Speech given 18th October, 2011:
Firstly, I’d like to say how pleased I am that this debate starts with the basic principles and asks what education is for. I share the vision of some of the contributors to this e-book that education is at once academic, vocational and social. That it should equip children for life not just the workforce. And that it should be a place where you find social enlightenment, not social advantage.
If we are going to tear up the script we need to know what we are trying to achieve and I would suggest there are several key principles.
My instincts and experience from working with some of the most disadvantaged children in the country point to collaboration not competition. Pulling up the worst-off is good for everyone. As the Spirit Level demonstrated so convincingly, greater inequality is bad – not just for the most disadvantaged – but for all of us. So in real terms I think we have to be wary of league tables – and their focus on a narrow range of outcomes – support collaboration across and among schools and stand firm against the breakup of the local authority family of schools.
Our first principle must surely be education for all children, not some. To paraphrase Andy Burnham our kids deserve a Government that has a plan for all schools and all children, not some schools and some children. That’s why it’s so deeply concerning that Gove has repeatedly refused to tell me what he’s spending on free schools. How do communities make informed choices about where that money should be best spent? Transparency has to be at the basis of an education system we can trust.
And we ought to recognise that the system doesn’t work for some people and never will because life intervenes. I couldn’t agree more with Tom Schuller that we need a renewed focus on lifelong learning, not just as a safety net but as the basis of a fulfilled life. As Jon Cruddas has pointed out, that was always part of the working class socialist tradition. And is surely even more important in today’s world where reskilling is part of the fabric of modern working life.
I think we need to accept also, that being equal doesn’t mean being the same and that the focus on personalised learning under the last Government was the right one.
And I am deeply sceptical about the role of price and profit in the education system. Not just because providers cream off profitable sections – as we have seen in the US healthcare system – leaving the taxpayers struggling to pick up the rest, but because markets simply can’t see people without purchasing power – they are invisible – and where children, their life chances and the future of society is concerned that is unacceptable.
That doesn’t mean you can’t lever in private investment – through social investment bonds for example – but it depends on who is calling the shots, and where the safety net is when private investors don’t want to invest or withdraw their funding. How do you make sure that the core service still exists for those who most need it?
At heart the international evidence shows that the critical factor in achieving for children is proper investment in teachers and staff. When I visited Finland earlier this year with the Education Select Committee that was the lesson they urged us to come away with.
And in the UK there is deserved criticism that teachers have not been allowed to use their professional skills and judgment. Does equality have to mean central control or can you devolve power: let teachers teach and people innovate and still give chances to all children? My answer is that of course you can have both. In fact real freedom relies on equality. The Greater Manchester challenge in my area was a great example of this: teachers from across Manchester came together and said a failing school is our collective responsibility because these are our kids, they’re Manchester’s kids. They lent one another staff and expertise and it worked. It was innovation within a state framework. Not despite the state framework, but because of it.
I understand the desire for fresh thinking and the frustration Neal and Ken are giving voice to. But I would sound a strong note of caution – what is innovative about free schools? To select certain groups of children and create opportunities for some at the expense of all? To opt out of the curriculum? Where does that end? Or to lower the terms and conditions of teachers and create a two tier workforce. That doesn’t represent progress. That isn’t innovation but vandalism.
The system I want to see is built on a fair funding and admissions framework. On that basis innovation is positive and liberating. But try building local freedoms on an unfair, skewed foundation and it will fail.
