Current Key Issue: ACADEMIES
SEA has from the beginning opposed the setting up of Academies. The articles below examine the case.
-
Report of The Anti Academies Alliance, Meeting 22nd September 2007
-
Comprehensive Victory for a New School. An account of how in Haringey the Government Appointed adjudicators decided the Borough would be better served by a new Community School than by any of the proposed academies:
2. Report of The
Anti Academies Alliance,
Meeting 22nd September 2007
The
meeting was held at the Institute of Education. It was well attended by
parents, teachers, academics and activists from all over the country. A
wide range of activities was reported, including action by parents, by
governors and by teachers against the setting up of academies. There was
unanimous agreement on opposition to academies on the grounds that they
represented:
‘The
privatisation of education’
‘Anti
democratic control of education’
‘Education
being run by people who were not teachers, not educationalists and not
democratically elected’
‘Public
assets were being given away in return for no commitment of any
description’.
‘Funds
were being disproportionately allocated to academies to the neglect of
community comprehensive schools’.
‘…
the extension of faith schools (for which there is no democratic
mandate) by the back door’. The largest proportion of academies is run
by faith organisations’.
‘Academies
are non accountable in terms of curriculum, results, syllabus, teaching
methods or admissions policy’.
The
general feeling was one of outrage that academies were being set up in
an anti democratic way. Several colleagues reported how parents and
teachers had voted against the setting up of an academy but had been
overruled by the local authority and by the government – Ken Muller
from Islington Green School and the parent rep from the Isle of Sheppey
outlined their experience of this scenario.
Many
interesting reports were provided, including one from a group whose
school was being taken over by Car Phone Warehouse where a group of
students had dressed up as mobile phones to protest against the fact
that their school was going to be run by Car Phone Warehouse managers
and staff, and not by educationalists and trained teachers or parent
governors.
The
guest speaker was Roger Titcombe on ‘Academies, OFSTED and exam
results’. He used a wide range of evidence to prove that a) it was
almost impossible to access meaningful data with regard to the
achievement of academies and b) what little evidence there was indicated
that academies represented negligible achievement with regard to success
at GCSE 5 A* - C and negligible achievement with regard
to value added. He suggested that the results of academies were a
‘very well kept secret’, possibly for political reasons.
The
outcome of the meeting was an agreement that there would be a week of
action – devising activities, such as the demonstration by students
dressed as mobile car phones- to raise public awareness of the fact that
education is no longer in the hands of educationalists but of private
enterprise.
There
was a request for slogans and catch phrases that would capture the
public imagination and reinforce the belief that education should be in
the hands of educationalists.
A
series of suggestions was made:
- Every
Child Matters Equally
- Daylight
Robbery
- Gi’us
a school
- Every
child matters but this one doesn’t matter enough
- Don’t
give our schools away. We need them
- We
all work for Walmart now
- Democratic
Accountability for Academies
- Building
schools for the future = Drilling Drones for the future
- If
I needed brain surgery, I would not ask the window cleaner.
So why is education being run by Andrew Adonis who is not a teacher,
not an education academic and not even an elected MP and who has no
experience of education first hand?
The
meeting concluded with an agreement that the week of action would be
organised and that our determination to insist on a ‘Good Local School
for every child’ remained the priority and that our commitment to non
selective, state education, democratically controlled by local
authorities and staffed by trained teachers and educationalists, rather
than by faith groups and businessmen was unswerving and unchanged.
Sheila Doré, Vice Chair SEA
3. Comprehensive Victory for a New School. An account of how in Haringey the Government Appointed adjudicators decided the Borough would be better served by a new Community School than by any of the proposed academies:
Competitions
were instituted by the Education Act 2005 to stop local authorities from
building new schools. The government was determined to engineer the
expansion of trusts and academies by ensuring that only non-elected
bodies - business sponsors, faith groups and other self-selected bidders
- would be allowed to compete to open new schools. However, backbench
Labour MPs were well aware of the unpopularity of this legislation and
had concerns about the motives and unaccountability of would-be school
sponsors. So they forced a concession on this issue during the progress
of the Education and Inspections Bill 2006. As a result, local councils
would be allowed to submit bids for new schools in competition with
other bidders. However, the regulations ensured that although local
communities would be consulted on the bids, they would not determine the
outcome.
Haringey
Council needed a new secondary school, to open by 2010, to meet rising
pupil numbers. Its brief was for a school specialising in visual arts
and media, catering for 1,080 pupils, with 25 extra places for students
with autism. In September 2006, tenders were invited for building and
running the £27m school. By January 2007, four proposals had been
submitted:
(1)
an Academy sponsored by the United Learning Trust (ULT);
(2)
an Academy sponsored by Haberdashers’ Aske’s;
(3)
a Trust School sponsored by the Centre for British Teachers (CfBT)
Education Trust;
(4)
a Community School provided by Haringey Council.
A
statutory six-week public consultation period began, with public
meetings at which the proposals were presented, questions asked and
local views expressed. A meeting at the primary school nearest to the
new school site was particularly well attended by parents, teachers,
headteachers, school governors and concerned residents from across the
borough – including SEA members, of course.
Despite
some slick presentations by the external bidders, they ultimately failed
to convince local residents that their real commitment was to Haringey
and its people, rather than to their own organisations. Haberdashers’
Aske’s (motto “Serve and Obey”) proposed absorbing the local
primary school into its Academy without even informing them.
Haberdashers’ also planned to federate its Academy with two others
that it controls in Lewisham, under one governing body, with scant
representation from Haringey.
United
Learning Trust, the largest player in the government’s academies
programme, had run into problems with their Paddington and Waltham
Forest academies, and it seemed that they had over-reached themselves.
CfBT had sponsored prep schools in England and other schools
abroad, but had no experience of inner city schools.
The
consultation meetings and written submissions demonstrated overwhelming
local support for a community comprehensive school, run by the local
authority. Haringey Council, once seen as a local government ‘basket
case’, now had an impressive record in education, raising GCSE
standards consistently over five years at twice the national rate and
opening a new secondary school in 1999 which has been very successful.
Local people expressed strong views about the need for local
accountability, social inclusion and co-operation between schools.
Government
regulations had stipulated that the local Schools Organisation Committee
(SOC) would decide the winning proposal in school competitions.
However, mid-way through Haringey’s consultation process, Lord
Adonis laid new regulations before Parliament, removing this last
vestige of local influence. As the local authority was a bidder, the
contest now had to be decided by the Schools Adjudicator - a government appointee.
Accordingly,
the Schools Adjudicator held a public meeting in Haringey on 19 April.
Again, it was well attended, the four presentations were made, searching
questions were asked, and again there was a solid show of public support
for the Council bid.
A
month later, the Schools Adjudicators’ panel pronounced Haringey
Council’s bid to be the most convincing: “The proposal capitalises
on the promoter’s knowledge of the borough, draws on what has been
learned in recent years in improving education in the borough, and
emphasises the potential collaboration with other local schools.”
These
elements, present in so many local authorities, form the basis for
campaigning for locally accountable comprehensive schools elsewhere in
England.
Haringey
Council, wary of its position as a bidder, did little to publicise its
own case. It was the local NUT that galvanised the campaign by involving
the widest possible range of stakeholders, not by dominating. The
unanimity of the public voice, in which members of the Haringey SEA
played their part, was impressive. Not only were teachers,
parents, governors and other schools behind the Council’s bid, but the
political parties too. Both Labour and LibDem councillors gave vocal
support at the Adjudicators’ meeting, as did Lynne Featherstone MP (LibDem).
Even David Lammy MP – a government minister - submitted a forceful,
well-argued letter in support of a community comprehensive school.
Imogen
Pennell, NEC member
Current Key Issues: Diplomas
SEA welcomes the principle of a unified system of 14-19 examinations but is concerned that the implementation of the new diplomas is being rushed through withou adequate consultation or piloting. Our President, Professor Richard Pring, has recently summarised the situation:
"THE NEW DIPLOMAS
The government has frequently referred to the new Diplomas as the most important development in education since 1902. The reason would seem to be that it is an attempt finally to bridge the divide between the academic track for some and the vocational track for others. The Diplomas aim to "combine classroom learning with practical hands-on experience" – and provide the kind of qualification most appropriate for a comprehensive system of education.
In doing this, the Diplomas will connect what is seen as a general education with a particular occupationally related course. That, at least, was how they were first conceived, and hence called "vocational". But they have now developed into "lines" of learning which are by no means intended to be vocational; those most recently agreed are in the humanities, sciences and languages. Therefore, the label "vocational" has been dropped.
There are three elements to each Diploma: the "principal learning" (the main things you need to know about the chosen sector); "generic learning", including core and functional skills; and "extended learning", which might well include a GCSE or an A Level.
The first Diplomas are being offered in 2008 at three levels – Foundation, Higher and Advanced – and in these "lines" of study:
Construction and the Built Environment;
Engineering;
Society, Health and Development;
Creative and Media;
Information Technology.
More will be offered in 2009 and then in 2010. Eventually, there will be 17 lines.
The target for 2008 was for 50,000 young people to be on the diploma. This has now been cut to 20,000. The reason given by the Minister, Jim Knight, is that it is more important at this stage to pursue quality rather than quantity.
But there are reasons to suspect a degree of "governmental spin" to explain away the poor response in the recruitment to the diploma.
Why should this be? There are several reasons for this.
First, any major change in the secondary and tertiary education requires confidence within higher education and employers in the qualification. If this is not forthcoming, then schools will be hardly enthusiastic in advising young people to transfer from the known path of GCSEs and Advanced Level, whatever the defects in these, to that of the new diplomas.
Second, to "deliver" the diplomas, schools are required to enter into partnership with other schools and F.E. colleges. By themselves they simply don’t have the resources (e.g. in "Construction" or in "Engineering") or the teaching experience to teach all of them. But such partnerships or collaborations are very difficult to create – common timetables, funded leadership across providers, travel costs between institutions. One rural school I recently visited had had to enter into partnership with its neighbour 18 miles away. There are some excellent examples of partnership (e.g. Stevenage and Wolverhampton) but there are many areas where such partnerships are undermined by the subversive policies of a comprehensive system, differently funded schools, and accountability based on an autonomous institution rather than on collaboration.
Third, diplomas are inevitably compared with well- established qualifications such as BTEC Certificates and Diplomas, which also integrate classroom learning with hands-on practical work. Take a College I recently visited where the BTEC in Health and Social Care is a locally recognised route into employment, further training and higher education taken by over 50 students. That BTEC has several hundred hours of practical engagement – much more than the rival diploma in Society, Health and Development.
Fourth, though claiming to be practical, only 10 days work experience are built into the "principal learning" – not nearly practical enough if changing learning styles are what are aimed at. Indeed, it is very difficult to get the appropriate experience in "Construction" where rules on health and safety are so very tight, and where so many employers have small work forces.
Hence, one can sympathise with the recent 2007 House of Commons Education and Skills Select Committee Report on the Diplomas which could not make up its mind as to whether the Diplomas were "vocational", "applied" or general education. Are they trying to do too much in claiming, on the one hand, to be a route to higher education and, on the other, to be a way of motivating young people who are currently disengaged from a rather academic curriculum?
All this is a great pity. There is a need to bridge the gap between the academic and the vocational, between theoretical understanding and practical know-how. There is a need to widen the ways in which different learners are encouraged to learn, respecting practical intelligence and experiential learning. There is a need, therefore, to provide more flexible routes through schools into higher education, further training and employment.
But to achieve this, much more needs to be done to:
- create the context in which schools, colleges, youth service and employers can work together to provide the relevant learning experience for all young people (and that means getting rid of the competitive framework between institutions and the different funding and governance arrangements which now prevail);
- build on what is already successful (e.g. the range of BTEC courses);
- involve the teachers in the kind of curriculum development necessary to make the Diplomas a success – not treating them as mere ‘deliverers’ of the Diploma.
How SEA Policy is decided
The SEA is guided by its objectives, the resolutions passed at its Annual Conference and ongoing discussions at the National Executive Committee. SEA branches and individual members can contribute by writing to the General Secretary, sending articles to Education Politics and contributing to open debates on this website.
ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS 2007
ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS 2006
ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS 2005
Articles on Policies under review
SEA's approach to Secondary Provision -Tony Pearce, September 2007
SEA policy on Post 16 Education - Margaret Morris, November 2007
On Higher Education - Jackie Lukes, March 2007
Further Education: An overview of the changes affecting colleges over the next few years - Joanna Tait, March 2007
1966
and all that: a revolution in higher education that is yet incomplete
Labour Party Policy On Education
When Labour is in power the Government determines
policy, frequently without the Labour Party formally approving its
proposals. However, under the Partnership in Power arrangements,
the Education & Skills Policy Commission