Earlier this week, Liberal Democrat MP for Yeovil and former education spokesman, David Laws, had a piece in the London Evening Standard defending the government’s record on education policy to date, but also urging a more ambitious programme over the coming years.
Here’s what David has to say on what Michael Gove and his Lib Dem colleague Sarah Teather have done so far:
Our qualifications system was also undermined by Labour – which was determined to “prove” that standards were rising, even if this just meant making exams easier. Targets distorted teaching: too few pupils took key subjects.
Under the last Government, it was impossible for those with the passion and expertise to establish new schools, even where there was demand. And across England the funding system was a form of national lottery – with schools with the same number and background of pupils receiving completely different amounts of cash.
The Coalition is changing all this. A new English Baccalaureate is boosting the numbers studying subjects such as science, history and modern languages. Exam credibility is being restored.
New “free schools” are opening, including across London, and existing schools are being allowed to convert to “academies”, with greater freedom.The pressure to raise standards is rising. No longer will schools be safe from intervention if they hit a miserably unambitious target of 30 per cent of pupils securing five good GCSEs. By the end of this Parliament, all secondary schools will be expected to have a majority of pupils meeting this target.
And his priorities for the future?
We should make clear that 30 per cent or even 50 per cent of pupils doing okay is no longer good enough. By the end of this Parliament we should aim for two- thirds of children reaching this standard – rising to between 80-90 per cent of children by 2020.
We should no longer accept educational failure and mediocrity on an industrial scale. Bluntly, it is only children with special needs or children for whom English is a (recent) second language who should find these targets difficult.
Ofsted must also be tougher on many schools which are presently graded “satisfactory”.
“Satisfactory” cannot be good enough for our children – who only get one chance. The objective must be for every school to be a “good” or “outstanding” school.
Failure can no longer be defined merely as a school where discipline has broken down completely or where results are shockingly poor. If a school has 60 per cent of pupils reaching the GCSE standard when it should be 80 per cent, that is also a failure.
Ofsted will need to up the pressure on the bottom 25 per cent of schools, not just the bottom five or 10 per cent. We should scrap the “satisfactory” designation, and grade schools as “outstanding”, “good”, “improving”, “notice to improve”, or “special measures”. The bottom two categories will need intensive intervention – and often new leadership.
We must not simply target schools in deprived areas. We need a system of assessment which holds to account failing schools in the leafier areas too, when “average” results are just not good enough. In some of these schools the leadership and teaching is poor, but too often this is overlooked because the children do “all right” on the basis of their home support.
You can read David’s piece in full here.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
Richard Good
Matt (Bristol)
10 Comments
The English Baccalaureate is well intended, but the selection of subjects is nonsense, far too narrow, excludes any creative subject (even the difficult ones), and is not justified by the evidence quoted in its support.
Whilst it might be right to exclude some easy subjects, and remove some of the absurd equivalences introduced by Labour which cheapened our exam system, the [far too narrow] list of subjects excludes plenty of valued, valuable, difficult, challenging subjects. So this is not the sole reason. The other reason is that the Conservatives believe that a certain selection of subjects are ‘proper’ subjects and are damaging and undermining our strength in the creative industries and other areas which they do not view as ‘real academic’ subjects.
That is why the CBI and others are now opposing such a narrow list and that is why the Education Select Committee criticised the introduction of the English Baccalaureate and called the selection of subjects ‘odd’, citing their inability to see a ‘rationale’ behind the exclusion of the creative [and intellectual and academic] subjects.
To sum up what he he saying is that huge improvements are possible because of pressure; pressure from competition and from fear of the consequences of failure. The reason why this is possible is that they have appointed a headteacher to run Ofsted who has acheived these results. If it can be done in one school, it can be done in all.
Progress done under the previous government was fake because the exams got easier. Presumably that dodge will not be allowed anymore.
As far as the percentage improvements are concerned, I wonder where he got the figures from? They seem almost plucked at random. Still it is on the record now. If the government does not get close to these targets, then we will have to try something else.
I think the main problem is not comprehensive education prior to free schools and academies. It is that a large section of the population of this country does not value education and they do not encourage their children to do so either. Those who rioted last summer for example, how do you think they will bring up their children? Anyone who went through a comprehensive education, unlike most of those who support free schools and academies, will know that a lot of children get more kudos from being disruptive rather than from learning. Teaching children like that is incredibly difficult. I am doubtful of the potential of all or most teachers to become superhuman in the same way that the new head of Ofsted appears to be.
Still the figures are now in the publc domain. Education policy has been set before we could debate it at Lib Dem conference where we rejected Free Schools and Academies by a 10-1 margin. Having used the coalition as cover to get through his pet policies that we do not agree with, time will tell whether the right choice was made.
Incidently I was surprised that an MP from Somerset would want to write about schools in London. Why not Sarah Teather? Anyway, no doubt David Cameron probably read it.
What? This is supposed to be one of the party’s great intellects – the greatest loss to the collective brainpower of the coalition government?
“Our qualifications system was also undermined by Labour – which was determined to “prove” that standards were rising, even if this just meant making exams easier. ”
Evidence, at all? Starting perhaps with how Labour were responsible for the relentless rise in GCSE and A level results, which began in the mid/late 1980s; and continuing with the actual evidence (as opposed to Telegraphoid eye-swivelled muntering) that “exams are easier” than they used to be.
There’s a case to be argued that if you set very high targets for achieving passes in examinations and tie the survival and finance of schools and the careers of ambitious heads to achieving those targets, then you will encourage schools to employ tactics – such as teaching to the test, excluding the least able and pushing students into “easier” subjects – to achieve those targets regardless of actual improvements in education. Labour certainly were guilty of following that road (though they didn’t invent it).
Laws’ prescription?
“No longer will schools be safe from intervention if they hit a miserably unambitious target of 30 per cent of pupils securing five good GCSEs. By the end of this Parliament, all secondary schools will be expected to have a majority of pupils meeting this target.”
“By the end of this Parliament we should aim for two- thirds of children reaching this standard – rising to between 80-90 per cent of children by 2020.”
Give me strength.
Then there’s the sheer arbitrariness of these targets, as Geoffrey Payne points out. On what basis does Laws believe that 5 GCSEs at A–C is the minimum standard that 80–90% of children should achieve? What evidence has he got that, without (horrible to contemplate) making the exams (even) easier, most children should be capable of this? Or that it would do them any good if they did?
And then there’s the imbecility of this one: ““Satisfactory” cannot be good enough for our children”. Let’s contemplate that for a moment: “Satisfactory” is not “good enough”. Thank heavens Laws didn’t go to one of those awful modern schools where you can pass exams without, say, understanding the basic meaning of English words.
I cant help make the obvious,logical point that David’s hope that all schools will be ‘outstanding’ is bound to be disappointed as they wont in such a scenario all stand out. To be fair he does have the expectation that all will be either ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ but that is not inconsistent with vainly hoping they all can be ‘outstanding’.
We are in a curious world were all may be outstanding and ‘satisfactory’ means not good enough. Many years ago I heard a Tory education minister who complained that almost half of students got below average marks in mathematics.
@Geoffrey Payne
I can’t speak for Free Schools but Conference failed to take into account the fact that certain Local Education Authorities are so unhelpful that Schools in their area can hardly wait to turn themselves into Academies.
@Malcolm Todd
Ofsted’s use of English has long deserved Grade Z at GCSE. “Satisfactory” seemingly isn’t. It’s essential to read several Ofsted reports to get a flavour of the terminology and some idea of what it actually means.
Could do better? Certainly applies to David Laws, who would perhaps do better to concentrate on his constituency for a few more years yet and avoid his old habit of trying to foist right-wing policies on our party.
Tony Greaves
Well said John & Tony. David Laws just doesn’t seem to get it. The trick is to have a very good teacher in front of a well resourced class overseen by an excellent head teacher supported by a light touch Local Authority. Parental support at home is also highly desirable but sadly often absent which is an obvious major cause of underperformance. Can someone please tell us how an examination system or a schools ‘system’ produces these? ‘The spirit level’ should be compulsory reading.
@Malcolm
The tradition (which has been going on for years) of claiming exams are inexorably getting easier and standards are falling, is one of the most venerable in Britain. It is sufficiently ridiculous that a couple of years back (pre-paywall), the Times spent part of A-level results day digging up old stories moaning about exam standards and printing them to show that they’re all exactly the same and have been, literally, for decades (unfortunately I don’t have links here – but there were some good stories from the 70s). Dara O’Briain has a rather good comedy routine on a similar subject.
It is the laziest and most unprincipled dodge in politics to claim party X is responsible for a decline in educational standards. People just tend to believe it as it’s been a moan for so long. Unless Laws has good evidence – and he doesn’t – then he’s blowing an educational dogwhistle and playing the lowest kind of politics with the schools system. That ought to be the province of a shabby chancer like Gove.
A prolonged period of reflection rather than grubby attention-seeking populism, would be more appropriate for Laws.
@Henry
You’re missing the point with the EBac. It’s a measure of a basic education. Currently that includes English, Maths, Science, a second Language, and either History or Geography. For any bright child this should be the minimum they leave school with, and it leaves plenty of time for studying subjects like Art, Drama, Music and Technology subjects.
I managed 12 (and a half) GCSE’s at A*-B, and the Bac only requires 7 at A*-C, and I went to a bottom of the League state school.
@Malcolm Todd
I believe the 80% figure was picked because this is what Singapore achieves and they use exams comparable to our own (if not the same exams). I don’t see any reason why our government should not look for attainment in our schools to match the best in the world (or at least of those that are easily comparable).
BrianD has it exactly right. And the single most important ingredient in his recipe is the Very Good Teacher. It is said that the secret of Finland’s much lauded success is that teaching is a highly prestigeous (though not necessarily highly paid) profession which only the best can hope to enter.