Determination becomes obstinacy at the Department for Education
|
Version 0 of 1. The first six months of a government can’t entirely predict its future, but this is when ministers set out their stalls for their time in office. So we can now make a good guess about what is in store for schools over the next four-and-a-half years. Ministers have crafted a clear message about their priorities. Their wish to improve education is evident and I welcome some of their actions – the commitment to the pupil premium, maths hubs and some of the work on special needs – but beyond that, three more significant areas of activity are emerging. First, there are measures designed to remedy errors from coalition days. Take the pressure on schools to join chains or multi-academy trusts: five years ago, the language was of independent schools and standalone academies, but this led to too many schools isolating themselves and opting out of school partnerships, which provide essential challenges and support. Now the message is that no school should go it alone and every one must be part of a group. Then there is the increase in power for regional school commissioners outlined in the bill now before parliament. Five years ago, ministers thought they could run every school from Whitehall. Now they are creating an army of civil servants in the regions to share the load. It may be more delegation than devolution, but it’s an acknowledgment that some sort of local presence is essential. The second area is the policies the government has decided to drive through the system come what may – irreversible changes that it hopes will characterise its time in office. So we have more legislation to convert a further group of schools into academies and new targets for the number of young people who will be expected to take the English baccalaureate. Together with the new emphasis on end-of-course exams, you can see the endgame: a traditional, narrow curriculum, assessed in a traditional, old-fashioned way. Third are the areas of inaction. Important issues seem to be simply off the agenda, attracting little ministerial attention or leadership: the arts and creativity; sports and early years; the growing pressures on schools from increasing child poverty, cuts in funding and growing teacher shortages. What does it all add up to? Some will see the pursuit of more academies, free schools and a greater emphasis on a traditional curriculum as a strength. However, there is a point when determination turns into obstinacy. My overriding sense is of a department that is increasingly adrift from the wider mood. Related: Grammar school ‘annexe’ in Kent is a dangerous moment The call from many parents and some employers is for a bolder, broader, braver vision of what makes a good education: one that understands the importance of creativity, exploration and citizenship, that gives pupils space to develop the skills they will need. That isn’t to say these things aren’t to be found in our schools. They are, and often in those schools that are most successful, but this is frequently in spite of ministers, rather than because of them. A department with a closed mind stops questioning the assumptions that underpin its actions and a narrow group of priorities increasingly monopolise the time and resources of a government’s educational leadership. I fear that is where we are. I’m left wondering how the Nicky Morgan who was brought in to improve the relationship with the public and profession, and champion a broader education agenda, has morphed into the Nicky Morgan whose best-known decision is to approve the expansion of grammar schools. The reach of ministers isn’t such that all schools reflect their image, but their leadership does set the tone for our school system – and on this count there is cause for concern. |