Fightback against the Education & Adoption Bill - House of Commons Meeting on Monday

Education policy failed to become a key factor in the General Election and we are now faced with five years of intensification of the Government's version of the GERM (Global Education Reform Movement) with the eventual aim of opening up state education to profit and the subservience of education to the demands of neoliberalism and globalisation. This is embodied in the Education and Adoption Bill currebtly before Parliament.

The Green Party fought the election with policies opposing the GERM and the associated academies and free schools programme, high stakes testing, narrow curriculum, performance related pay and policing of the system by a politicised Ofsted.

The meeting at the House of Commons on Monday organised by the Anti Academies Alliance* therefore comes at an opportune time to stand back and discuss where we go from here.

Of particular concern is the future of education for children with special educational needs and disabilities as well as the 'schoolification' of the early years.

I hope as many Green Party members and supporters will attend the meeting as possible.

This is what the Anti Academies Alliance circulated ahead of the meeting:

If  You Thought the 2010 Academies Act was Bad…..

The 2015 Education and Adoption Bill, described by the Local Schools Network as signalling ‘the new authoritarian conservative Britain’ will have its second reading next week. We have grave concerns about this Bill, which includes the rapid expansion of the free schools and academies programme, and the effect it will have on our schools. Therefore, on Monday 22 June from 6.00pm, while MPs debate the Bill, we’ll be hosting an open meeting in the House of Commons  to discuss how to oppose it. Visitors will need to go through security so allow plenty of time if you’d like to join us. 

As well as Alasdair Smith AAA national secretary, speakers include Henry Stewart of the Local Schools Network, Caroline Lucas MP, Catherine West MP and Clive Lewis MP who used his maiden speech to protest at the Inspiration Trust’s takeover of Hewett School in Norwich. 

Although the Bill promises that ‘coasting’ schools will be converted to academy status, it does not define ‘coasting’.  Will it be based on Ofsted judgements, pupil data or the whim of the Secretary of State or her viceroys – the Regional Schools Commissioners?  RSCs, whose personal key performance indicators include the number of academy conversions, will be given new powers to intervene in maintained schools.  The new Act, if passed, will see governors, councillors and local communities forced to implement the academy ‘solution’ whether or not they think it’s in the best interest of their children. And what of the ‘failing’ academies and free schools?  These are handed to the DfE’s academy sponsor of choice – no doubt a chain - without public scrutiny or consultation.  The price of ‘autonomy’ seems to be even more centralised control from Whitehall.

Free Schools in Free Fall

The Secretary of State found it difficult to put her finger on the number of ‘failing’ academies but one thing she can be sure of - it’s on the rise. Just take a look at our Twitter timeline @antiacademies or our Facebook page. This week we learned that a Catholic Free School in Camborne, Cornwall which cost £4.5million for only 60 pupils, is to be taken over by another sponsor. Also in the South West, Route 39 Academy has been judged to require improvement. Opening in North Devon with less than half the promised number of students, this was the school that offered free farm park tickets to parents who signed up to support their bid. 

40% Off at Ofsted

In an ironic twist, Ofsted has abandoned its own free market experiment and brought its inspectors in-house. The profit-making giants like Serco and Tribal that inspect our schools will lose their contracts from the start of next term.  However a whopping 40% of existing inspectors failed to get the in-house jobs.  And Ofsted told the TES that an ‘initial sift’ of additional inspectors took out about 500 who lacked the relevant qualifications or leadership experience, or did not possess qualified teacher status. 

And Finally

We bid a not so fond farewell to the Independent Academies Association which is closing in the face of insolvency. The Association, whose honorary president is Lord Andrew Adonis, acknowledged that in the future our children will be educated in Multi Academy Trusts – ‘chains’ to you and me – rather than individual ‘autonomous’ academies.

* Declaration of Interest: I am a member of th National Steering Group of the Anti academies Alliance

Infected by the GERM: Baseline testing

Guest blog by Kiri Tunks, a teacher and National Union of Teachers activist in London. Kiri is currently standing for the post of NUT vice president. Re-posted with permission from the Counterfire website LINK

Globally, education is under assault from governments and multi-national corporations who see it as a legitimate and lucrative business opportunity with an estimated market value of $4.4tn or more.

This assault, termed by Finnish educator Pasi Sahlberg^[1] 'the Global Education Reform Movement' or GERM, has created a model of education that puts profit before pupils while masquerading as the saviour of education for all. It claims competition between students, teachers and schools drives up standards and that ‘testing’ is the only way schools can be accountable to parents and taxpayers. A worldwide movement, it is reducing education to what can be measured and made profitable.

The drive to improve results has resulted in almost constant testing of our children with ‘practice’ tests a routine feature of the UK school experience. This means less time for learning and discovery and an inevitable narrowing of what children learn as they are taught to the test.

Now, the government wants children starting in Reception to be ‘assessed’ using one of six possible tests (chosen by the school) to give them a baseline level in English & numeracy. Within the first six weeks of starting school, each child will sit with a teacher for a 15-30 minute test and answer questions to establish their ‘ability’. This data will then be used to project progress targets for the child at KS2, KS3, KS4 and beyond. Typically, such data is not treated as aspirational but is instead translated into ‘Target Minimum Grades’: not a guide then but an expectation.

Parents should be concerned at the increased push to formalise learning for very young children when good practice in other countries sees formal schooling start as late as 7. There are those who say these tests won’t harm the children and that the psychological impact is over-played. There is much evidence and expertise^[2] in the field that suggests otherwise but time will tell.

The government argues that this assessment will give a clear picture of every child’s ability as they start school. Such an assertion assumes several things.

It assumes the data from the tests is reliable. But how can this data be reliable when we will be testing children of significantly different ages (a potential difference of 11 months)? How can it be reliable when schools are choosing which test to use from six different commercial providers? How can the results of a test from one provider be moderated with those from another?

It also assumes that teachers don’t already gather useful information on a child’s ability and development. They do. Teachers use the comprehensive EYFS profile document which covers 17 areas of development as opposed to just English & numeracy.

Then there is the assumption that assessment need only cover literacy & numeracy and that such an assessment is a good predictor of ability or progress across all disciplines or skills

The government also suggests that this assessment will reduce workload for teachers (even though many teachers are being told they need to do both the EYFS and the Baseline test). But even proposing the replacement of the EYFS profile with a one-off test is a cynical ploy. It may appear to reduce workload but it will bring with it a whole new set of problems.

What if your students don’t make the ‘expected progress’? Already, under PRP, have to justify progress to maintain or improve their pay or prove their competency. Now, this data will be used to challenge all teachers, across a child’s entire school life, on their progress. It will be used to hold teachers’ pay down. No account will be taken of other contributory factors. There can be no ‘excuses’ for failure.

This test is being ‘trialled’ from September 2015 and will be ‘optional’ from 2016 so it looks like schools have a choice. However, all primary schools are judged on their performance at the end of Key Stage 2. Schools using the baseline test will need to show that ‘pupils make sufficient progress’ from their starting point.

Schools who choose not to use the test will have to meet an ‘attainment floor target’ of 85% (compared to 65% now). Schools who fail will be forced to become sponsored academies.

The truth is, the industrial scale of testing which is becoming the norm in our schools, does not benefit students. The government is quite clear that these tests are about assessing ‘school effectiveness’. More and more, teachers are under pressure to teach a ‘pre-determined content domain’ which means that students are only taught what is prescribed. Any idea we once had of learning being a journey of discovery is under serious attack.

The GERM is not interested in schools because it cares about children. It sees schools as a potential for profit and teachers and their unions are a huge obstacle to its plans. Our job as activists is to make sure parents and communities understand that testing and accountability is a smoke-screen for privatisation; that attacks on teachers’ pay and conditions are not about dealing with failure but about ridding schools of challenging and expensive pedagogy; that not everything worth learning can be measured in a test; and that instead of giving them more say in their child’s future they are handing over their learning to what pleases the market.

The National Union of Teachers has committed itself to campaigning against these tests within the UK but also building campaigns with teacher unions from other countries against global providers like Pearson. In light of the election result we are going to have to redouble our efforts. We need to talk to parents about our concerns but also about the broader question of what education is for and the kinds of schools our children deserve. The imposition of these tests goes way beyond the question of how we measure a child’s progress. It questions the very nature of what kind of education we want for our society.

Notes

[1] GERM that kills schools, Pasi Sahlberg, June 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdgS--9Zg_0

[2] Early Years Education – NUT Edufacts http://www.teachers.org.uk/edufacts/early-years

Why the Green Party should endorse the NUT's Manifesto

The Green Party is the only one of the mainstream parties that challenge the Global Education Reform Movement (GERM). The GERM seeks to move both the structure and content of education in a neo-liberal direction. It reduces the role of education to competition in an ever expanding global market and opens the system to private profit.

I have written about this in an article on the Open Democracy website LINK

The National Union of Teachers and the Green Party both recognise the need to challenge this threat and so there is underlying agreement on principles between the NUT Manifesto for the 2015 General Election and Green Party education policy.

I have published a paper on the Green Party members' site giving a detailed comparison of the two documents and here publish the main findings. I think there is sufficient overlap for the Green Party to broadly endorse the NUT Manifesto with some more discussion needed on particular aspects.

Here are some major areas of agreement:

VISION AND CURRICULUM

• Both want to develop an exciting new vision for education and move away from a narrow prescriptive curriculum. Greens reject market driven models of education that see  its role only in terms of international economic competitiveness  and preparation for work. they advocate a system that enable people to participate fully in society and lead a fulfilled life.
• Both want a broad, balanced and enriching entitlement curriculum with the Greens emphasising that learners and teachers should be able to develop their own content within this context.
•  The NUT and Greens agree on the need for 14-19 qualifications framework which give equal value to academic, vocational, creative and practical subjects.

ACCOUNTABILITY

• There is agreement on the need for a new approach to evaluating schools include much wider involvement of parents, teachers and community. The Greens would replace Ofsted with an independent National Council for Academic Excellence, linked with the NfER. This would work collaboratively with schools and local authorities on school improvement.
• The Greens want to abolish league tables and the NUT wants to replace them with national sampling. More discussion is needed on how the latter would work.

TEACHERS

• Both want to reclaim teachers' professional respect, responsibility and autonomy with the NUT citing the successful London Challenge.
• Greens and the NUT agree that all children should be taught by qualified teachers or those in training towards qualification and the need for quality initial teacher education and in-service  education and training.
• The NUT wants a recruitment strategy that reflects the diverse nature of school communities while the Greens emphasise education on diversity issues for teachers and other school workers and the effective equality and diversity monitoring of recruitment and staff development.
• The NUT wants to reduce teachers' workload, restore a national pay structure and professional levels of pay, and opposes the extension of the retirement age to 68. The Green Party promises  to work with the teaching unions to reverse the process by which teachers have gradually been deskilled and their professional autonomy eroded and will review pension arrangements and retirement age with then. The Green Party opposes performance relation Pay for teachers.

CHILD POVERTY

•  This is a concern for both the NUT and the Green Party and there is agreement on the immediate need for the abolition of the Bedroom Tax, high quality nursery education , restoration of the Education Maintenance Allowance or a similar scheme. The Green's proposal on a Citizen's Income could replace the allowance in the long term and would begin to tackle child poverty.
• Both agree on the urgent need to tackle youth unemployment.

SCHOOL PLACES

•  There is agreement on the need to strengthen local authorities' role in educational provision and in particular the need for the restoration of the LA's power to provide new school places though building new LA schools.

PRIVATISATION

•  Both Greens and the NUT call for an end to the marketisation of education and oppose schools being run for profit. Greens see education as a right and an entitlement that should be free at the point of delivery to people of all ages.
• Greens oppose the creation of more academies and free schools and would integrate them into the local authority school system. The NUT call for the end of approval for new free schools and support the right of all schools to return to the status of local authority schools. The Greens support parents and communities fighting the forced academisation of their schools.
• Both agree on the need for the restoration of funding to local authorities and their role in overseeing the quality of education in their locality.

INVESTMENT IN EDUCATION

•  The NUT calls for the restoration of education funding to at least 2010 levels in real terms. There is nothing explicit in Green Party policy but it is certainly something we should explore.

Gove has gone but we must widen the battle to take on the GERM

There was delight in Brent schools yesterday when the news of Michael Gove's demotion filtered through to staffrooms and classrooms.

It soon became clear that his replacement might well be 'more of the same' but there is no doubt of the personal antipathy that Michael Gove has engendered amongst teachers and many parents.

Now the campaign must move on to challenging the Global Education Reform Movement, more or less supported by the three main parties, which is responsible for the marketisation of schooling. This is a vehicle for the privatisation of schools, giving away public assets to private companies for profit; the harnessing of education to the needs of the market; the conversion of pedagogy into an industrial process of delivery, testing and grading;  teachers' loss of professional autonomy and creativity and the robbing of children of their childhood.

The Green Party understands this and will be part of that campaign.

Video: NUT Standing Up For Education March 26th