Ed Vaizey

11 responses to “Great Education Debate (2)”

1. Alice said on June 4th, 2007 at 8:23 pm:

   Hello Ed. Firstly, let me give a bit of backgroud to my views. I’m 16 and in the lower sixth of a a very good comprehensive school, where I study the IB as opposed to A’levels. I’m no educational expert, but just being at school has enabled me to see a bit of what is going on in our education system.
   Firstly, I agree with your headteacher friend that things need to be simplified. I was involved in some interviewing for a position at the school a while ago, and although all the candidates were very good, there was a common theme that began to get to me. It’s one that always seems to be present in education these days, but sadly I can’t tell you exactly what it is. And that’s the problem. It’s all abstract ideas and priniciples that sound very good and noble, but are actually a nightmare to enforce. Things like ‘providing a solid framework for everyone to be included and valued, whilst creating a positive environment to allow all pupils to develop and achieve’ may be wonderful sentiments, but I don’t think that they necessarily help. All these managementspeak-esque phrases don’t actually do anything concrete. From my experience as a student, and from various conversations with teachers, it is the simple, common-sense things that are required.
   Things like CRB checks, uniform policy, discipline policy, data protection, special educational needs policies, school prospectuses etc are important because they have a direct effect on the workings of the school. Fire safety is important also, but the thousanads of risk assessments that teachers have to fill in are frankly ridiculous, and has earned health and safety the nickname ‘health-and-blooming-safety’ from some. All these policies may contain important ideas, but this emphasis on ideas isn’t what is needed.
   Things like racial and gender equality need to be enforced, certainly, along with ideas of the ever-politically popular ‘respect’. But children should be brought up being taught these things: being taught manners. These ideas should also be addressed in citizenship lessons, but does a school really need a policy document?
   As for teaching, just get on with it. I think it’s easier for everyone that way. Some people will do better at some subjects than others, and to be brutally honest, I think that we need to accept that. It is not elitist, it’s a fact of life. We certainly need to make sure that people feel there is always something they can do, and that there are options open to them, but the idea that ‘everyone wins a prize’ is one that is unfair and gives students unrealistic expectations when they enter the big wide world.
   A school is for educating people, and hopefully giving them happy expereinces and helping them achieve success in later life in whatver they choose to do. But I think things need to be more simple, more concrete, and more common-sense.
   I used to want to be a teacher, but with all the pressure put on them, it is not a career that I’m considering any longer. I know that I’m not the only one of my generation to think that, and that is a real sadness.
   Alice
   p.s apologies for the ranty and long post but it’s an interesting area. And I’m fully preapred to admit that I may well be wrong on things!

2. sir bufton tufton said on June 5th, 2007 at 10:26 am:

   what would you keep ed?

3. 601 said on June 5th, 2007 at 7:26 pm:

   Ger rid of the new citizenship programme. Also get rid of Sustainable development to be seen to underpin the curriculum.

4. Andy Cooke said on June 5th, 2007 at 9:42 pm:

   Okay, I’ll take the challenge.

   Firstly, I was impressed with the Willetts suggestions, which seem to be pointing heavily towards a “funding follows the pupil” policy with parents free to choose, and schools independent of state interference and directly responsible to the parents (ie keep them happy if you want to keep your funding). With that in mind, I went through the list.

   (As an aside, do you have a similar list for independent schools? Would be interesting to compare and contrast. That said, their independence has been knocked a bit by the DfES over the years …)

   Right, here goes:

   Accessibility Plan, keep, but tie in to “Equality Plan”
   OFSTED Action plan - Gone, or optional. Short (less than 4 page) advice document from DfES, if headteacher wants it.
   Anti Bullying policy - Retain.
   Admissions policy - Retain
   Attendance targets - Gone.
   Charging and remissions policy - Retain.
   Child protection policy - Retain
   Class size policy - Gone.
   Collective worship policy - Gone.
   Complaints procedure - Retain.
   Conditions of service - Merge with “Employment policies”
   Curriculum policy - Gone.
   Data protection policy - Retain.
   Disability equality scheme - Merge into “Equality Plan”
   Employment policies - Retain.
   Employment relations policies - Merge into “Employment policies”
   Financial procedures - Retain.
   Freedom of information policy - Retain.
   Fire safety policy and procedure - Retain.
   Gender equality policy (at least the world can sleep safe knowing my transsexual employees have documented provision for their interests) - Merge into “Equality Plan”
   Gender equality scheme - Merge into “Equality Plan”.
   Gifted and Talented policy - Retain.
   Governors allowance policy - Retain.
   Governors annual report to parents - Retain.
   Health and safety policy - Retain.
   Home school agreements - Retain.
   Information and consultation with employees policy - Merge into “Employment Policies”.
   Information about pupil achievement policy - Gone.
   Instrument of governance - Retain.
   Minutes of governing body meetings - Retain.
   Nutritional standards - Retain.
   Pay policy - Merge into “Employment Policies”.
   Performance Management policy - Merge into “Employment Policies”.
   Pupil discipline policy - Retain.
   Exclusion policy - Merge into “Pupil discipline Policy”.
   Race equality policy - Merge into “Equality Plan”.
   Racial group monitoring - Gone.
   Register of governors business interests - Retain.
   Register of pupils - Retain.
   Risk assessments - Retain.
   Safeguarding children arrangements - Retain.
   School hours - Retain.
   School prospectus - Retain.
   SEF - Gone.
   Sex education policy - Retain.
   Special Educational Needs policy - Retain.
   Staff appraisal policy - Merge into “Employment Policies”.
   Staffing structure - Merge into “Employment Policies”
   Stress in the workplace policy - Retain.
   Target settings - Gone, gone, gone!
   School uniform and dress policy - Retain.
   Full list of safeguarding checks for all relevant adults - Retain.

   Initial 52 documents. Completely jettison 8. Five different equality schemes into one (why do they need different policies, when a paragraph each (to the effect that the school will not accept any discrimination against these groups and how it will be avoided) should do. Eight employment documents into one - they are strongly related and should be sections of one document. Reduced number by over a third.

   Workload
   The demands of the last two years:
   · A new inspection framework to prepare for
   (Delete)

   · The SEF to write
   (Delete)

   · Self-evaluation processes to be re-designed for the SEF
   (Delete)

   · Different performance tables and new performance indicators to react to
   (Delete)

   · The School Improvement Partner process to start
   (Delete)

   · A new (and then a revised) school profile to complete
   (Delete)

   · A complete re-structuring of staff responsibilities and pay
   (Retain if desired by school rather than DfES)

   · The final phase of the workforce reform agreement to implement
   (Retain if desired by school rather than DfES)

   · Food standards to be improved
   (Fine)

   · Observe NICE guidelines and reduce childhood obesity
   (What has this got to do with teachers? Delete)

   · Reduce teenage pregnancies
   (I really hope that this has nothing to do with teachers . Delete)

   · Parent engagement to be increased
   (Fine)

   · Learning to be personalised
   (If you want to …)

   · Assessment for learning to be introduced
   (Does the school think that this is needed?)

   · Student participation to be increased, notably in learning
   (Always a good idea for the students to be involved in the learning bit - it’s kind of the point, really. This does look a bit like a buzzword bingo initiative - leave it up to the school)

   · Extended school activities to be increased
   (Okay)

   · A new local authority structure to relate to
   (Sure)

   · A complex new Education and Inspections Act
   (One change to effective independent status, then gone)

   · Numerous meetings to attend on Every Child Matters
   (Delete. If a headteacher doesn’t know that every child matters, they are in the wrong profession)

   · Statutory accountability for the well-being of all children
   (Fine)

   · A new behaviour code to implement
   (What’s wrong with the old one, then?)

   · The power to search
   (Fine)

   · All staff records to be checked with the CRB and stored in a single place
   (Fine)

   · New financial management standards to meet
   (What’s wrong with the old ones?)

   · A new code on admissions to adhere to
   (What’s wrong with the old ones?)

   · Trust school status to consider
   (After effective independence, not really on the worry list)

   · Gifted and talented programmes
   (Fine. Good idea)

   · Statutory responsibility for promoting community cohesion
   (Delete. Why is this down to teachers?)

   · Sustainable development to be seen to underpin the curriculum
   (Delete. Buzzword bingo)

   · A new citizenship programme
   (Delete. Buzzword bingo)

   · An obligation to teach enterprise education
   (Delete. Buzzword bingo)

   · Major changes to prepare for at key stage 3
   (If necessary)

   · Functional skills to incorporate into English, maths and IT courses
   (Optional for school)

   · New GCSE specifications to teach
   (Fine)

   · The biggest change of all – the 14 to 19 specialised diplomas – to prepare for
   (Well, I guess they have to)

   Apologies for the tone become slightly less serious as I went through - the amount of buzzword bingo we seem to load onto these poor headteachers is absurd. Of 35 things on the urgent list, I could only see 11 that had to be retained and 6 more that should be only retained if the school really wants them. That’s more than halved the to-do list …

5. Adam said on June 6th, 2007 at 12:33 am:

   For goodness sake Ed what is this post supposed to be about? Are you expecting people to come along and say that they don’t think that schools ought to think about their curriculum or have a plan for how to improve the school? Does anyone honestly think we ought to exempt schools from employer legislation or that staff don’t actually need to undergo a CRB check?

   Drop the populist gimickry and look at the real problem in schools - too many tests, resulting in teachers having to teach to the test.

6. sir bufton tufton said on June 6th, 2007 at 1:26 pm:

   the problem is ed doesn’t seem to have the courage to answer his own question - why not??

7. Ed Vaizey said on June 6th, 2007 at 1:27 pm:

   Because as Gordon Brown has told us, politicians must learn to listen

8. sir bufton tufton said on June 7th, 2007 at 6:26 am:

   how about offering some leadership! i’m sick of politicians criticised and offering no solutions. show a bit of backbone and tell us what you think!

9. Adrian Yalland said on June 9th, 2007 at 4:15 pm:

   Curious. The one ‘policy’ missing from the list is ‘teaching policy’.

10. Nick McGregor said on June 12th, 2007 at 10:59 am:

    Hmmm…I feel a rant coming on. I have a degree of empathy with a number of these posts. It is a long time since I was a student of any sort but I have been involved in the running of a local pre-school, am a parent of a child at a local primary school and have spent considerable time in secondary schools volunteering for a charity that runs courses on business and enterprise in schools.

    I think that Alice’s comments are sensible context for such a debate and if taken in conjunction with Andy Cooke’s suggestion to merge many of the policy documents, it is not hard to see how a more simplified structure could be put in place.

    I don’t propose to work down the list item by item as I am not sure I would vary it by that much from Andy Cooke’s notations. My overriding feeling, however, is that the damage is not necessarily being done by the number of policies required. Some of them can be written fairly simply and incorporated into a general policy document. Once in place, many of them are easy and fairly common sense to monitor. I feel that the damage is being done by the vast amount of amendment being forced upon schools.

    In years past a well run school would have had policies and attitudes on most of these areas. Some schools were less well run. Fine. So the decision was made to formalise the required policies. What I suspect has caused a lot of the problems is the endless tinkering with things. Every week a new requirement for the management of schools to comply with. Liason with govenors about writing the policy, training staff to comply with it and allocating responsibility for monitoring and reporting on it is a headache but even more so if it is done with the sneaking suspicion that it will all change again by the time one completes the job.

    In any organisation a degree of stability is essential. Most teachers are hard working intelligent souls who went into the job to teach rather than to get distracted and demotivated shuffling regulatory paperwork. We need to find a means of having a ‘bible’ of core policies and objectives that a school must maintain, enforce and monitor. Then we need to leave them to get on with teaching children! Maybe future changes should be backed up into say a five year review cycle…all proposed amendments to the regulations facing schools should be held over and the regulatory ‘bible’ amended once every five years and no more often.

    This would allow existing policies to run for a sensible amount of time and to be evaluated before being altered. It would stop politicians jumping on bandwagons and constantly introducing new soundbite grabbing requirements on teachers time that are poorly researched and ill conceived. Everyone from govenors, headteachers, teachers, parents and pupils will know where they stand and what guidelines they are operating under and be able to get on with the main job in hand - teaching children! Such a suggestion always carries the risk that a flawed policy has to stay in force until the next review point. Fine, build in a degree of flexibility where the Headteacher can get some leeway in implimentation if they do so with the prior agreement of the govenors.

    Sad to say that I think the current environment where government are causing enormous damage by constantly tinkering is not just restricted to education. Most areas of public service have similar problems and while there may be good initiatives in amongst the landslide, we have a situation where those at the sharp end become demotived and tied up in red tape while huge resources are expended on consultants and civil servants to try to control the monster that has been created.

    Rant over…

11. Andy Cooke said on June 13th, 2007 at 12:12 pm:

    Nick,

    Spot on. One thing that I didn’t mention was that once most of these policy documents were written, they shouldn’t have much need for major amendment. An annual review (consisting of an hour or so) should be sufficient; if there is a major need for amendment, let the school go ahead and amend it off its own back.

    Independence is the key. Remove education from being a political football. Recent pronouncements by David Willetts (once you bypass the Telegraph grammar school hysteria) have been most heartening on this front - put state schools onto the same ground as private schools with the only difference being the source of income. There’s an analogy with Sure Start for nursery places on the funding front - the parent chooses the school (much like for a private school) and the government funds it up to a certain limit. I’d like to see the facility for parents to “top up” the contribution out of their own funds - this would provide a nice cross-fertilisation of all strands of society into private schools - but i can see that there are arguments for and against that.

    If this could be pioneered by an incoming Conservative Government, then other areas of public services could be looked at similarly.

Leave a Reply