments he set out in the 2010 White Paper. He promised to ensure that new academies supported other schools, but nearly two-thirds of academies are not in a partnership.

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.

Andreas Schleicher of the OECD argues that while more autonomous school systems are generally more successful than highly directed ones, there is a much stronger correlation between collaborative culture and system success. The lowest performing schools in the OECD have autonomy but no collaborative culture.

We need both.

As the Schools Minister I led a programme called The London Challenge.

The London Challenge was about us saying that we would not tolerate the persistent underperformance that led London to be one of the worst performing regions in the country.

Within the space of a decade, London schools have been transformed.

London now outperforms all other regions in secondary education.

This happened in no small part because of the focus on schools working together, in hard edged partnership.

Collaboration and partnership are often presented as ‘softer’ or ‘cuddly’ options.

Not the case with The London Challenge.

London Challenge advisors set clear and ambitious new standards. But they did so by working with heads and teachers to get buy in.

Where underperformance was identified, teachers would receive training and support from high performing colleagues in other schools.

Teaching was transformed. Crucially, the impact was not only felt by schools in receipt of the support, it was also felt by host schools.

Woodside High School in Tottenham embodies this story. Under the leadership of Joan McVittie, the school bought into the Challenge programme.

Teachers were coached and mentored by peers in other schools.

High expectations were set. A once failing school was transformed and in 2011 received an Outstanding rating from Ofsted.

I pay tribute to Joan, a true champion of high standards for all children.

There are great examples of school collaboration in place across the country.

The Bradford Secondary Schools partnership has bought together secondary schools in Bradford to develop a rigorous system of performance review, effective school-to-school support and school-led professional development.

Maintained schools and academies coming together to raise standards.

The Gipsy Hill Federation in South London is a collaboration between primary schools to drive up the quality of teaching and learning for their pupils.

Schools and communities are leading from the front.

In Suffolk, the RSA is right to argue in its Inquiry into underperformance that with devolution of power and responsibility to schools should come expectations for collaboration.

As Andreas Schleicher says, collaboration doesn’t just fall from the sky. Here there is an important role for central government.

As the enabler of collaboration.

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. That is why 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.

Every school too must play its part in ensuring fair admissions.

The comprehensive ideal, within a mixed economy of schools. That’s the challenge.

Research published by the Sutton Trust earlier this month highlights the scale of this challenge.

The findings are very concerning.

The research shows that the proportion of pupils from low income families at our top 500 comprehensives is less than half the national average.

More significantly, 95 per cent of the top 500 schools take fewer pupils on free school meals than their local average.
We are seeing social selection playing out in the system and this worries me deeply.

I am clear; this problem is not exclusive to any one type of school and it’s not a new one.

But its prevalence is plain to see and it must be confronted head on.

That is why I would bring forward changes to the Schools Admissions Code to allow all schools to prioritise disadvantaged children who are eligible for the Pupil Premium, a provision that currently exists only for academies.

I believe there is a strong case too for us to look again at the powers of the Office of the Schools Adjudicator for us to ensure that both the letter and the spirit of the Code are followed.

The appeals process for academies is at present, too opaque. I know that for most academies they will have nothing to fear about their admissions. In order to ensure greater transparency and parity, I would extend the powers of the Local Government Ombudsman to investigate academies and free schools on admissions.

Parents should not have to write to the Secretary of State to complain about their child’s school – they need a local voice.
Local authorities will also have the power to direct all schools to admit hard-to-place child.

All schools fulfilling their commitment to equitable access- both to the letter and in the spirit.

Today I have focused on three themes – Freedom, Devolution and Collaboration.

They matter because the evidence shows that they help deliver high standards. They support teachers and school leaders in achieving a high quality education.

So yes structures matter. But they only matter because good structures are the servants of high standards, never an end in themselves.

The key focus must remain how we raise the quality, status and morale of the teaching profession.

How we attract the best teachers and leaders to the most challenging schools.

How we forge a modern curriculum that unleashes innovation. How we close the appalling attainment gap between rich and poor.

No School Left Behind means that every school has a part to play in meeting these challenges.

That way every child – whatever their background- will get the best possible start in life.

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/

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

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

However, I didn’t join the Labour Party or the NUT to be left feeling like a victim to the changes happening around me. My philosophy can be clearly summed up by this quote from Mahatma Ghandi ‘Be the change you wish to see in the world.’

I have blogged previously about the Education Event I joint arranged with Stephen Twigg in Hull and you can see the speeches from my fellow NUT member here. I also spoke at the NUT/NASUWT Leeds Regional rally for education.

On Thursday 18^th April I attended my CLP meeting as usual and this was on the same day that Gove had announced his latest attacks on teachers – threatening to cut the holidays and lengthen the school day. So, when it came to the branch reports I launched into a damning indictment of the harm that Gove is doing to teachers and ultimately the children they educate.

The changes he is introducing to education are under a smoke screen of “improvements” but how can there be real improvements when we still have austerity? When teachers are also dealing with the fall out of the coalitions failed economic plans and increasing numbers of children in poverty. 

Gove’s reforms are more about ideology and attacking the public sector than they are about educational improvements. If he cared about education and opportunity for the poorest in our society as much as he claims too he wouldn’t be part of a government that created the Bedroom tax, who cut benefits and introduced crippling cuts to local government. The figure for the number of children living in poverty is 1,400 in the education secretary Michael Gove’s Surrey Heath constituency. Julia Unwin, Chief Executive of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said “With cuts to benefits and tax rises around the corner, the struggle for millions of poor families shows no sign of relenting.” It is easy to blame the teachers for educational outcomes but Final report for the National Equality Panel, September 2009 stated “the greatest inequalities in educational outcomes are generally most strongly related to socio‐economic status.” That is not to say that we, as teachers, give up and say there is nothing to be done but only a committed Tory loyalist would deny that the Coalition’s policies are making the job increasingly harder. See this on the number of children arriving at school hungry and this on how poverty affects children.

Gove has:

• Attacked our pensions.
• Torn up the curriculum to force through his ideology.
• Attacked our pay and, through the attack on schools, our conditions as well.
• Threatened to attack our school day and our holidays.
• Presided over the GCSE fiasco.
• Changed the Ofsted inspections, school grading systems and lesson observations.
• Attacked our schools and the principles of fairness, equality and accountability.
• Attacked union facilities time and moved the balance of power even further away from the employee.
• Threatened to attack the workload agreement.
• Encouraged the growth of “free” schools in areas where there are already surplus places.

I fail to see how any of these changes improve teaching and learning in our schools, if the new proposed curriculum was so great then surely it would be compulsory in Academies and free schools? I am not a ‘blocker’ and I do not resist change for the sake of it. Nor am I an enemy of promise. I resist changes that I think are damaging for the education of children in my country. Not all schools are great but most are pretty damn good, according to parents, teachers and even OFSTED. Where things are going wrong, there should be powers to intervene quickly before good teachers leave and children suffer.

I fear that Gove seeks justification for the changes to education in the same way that Hunt does for changes in the NHS, by painting the worst picture he can in order to gain public support for his politically motivated changes. There can be no doubt that Labour members know the changes to the NHS are a form of privatisation but how many know about the changes to education? As Christine Blower said:: “Unless we, as the trade union movement, in conjunction with community campaigning, are able to mount a significant campaign … to put the brake on this and unless the Liberal Democrats start behaving consistently with their own policy, which is to oppose academies and free schools, there is the spectre of a completely fragmented and privatised [education] service that is not in anybody’s interest” This is not scaremongering this is spreading the truth. Gove has already said he is looking into allowing state schools to be profit making.

While we agree with Margaret Pelling (Letters, 15 February) that the coalition has prepared the ground for the privatisation of the NHS, she should not be reassured that education is safe, and there are “no commercial interests waiting greedily in the wings” to take it over. Seumas Milne two days earlier reported a leaked document that prepares for the “reclassification of academies to the private sector”; he cites one such commercial company already involved in academy schools, the American K-12.

Our research found that private sponsorship has been integral to academy schools since their inception. Cambridge Education Associates (owned by the Mott MacDonald management consultancy) was handed control of a school in 2003. The Reed Employment agency, Amey, WS Atkins, Capita, Nord Anglia, Group 4 (with the Tribal Group), Jarvis, Serco and Ensign are just some of the for-profit companies involved as “partners” in academies and “free” schools. The Swedish commercial companies Kunskapsskolan and IES are planning to take over chains of UK schools. The “commercial interests” in education are not just waiting in the wings, they are already there.
Professor Deborah Philips
University of Brighton
Professor Garry Whannel
University of Bedfordshire (Source)

The majority of teachers, as represented by the NUT, NASUWT, NAHT and ATL have all issued motions of no confidence in Michael Gove’s policies, these are not “trots” and they can no longer be dismissed as being a minority.

Teacher’s morale is at an historic low. I am currently arranging a joint union sponsored TeachMeet and I’ve been shocked by some of responses I’ve had telling me the hours teachers are working and how crushed they feel. I could not have this on my conscience and stand by and do nothing. We all want the best education for all our children and to have the best education we need to protect our teachers. What Gove fails to understand, in his bid for Tory leadership, is that demoralised and demotivated teachers do not make good teachers. The unions are trying to pick up the pieces but they can’t do it on their own and their job is being made increasingly harder by the threats to change the strike ballot and the reductions in facilities time. As the whole education system is atomised into thousands of freestanding schools, unions have not yet developed structures which can respond to the break up and protect members from poor employment practice and rule-breaking. The image of the future for education being without strong, effective unions is a future that frightens me.

And so I fight. I fight for myself, my colleagues, my pupils and my two daughters, one of whom has just started school and the other starts in 2014.

So, what have I done recently?

After my ‘outburst’ on April 18^th I was contacted by a Labour councillor who offered me support. From this I decided to write a motion to pass formally through my CLP asking for their support. Then it was decided that I could send the same motion to Hull County Council and the other neighbouring CLP’s and the East Riding County Council. My experience in writing motions is very limited and so one of the Unison members put the motion together and I spoke on Thursday 16^th May at my CLP. The motion was passed unanimously and the messages of support have been sent to the North West NUT. Following the meeting my speech and the motion has now been sent out to every Labour Party member in Hull West and Hessle CLP and I’ve had some really supportive messages and tweets back. I have been in contact with two of my neighbouring CLP’s and one of them, Haltemprice and Howden, have also passed a motion of support for teachers and this has also been sent to the North West NUT.

I am currently re-writing the original motion so it can be sent to both local county councils and I have been in contact with a teacher from the East Hull CLP who is taking the motion and speech to his branch to try and get it passed and sent to their CLP. To be honest whether or not the motions are all passed is not the issue; the fact that the devastating attacks on our profession and education are being highlighted and brought to the attention of all Labour party members, councillors and MP’s in my area can only be a good thing, especially if we are forced to take regional and national industrial action in the Autumn term.

I will also continue to write to my MP, Alan Johnson, and I have already gained his support for the Defend School History group, of which I’m a member, and he has even offered to speak at regional events and support an Early Day Motion in parliament.

I am realistic enough to know that we cannot turn the clock back to a pre Academy world but I am also realistic enough to know that my party needs to send out a strong message and commit itself to an Education system for ALL and not just the privileged few who suit Gove’s ideology.

As teachers we have reached the stage of flight or fight. Many teachers are choosing flight, abandoning our profession, and taking their skills, knowledge and experiences with them. I’m choosing to fight and I’m showing Labour how they can fight with me.

Emma Ann Hardy (@emmaannhardy) is a Labour Party Branch Secretary and a Young Teachers Officer for the NUT

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.

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

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