Education PoliticsJournal of the Socialist Educational Association

LABOUR PARTY CONFERENCE September 2019, No 139

LABOUR NEEDS A RADICALVISION FOR EDUCATION

Inside: John Bolt Melanie Griffiths Pat Tatlow James Whiting Ian Duckett

Melanie GriffithsSEA National Chair

Labour needs a radical vision foreducation to present to theelectorate at the next Generalelection, which will be upon usvery soon. In addition topresenting the “idea” of an NES,providing a truly comprehensiveand broad education from cradleto grave it needs a coherent roadmap to show how this will beachieved. At this year’s LabourParty conference delegates willlikely have an opportunity tovote on a motion broughtforward by the SocialistEducation Association. Themotion sets out how Labourseducation policy can moveforward, reverse marketisationand privatisation and bringschools back into a trulycomprehensive, cooperative anddemocratic system. Now is thetime.

Labour gets it. The launch of“Democratising Local PublicServices: A Plan For Twenty-FirstCentury Insourcing” on July 20th

2019 is a game changer. JohnMcDonnell spoke about howafter the election of Thatcherforty years ago the Tories forced

Continued on Page 2

SCHOOLS &

EDUCATION

2

E d u c a t i o n P o l i t i c s

What’s inside?

Cover story: Labour needs a radical vision for education

Page 4: Local accountability in the NES

Page 8: Delivering the NES

Page 10:Towards a new 14­19 curriculum

Page 13: From the archives

Page 14: SEA Information

Page 15: Membership form

Page 16: NEU Conference infomation

About Education Politics

Education Politics (ISSN 1354­2028) isthe journal of the Socialist EducationalAssociation. The articles reflect theviews of their authors and not the SEAunless indicated otherwise.

Editors: Louise Regan and TomUnterrainer

secretary@socialisteducationalassociation.orgJoin the Labour Affiliated SocialistEducational Association. Details fromthe General Secretary. Membershipcosts £25 per year.

compulsory competitive tendering on councils. Over the lastdecades governments of all persuasions bought into the idea that‘private’ was good, ‘public’ bad. This inevitably led to “theoutsourcing scandal, which has seen private companies rip off thetaxpayer, degrade our public services and put people at risk whilstremaining wholly unaccountable to the people who rely on andfund these services.”

So this break with the existing orthodoxy will be welcomed bypublic sector workers and citizens. Outsourcing has allowedemployers to cut workers’ terms and conditions in the search forready profits. But of course, the true motives of the elite werehidden, dressed up in waffle about ‘efficiency’ and ‘value formoney’. No public service escaped, but I would argue that noservice has been damaged more by the pursuit of this neoliberalagenda than education.In the education system the key buzzword was ‘freedom’ forschools to spend money as they saw fit. This, it was argued, wouldallow individual schools to better meet the needs of their pupilsand target money more efficiently. It hasn’t been like that.

Before the 1990s the Local Education Authority (LEA) was theemployer of teachers in schools and those who provided the vitalservices that allowed them to run – cleaners, cooks, advisoryteachers, caretakers, educational psychologists, supply teachers,payroll and personnel services, IT support and so on. Strong LEAsacting as a central service provider had some downsides for sure.Sometimes bureaucracies were entrenched and inflexible, but asexperience has demonstrated the pros clearly outweighed the cons.

Firstly, these arrangements encouraged fair recruitment practicesand ensured that staff were suitably qualified. LEAs providedTeachers’ Centres where staff could go for advice, meetings andtraining. These created opportunities for teachers from differentschools to meet and share good practice. Schools were not incompetition with one another. Schools and staff from within anLEA and sometimes between LEAs worked together.

Sharing practical services also had advantages. For example,support staff like caretakers and cleaners tended to enjoyconsiderably better pay and conditions. But above all, centrallyprovided services were able to avoid unnecessary duplication ofback office functions and economies of scale. This meant bettervalue for the tax payer and left school leaders more able toconcentrate on the task at hand: educating children.

But in 1988 the misleadingly named Education Reform Act(ERA) took the first steps in trashing this “cooperative” integratededucation system and that agenda has been pursued by allgovernments since. The ERA transferred many of the powers(including some financial powers) and responsibilities from LEAs

L A B O U R N E E D S

3

S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 9

A R A D I C A L V I S I O N . . .to heads and nominally governing bodies. It also gave the optionfor headteachers to go further and turn the schools they manageinto Grant Maintained (GM) schools. GM schools got theirfunding directly from central government, bypassing the LocalAuthority (LA) completely. The funds given to GM schools werethen deducted from Local Authority budgets.

Once headteachers were given control of schools‘ budgets andthe “opportunity” to opt out of using Local Authority providedservices, the floodgates to outsourcing were opened. Scentingprofitable opportunities, a host of consultants and companiestargeting the lucrative education market were ready to pounce.

This change to the way money was provided for central serviceshad a devastating effect on Local Authorities. Once a certaintipping point was reached, it was no longer viable to provide manyschool services as the Authorities could no longer be sure offinances year to year. Inevitably, over time central servicesdiminished, Teachers’ Centres closed, central service staff weremade redundant, years of capacity, experience and expertise lost.This in turn made it much easier to convince schools to opt outentirely and become semi-privatised Academies and joinunaccountable Multi-Academy Trusts. Meanwhile the businessmodel operated by the private companies that filled the gap reliedon cutting conditions and wages to boost profitability. And makeno mistake the potential for profit is huge.

Thatcher must be dancing in her grave! So what should a radical reforming Labour government do totackle outsourcing in education?

The first step would be to abolish the academy system, whichas we have seen is particularly prone to abuses related toprivatisation. For example, there is a disturbing tendency forcontracts to go to friends and families of managers and governors,and for managers to pay themselves exorbitant salaries. But thisin itself would not be enough, as the root problems can be tracedback to the structure of school governance and procurementcreated by the 1988 Act. These changes must be reversed. Newlyempowered and truly democratically accountable LAs need to bethe default provider of school services within a particular area.Central funding and resource allocation will therefore need toensure that local authorities can, once again, build up the skillsand know-how needed.

At the 2018 Labour Party Conference a major step forward wastaken with the commitment to end the academies programme andestablish an integrated and locally accountable school system.Since then the Socialist Education Association (SEA) working withacademic and legal experts has developed a strategy for achieving

Continued on Page 4

SEA MOTION

Conference notes:

It has now become obvious that MultiAcademy Trusts (MATs) and even stand-alone academies are a charter forprofiteering and even at times outrightcorruption, with lucrative contractshanded to family and friends. It is also truethat too many private companies areproviding services to schools that could bebetter provided in-house. The result ispublic money meant for front lineeducational services finding its way intothe pockets of private individuals.

Conference welcomes:

1. The commitment announced at thelast conference, to consult on andestablish a new regulatory frameworkfor schools, to ensure that all schoolsfollow the same rules, with schoolsbeing regulated by statute, rather thanthousands of individual contracts.

2. The paper “Academies, autonomy,equality and democratic accountability:Reforming the fragmented publicly fundedschool system in England” (Wolfe andWest) and the document “Restoring ademocratically accountable school system”from the SEA setting out a coherentplan for implementing this pledge.

3. The commitment made by JohnMcDonell in February 2018 when hedeclared Labour’s intention to“properly fund local authorities”, “bringservices back in house” and “strengthenlocal democracy”.

Conference believes the Labour Partyshould now commit to ensuring:

1. Local Authorities establish reformed,democratically accountable localeducation committees withstakeholder representation.

2. That all publicly funded schools bebrought back under the control ofthese new local education committees.

3. The newly empowered localeducation committees will be thedefault providers of school servicesand will be appropriately funded.

4

E d u c a t i o n P o l i t i c s

Response to the Labour Party consultation

Aims and Values

The Tories have an unacceptably narrow vision for theplace of education in 21st century society. Labour’s visionfor education should reflect both a broad understandingof what it means to be an educated citizen in the first halfof the 21st century and the needs of society as a whole. Itneeds to take account of how our society is changing, thetransformative impact of technology and the kinds of skillsand knowledge that will be needed in families,communities and at work.

It is important to re-assert a broad comprehensivevision of the aims and value of education which will beunderpinned by our commitment to equality, democracyand collaboration. This should include a statement of theeducational entitlement which should be available to all.All policies should then be assessed against this statementand all institutions should explain and should be judgedagainst how well they contribute to their achievement. Itwill be important to gain support for this vision from thewidest possible range of educational stakeholders.

The aims cannot be confined just to a set of narrowacademic subjects or to the needs of the labour market –they must address the fundamental question of whatknowledge, skills and values that our society values andwhich young people will need in their future lives.

It must be recognised too that learning must be lifelong.As society and the economy continues to change at abreathtaking pace, it will be essential for everyone to haveaccess to continuing education and training throughouttheir lives. The importance of informal learning must alsobe recognised by the restoration of comprehensive youthservice provision

What should be devolved to local authorities – andwhat should not?

There will need to be a consistent overall frameworkfor the NES but not a single management structure withall decisions ultimately being taken by central governmentor its agencies.

National bodies will not often be the best way ofdelivering services at a local level as the chain ofaccountability to elected politicians is likely to be too longand will therefore be remote from local communities. Thiscan be seen very clearly when decisions aboutacademisation are made behind closed doors by entirelyunaccountable ministerial appointees.

L o c a l A c c o u n tthis goal which could be put intoeffect from Day 1 of a Labourgovernment. The SEA paper*“Restoring a democraticallyaccountable school system” sets out acoherent plan for implementingLabour’s commitment to“establish a new regulatoryframework for schools” and toincrease local participatorydemocracy in the school system.It is referenced in the SEAmotion going to Labour partyconference this year.

This motion will, if passed,firm up Labour Party policyaround academies andoutsourcing in education. Itsimplementation will make iteasier for trade unions toorganise and negotiate and willlead to improvements in theworking conditions of manypublic sector workers. It willreintegrate school educationservices and facilitate schoolsonce again to work together,cooperating rather thancompeting. I urge all CLPs andaffiliated bodies to considersupporting the motion.

The creation of newlyempowered Local AuthorityEducation Committees offers areforming Labour governmentan opportunity to improve anddemocratise the educationservice, tackle profiteering andwaste and promote socialinclusion and equality. But thiscan only happen if a determinedeffort is made to reverse themistakes of the past. Taking backdemocratic control andpromoting public ownership ofcentral services is the essentialfirst step.

Melanie Griffiths has been a teacher andtrade union activist for many years and

lives in Huddersfield, Yorkshire

5

S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 9

a b i l i t y i n t h e N E SEngland has an unusually centralised approach

to government. This is neither particularly efficientor effective. It also contributes to the alienation ofmany from the political process because they feelthat they have no say in decisions about theircommunities. In this respect it is important torecognise that the NHS is not the model for theNES to follow.

Early years providers, schools, FE providers(and sixth forms), youth services and adulteducation providers should be commissioned byand be responsible to local authorities. Theyshould work within a national framework ofregulations and guidance set by centralgovernment and by arms-length bodies establishedby but not controlled, by government.

Universities play a significant part in localeconomies and in some cases draw a significantproportion of their students from their local area.However their role is much broader than that, soit would be appropriate for them to be accountableto central government. An arms-lengthrelationship with strong safeguards for academicfreedoms will be essential but within a nationalframework of regulations, standards and funding.

Children’s Services need to work closely withschools but at the same time need to beindependent – so that for example they are able toensure that safeguarding is effective.

This kind of devolution doesn’t mean, however,that institutions or local authorities can do anythingthey like. It will be essential for central governmentto set out the principles, values and legalframework of the NES and to require the wholeNES to follow them.

However, over the last 20 or so years, ministershave increasingly tried to control the detail of thecurriculum and of pedagogy. The DfE now seesitself as the enforcer of a very particular approachto teaching and learning. It needs to be made clearthat this is inappropriate and should end. A broadnational framework for the curriculum is necessarybut the current level of political involvement iswrong.

Our education service should be one in whichinnovation and experimentation can flourish. Thiswill not happen if the current top down approachis allowed to continue.

Government should set up arms- length systemsfor disseminating the outcomes of high qualityresearch, producing curriculum guidance and for

establishing and managing appropriatequalifications. It should also restore theindependence of a reformed national inspectorate.

What should a modern local authoritymanaging education look like?

Local authorities should be the basic buildingblocks of the system at local level. There should bea presumption of them being responsible foreducation as they are already democraticallyaccountable and have the experience of managingsizeable resources.

Local authorities should have the responsibilityfor ensuring there is sufficient high qualityprovision in early years, schools, FE, adulteducation and youth services. So they need to havethe size and capacity to do so. This is not currentlythe case, partly because their role and resourceshave been massively reduced but also because ofthe incoherent nature of the English localgovernment system means there are too many verysmall education authorities.

A major restructuring of English regional andlocal government might well be desirable butwould be time consuming and controversial.Therefore the establishment of the NES wouldneed to build on existing structures at least initially.

Persuading local authorities to work together canbe challenging, especially when they are led bydifferent parties. We suggest that the Secretary ofState should take the power to set criteria forrecognising individual local authorities or groupsof authorities as ready to fully manage educationalprovision. Government should take into accountsize, capacity, geography, collaborative anddemocratic structures and a definitive commitmentto partnership if more than one LA is involved.

Councillors should exercise their responsibilitiesthrough an Education Committee or Board whichshould include other stakeholders, professionalsand the wider community as well as electedcouncillors. This may help to reduce party political

Continued on Page 6conflicts where local authorities are seeking towork together and between central and localgovernment. Local authorities should also ensurethat local forums provide opportunities for thewidest possible engagement of everyone with aninterest in the success of education.

6

E d u c a t i o n P o l i t i c s

Combined authorities and Metro mayors couldprovide a framework within which local authoritiescan work together, for example where there is acluster of small local authorities, such as Teeside.But their effectively random distribution and theirdependence on central government patronage areserious issues.

Local Enterprise Partnerships as organisationscan have no place in the accountability structurebecause they have no democratic mandate and inmany areas are not coterminous with localauthorities. However they could provide employerrepresentation where that is appropriate and couldhave advisory input into the skill needs of localareas

Regional Schools Commissioners would have norole because academy conversion would cease andacademies (while they still exist) would revert tobeing accountable to local authorities.

What does “being accountable” mean andhow should the process be organised?

All providers of education should be first andforemost accountable to their learners and theirfamilies. This should not just be in name only –systems are needed to enable the voice of learnersto be genuinely heard.

The next level of accountability should be to thewider local community and to other localproviders of education. Peer review should becentral and there should be a presumption ofcollaboration rather than competition betweenproviders – for example in admissions and inmeeting the needs of vulnerable students.

Governing bodies remain a vital defence of theinterests of children, parents and communities andthey need to be representative of thosestakeholders, along with staff. In some multi-academy trusts, the schools no longer have even avestige of independence and parents and the widercommunity has no meaningful influence overthem. We are clear that this situation must bebrought to a speedy end.

Local authorities should play the central role inholding providers to account. They are in aposition to access a wide range of local intelligencenot just from professionals but from all parts of thelocal community. National government agenciesare too remote to be able to do this adequately.

National government should not run entirelyseparate systems of accountability, whether (asnow) through Ofsted or appointed Commissioners.Its role should be to ensure that local systems workwell, that processes and standards are comparable

across the country and that overall, outcomes forlearners are high.

All providers should be able to demonstratecommitment to the aims and values of the NES.This would include a focus on collaboration ratherthan competition. No institution should seek toprosper at the expense of others and theaccountability system should not reward suchbehaviour.

Accountability systems should evaluate what isgenuinely important not just what is easy tomeasure. This will not be easy and will requiregoing beyond simple test scores to makeprofessional judgements based on a wide range ofevidence gathered over time not just on a singleshort inspection visit.

Data which contributes to the narrowing of thecurriculum and which judges education purelyagainst learners’ future destinations or earningsshould not be published. Information publishedabout educational institutions should address thefull range of educational aims.

Data which is unreliable and misleading as is thecase with much current performance data shouldalso not be published. Consideration should begiven to publishing information on an area basisso that all schools share the responsibility for allpupils

How can accountability work for academiesand colleges?

Currently academies and FE colleges are notlocally accountable. This needs to change. Thereis too much evidence of the inadequacy of nationalgovernment’s attempts to hold these sectors toaccount both in relation to educational standardsand to financial probity.

SEA has set out in a separate paper howacademies can be brought into re-established localstructures.

Arrangements for accountability in the FE sectorare currently weak. They are heavily reliant onOfsted together with a high level role for the FECommissioners’ Office. The extent to whichcolleges are embedded in local structures is hugelyvariable. They need to be better integrated intoboth local planning and local democraticaccountability structures.

Accountability in the Early Years

Most nursery provision is in the private orvoluntary sector (in 2015 there were only 400maintained nursery schools in England). Localauthorities have a responsibility to ensure that the

7

S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 9

The Socialist Educational Association is the only educational organisation affiliated to the Labour Party

You can join here: socialisteducationalassociation.org/jointhe­sea/

You can follow us on twitter at: @SocialistEdu

An up to date l ist of local events can be found here:

socialisteducationalassociation.org/ category/events/

appropriate number of places is available, provideinformation for parents and give ‘advice, guidanceand support’ to providers. They also distributecentral government funding for the 15 and 30hours of early years education.

The private and voluntary nursery sector is notcurrently subject to any form of publicaccountability (other than Ofsted inspections). Thismeans there is an absence of accountability overgovernance, admissions and exclusions. There isno complaints and appeals system for parents.

Maintained nursery schools have an outstandingrecord of success, especially in areas ofdeprivation, whilst outcomes in the private andvoluntary sector are far more variable. The long-term aim of increasing the provision of maintainednursery schools with universal entitlement shouldbe followed.

In the meantime, consideration should be givento devolving to local authorities appropriatepowers to oversee and regulate the private andvoluntary nursery sector. At the very least, theyshould be charged with the responsibility ofproviding a robust complaints/grievance andappeals process.

Do we need different arrangements fordifferent sectors of education?

The NES needs to be seen as an integratedoperation from cradle to grave. However, it isnecessary to recognise that the travel to learnpatterns vary between sectors and this will affecthow planning and accountability are structured.

For example, early years provision needs to bevery local and available to every community. Bycontrast post 16 education is more specialised andinstitutions are likely to draw on a wider catchmentarea. And universities in many cases draw studentsfrom across the whole country.

With the probable exception of higher educationhowever, the responsibility for ensuring coherenceand progression across the NES should lie with

local authorities. Separating responsibilities fordifferent sectors of education would be a recipe forconfusion and inconsistency. That will meanensuring that local authorities are large enough tohave oversight of further and post 16 education.But they will also need to establish systems forensuring the accessibility of early years provisionat very local levels.

What are the resource implications?

The establishment of the NES cannot be done onthe cheap. There will be an inevitable pressure tofocus resources onto front line services. Howeverit needs to be recognised that management,governance and public engagement are allessential elements without which the initiative willnot realise its potential. They will need adequateresourcing.

Although most funding will come from centralgovernment, decisions about the allocation and useof resources should be delegated as far as possibleto local authority then institutional level. Seekingto make all funding decisions at nationalgovernment level is inevitably crude and likely tocause unfairness and anomalies.

8

E d u c a t i o n P o l i t i c s

Policies for the Labour Manifesto 2019

Political events are moving at an unprecedentedpace and it now seems very likely that we arelooking at an early election later this year. So thedevelopment of education policy needs to speedup rapidly. We are likely to be producing amanifesto within just a few short weeks. Since 2017,there have been a number of significantannouncements building on the last manifesto. Butas a matter of urgency the party needs make surethat we have a comprehensive set of policiesworked through and ready for delivery.Announcements since 2017 have includedwelcome commitments on academies and ontesting in schools. If the Telegraph is to be believedan announcement on taxing private schools iscoming and there are rumours of something onOfsted. There will no doubt be continued promiseson funding not just in schools but in early years andfurther education as well. And we will clearlymaintain the commitment to the abolition of fees.Perhaps above all, SEA was delighted to see therecognition that equality and social justice ratherthan social mobility need to be at the heart of ourprogramme.

However there is much to do. For example, theLifelong Learning Commission has produced aninterim report which identifies clearly thedisastrous state of adult education but is some wayfrom producing specific actions. The policyannouncements on academies remain unclearabout what the planned destination is and inparticular what local democratic accountabilitywould actually look like. There is an urgent needboth to complete the picture and to demonstratehow together our policies will deliver a coherentand equitable National Education ServiceA manifesto for 2019 will need to start from a clearanalysis of what is wrong. SEA believes that:

· International evidence shows our children areless happy and more stressed than in manycomparable countries.

· A funding crisis and a teacher retention crisis

are developing in our schools to a level not seensince the Tory government of the 1990’s.

· Support for children with special educationalneeds and disabilities is inadequate

· Our system reinforces inequality. Internationalevidence also shows that, while our ablestchildren do well, too many of the others don’tachieve as well as they do in other countries.

· Too many people are denied opportunities –because of cost, lack of locally accessibleprovision or because the pressures faced byschools and colleges lead them to deny access.

· For too long the British economic model hasbeen based on low wages and low skills. Thisneeds to change especially in the context ofBrexit.

· The growth of gangs and youth crime in someareas is of great concern.

· Current curriculum and examinations are toonarrow and don’t properly engage or prepareyoung people for the challenges of adult life.

· The current approach of marketizing andprivatising education is ineffective, hugelywasteful and has led to growing financialmismanagement and corruption.

· Schools and colleges are no longer properlyaccountable to parents, learners and localcommunities.

What follows are the key commitments that SEAbelieves the party should make in its 2019manifesto. There is obviously a need for detailbehind all these proposals and unlike the Tories,Labour should respect research and evidence andlisten to both professionals and families beforelaunching new policies. But these are our keyproposals:

· Reducing inequality must be a central aim ofthe National Education Service. We need alifelong educational entitlement that everyonecan access and long term support in areaswhere social and economic challenges aregreatest as part of a comprehensive regenerationprogramme.

D e l i v e r i n g t h e N a t i o n a lE d u c a t i o n S e r v i c e

9

S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 9

· All parts of the education service must beadequately funded so that there is a full range ofeducational opportunities for learners of all agesthat are free at the point of use. In particularwe need to restore the provision of adulteducation so that everyone has the opportunityto develop new skills throughout life. We mustalso ensure that apprenticeships provide highquality training and offer genuine routes intoemployment.

· The privatisation and marketisation ofeducation in all phases from early years touniversity must be ended and replaced bydemocratically accountable structures.Therefore, as part of an overall restructure oflocal and regional government, we shoulddevolve responsibility to local authorities forensuring educational opportunities are availableto all. The workings of local authorities howeverneed to be more open and should facilitate theactive participation of staff, learners andmembers of the wider community. The localauthorities will be the regulatory body, primarycentral service provider and commissioner forall educational institutions in their area

· We must support the recruitment andretention of a fully qualified professionalworkforce in all phases by restoring national payand conditions, addressing workload pressures,respecting professional expertise and ensuringhigh quality initial and continuing professionaldevelopment is available to all employees.Specifically, we should simplify entry routes intoteaching and restore the role of highereducation in initial teacher education.

· The ethos of “every child matters” needs tobe restored with the provision needed to supportit. In particular, by restoring support for familiesand children in the early years. We must ensurethe needs of learners with special needs anddisabilities are met with adequate funding andthat wherever possible they are included in

mainstream provision. We need to supportschools to manage challenging behaviour andending the scandal of off-rolling. Youthservices and other out of school provision whichcan both promote valuable informal learningand also support young people at risk ofinvolvement in gangs and crime need to berestored.

· We should recognise that the currentcurriculum and assessment arrangements do notadequately support young people in gaining theknowledge, skills, creativity and personalqualities needed to succeed in a rapidly changingworld and therefore to engaging schools,universities, employers, trade unions, learnersand parents in a long term review of what istaught in schools and colleges and how thefull range of achievements can be recognised.This should include radically reducing thepressure on both children and teachers byending external testing in early years, primaryand early secondary phases. Immediately, weshould replace the EBacc by a curriculumwhich gives greater priority to creative, artisticand technical subjects and then review the whole14 to 19 phase with a view to reducing thevolume of testing at 16 and developing a unifiedcurriculum framework that does not separateacademic and technical courses.

· inspection and accountability need to bereformed so that they are less confrontationaland more supportive and collaborative in allphases.

· We want to see a fully comprehensivesystem which means maintaining the ban onany new academic selection (including noexpansion of selective schools), committing tophasing out selective systems and to reducing theinfluence of and ultimately phasing out privateeducation. In addition, the admissions systemmust be reformed so as to ensure that the intakesof all schools, including comprehensives, areproperly representative of their localcommunity.

10

E d u c a t i o n P o l i t i c s

T o w a r d s a n e w 1 4 ­ 1 9 c u r r i c u l u m

A bigger, braver and more rounded curriculumthat is truly broad and balanced, is a longstandingaim of progressive educationalists. Bolstered by aNational Education Service (NES) the aim of thenext Labour government, if it has the courage totake on the siren voices of the right now embeddedin the education establishment and the media, hasto be exactly that. This means implementing, in the14 to 19 phase, a unified developmentalcurriculum, where the academic and vocational areequally valued. At its heart, it should be developingthe skills and knowledge in our young people,necessary to engage fully with the the modernworld in a critical and reflective way.Communication in all its facets, problem-solving,collaboration, critical thinking and reflection mustfeature. It must also be flexible and personalised,allowing young people to choose courses whichsuit their aspirations and interests. Finally, theassessment model should recognise theachievements of all learners, including those withspecial needs, rather than segregate them throughcrude pass/fail measures. We have been close toachieving the above on occasion, notably theTomlinson reforms proposed in 2004 and the shortlived curriculum 2000 agenda.

A progressive 14 to 19 curriculum must:

Develop the knowledge, skills, attitudes anddispositions to enable young people to beresponsible citizens and independent thinkers.Students should be prepared for employment,competent to make choices and learnthroughout their lives.

Prepare 19 year olds to progress toemployment or continue in education, withuseful social and learning skills and qualificationsthat are valuable and understood by bothemployers and education institutions;

Be engaging to retain young people at riskof leaving education, employment and training.

The Tories initiated the Sainsbury review whichthey have accepted in full. Currently, Labour hasaccepted it too. The Sainsbury Review was flawed

from the beginning as its terms of reference onlyincluded ‘technical education and qualifications’ asopposed to ‘academic’ GCSEs and A levels whichwould continue their role in selecting the elite torun the establishment, untouched. Further, it onlyconsidered post 16 study and was thereforeprevented, unlike Tomlinson, from recommendingcourses and programmes pre-16 to provideprogression onto more vocational routes post 16.It is now the case that pupils at Key Stage 4 haveto meet tough entrance criteria based on success inacademic GCSEs to be able to study A level. Ifthey do not meet them they are ‘guided’ intovocational courses like BTECs or intoapprenticeships. Vocational courses are often not,therefore, a positive choice for students but a fallback reluctantly undertaken because they have‘failed’ in their academic courses. Thegovernment’s insistence on ever higherproportions of pupils taking the EBACcombination of subjects at GCSE will furtherreinforce the perception that vocational courses areonly for those not bright enough to succeedacademically.

The new Tory T levels, proposed for post 16study and arising from the Sainsbury review,maintain and reinforce the existing academicvocational divide. There are many similaritiesbetween the Tories’ new T levels and the ill-fated‘diplomas’ which New Labour, at great expense,failed to make a permanent feature of 14 to 19education in the noughties. The same employmentareas with slightly amended names will becomeavailable for study at T level e.g. Business andAdministration. Again, as with the diploma, whenstudents opt to take a T level they will find there isno room for other options. Like the old diplomasthey are all encompassing and will containelements of English and Maths no doubt ‘relevantto the sector’, taking students to higher skill levelsthan GCSE. Again, similar to the diploma, collegesand now some schools, have to show they have theexpertise and resources to deliver the T level andhave to gain approval before offering it.

In New Labour’s case the Diploma, which ended

11

S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 9

up covering vocational subjects only, arose out ofa cowardly political decision not to implement theTomlinson report which would have meantincorporating A levels and GCSEs as well asvocational qualifications into the new diplomas. Animaginative implementation of Tomlinson wouldhave allowed students to mix and match academicand vocational elements. Fear of the right-wingmedia’s reaction, in the lead up to an election, wasthe reason. The right focused, as they continue todo, on Labour being soft on standards. What theypresented as the abolition of A levels, they claimed,was strong evidence of this. The achievement ofstudents more suited to vocational study was nottheir concern. Instead of incorporating A levelsinto Tomlinson’s new diplomas, new Labour wouldallow A levels, so strongly rooted in post 16academic education in the minds of middle-classparents and favoured by the Russell group, tosimply ‘wither on the vine’. Ed Balls claimeddiplomas would become the ‘qualification ofchoice’. The NUT at the time were right. They sawthe decision as a clear reversal by the governmentsaying ‘the decision to ditch Tomlinson’s 14-19reform proposals was fundamentally wrong’. It waswrong because it would perpetuate the academicvocational divide and the low status of vocationaleducation. The proposed new diplomas, unlikeTomlinson’s originals, were not as inclusive either.The new Labour foundation diploma was still wellbeyond the reach of many SEN learners. It wasalso wrong too, because the chance of creating aqualification framework accessible throughout life,which would have been so suited to a NationalEducation Service, was missed.

In contrast, the day after its publication, theTories announced that they had accepted theSainsbury Review in full. Its recommendations arebeing progressed via the government’s Post-16Skills Plan. Accordingly, there has been noconsultation about the merits or otherwise of theSainsbury recommendations (including it has to besaid in the Labour Party).

While unsurprisingly welcomed by theAssociation of Colleges (which may well seebenefit in the assumption that FECs will deliver thenew T-level qualifications) there have been widercriticisms including of the implication that certainroutes are associated with particular qualifications,the requirement for students to choose routes at 16and the suggestion that students who want to

transfer onto ‘academic routes will have to spendtime ‘transitioning’ from one pathway to another.Currently students can choose a combination ofadvanced vocational (often BTECs) and academicqualifications. In 2017 the number of universitystudents with BTECs has doubled since 2008 tomore than 100,000. At the government insistencerigorous external examinations now form part ofthe qualification, so this puts paid to the argumentthat BTECS are chosen because they are an easyoption. The rushed introduction of T levels and therecent refusal to continue funding BTECS lookssuspiciously like cutting off a route to universityfavoured by students coming from families withoutuniversity experience. It also looks like a deliberateattempt to reduce student numbers, universityplaces and even the number of universities.

T-levels have been criticised as being ill-thoughtout and for which schools, colleges, students andemployers are ill-prepared. The simplistic claimsmade in the Sainsbury Report that T-levels willlead to certain jobs have also been debunked asunrealistic and far-removed from the real world inwhich vocational qualifications are already studiedby many students and where so-called academicroutes often include vocational and technicaleducation and vice-versa.

“Students, parents and employers will not buy-in to T-levels which are cobbled together and are only targetedat young people. Quite rightly, qualifications in theUK are not age-dependent and need to be fit for studyfor people of all ages including those who want toreturn to improve their career options later in life. Thechallenges of improving the UK’s productivity andskills base will not be met without a lot more work,resources and joined-up thinking.”

T-levels in some subjects are being piloted butconcerns continue to be raised e.g. about therequirement to undertake lengthy, local industrialplacements – a particular challenge in rural areasthe DfE’s refusal to fund students’ transport costs– and more recently the DfE’s proposal towithdraw support for BTECs which are effectivelybeing considered by Ministers as ‘competitors toT-levels. Damian Hinds also forced through theirearly introduction against civil service advice.

Continued on Page 12

12

E d u c a t i o n P o l i t i c s

The SEA’s position

Labour’s support for separate vocational andacademic pathways has frequently been referred tosince the 2017 election. For example, both JeremyCorbyn and Angela Rayner referred to the valueof separate pathways at the launch of Labour’sLife-long learning Commission. Labour’sapparently unquestioning support for theSainsbury Reviews recommendations, includingthe development of T-levels and the Tory idea thatvocational courses are only delivered by collegesand not by schools, other providers anduniversities – or by collaboration betweeninstitutions – is also problematic.

The first T-levels are due to be launched in 2020.Other than criticising the timetable forimplementation, it appears that Labour iseffectively supporting the Conservatives ‘two-pathway’ agenda without considering the optionsor whether and how this agenda aligns with a‘cradle to grave’ NES or the Party’s ambitions todeliver a green economy. To ignore this issuewould be to once again mean that Labour wouldmiss the opportunity of a lifetime.

The Tories are being far more ruthless inintroducing T levels than New Labour was with itsdiplomas, which were always second best any way.Hinde has even overruled the civil service whohave pleaded with him not to go ahead in 2020because the relevant preparations have not beencompleted. The introduction of T levels willcement the partition between academic andvocational study up to age 18 and beyond becausestudents will not be able to take A levels alongsidethem. The abolition of applied generalqualifications like BTECS will prevent studentspursuing a mix of vocational and academicqualifications post 16.

Despite its age the Tomlinson agenda whichwould have:

· revolutionised assessment reducing the numberof exams taken

· allowed for students to take assessments whenthey were ready rather than at a particular age

· allowed for students to take either specialisedvocational or academic courses, as well as a mix

between the two, from age 14 effectivelyabolishing the vocational/academic divide onceand for all

· included all learners

· provided a qualification framework accessiblethroughout life.

Recommendation

The SEA should propose that Labour

1. Immediately cancel the implementation of Tlevels should it be elected soon, and continue thecurrent mix of academic and vocationalqualifications until a new review can becompleted

2. Remove the EBAC ambition fromperformance tables

3. Immediately set up a new review whichessentially builds on and updates Tomlinson forthe NES. No need to reinvent the wheel. Thereview must be of the whole 14 to 19 phasewithin the context of the NES. It must meet theneeds of all learners. It must end theacademic/vocational divide. It must have a‘climbing frame’ approach to assessmentrecognising the level a learner reaches howeverhigh or low that is. It must allow learners to‘climb’ higher at later points in their lives.

The SEA will organise a seminar entitled“Tomlinson for the Twenties” to help facilitate thisradical agenda.

Ian Duckett, PamTatlow and James WhitingAugust 2019.

The questions of ‘what is education for?’, ‘who controls it?’ and ‘how dothey control it?’ are not new. During the 1970s, and as part of a widerdiscussion around workers’ control and industrial democracy, theInstitute for Workers’ Control initiated a discussion of these questions,part of which is reproduced here. Kathryn Hinton poses many questionsthat are still to find a satisfactory answer. It is worth our time and effortto revisit them and the analysis of eduction she presents in the 1970s.When she writes “The only thing that education may be doing isproviding a filter and labelling system that satisfies most of theestablishment”, do we think the same might still apply today? Sadly,many radical and socialist educators will think so. TU

From the archives

14

Socialist Educational Association Cymdeithas

Addysgol SosialaiddThe Socialist Educational Association is a Socialist Society, affiliated to the Labour Party. It began in

the ‘20’s as the National Association of Labour Teachers. SEA was renamed and broadened to include

all socialists with an interest in education. It played a major role in developing the concept of the neigh­

bourhood comprehensive school in the ‘60’s. The aims of the SEA are:

· To promote comprehensive education, based on equality of opportunity and lifelong access, well

resourced, free and under local democratic control.

· To influence development of progressive education policies within the Labour Party and to work

with other like­minded bodies.

·To promote an international and inclusive perspective to education.

We have now set up SEA Cymru, a Welsh branch, affilliated to Welsh Labour.

Since devolution, education in Wales has diverged from that in England, in many ways (except

finance) to Wales’ advantage. Examples include the Foundation Phase, 14­19 education, the

absence of academies, trust and ‘free’ schools, the Welsh baccalaureate, maintenance of an

inclusive, cooperative and comprehensive ethos. We welcome the Donaldson curriculum ini­

tiative, the development of Additional Learning Needs policy, and the provision of free break­

fasts in primary schools. We need to elaborate a policy for Welsh education that defends and

nurtures what has been achieved, but which also specifies what further needs to be done.

Membership is open to all who have an interest in education and are eligible for Labour Party

membership. Individual members are welcome (£25 waged, £12 unwaged pa) (Couples £35 or

£18). CLPs and branches, including TU branches, are welcome to affiliate (£30 pa). Membership

includes the right to attend meetings and conferences in Wales and of the National SEA, and

includes a free copy of the journal for analysis and debate, “Education Politics”

Please contact to Mike Newman 17 Gileston Road, Cardiff, CF119JS. We will forward mem­

bership requests to the National Membership Secretary. Or contact via newmanmike2@aol.com

(or via 029 20 382 369)

Socialist Educational AssociationAre you interested in education? Join the SEA

The Socialist Educational Association is a Socialist Society, affiliated to the Labour Party. It began in

the ‘20’s as the National Association of Labour Teachers. SEA was later renamed and broadened so

that members now include MPs, MEPs, AMs, school governors, local councillors, teachers, lecturers,

students, parents – in fact anyone with an interest in education. It played a major role in developing

the concept of the neighbourhood comprehensive school in the ‘60’s. It is concerned with all aspects

of education: Foundation Phase, Primary and Secondary schooling, Further and Higher Education and

Life Long Learning.

The aims of the SEA are:

· To promote well­resourced and free comprehensive education, based on equality of opportunity

and lifelong access.

· To oppose privatisation and the abolition of local democratic control.

· To work with the TUC affiliated Teacher Unions.

· To influence development of progressive education policies within the Labour Party and to work

with other like­minded bodies to the same end.

· To promote an international and inclusive approach to education.

Membership is open to all who have an interest in education and are eligible for Labour Party mem­

bership.

Comprehensive Future & SEA conference fringe meeting

The Problems with Private and SelectiveSchools

Tuesday 24 September | 18:30 - 20:00 Brighthelm Centre, North Road, Brighton

Speakers:Thelma Walker MPDr Sol Gamsu, Durham UniversityDr Marlene Ellis, Exeter UniversityMelissa Benn, wrtiter and campaignerChair: Dr Nuala Burgess

Comprehensive Future and the Socialist EducationalAssociation have partnered for our fringe meeting:‘From social mobility to social justice: the problemswith private and selective schooling.