reclaiming schools - national union of teachers · pdf filevisit the reclaiming schools...
TRANSCRIPT
Reclaimingschools
THE EVIDENCE AND THE ARGUMENTS
Stand Up for Education
Teachers, parents, academics and otherallies who support the Stand Up forEducation campaign believe that:
• Politicians should listen to parents and teachers
• We need a wider vision of learning and achievement
• We need more time for teaching – not tests
• All children deserve qualified teachers
• We need to end child poverty
• We need to end the school places crisis
• We need to mend the fracturededucation system
• Education should not be run for profit
• We need to invest in education
• We need teaching to be an attractiveprofession
3
Through the Stand Up forEducation campaign, the NUTand allies are building significantmomentum behind the case forbetter education policies.Teachers and parents want afairer education system anddemand a wider vision ofeducation – one that values everychild, and gives teachers theplatform to bring out their fullpotential.
There is extensive academicsupport for our overarchingvision for education. In thispamphlet, academics from arange of universities offer theiranalysis of the central themesand key recommendations in theStand Up for Educationcampaign. The views expressedmay not coincide with NUTpolicy in every detail, but that isnot important. What is importantis that we connect research,policy and practice in creativeand powerful ways to gain impactand achieve change.
The NUT has a long tradition ofworking with educationresearchers, and making sure thatits policies and campaigns areinformed by rigorous research.We produce EduFacts(www.teachers.org.uk/edufacts)and publish Expert Views(www.teachers.org.uk/expertview)on the NUT website to makeresearch evidence and policyarguments accessible to teachersand parents.
The contributing authors of this pamphlet have established a complementary website –Reclaiming Schools(www.reclaimingschools.org).The website provides short,evidence-based, contributionsand is regularly updated withnew features. It provides a usefulresource for teachers, parentsand governors in the ongoingcampaign to Stand Up forEducation.
I believe it is vital to find newways to bring teachers and theacademic community closertogether. I am proud to publishthis pamphlet and I invite you tovisit the Reclaiming Schoolswebsite.
Christine BlowerGeneral Secretary
Introduction
4
5
CONTENTSIntroduction by Christine Blower.
1. Some historical perspectives: how did we get into this state? 6Jon Berry
2. What is wrong with the new National Curriculum? 8Terry Wrigley
3. Coherent provision for 14-19 10Martin Allen
4. We need more time for teaching with talk – not more tests 12Valerie Coultas
5. How good is our classroom? Teachers taking back responsibility 14John MacBeath
6. Why universities must be part of teacher education 16Nadia Edmond
7. For a new public early childhood education 18Peter Moss
8. We need to end child poverty 20Meg Maguire
9. Poverty and education 22Pat Thomson
10. For an empowered, democratised and properly resourced local school system 24Richard Hatcher and Ken Jones
11. Education should not be run for profit 26Sarah Amsler
12. Education in a world wracked by crisis 28Susan Robertson
13. A real voice for teachers 29Howard Stevenson
6
It is a common complaint heardfrom teachers in all sectors: ifonly we could be left to get onwith the enjoyable job ofteaching children and not have tospend so much time checking,reporting and writing down whatwe’ve done – or what we’re goingto do – then our lives as teacherswould be blissful. How have wereached the stage where findinginteresting ways to get youngpeople to learn has, for someteachers, become almost the lastthing they think of as theyprepare their working day?
It is worth starting by saying thatthere has never been a goldenage of teacher independence.However, it was only as far backas 1976 that a leader in TheGuardian could confidentlyproclaim that ‘no principle hasbeen more hallowed by Britishgovernments than the rule thatthey should not interfere in thecurriculum of state schools’. Thatwas 12 years before theEducation Reform Act (ERA) of1988 introduced us to theNational Curriculum, age-relatedtesting in the form of SATs andthe marketization of schoolsthrough open enrolment andlocal financial management –thereby diminishing the role ofdemocratically accountable localauthorities. In the followingdecade, the body charged withinspecting schools, Her Majesty’sInspectorate (HMI) was largelyreplaced by Ofsted – anorganization whose whole toneand approach was, and remains,punitive and unsympathetic toteachers. This suite of measureshas, over the quarter of a centuryfollowing ERA, had the effect ofmaking England’s teachers(unlike their colleagues in otherparts of the UK) among the mostscrutinised, controlled and
publicly accountable educatorsanywhere in the world.
It was in the same year of thatGuardian leader, 1976, that thePrime Minister of the time,Labour’s Jim Callaghan, made afamous speech at RuskinCollege. Callaghan – who wasone of only a handful of BritishPrime Ministers since 1850 notto have been to Oxford orCambridge – acknowledged atthe time that he was steppinginto the ‘secret garden’ ofeducation where few politiciansbefore had dared to tread. Toread the speech now, at adistance of nearly forty years, isto recognise much of the rhetoricof education policy since.Notions of value for money instraitened times, along withbemoaning a perceived drop instandards, inform much of whatis said. Callaghan also seized onan episode in William TyndaleSchool in London to launch anattack on progressive methods,positing the notion that all of thiseducational experimentation flewin the face of the common-senseposition that it was the job ofeducators to prepare youngpeople for the demands of amodern economy.
By the time Callaghan’ssuccessor, Margaret Thatcher,left office some 15 years later, theapparatus for ensuring greaterregulation and accountability wasfirmly in place, albeit that theNUT in particular continued tofight vigorously against this, mostnotably with an eventual, ifshort-lived, boycott of SATs in1993. Throughout the 1980s,Margaret Thatcher and her closeallies busily set about thebusiness of applying theprinciples of the free-market andderegulation to all elements of
social life. Everything was up forsale from council houses tonationally owned companies: thestage was well and truly set forthe privatisation of the stateeducation system as well.
When Labour’s Tony Blair tookoffice in 1997 with the nowinfamous proclamation that histhree priorities were ‘education,education, education’,mechanisms were fully in placefor the market to work its magicon schools, teachers, pupils andtheir parents. Test results wereused for league tables that wereplaced in the public domain sothat parents could exercise freechoice when deciding where tosend their children. In reality,this so-called ‘choice’ was acomplete fiction for most peopleand could be exercised only by aprivileged minority. Thepublication of the outcome ofOfsted inspections helped tofurther entrench the idea that thequality of schools could becategorised in order to help the‘customers’ exercise this choice.By the turn of the new century itwas unsurprising that thisespousal of market values ofcompetition, ‘driving upstandards’ and customer choiceresulted in the first academyschools, thereby irredeemablyletting the privatisation genie outof the bottle.
The impact of this unremittingimposition of market values ontothe school system has beenprofound. Test results havebecome the driving force behindpractically everything ‘schoolleaders’ demand of their staff.The quest for high Ofsted ratingsnow manifests itself not just inthe frantic scrabbling in theperiod prior to an inspection, butin competency-led, reductive
1. A historical perspective: how did we get into this state?
7
lesson observations, at the end ofwhich individual teachers arebranded according to their abilityto comply with whichever set ofpriorities enjoy current favour.So-called ‘middle managers’ inschools spend inordinateamounts of time checking andscrutinising a whole raft ofmeaningless actions and data asthey chase the speciousmeasurable outcomes that cancement their school’s marketposition.
Unsurprisingly, all of this has hadan effect on teachers’ daily lives.Targets, questionable learningobjectives, collection of all sortsof unreliable information and theunrelenting measuring ofoutcomes and ‘progress’ meanthat many teachers spend theirtimes on mind-numbingroutines, drills and rehearsal.Fortunately, thousands ofteachers still harbour a strongsense of what is right for youngpeople and do everything in theirpower to subvert what Finland’sPasi Sahlberg has dubbed theGERM – the Global EducationReform Movement. However, tounderstand just why those whowield the clipboards havebecome the demi-gods of theeducational world, teachers needto look to a political system that,in a reflection of the wider world,has privileged market forces,privatisation and the so-calledmeasurement of performance.And, of course, teachers willneed to join forces with parents,students and others to speakback to those who persist infoisting such unfairness on us alland point out the error of theirways
Dr Jon Berry, University of Hertfordshire
Further reading:
Ball, S. (2008) The GreatEducation Debate. London: PolicyPress.
Cox, B. (1995) The battle for theEnglish curriculum. London:Hodder & Stoughton.
Sahlberg, P. (2011) FinnishLessons: What Can the World Learnfrom Educational Change inFinland? New York: TeachersCollege Press.
8
Centralised control
Most countries have a nationalcurriculum, but they vary in theflexibility they allow and whetherteachers have had any democraticinvolvement in forming it. Thecurrent curriculum in England,framed largely by the formerEducation Secretary MichaelGove, is extremely prescriptivefor English, Maths and Science,but threadbare for other subjects.Having ignored his panel ofcurriculum experts, resulting intheir resignation, the newcurriculum is based on autocraticdecisions by the former Secretaryof State.
Broad educational aims (social,cultural, ethical etc) are scarcelymentioned, apart from two vagueparagraphs at the start (‘spiritual,moral, cultural, mental andphysical development’ ; ‘preparespupils for the opportunities,responsibilities and experiencesof later life’). By contrast,Finland*, for example, has ademocratic vision (‘humanrights, equality, democracy’)recognising diversity (‘toleranceand intercultural understanding’)and sustainability (‘naturaldiversity, preservation ofenvironmental viability’). Ratherthan simply teaching youngpeople to fit in, it wantseducation ‘to create new culture,revitalise ways of thinking andacting, and develop the pupil’sability to evaluate critically.’
The new National Curriculum isrigidly divided into subjects,neglecting interdisciplinarylearning. Despite recognisingthat literacy and numeracy arepractised in other subjects,themes such as environment,democratic citizenship, globalperspectives or human rights areignored.
Lacking breadth and balance
It is dominated by three subjectsEnglish, Maths and Science – orrather two and half since spokenEnglish is almost absent. Thiscan even be seen in the numberof pages: English 87, Maths 45,Science 32, Computing 2,Geography 3, etc. WithinEnglish, spoken language has 2pages, reading and writing 20plus 25 for spelling and 18 pagesof grammar and terminology.Drama has one paragraph; andnothing on modern media.
Primary schools
Formal schooling in Englandbegins a year earlier than mosthigh-achieving countries.(Finland’s 5-7 year olds learninformally at kindergarten.)Stringent premature targets havebeen set in an attempt to outdopotential competitors, with manydemands placed on children ayear or two younger than in thehighest achieving countries in theworld. There is no recognition ofchildren’s readiness. Littlethought has been given to youngchildren’s potential interests, andthere is no sense of play even inYears 1 and 2. Extensivescientific knowledge is requiredin Years 5 and 6, compared withhigh achieving Finland andSingapore.
There are serious cognitive, andpsychological, problems inmaking demands at too young anage. Examples of prematuredemands include:
• spell days of the weekaccurately (Tuesday,Wednesday!) in Y1;
• distinguish there, they’re andtheir in Y2, and affect fromeffect in Y3;
• instantly subtract 7 from 16(Y1);
• 5/7 – 2/7 = 3/7 (Y3); and
• mental calculations such as12,462-2,300 (Y5)
Teachers will feel pressuredtowards rote learning, so poorfoundations will be laid.Ironically, battery-farmingchildren in this way is likely to becounterproductive in terms oftheir long-term development.
Other subjects
These are seriously marginalised,with ill-conceived shifts ofemphasis. Art has a narrowerrange of activities than before(collage, print making, digitalmedia, textiles, photography havegone), and with a lessexploratory tone even at KS1. PEhas also lost a sense of exploringmovement. Cultural diversity isno longer mentioned in Art orMusic. KS1 Geography used tobegin with local experiences butis now about accumulating facts:‘name the 7 continents and 5oceans’. Fortunately Gove wasforced to back down fromoverloading primary History withencyclopaedic details and had totone down the nationalisticemphasis, but again therecommendation to start withthe local and familiar hasdisappeared.
Accountability pressures
England’s accountability systemis set up to fuel competitionbetween schools, with seriousconsequences for the losers –especially schools servingdisadvantaged neighbourhoods.This makes it even more difficultfor teachers to steer their owncourse and relate learning to thechildren’s interests and needs.
2. What is wrong with the new National Curriculum?
9
Ironically, the new NationalCurriculum does not apply toacademies or free schools,suggesting perhaps that the mainreason for its stringent targetsmight be to label many primaryschools as ‘failing’ and drivethem to closure andacademisation.
In all schools however, newassessment requirements willhave a distorting and narrowingeffect, and lead to teaching to thetest. These include the phonicscheck (Y1), an overemphasis onspelling, punctuation andgrammatical knowledge (Y6),and the removal of manypractical elements andcoursework from GCSEs.
The secondary curriculum
From 11-14 the curriculumconsists of a traditional set ofsubjects, with no sense ofinterdisciplinary learning orengagement with the outsideworld – indeed, no thought aboutpreparing for the challengesfuture citizens will face such asglobalisation, global warming,war or poverty. From age 14, allcoherence is lost. Only English,Maths and Science arecompulsory, plus a smattering ofICT, PE, Citizenship, RE andSex Education. Beyond that,everything is geared tomaximising GCSE scores.
More academic students aresteered towards a narrow“EBacc” which neglectstechnologies and the creativearts. Sadly Labour’spolicymakers, while complainingthat this neglects many youngpeople’s needs, have made thesocially divisive proposal that the
“non-academic 50 percent”should be segregated intopreparation for work (i.e. mainlylow paid and routine jobs).Breadth and balance are out thewindow. England will be almostalone in Europe in not requiringa broad curriculum up to age 16,let alone beyond. (In Norway forexample, vocational studentsaged 16-18 continue Norwegian,English, Maths, Science andCitizenship.)
All young people should beentitled to a broad curriculum.Work preparation should notwipe out cultural development orcitizenship, and there should beample time for independentprojects and practical activities,not just full-time exampreparation.
Dr Terry Wrigley, Visiting Professor, University of Northumbria
Further reading:
An extended version of thischapter and other resources can be found onwww.reclaimingschools.org(Curriculum and Assessmentsection)
White, J. (ed) (2004) Rethinkingthe school curriculum: values, aimsand purposes. London: Routledge
Wrigley, T. (2014) The politics ofcurriculum in schools. Centre forLabour and Policy Studies.http://classonline.org.uk/pubs/item/the-politics-of-curriculum-in-schools
* The comparison is made not to put Finland on a pedastal, but to show that high achievement can combine with aworthwhile education based on enlightened values.
10
Vocational education wasofficially established to improvework and employment skills, butfew of the vocational coursesdeveloped in schools and collegesafter the collapse of industrialapprenticeships in the 1970shave offered real opportunitiesfor young people in the labourmarket. Instead, a succession ofnew qualifications wereintroduced, lasted a few yearsand were then discarded infavour of new ones. Some of themore high profile qualifications,such as the General NationalVocational Qualifications(GNVQs), claimed to providereal alternatives to A-levels.Others were expensive whiteelephants like the specialistdiplomas championed by NewLabour. The most durable havebeen the BTEC awards.
Even though higher levelvocational qualifications haveprovided opportunities for someyoung people to enter highereducation, the research evidencehas continued to show schoolshave used vocational pathwaysfor the ‘less-academic’. Thoughthe more student-friendlypedagogy and less hierarchicalclassroom relationshipsassociated with the newqualifications were said to reflectthe modern workplace and newtypes of ‘soft skills’ needed acrossthe growing service sector, theyalso provided ways for teachersand lecturers to gentle thesestudents along a low status route!More recently, the standing ofvocational qualifications has beenreduced further as some schoolsentered entire cohorts forvocational ‘equivalents’ toimprove their standing in GCSEleague tables.
Following recommendations inthe Wolf Report (2011), theformer Education SecretaryMichael Gove streamlined thenumber of vocational coursesavailable at 14, but alsodemanded more ‘rigour’. By thishe meant that to qualify as one ofthe eight subjects on which newschool league tables would beformulated, a vocationalqualification had to followcertain criteria, could not countas more than one GCSE and hadto have more externalassessment. Wolf had alsorecommended that vocationalcourses should be restricted to20% of the Key Stage 4curriculum, something opposedby Kenneth (now Lord) Bakerwho has continued to pressahead with University TechnicalColleges (UTCs) offeringvocational specialisms.
But Gove’s ‘grammar schooleducation for all’ approach –despite the defeat of his EBacc –has been equally unsatisfactoryas GCSE syllabuses have beennarrowed and antiquatedassessment methodsreintroduced. English and historyteachers have led campaigns andwon concessions on some of theworst aspects of the new courses.Even though Shadow EducationMinister Tristram Hunt hasattacked the ‘backwardness’ ofGove’s deluded grammar schoolapproach, he has reaffirmed theLabour Party’s commitment torestoring the vocational route forthe ‘forgotten 50%’ not goingonto university; Labour willestablish a TechnicalBaccalaureate and open moreUTCs.
It’s true that countries likeGermany have developed
successful vocational andtechnical routes as well asapprenticeships linked toemployment opportunities butthese courses have included amuch larger general core. InGermany there is now muchgreater enthusiasm for attendingcomprehensive schools. Currentanalysis of the occupationalstructure also shows thecontinued disappearance ofmany of the middle ‘technical’jobs which vocationalqualifications are associated with.Also significant, regardless of itslogic, is the continued employerpreference for applicants to havetraditional academicqualifications rather thanvocational ones, with the A-levelstill enjoying gold standardstatus.
Rather than a narrowvocationalism or Michael Gove’snarrow academicism, it would bebetter to provide a good broadeducation for everybody througha general diploma, which ensuredan entitlement to different typesof learning, providing highquality technical education andtraining for those who did desireit – with opportunities forworkplace placements. But thisshould be as one of a number ofoptions not a distinct pathway.Learning about a range of socialand political issues associatedwith work rather than just howto, would also be a mandatorypart of a common core.
It goes without saying that thislevel of change and innovationcould not happen all at once andthat the first stage would have tobe an overarching certificatelinking the different types ofexisting qualifications. If this wasto serve as a bridge towards more
3. Coherent provision for 14-19: unifying academic and vocationallearning
11
radical changes however, thensubject combinations would needto be more like directives thanNew Labour’s Curriculum 2000proposals required, or in thefudged Tomlinson proposals thatultimately did not come toanything after Tony Blair backedthe continuation of A-levels. Auniversal general diploma couldeventually provide the mainavenue to higher education andemployment, as well as beinglinked to new concepts of‘citizenship’ for young people.
Dr Martin Allen is aresearcher specialising ineducation and the labourmarket
Further reading:
Martin Allen and Patrick AinleyA New 14 plus (2008) publishedby Ealing Teachers Association(Downloadable athttp://radicaledbks.com/download-14-19-diploma-pamphlet/)
Martin Allen (2007) ‘Learning forLabour: Specialist diplomas and14-19 Education’, Forum 49 (3).
Martin Allen and Patrick AinleyThe Great Reversal (2013)Downloadable atwww.radicaledbks.com
NUT document: 14-19 bringingdown the barrierswww.teachers.org.uk
12
As written exams become thedominant mode of testing, thereis less time for thought aboutother modes of teaching andassessment. Re-establishing theimportance of assessmentthrough talk – speaking andlistening – would not onlypromote good teaching but alsosignify a completely differentapproach to assessment. Thisapproach would empower bothpupils and teachers.
Oral assessment has been used inschools for many years. In nearlyevery lesson a teacher usesquestions, at some point, toestablish whether or not thepupils understand the topic orconcept being taught. Dramateachers use evaluation of roleplay, improvisation andperformance to teach theirsubject. Modern Language andEnglish GCSEs have alsoassessed the quality of pupil talk.English assessed speaking andlistening at GCSE until the newEnglish Curriculum wasintroduced and now, althoughthe curriculum still requiresteachers to assess spokenlanguage, the oral grade nolonger contributes to the finalGCSE English grade.
Until recently, the EnglishLiterature AQA GCSE alsoassessed pupils’ understanding ofliterature through talk. The oralresponse option allowed theteacher to interrogate the pupilsclosely to ensure they hadstudied the play or novel at adeep enough level to be awardeda particular grade. Through apresentation or a discussionpupils had to show, for example,their understanding or insightinto dramatic action, characters,setting, context or themes. TheMedia Studies GCSE also has
practical assignments that caninclude assessment through talk.As a Head of English, I foundthat pupils enjoyed the challengeof these oral assignments and feltan immediate sense ofaccomplishment.
Prior to the National Curriculumthere was much greater flexibilityin the use of oral assessment forall exams. The CSE mode 3 andthe Certificate of ExtendedEducation were exams devisedby teachers and there was moreopportunity to include oralassessment modules in a range ofsubjects.
The Cox Report which informedthe first English NationalCurriculum did not advocate thekind of rigid, written exams thathave been imposed on childrenand the teaching profession. Itsuggested that teachers shouldchoose from a bank of SATS. Inprimary schools, Cox suggestedthat pupils’ responses should bemainly oral or practical. Thereport suggested that the taskshould be conducted over anextended period and shouldreinforce teaching and learning,and not be a bolt-on activity, andalso that coursework should be amajor input of the assessmentprocess.
What a difference between thisand the present testing regime!Why did we move from somereasonably sane educationalideas to the dreadful, drearyexam papers? How comespeaking and listening has onceagain become the Cinderellastrand and been downgraded inthe new GCSE English exam?
The reason is very simple.Speaking and listening andassessing reading aloud have torely on teachers’ judgements and
no government seems to bewilling to allow teachers to makethose judgements. Speaking andListening is the educationalcasualty of the drive towardscentralisation. If you want toraise standards from the centre,using crude league tables toname and shame, you have tohave standardised written papers.The political imperative drivesthe educational agenda, not theneeds of the pupils and goodteaching practice.
The current English examsremain highly traditional writtentests, however, and this, quitenaturally, directs the energy ofmost schools away from oralassessment even if teachers havetried to maintain it as part oftheir lesson pedagogy. At 7, forexample, teachers in the pastwould listen to children readaloud to make a judgementabout their decoding skills, theirfluency and comprehension. Thisis exactly what judgements onreading should be framedaround: on accuracy, fluency,and understanding. Which is themost appropriate form for thatjudgement to be made: a phonicstest or reading aloud? The answeris obvious.
At 11 and 14 it would be quitepossible to develop teacherassessment based on speakingand listening, drama or groupwork that tested reading,response to literature andwriting. A teacher, after studyinga text, might for example choosewriting in role as a character,prepared by a speaking andlistening activity such as hotseating. This involves assessing allaspects of language in oneassignment but it is linked togood practice in teaching thepupils to plan their writing and
4. We need more time for teaching with talk, not more tests
13
will therefore help them toproduce their best piece ofwriting. The assessment ismeaningful and integral to theteaching.
The added bonus of thisapproach is that these types ofassessments would tell theteacher a lot more about a pupil’spotential and make it possible togive accurate feedback on how toimprove. Such assessmentsstimulate collaborative thinkingand encourage originality,evaluation and problem solving.These higher order skills arevalued in the workplace and willhelp pupils to enter the adultworld with more social andacademic confidence.
There is no reason why everysubject could not adopt an oralcomponent as part of the systemof assessment. Why not get thepupils to demonstrate their ICTskills through their ownpresentation of a topic to the restof the group? Why not arrange adebate on votes for women withpupils in role as NineteenthCentury politicians? Why cannota particular painting beresearched, analysed andintroduced to the class by thestudents, rather than the artteacher? Such activities cancreate memorable learningmoments for students. Studentslearn more by finding out andteaching others than they do byjust being filled with information.Students will listen closely totheir peers, particularly whenthey know that a lot ofpreparation has taken placebeforehand.
Let’s start thinking out of theexams box and use ourknowledge of what reallyconstitutes good teaching andlearning to create more
developmental forms ofassessment. Can’t we get thepupils talking about what theyknow rather than always havingto write it down? Can’t we usegood forms of formativeassessment whatever we are toldto do from above?
Valerie Coultas, Senior Lecturer, Kingston University
Further reading:
Cox, B (1991) Cox on Cox: AnEnglish Curriculum for the 1990s.Hodder and Stoughton
Coultas, V (2009) Creating an oral portfolio. TeachitSpring (1) 2009www.teachit.co.uk/custom_content/newsletters/newsletter_jan09.php#6 accessed January 3rd 2015
Coultas, V (2013) English for theFew or English for the Many? in PAinley and M Allen (Eds)Education Beyond the Coalition –reclaiming the agenda. London:Radicaled
DES (1990) English in theNational Curriculum. HMSO
14
Many years ago the inspectoratein Scotland published a series ofreports with the title How good isour school? It was an invitation toanswer that question from thedifferent viewpoints of teachers,parents, children and youngpeople themselves. It did notsuggest that any one of these wasthe ‘right’ answer but that eachmade their own contribution tounderstanding the mosaic ofschool life.
This did not preclude a viewfrom inspectors with theirlongstanding experience ofvisiting schools, but it didacknowledge that a ‘visitor’s eyeview’, especially when we are allon our best behaviour, isnecessarily limited. What a visitor‘sees’ is limited by theexpectations and agenda he orshe brings with them. It islimited by the weight of authorityand the ‘passport’ they carry withthem. It is limited by what can beseen at a given time and place,what inferences are made, whatquestions are asked and notasked, who speaks and wholistens.
How good is our school? is acomplex and contentiousquestion because it presentscritics with plenty of room fordisagreement. For a start, ‘good’is a value judgment and notnearly as scientific as ‘effective’.And then there is the ‘how’ – onwhat basis do you makejudgments, and how valid is yourevidence? And ‘our’ – whoseschool is it anyway, who are bestqualified to make informedjudgments, who are theyresponsible to?
But it is precisely in theseobjections that we spot thefallacy of objective measures, ofthe authority on which
‘effectiveness’ rests, the narrowapproach to what constitutes‘evidence’ and a view ofachievement which excludes somuch more than it includes – theemotionally cleansed world ofstandards, performance and linemanagement.
It comes as no surprise thatOfsted has been unable to settleon a valid way of evaluatingschools, seeking a “NewRelationship with Schools” butfinding that happy statefrustratingly elusive. Well, so havemany other jurisdictions butsome have approached the issuewith a more open mind, with aless politicised agenda and with abelief that there is much to learnfrom a massive corpus of workon quality assurance, school selfevaluation and external review.
The OECD is one such valuablesource. Between 2010 and 201214 country reviews of assessmentand evaluation were conductedby international teams of expertsin an attempt to identify leadingedge practice. New Zealand wasseen as perhaps closest toachieving the balance of selfevaluation and external review:
New Zealand hasdeveloped its owndistinctive model ofevaluation and assessmentthat is characterised by ahigh level of trust inschools and schoolprofessionals… Thedevelopment of nationalevaluation and assessmentagenda has beencharacterised by strongcollaborative work, asopposed to prescriptionsbeing imposed from above.(Nusche, Laveault,MacBeath and Santiago,p. 132-133)
The secret is out – trust,professionalism, collaborationand ownership lie at the heart ofeffective quality assurance. In her2002 Reith lecture A Question ofTrust, Professor Onora O’Neillargued that the essential qualitiesin professional trust have beenprogressively eroded by simplisticaccountability measures,encouraging deception andsecond-guessing as to what maymeet with an inspector’sapproval.
There is nothing as corrosivewithin an organisation asmistrust, and nothing asdestructive as disingenuous gameplaying. Yet how easy it is to beheld captive by externalvalidation, to feel the warm glowof a pat on the head, to celebratethe accolade of ‘a good Ofsted’.‘Nothing fails like success’ wrotePeter Senge, in 1990. The more‘success’ a school experienceswithin the bounded criteria ofexam passes and Ofstedinspections, the less likely it is toquestion them. ‘There is nothinglike success to breedcomplacency or arrogancebecause being the best means notlooking for the inconsistencies ordeep seated assumptions whichprevent radical change.’
Self evaluation, conductedwithout looking over yourshoulder, set within a climate ofcollegial trust and conducted in agenuine spirit of inquiry,welcomes inconsistencies,explores deep seatedassumptions and is always opento doing things better. It movesfrom a mechanistic process to anexploration of purpose, meaningand impact. The metaphor of selfevaluation as a tin openercaptures the sense of opening up,in contrast to the closing down
5. How good is our classroom? Teachers taking back responsibility
15
effect of definitive judgements.Too often data and summaryjudgments, rendered from anauthoritarian stance, close downthe space for dialogue and theopportunity for learning.
Data is critical. Not theimpoverished version of numbercrunchers but, by dictionarydefinition, ‘an assumption orpremise from which inferencesmay be drawn, a starting pointfor exploration’. A starting pointfor exploration. This is what liesat the very heart of both externaland internal evaluation. Bothcomplementary forms of inquiryrespect diversity. Theyencompass observations andinferences. They include a rangeof quantitative and qualitativeevidence. They embrace thewhole gamut of achievements,written, oral, experiential,individual, social andcollaborative – more ambitiousand encompassing than tests andexaminations – pieces in thelarger jigsaw. Professionalconnoisseurship lies in knowinghow all the pieces fit together torender a valid picture of theschool or classroom, and thenature of valued learning.
Self evaluation relies on having atoolbox of strategies, put to useby teachers and students on adaily basis. Respect, democracyand reflection are the foundation.This doesn’t mean abandoningschools to their own devices, tosink or swim. School self-evaluation is best supported by awell-chosen critical friend fromanother school, not to mentionadvice from the local authorityand HMI. Unlike Ofsted, their
role is to sustain a spirit ofcritical questioning, notextinguish it through fear.
So, self-evaluation has to beunderstood as multi-faceted andproblematic, open to changingperspectives, welcoming of theexternal eye, but seeing it as aformative opportunity to get allof the puzzle pieces into the rightplace.
Emeritus Professor John MacBeath, University of Cambridge
Further reading:
Hammond, S and Mayfield A(2004) The Thin Book of NamingElephants: How To SurfaceUndiscussables For GreaterOrganizational Success. CITY:Thin Book Publishing Company
Macbeath, J. (1999) Schools mustspeak for themselves. London:Routledge
Macbeath, J.; Schratz, M.;Meuret, D. and Jakobsen, L.(2000) Self-evaluation inEuropean schools. London:Routledge
Nosche, D, et al. (2012) Reviewsof Evaluation and Assessment inEducation: New Zealand 2011,PECD Publishing
Onora O’Neill’s series of ReithLectures (2002) can be found athttp://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2002/lecturer.shtml
16
The Coalition Government’sstarting point is to view teachingas a craft activity “best learnt asan apprentice” (Michael Gove,2010) in which, consequently,universities have no place. Worse,they see the involvement ofhigher education (HE) asdamaging: schools minister NickGibb blames HE for England’seducation system slipping downthe international rankings.Unlike other parts of Britain,recent policy in England isworking to undermine the role ofuniversities in teacher education,sugesting that school-basedexperience and training aresufficient.
Such prejudice flies in the face ofinternational and nationalopinion. University-basedcourses have consistently beenhighly evaluated by Ofsted whichhas raised concerns about thequality of training in SchoolDirect (the school basedprogramme). The OECD (2011)concluded that the mostsuccessful school systems in theworld have a strong commitmentboth to university-basedprovision and to practice inschools, each with a valuablecontribution to make, yetgovernment policy is activelyundermining well-establishedschool-university partnerships.
The Coalition government policyhas been to remove therequirement for teachers inacademies and free schools tohave Qualified Teacher Status,and to promote alternative routesinto teaching. In the SchoolDirect programme, for example,schools recruit pre-serviceteachers with a view tosubsequent employment andcommission ‘training providers’(still mostly universities but
potentially other organisations)to manage their training. Teachereducation places allocated touniversities have been cut backby 23% between 2012-13 and2015-16. Some universities,including Bath, the OpenUniversity and Anglia Ruskin,have pulled out of postgraduateteacher training already.
The result is a fragmentation andproliferation of training routes ofincreased variability. In thecurrent context of austerity thereis also the danger that schoolsand aspiring teachers mayincreasingly opt for routes whichare cheaper because they cut outthe university element.
It is not just the initial educationof teachers but their continuingprofessional development (CPD)which is under attack. Post-qualifying courses such as MAshave suffered as a result ofworkload pressures on staff andwithdrawal of funding, anduniversity involvement withschools on a consultancy basishas also reduced. Nicky Morganhas recently launched a new fundfor CPD to be delivered by‘Teaching Schools’, cutting outuniversities. What CPD remainsis often limited to responding toshort-term demands fromgovernment.
One of the characteristics of thecurrent coalition government isits stubborn refusal to listen toresearch and expertise that donot fit its own agenda. This hasbeen exacerbated by thewillingness of ministers todisparage expert opinion oneducation as ‘the blob’ or‘enemies of promise’. Mostpeople understand thatuniversities have an importantrole to play in researchingeducation and providing
independent evidence which maysupport or challenge policy, yetthis too is being undermined.
Current policy is based on twofalse assumptions. The first isthat there should be a separationof research from practice, whichsuggests education research canbe developed separately, either byuniversities or privatecontractors, and the resultshanded to teachers who are castas deprofessionalised ‘rule-following operatives’. Realteacher professionalism requiresteachers with the skills tobecome actively involved ‘inresearch and enquiry,collaborating with colleagues inother schools and colleges andwith members of the widerresearch community based inuniversities and elsewhere’(BERA/RSA 2014:7). Teachersshould be regarded as ‘citizenscholars’ both as classroomteachers and by ‘contributing towider public debates abouteducational purposes, systemsand practices’ (Sharon Gewirtz).A recent inquiry into teachereducation and research by theBritish Education ResearchAssociation found thatinternationally, enquiry-based (orresearch-rich) school and collegeenvironments are the hallmark ofhigh performing educationsystems (BERA/RSA, 2014).
The second assumption is thatuniversity- and school-basedapproaches are alternatives (andthat the latter is preferable). Yetan interdependent partnershiphas been a feature of successfulrelationships between HEinstitutions and schools,recognising the distinctive andvaluable contribution each canmake. The very basis of suchpartnerships is undermined
6. Why universities must be part of teacher education
17
when the contribution of HE issystematically devalued.
That contribution has been tofoster a critical professionalisminformed by influential figurespast and present who havechanged the ways in which weconceive learning. Unfortunately,an all-pervasive discourse inschools and the educationalworld, focusing on notions ofrelentless improvement andmeasurable outcomes, has meantthat discussion of the works ofBruner, Vygotsky, Piaget, Freireand other important thinkers oneducation have becomesomething of a footnote to thepressing business ofdemonstrating that standards arebeing met.
Ticking a box to ‘prove’ that askill has been mastered andcompleting a chart to indicatethat a topic has been ‘covered’ –whether this be for the youngpeople or the student teachersthemselves – have takenprecedence over the complexconsideration of whether genuinelearning has taken place. Currenteducation policy is shaped by anarrowly technicist approach toeducation and the education ofteachers, promoting a culture ofcompliance within a system ofcentralised modes ofaccountability. Compliance doesnot guarantee good teaching.Teachers need to beknowledgeable, reflective andcritical about the important taskthey face if they are to sustaintheir efforts on behalf of learners.
This is not to suggest thatteachers qualifying through aschool-based route cannotbecome competent practitioners.The danger is that they will beinadequately equipped to reflecton or research their own
practice, or to think beyond thestandard practices they see intheir own school. A widerknowledge and deeper, morecritical understanding of the sortwhich characterises universitystudy is needed to enable schoolsto live up to the challenges ofsocial justice and citizenship in achanging world.
In a recent press release, SchoolsMinister David Laws is quoted assaying, “Teachers are the singlemost important resource in ourschools. Teaching should andmust be on an equal footing withother high-status professions likelaw and medicine.” We couldn’tagree more and point to the vitalrole that higher education playsin the formation of thoseprofessions.
Dr Nadia Edmond,University of Brighton
Further reading:
BERA/RSA (2014) Research andthe Teaching Profession: Buildingthe capacity for a self-improvingeducation system, Final report of theBERA/RSA Inquiry into the role ofresearch in Teacher Education.London: BERA/RSA
Florian, L. and Pantic, N. (eds)(2013) Learning to teach Part 2:Exploring the dinstinctivecontribution of higher education toteacher education. York: HEA
18
England has long sufferedinadequate early childhoodprovision, the product ofprolonged under-investment andpolicy neglect. The result: asystem split between ‘childcare’,‘education’ and ‘welfare’, withfragmented, incoherent anddivisive services, a mish-mash ofnursery classes and receptionclasses, playgroups and nurseryschools, day nurseries andchildminders. To make mattersworse, England has an undulyshort early childhood phase, withmost children entering primaryschool well before their fifthbirthday.
The election of the New Labourgovernment in 1997 seemed anopportunity to set things torights… an administration thattreated early childhood as apolicy priority and wascommitted to action. Actionthere was from the start, anendless flow of initiatives issuingfrom Whitehall. But even if therewas a frenetic feel to policymaking, some good thingsfollowed. The importance ofearly childhood was recognised,investment increased, the firststeps were taken to integrate careand education, Children’sCentres got the green light.
Looking back, this was clearly anopportunity missed. Rather thanbuilding an early childhoodsystem fit for purpose, based ondemocratic deliberation ofalternatives, New Labour wenthell for leather after expansionand opted for a strategy that wasbasically more of the same. Thespread of private providers in theday nursery sector left Englandwith a vast for-profit sector.
Provision got more fragmented,incoherent and divisive. Ofcourse, the picture is not all
bleak. Committed and innovativeeducators and centres stillmanage to do good things. Butthis should not distract from thelarger picture. After nearly 20years of policy priority, Englandstill has grossly inadequate earlychildhood provision. We have asplit, incoherent and divisivesystem; a truncated system that isweak and unable to resistschoolification; a systempremised on an exploited femaleworkforce; a system that reducesparents to consumers, educatorsto technicians, services tobusinesses and children as – well,objects to be cared for andoutcomes to be realised.
We have, on the one hand,provision that emphasises adiversity of providers, competingto win the favours of parent-consumers in a marketplace; andon the other hand, a highlyregulated system, with aprescriptive national curriculum,a national inspection system anda national system of assessmentof children. Competition andindividual choice crossed withrigidly enforced nationalstandards; diversity of providersdelivering uniform outcomes.
Neoliberalism can understandand justify public spending onearly childhood services only inhighly instrumental andeconomistic terms: as ‘socialinvestment’ in ‘human capital’.To ensure supposedly ‘highreturns’, very precise ‘humantechnologies’ need to be appliedto ensure outcomes that must bepredefined. The (female)technicians to apply thesetechnologies need neither be welleducated nor well paid, trainedjust enough to apply ‘evidence-based’ and ‘tightly defined’programmes. If the school has
become an exam factory, theearly childhood centre isbecoming a factory for earlylearning goals.
Finally, a neoliberal regime de-politicises. It acts as if there areno alternatives, just one rightanswer that experts can supply,no democratic deliberation aboutcritical questions and policyalternatives; no recognition of themany diverse perspectives anddebates in the field; no argumentabout the question ‘where to?’
My own starting point is that weneed to re-think, then re-form.We have to stop thinking aboutearly childhood as a collection ofbits and pieces provided bycompeting mono-purposeservices: ‘childcare for workingparents’, ‘early education for 3sand 4s’, ‘support for parents’ andso on. Instead we need a holisticconcept, such as ‘early childhoodeducation’, in which education isunderstood in its broadest sense.This is a long-establishedconcept that understandseducation as fostering andsupporting the general well-beingand development of children andadults, their ability to interacteffectively with their environmentand to live a good life.Education, here, is about therealisation of potential, fosteringthe ability to think and act foroneself and acquiring democraticcapabilities. Care is inseparablebecause it is an ethic that shouldinfuse all education, an ethic thatrequires relationships ofattentiveness, responsibility,competence and responsiveness.
This integrative concept ofeducation provides the basis for afully integrated early childhoodsystem, including: an entitlementto such education for all childrenfrom at least 12 months until 6
7. For a new public early childhood education
19
years (i.e. a later transfer age toprimary school); supply-sidefunding, with simple andaffordable charges combining afree period of attendance with anincome-related fee for additionaltime capped by a maximumpayment (perhaps £100 permonth per child); a unifiedworkforce based on a graduate-level early years teacher,accounting for at least half of allstaff; and, last but not least,delivery through a common typeof provision, replacing thepresent mish-mash.
What should that provision be?Children’s Centres, capable of awide variety of projects,responsive to the needs anddesires of their localcommunities. These would bepublic spaces, places ofencounter for citizens bothyounger and older, communityworkshops and sites ofdemocratic practice andexperimentation.
Such a provision might beprovided by democratically-elected local bodies (e.g. localauthorities) and by non-profitbodies (cooperatives, communityorganisations) able to implementdemocratic principles and acceptpublic accountability. I see noplace for markets or businessproviders.
Other conditions are equallyimportant. A well educated, wellpaid and mixed-genderworkforce, capable of acting asdemocratic professionals; activelocal authorities (‘educativecommunes’), closely involvedwith services, providing someand supporting all, facilitatingcooperation between Children’sCentres and between these andother services for children, andwith a key role in a system of
democratic accountability forservices; and academicresearchers working closelyalongside early childhoodeducators, Children’s Centresand educative communes. And,last but not least, a nationalgovernment that creates a broadpolicy framework, definingentitlements, funding, provisionand workforce, and setting broadvalues, purposes and goals –sufficient to give coherence and acommon sense of direction to thenational system, without stiflinglocal interpretation, content andexperimentation.
Emeritus Professor Peter Moss, UCL Institute of Education
Further reading:
Moss, P. (2014) Transformativechange and real utopias in EarlyChildhood Education. London:Routledge
Moss, P. (ed) (2012) Earlychildhood and compulsoryeducation: reconceptualising therelationship. London: Routledge
Moss, P. and Fielding, M. (2010)Radical education and the commonschool: a democratic alternative.London: Routledge
20
What is poverty?
Let’s start with some headline data.Today 3.5 million children areliving in poverty in the UK,almost a third of all our children(www.barnardos.org.uk).Approximately 63% of thechildren living in poverty are inworking families. These are not‘problem families’ – the realproblem is that these families donot have enough money to meettheir needs. Taxpayers’ money isbeing used to pay working andchild tax credits to supplementthe low wages paid by employerswho don’t pay a living wage andtherefore sustain high childpoverty levels. Barnardo’s claimsthat ‘by 2020/21 another 1million children will be pushedinto poverty as a result of theCoalition Government’spolicies’. The problem is real andit’s growing.
What is poverty and what is it liketo live in poverty?What is meantby poverty is contested. The UKuses an OECD measure thatpeople are poor if they have tolive on 60% of the medianincome. Barnardo’s explains thatmany of the families living inpoverty have approximately £12a week to spend on each familymember. This money has tocover food, household bills, travelcosts, school visits and activitiesfor children as well as phone billsand electricity.
Polly Toynbee and David Walker(2008, p. 75) talk about the ‘hurtof being poor’ because of the lackof what ‘others enjoy as every daynecessities’. Here they meanchildren who never go on aholiday, who may not even havewaterproof shoes or a warmwinter coat. That’s what povertymeans at an individual level. Ifyou want to get an account of
what poverty means to children,for yourself, or to share with yourcolleagues or anyone you aretalking with about the need toend child poverty, you couldwatch the BBC 2011documentary Poor Kids onYouTube .
If you are a child, being poor canmake being at school hard andcan produce feelings andexperiences of exclusion andoppression. Sam lives inLeicester with his Dad and hissister. His is one of the storiesfrom Poor Kids:
“They call me ‘ankle boy’because I have rippedtrousers that are too smallfor me,” … His 16-year-old sister Kayleigh admitsshe is concerned aboutSam being bullied. “Iworry about Sam all thetime – once you’remarked, you’re marked forlife.” … She admits toworrying about moneyconstantly and sayspoverty is a burden forchildren.
“Sometimes it does feellike you’ve got a big heftysecret and you need tokeep it hidden. It puts youin that mindset that you’relower than everyone else.”
How does poverty affecteducation?
A great deal of research hasexplored the relationshipbetween poverty and educationaloutcomes. Findings suggest thatless than half of all five year oldsentitled to free school meals havea ‘good level of development’compared to nearly 70 per centof all other children. Only 36 percent of children on free schoolmeals gain 5 GCSEs at grades C
and above including English andmaths – a benchmark met by 64percent of children who are noteligible for free school meals.Joseph Rowntree puts it starkly:
There is strong evidencethat households’ financialresources are importantfor children’s outcomes,and that this relationshipis one of cause and effect.Protecting householdsfrom low income isunlikely to provide acomplete solution to lesswell-off children’s worseoutcomes, but ought to bea central part ofGovernment efforts topromote children’sopportunities and lifechances.(http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/does-money-affect-childrens-outcomes)
What can be done – an anti-poverty strategy
There are lots of things that canbe done in schools to ensure thatchildren growing up in poverty are not disadvantaged byin-school practices and policies.Schools can be proactive topossible challenges that face someof their students such as bullyingand harassment and canencourage high aspirationsthrough holding high expectationsof these students. (seehttp://teaching.monster.com/counselors/articles/8164-what-you-can-do-for-students-living-in-poverty)
In Stand Up for Education theNUT has made policyrecommendations to supportgood early years provision suchas more funding for nurseryeducation, smaller classes andwell qualified teachers. The NUT
8. We need to end child poverty
21
has called for a concerted attackon youth unemployment. Allthese things need to be done.
However, while in-school policiesand supportive practices canmake a difference, of themselvesthese tactics are not going toalter the structural conditionsthat perpetuate poverty and childpoverty. That is whyeducationalists have to advocatefor wider social change andpolitical action as well as forchange in schools. ‘Therelationship between poverty andeducation is unlikely to bedisturbed unless fundamentalissues of power and interest,advantage and disadvantage areaddressed’ (Raffo et al., 2007:xiii).
Making a difference – reallytackling poverty
• Ensure the state takes andmaintains a formalresponsibility for povertyreduction. Social welfare isbecoming the provenance ofvarious venturephilanthropists. We cannotleave dealing with poverty tothe whims and interventionsof charitable individualshowever well intentioned orwell organised they are.
• Campaign for a decent livingwage while reducing the highcosts of living in essential areassuch as heating, transport andfood.
• Support and extend Sure StartChildren’s Centres.
• Campaign for higher taxation toprovide a decent society thatprotects and supports itsmembers and dismantle tax-avoidance schemes (Toynbeeand Walker).
• Pay women an equal wage; ‘in2012, comparing all work,women earned 18.6% less per hour than men’(www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/2013/11/equal-pay/). Manywomen who are bringing uptheir children on their ownare going to stay trapped inpoverty unless this pay gap isaddressed.
Basil Bernstein wrote that‘education cannot compensatefor society’ and it can’t. Butsociety can change if there is thepolitical will to dismantle thebarriers that prevent our childrenfrom living a decent and fulfillinglife. We can kick poverty out!
Professor Meg Maguire,King’s College London
Further reading:
Raffo, C.; Dyson, A.; Gunter, H.;Hall, D.; Jones, L. andKalambouka, A. (2007)Education and Poverty. A criticalreview of theory, policy andpractice. Joseph RowntreeFoundation: York.
Toynbee, P. and Walker, D.(2008) Unjust Rewards. ExposingGreed and Inequality in BritainToday. Granta: London.
22
There are now 3.5 millionchildren in the UK living inpoverty. These children areconcentrated in particular areas,particularly in inner-city housingestates and rural areas wherethere is not enough work to goaround. Their schools faceparticular challenges every day.
Schools face the direct effects ofchild poverty when:
• children are hungry and relyon the school to provide themwith breakfast and lunch
• children are unable toparticipate in school activitiesbecause they do not have themoney for sports, excursionsor extra curricular activitiessuch as music
• children are unable to dotheir homework because thereis no place they can use forstudy, they have no computerand no access to the internetor to reference books.
Teachers in schools serving highpoverty communities know thatmany of the children they workwith have no bedroom of theirown, do not have a safe place toplay outside and live in housingwhich is damp and unheated.Some children have to care forparents who are ill. Such lifecircumstances prevent childrenfrom achieving as much as theymight. Despite the best efforts oftheir schools, many childrenliving in poverty can bestigmatized by peers, someunthinking adults, andeducational policies whichassume that all children haveequal access to libraries, healthand welfare services, transportand everyday activities such asholidays and trips to the theatreor gallery.
It is often said that because manypeople who are poor did not dowell at school themselves, theyare not supportive of their ownchildren’s education. This is nottrue. The vast majority of parentsare very keen for their children todo well and understand very wellthe relationship betweenqualifications and life chances.
The media is always ready, itseems, to make programmes thatportray these children and theirfamilies as lazy and feckless, asshamelessly dependent onbenefits. But the majority ofpeople living below the officialpoverty line are working,sometimes stitching togetherseveral part-time, insecure andpoorly paid jobs. It is estimatedthat one in five workers is nowpaid less than they need tomaintain a basic but sociallyacceptable standard of living.The Living Wage Commissionsays that
Britain’s economy isshowing sustained signs ofrecovery after the worstrecession since World WarII, yet more and moreworkers are falling intolow pay. The juxtapositionbetween increases ineconomic output and theworsening problem of lowpay is an important one,because it means thateconomic growth alonewill not necessarily solveBritain’s low pay crisis.(Living WageCommission, 2014, p 7)
Some schools are part of the low-wage problem too; they employpeople on part-time contractswhich only cover term-time.
The vast majority of schools andteachers are committed to
breaking the ongoing nexusbetween poverty and educationalsuccess. Schools with a highproportion of pupils in receipt offree school meals know that theyare much more likely to be belowfloor targets than other schools.But changing the statistics is nota simple matter. It is well knownand understood in schools withhigh child poverty that manychildren are more likely to beginschool without the advantagesenjoyed by their peers in betteroff families – their parents cannotafford full-time preschool and thekinds of books and experiencesthat are congruent with thecurrent school curriculum. Theadvantages experienced by somechildren continue all the waythrough school, right up to thefinal years of high school, wheremany parents who can afford todo so employ personal tutors toensure exam success.
The schools serving the poorestchildren in the country have todo more with less. They mustspend more of their budgets on:health and welfare support;subsidising equipment, materialsand excursions; breakfast andhomework clubs; and enrichmentactivities that less cash-strappedfamilies would provide forthemselves. Schools in highpoverty neighbourhoods have toprovide more support for Englishlanguage learning for new settlersin the country, more remedialsupport for children whoselearning has been interrupted ordelayed, and more specialisedintervention for children withdiagnosed learning difficulties.Teachers in these schools mustalso work with children whosefamilies are under intensefinancial pressure and whereeveryday life is often highlystressed. And cuts to local health
9. Poverty and education
23
and welfare services have meantthat schools serving the poorestcommunities have had to pick upeven more responsibilities.
While additional funds such asthe pupil premium are cruciallyimportant, they are insufficientto cater for all of the things thatneed to be done. Schools servingpoor neighbourhoods need to beable to focus on their educationalwork – making progress againstthe educational odds facing theirpupils. Their job would be mucheasier if there were a coordinatedpublic policy agenda to thequestion of child poverty – anagenda which covered issuessuch as the level of wages paid toparents and the provision ofregular and accessible publictransport, affordable housing andgood public community healthprovision. Parents should beassisted to return to educationthemselves to gain qualificationsthat would help them in thelabour market.
A government which understoodthe everyday challenges facingschools serving the mostvulnerable children would notpunish them when they find itdifficult to make a difference.Expertise and support would beprovided together with thefinancial support needed totackle the serious issues theyface. Punitive regimes do nothingto tackle the real issues, and theydo much to damage the moraleand capacities of schools andteachers working with familiesand communities which aremaking the best of a very badfinancial lot.
Professor Pat Thomson,University of Nottingham
Further reading:
Education and Social Mobilitywww.esrc.ac.uk/_images/education-vital-social-mobility_tcm8-20069.pdf
Nelson, J, Martin, K andFeatherstone, G (2013) Whatworks in supporting children andyoung people to overcome persistentpoverty? A review of UK andinternational literature. Office ofthe First Minister and DeputyFirst Minister (OFMDFM).
Save the Children (2014) A fairstart for every child. Why we mustact now to tackle child poverty inthe UK. www.savethechildren.org
Living Wage Commission (2014)Working for poverty. The scale of theproblem of low pay and workingpoverty in the UK.http://livingwagecommission.org.uk
24
The policy document approvedat Labour’s annual policyconference in September 2014,Education and Children, statesthat ‘We will […] put an end to thefragmented, divisive school systemcreated by this Government.’
Bring academies and freeschools into a unified localauthority system
The fragmentation is the resultof academies and free schools(and of course the question ofgrammar schools, equally divisivein a different way). But Educationand Children is silent on whetheracademies and free schools willbe incorporated into the localauthority system, or if not whattheir relationship would be.Indeed, Tristram Hunt announcedon 14 October 2014: ‘We want tosee a multiplicity of provision –academy chains, single academies,community schools, parent-ledacademies.’ Fragmentationcontinues, including parent-ledacademies as just the Coalition’sfree schools rebranded.
We need to remember that thewhole case for academies rests onclaims that they, and especiallysponsored academies, are moreeffective in raising standards thanlocal authority schools. All theaccumulated evidence shows thatthis claim is unfounded whenyou compare like with like. Thelatest evidence is in the NFERReport on Academy performance(October 2014): ‘Attainmentprogress in sponsored academiescompared to similar non-academiesis not significantly different overtime when the outcome is measuredas GCSE points, excludingequivalent qualifications such asBTECs. The evidence is clearthat academies make far greateruse of equivalents.
So the case for academiescollapses, but we have paid ahuge price for this ideologically-driven experiment – the lack ofaccountability of these schools totheir local community asrepresented by elected localgovernment.
The first step forward should bethe re-creation of fully inclusivelocal systems of state-fundedschools by the re-integration ofacademies and the integration offree schools. Academies can bebrought back in, fundingagreements can be rescinded, asthe legal expert David Wolfe hasshown.
End private sponsorscontrolling schools
The second step is to put an endto private sponsor chainscontrolling schools by appointingthe majority of the governors. Nostate-funded school should becontrolled by a privateorganisation – it’s a form ofprivatisation. The Labour Party’spolicy statement Education andChildren says that schools canvoluntarily leave chains, but howcan that be if the chain has themajority of governors? It has tobe the other way round.Governing bodies of sponsoredacademies should be re-formedto ensure that they have the samecomposition as maintainedschools. If a school then wishesto continue a partnership with anex-sponsor, as with any externalorganisation, it should be able todo so, but this does not requireany power to be handed over to itfrom the reconstituted governingbody.
The role of the new localauthorities
So… a unified local schoolsystem accountable to electedlocal government. In that, whatshould the local authority’s rolebe? The control of admissionspolicy and the provision ofschool places, naturally. Alsoschool improvement, now largelythe responsibility of the schoolsthemselves. But without centralcoordination and fundingimprovement can be patchy.Some schools are left behind. Sothere is a vital role for the localauthority in identifying schoolswhich need additional support,coordinating and providingdirection, and funding it.
The role of the local authorityhas to go beyond supportingschools in difficulties and raisingtest and exam scores. It shouldalso develop a local vision in adialogue with schools andcommunities, and promoteprogressive innovation. To do allthis local authorities need powerand resources. That requires anend to the massive cuts imposedby central government and therestoration of an adequate levelof funding. This is not aboutlocal authorities ‘controlling’schools, it’s about their capacityto act in the interests of thewhole community they areelected to represent, in a newpartnership with schools.
Participatory democracy inthe local school system
On the question of localdemocracy, Education andChildren says: ‘a One Nationeducation system will deliver aradical devolution of power fromWhitehall. Labour will empowerlocal communities to have a greater
10. For an empowered, democratised and properly resourced localschool system.
25
say about education in their area’.The question is, what structuresand procedures will enable localcommunities to effectivelyparticipate in decision-making intheir local school system? On thisthe policy document is silent.
Instead its focus is on the newposition of local Director ofSchool Standards (DSS).According to Education andChildren the function of the DSSis to ‘hold all schools to account,regardless of structure, for theirperformance and intervene in poorlyperforming schools.’ But how will alocal authority ‘hold to account’the DSS? Where does the powerreally lie? Is the DSS subject tolocal authority policy, or is theDSS in reality the local arm ofthe Department for Education, a dictator over local authorities?
The role of the DSS isunnecessary and the proposalshould be opposed. All of theDSS’s functions could be carriedout by reformed, resourced anddemocratised local authorities,with oversight by an independentHMInspectorate as appropriate.External support, including fromgovernment, may be needed for atransitional period to enable localauthorities to get back on theirfeet, but this is not to beconfused with the permanentstructural division of powersbetween local authorities and theDSSs proposed by Labour. Inaddition small local authorities,such as in London, may need towork in partnership to ensuresufficient capacity to fulfil theirroles.
Earlier in 2014 the Labour Partyhad published a Review ofeducation structures, functions andthe raising of standards for all:Putting students and parents first,
known for short as the BlunkettReview. It contained aninnovative and radical proposalfor widening participation inpolicy-making: a local EducationPanel with representatives fromschools, parents and the localauthority who would develop along-term strategic plan foreducation. We would argue formembership of the Panel to alsoinclude representatives ofgovernors, teachers, schoolstudents and – in line with localauthority devolution policies –community representatives. Wethink this sort of authority-wideLocal Education Forum is theway forward. But the idea oflocal Education Panels has beendropped from the Education andChildren policy document.
Open up the Cabinet andScrutiny system toparticipation
Public participation in discussionof education policy is largelymeaningless without the abilityto influence local authoritypolicy, and this means openingup the existing structures andprocesses of local government –the Cabinet and Scrutiny system.This system is largely immune toany direct involvement byheadteachers, teachers andgovernors, let alone parents andother citizens. To democratise thepresent structures, the localcouncil should establish anEducation Committee. Thisshould comprise not justcouncillors but lay memberselected from the authority-wideForum, thus ensuring directpublic and professionalparticipation. Scrutinycommittees should also beopened up to participation.
Public participation in policy-making in local school systemsdoes not mean intervening inissues which are properly mattersof professional judgement. Nordoes it imply that public viewsare inevitably progressive. Inboth cases it is a question ofdeliberation and negotiationbetween public, professionalsand local authorities, and themobilisation of collective supportfor progressive policies.
Professor Richard Hatcher,Birmingham City University
Ken Jones, formerly Professorof Educational Studies atGoldsmiths, University ofLondon, now working at theNUT.
Further reading:
Hatcher, R. (2011) The strugglefor democracy in the local schoolsystem, Forum: for promoting 3-19comprehensive education, 53(2)
Hatcher, R. (2012) Democracyand participation in thegovernance of local schoolsystems. Journal of EducationalAdministration and History, 44(1)
David Wolfe (2013) explains howacademies can be reintegratedinto local authorities in ‘Schools:The Legal Structures, theAccidents of History and theLegacies of Timing andCircumstance’, Education LawJournal, May 2013.
26
Late last year, England’sEducation Secretary NickyMorgan made waves throughschools by declaring that whileshe was ‘clear about theimportance of not-for-profiteducation’, she did not rule outthe possibility that schools mightbecome profit-makingenterprises. This ignited newpublic debates about whetherrunning schools for profit iseither ethical or effective. While itis easy to have a position,evaluating arguments presentedboth for and against for-profitlearning can be hard. Knowingwhat profit is, learning torecognise the profit motive inschools and understanding theimpacts of profit on educationcan help guide thinking aboutthis issue.
Schools are run for profit eitherbecause this is thought to bemore effective than publicfunding for education, or becausethey can be harnessed as sourcesof corporate income. Sometimesthese motivations go together, aswhen corporations are portrayedas public servants who rescuechildren and communities from‘failing’ schools and localgovernments. This is commonwhere governments reducepublic education budgets, leaveschools with insufficientresources to function, and thencreate policies which allow (orforce) schools to be placed underprivate or corporate control.School voucher programmes inChile, the Free School project inSweden, and Charter Schoolmovements in the United Statesall emerged from this logic.
While England’s academies andfree schools are not currently runfor profit, these programmes arealso part of this trend and there
is reason for concern. This is notbecause it has been proven thatchildren universally achieve moreor less in corporate schools thanthey do in public ones. Large-scale studies comparing for-profitcharter schools, non-profitcharters and public schools inthe US, for example, have tendedto find either small differences orcontradictory results. So why,given this lack of definitiveevidence of a correlation betweenprofit and failure, should we becritical of privatising learning?And what evidence canopponents of for-profit educationdraw on to help othersunderstand that there is aproblem?
First, for-profit education makesschooling unstable rather thansecure. In 2013, for example, theSwedish government was forcedto re-evaluate its free schoolsprogramme after a large for-profit corporate chain wentbankrupt, sold and closed anumber of schools, and lefthundreds of children withoutplaces. Similarly, teachers,parents, students and membersof school boards and civil rightsorganisations in many citiesacross the US are fighting theclosure of public communityschools – sometimes by thedozen simultaneously – whosebudgets are being redirected tofund corporately-run and oftenselective charter schools.
Second, for-profit educationincreases social segregation andinequalities. One of theprinciples underlying systems ofboth non-profit and for-profitschools is that they mustcompete in order to attractstudents, funding and prestige.Research on competitive schoolsystems in Chile, Sweden and the
US indicates that suchcompetition can both exacerbateand produce class and racialinequalities, and that for-profitschools have little incentive toprioritise socially just policies instudent selection.
Third, many for-profit schoolsstill benefit from theaccumulation of public money(through accepting governmentfunding for individual students).Even where ‘free schools’ do notoperate for profit, as in England,they can serve as hubs for arange of commercial enterprises,organised by outsourcing workand services, hiring consultants,buying in contracts and materialsfrom private companies(including testing companies)and renting space.
Perhaps the most pressingconcern, however, is that thelogic of profit itself disfigureslearning and teaching andcompromises educationalrelationships. In order tounderstand this, we must knowwhat ‘for-profit education’ meansand what profit really is. Profit iswhatever money is left over afterI sell something I have paid toproduce. In order to profit froman activity, I have to find a way ofobtaining more value forsomething than it is worth. Thereare only a few ways toaccomplish this: I can invest lessmoney, time and resources intocreating something; I can worklonger and harder to make morethings; or I can improve mytechniques to become moreefficient.
One of the easiest ways tounderstand profit is to thinkabout two words that we havecome to know well: ‘valueadded’. Teachers are oftenencouraged to work in ways that
11. Education should not be run for profit
27
result in better outcomes thanmight ordinarily be expected,thus ‘adding value’ to teaching,test scores, relationships andschool environments. They areexpected to do this whilst relyingon a constant or dwindling poolof resources; to dedicate more oftheir personal time and energy tothis cause in order tocompensate, to ‘innovate’. Theadded value that is produced, itis argued, is that students have aspecial advantage onstandardised tests or educationalopportunities, teachers gaincompetitive advantages inprofessional autonomy and pay,and schools gain competitiveadvantage in league tables andother comparative measures ofeducational success.
Where the profit motive operatesin schools – even in schools thatare still officially public –children and young people canbecome narrowly defined andmeasured according to thissystem of value. They can easilybecome objects which we workon instrumentally to achieve anobservable ‘output’ whichguarantees our own competitiveedge (such as a chart indicatingthat they have made ‘three levelsof progress’) rather than peoplewith whom we can authenticallyengage.
Unprofitable kids, unprofitableteaching methods, andunprofitable uses of time –including much of what we knowworks for deep critical learningand for nurturing individuality,diversity and community inschools – become squeezed outof education as the profit motivesinks in. It is not only thatschools should remain not-for-profit and in public service andtrust, therefore, but that the
deeper logic of profit-making inall aspects of education todaymust be replaced by alternativeprinciples of learning and care.There are so many ways to begin.
Dr Sarah Amsler, University of Lincoln
Further reading:
Ball, S. J. (2007) Education PLC:Understanding Private SectorParticipation in Public SectorEducation, Abingdon: Routledge.
Muir, R. (2012) ‘Not for profit:the role of the private sector inEngland’s schools’, Institute forPublic Policy Research,www.ippr.org/assets/media/images/media/files/publication/2012/08/not-for-profit-private-sector-englands-schools_Aug2012_9492.pdf.
Ravitch, D. (2012–present) ‘For profit’ blog posts,http://dianeravitch.net/category/for-profit/.
28
A different kind of education systemcould confront inequality and thecrises of society.
In the opening pages of a wellthumbed text for sociologists ofeducation, Schooling and Work ina Democratic State, StanfordUniversity professors MartinCarnoy and Henk Levin arguedthat education could amelioratewider inequalities in US society.
Schools and workplaces areorganised in ways thatcorrespond closely. Bothare large, bureaucratic,impersonal, andhierarchical androutinised... And yet for allof their correspondences,schools differ fromworkplaces in at least oneimportant respect. Eventhough Americaneducation is marked bygreat inequalities, schoolsdo more than otherinstitutions in the way ofproviding equalopportunities forparticipation and rewards...In short, schooling tends tobe distributed more equallythan capital, income andemployment status.
Thirty years on, the story is verydifferent. The US and the UKhave both become more unequalin the distribution of wealth andincome. We face a series of crises– economic, political and cultural– that promise to deliver a futurethat the next generation do notdeserve.
Can the solution still be education?The answer is yes, but only if weconfront the causes of the crisesfacing our education systems andput a strong case for a verydifferent future. Education systemsacross Europe, and especially inthe UK, face five crises.
The first is a crisis of neoliberalcapitalism. Where neoliberalpolicies are in place (favouringprivatisation, liberalisation andtax cuts for the wealthy),countries have become moreunequal. As Warren Buffett – thefourth richest person in theworld, with an estimated wealthof $44bn – stated: “There’s classwarfare alright, but it is my class,the rich class that’s making war.And we’re winning.”
This growth in inequality is quiteshocking. The top 1% has almostdoubled its share of the wealthsince the 1950s, and 85 people inthe world now own as much asthe poorest half of the population.
What could we do with suchwealth? The wealthy individualsfeatured in the Sunday Times’Rich List were worth £519bn in2014. This would pay for 5.9years of education in the UK, 3.7years of state pensions or 4.2years of public health.
Second, there is a crisis in thegovernance model of education.Policies that favour school choiceand individualism exacerbatesocial inequalities: the worst ofthe outcomes fall squarely on theshoulders of the poorestsegments of the population, whocan’t choose or whose resourceslimit their choices.
Third, there is a crisis in socialmobility. The next generation islikely to be in a worse, not better,position than their parents. Theyare bearing the full brunt ofneoliberal policies. When Occupyand other protest groups state“We are the 99 percent”, they aremaking their voices heardregarding policies that havesystematically producedinequalities in our societies.
Fourth, there is a crisis ofgraduate employment. In countries
like Spain and Greece graduateunemployment is around 50%.In the UK, graduateunemployment and under-employment undermines thepromise of “work hard and youwill get a good job” or “take outa loan and invest in your future”.
Fifth, there is a crisis ofimagination about what kind ofeducation we might have, and forwhat kind of future. This is why theNUT’s manifesto for education isso important. The solution mustbe in education, but it will requireus to confront more squarely thecauses of the crisis. Educationand teacher activism will alsoneed to promote a very differentkind of education system, onethat could act as the kind ofameliorative force Carnoy andLevin described.
This must be an act of classwarfare with the full weight of adifferent, more imaginative,challenging and socially justagenda that confronts the failureof governments to challenge thevested interests of a smallwealthy elite.
Professor Susan Robertson,University of Bristol
Further reading:
Ball, S. J. (2007) Education PLC:Understanding Private SectorParticipation in Public SectorEducation. Abingdon: Routledge.
Compton, M. and Weiner, L.(2008) The Global Assault onTeaching, Teachers and their Unions.New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sahlberg, P. (2011) FinnishLessons. New York: Teachers’College Press.
12. Education in a world wracked by crisis
29
It is increasingly fashionable totalk about the need for the‘teachers’ voice’. This can bedescribed as teachers having asay, literally a voice, on the issuesthat affect them. Some peopleuse the term agency, orprofessional agency, to describesomething more active than voice(after all, it is possible to have avoice but not be listened to).Professional agency might refer toteachers having meaningfulinfluence – the ability andautonomy to exercise judgement,make decisions, determineoutcomes and shape change.
The calls today for teachers tohave a voice reflect the fact thatthe voice of teachers has beenprogressively marginalised over aperiod of very many years. Oftenthe political parties that nowclaim to want a ‘voice forteachers’ are the same partiesthat have previously sought toexclude the teachers’ voice frompolicy debates and to close downthe spaces in which teacherscould exercise professionalagency. Here are some examplesof bodies with significant teacherrepresentation but which nolonger exist:
• The Schools Council – set upto innovate in the curriculum,with a significant role forteachers and subjectassociations. Abolished 1982.
• Burnham Committee – anegotiating body (set up in1919) allowing teachers,through their unions, tonegotiate pay and conditionswith employers, rather thanhave them imposed by an‘independent’ review body.Abolished 1987.
• The Social Partnership –established by governmentand some unions and highlycontroversial. Promoted theworkforce remodellingreforms. However, love it orloathe it – didn’t matter.Abolished 2010.
• General Teaching Council ofEngland – a body establishedto promote the professionalstatus of teachers andpromote professionalstandards and professionaldevelopment. Abolished 2012.
As the spaces for teachers to havea voice have been closed down,many other changes have had theeffect of reducing teachers’ scopeto exercise professionaljudgement. A prescriptiveNational Curriculum,government control ofassessment and testing at allages, the role of Ofsted and agrowing managerialism inschools, have all had the effect ofrestricting and controlling thespaces in which classroomteachers can exercise professionaljudgement and autonomy.Democratic debate in schools,and about schools, is beingclosed down, and the concept ofacademic freedom (usuallyassociated with higher education,but no less important in schools)is being dangerously diminished.
The consequences of the changesidentified above are that teachersare being de-professionalised astheir professional opinions aredevalued and marginalised. The‘voice of the profession’ isincreasingly articulated by asmall policy elite who are alignedwith the trajectory of currentpolicy reforms and who have
little or no democraticaccountability. It should not besurprising therefore if teachersbecome demoralised and despairat the increasing control of theirprofessional lives. The result isgrowing disaffection and oftenthe loss of many excellentteachers to teaching.
There is a need, therefore, toreinsert the voice of teachers intoall levels of the education system– from the individual classroomto the highest levels of policymaking (including global bodies‘above’ national governments,such as OECD). This needs to bea voice that makes a difference –whereby teachers can claim tohave genuine professionalagency. Teachers need to reclaimtheir teaching.
In a contribution to theforthcoming book Flip theSystem,1 Alison Gilliland and Ihave argued that teachers shouldbe able to assert decisiveinfluence in relation to three‘domains of professional agency’.
Shaping learning and workingconditions.This recognises that theworking conditions of teachers arethe learning conditions ofstudents and that teachers shouldnot only be able to exerciseproper professional judgement intheir own classroom but shouldhave meaningful influence inframing the conditions withinwhich they work. One obviousexample of this would be thereturn of national collectivebargaining, still the dominantmode of managing employeerelations in democraticjurisdictions including high-performing systems such asFinland and Canada.
13. A real voice for teachers: teacher professionalism and teacher unions
1 Flip the system: the alternative to neoliberalism in education is edited by two teachers from the Netherlands – Jelmer Evers and RenéKneyber. It will be published in 2015 with the support of Education International. See – http://www.flip-the-system.org/
30
Developing and enacting policy.‘Policy’ frames much of whatteachers do, whether it comesfrom government or is policydeveloped at school level. Ifteachers have meaningful agency,then they have a voice indetermining policy at whateverlevel it is being developed. Policyshould not be imposed but theoutcome of genuine democraticprocesses. There needs to be a‘re-balancing’ between teachersand ‘leaders’ in schools with theviews of classroom teachers, andsupport staff, given due respectand recognition. Structuresshould be established in schoolsthat formalise thesearrangements.
Developing professional knowledgeand professional learning.Thisrespects teachers’ professionalexpertise and their ability toexercise professional judgement.Teachers need the space toengage critically with research,and also to determine their ownprofessional development needs.Too often teachers are told whatto do, and are then further de-professionalised by quick-fixprofessional developmentprogrammes that tell them howto do it. As with many otheraspects of education, too muchdecision making in relation topedagogical approaches andprofessional development isexperienced as top-downimposition, often driven by theperceived demands of Ofsted.Current inspection arrangementsare antithetical to notions ofprofessional trust and autonomy,without which there cannot begenuine professional agency.
Alison and I argue that any claimto teacher professionalism mustbe judged by the extent to whichteachers can claim to havegenuine professional agency in
relation to each of these threedifferent aspects of their workinglives. In many cases it will bequite appropriate that teachersexercise this agency asindividuals. For example,teachers should be able to decidefor themselves how best to teachtheir class, and what pedagogicalapproaches are most appropriate.Too often teachers are denied theability to make choices over whatshould rightly be a matter of theirown professional judgement.
However, if teachers are to beable to assert real agency, at alllevels of the system, but inparticular at higher levels wheredecisive power is exercised, thenthey must also assert their agencycollectively. As Judyth Sachs(2003) argued so persuasively,teachers need to combinetogether and make theirprofessionalism – agency isasserted by becoming what Sachscalled ‘activist professionals’.
This is why, if teachers want areal voice in education, they mustbe willing to organise and to acttogether. Teachers already havemany organisations in which theywork together – subjectassociations provide animportant example. Meanwhile anew body is being proposed topromote the voice of teachers – a College of Teaching. (I haveargued elsewhere (Stevenson,2014) why teachers should besceptical of this initiative.)
My argument is that if teacherswant to make a real difference,and to have genuine professionalagency, then the most obviousorganisations for them to workthrough are their unions. Onlyteacher unions have theindependence from governmentthat safeguards them from beingused cynically to reproducecurrent policy. Only unions have
the democratic structures thatallow ordinary grassrootsteachers to ensure theaccountability of theirrepresentatives. Finally, onlyunions have the ability to speakfor all of the teaching profession.(Government commissionedresearch (NFER, 2012) indicatesthat 97% of teachers aremembers of a union.)Unfortunately, in England, thevoice of unionised teachers isweakened by being dividedbetween many unions, and this isarguably one reason why theattacks on state education inEngland have been particularlyeffective. The challenge for allteachers in England is not onlyto work towards professionalunity, but to realise the powerwithin them by participating andengaging in union life andbecoming ‘activist professionals’.They would then have a voicethat could not be silenced.
Professor Howard Stevenson,University of Nottingham
Further reading:
NFER (2012) Understandingunion membership and activity,NFER teacher voice omnibus,available online athttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nfer-teacher-voice-omnibus-november-2012-survey-understanding-union-membership-and-activity
Sachs, J. (2003) The activistteaching profession, Buckingham:Open University Press.
Stevenson, H. 2014 Why teachersshould be sceptical of a new Collegeof Teaching, available online athttps://theconversation.com/why-teachers-should-be-sceptical-of-a-new-college-of-teaching-35280
Designed and published by the Communications Department of The National Union of Teachers – www.teachers.org.ukOrigination by Paragraphics – www.paragraphics.co.uk Printed by Ruskin Press – www.ruskinpress.co.uk – 9963/02/15
This pamphlet is the work of a network of academics and researcherssupporting the NUT’s Stand Up for Education campaign. Their website
www.reclaimingschools.org provides further evidence and regular analysis.
Resources and news about the NUT’s Stand Up for Education campaign are available at: www.teachers.org.uk
www.teachers.org.uk/edufactswww.teachers.org.uk/expertview