Where Labour's education team should look for inspiration

A travel itinerary for Stephen Twigg from Conservative MP Elizabeth Truss.

It is reported that there will be cross-party talks between the education secretary, Michael Gove, and his shadow, Stephen Twigg, later this summer on the curriculum. This is good news. The curriculum should reflect best international practice, not be a political football. I know that Stephen has already been fact-finding in Japan and Sweden and to help out I have developed an itinerary for him to find the brightest and best.

Stephen should start his tour in the wheat fields of Calgary. One of the top western entries in the OECD PISA tables (based on a common test for 15 year olds), Canada is maths heaven. And Alberta has scaled the greatest heights of all. Spurred on by a strong oil sector with growing demand for tech savvy people this province has created a leading maths curriculum. Courses on algebra and geometry are both rigorous and modern. Just what we need to drive forward a tech sector revolution in the UK.  He can then go east to Ontario. I can attest from Ontarian teachers currently working in Norfolk that there is a huge enthusiasm for maths here. He’ll also see what a broad curriculum centred on English, maths, science, history, geography and foreign languages looks like.

If he has time he should go down to Massachusetts. The US state outperforms the UK despite similar culture and demographics. There is a strong presumption of studying maths to 18 where it leads the pack amongst US states. The curriculum builds in layers like an onion, not the modular “learn and forget” that has dominated British education. Almost all students have to study binomial theorem, complex numbers and use logarithmic functions extensively as part of their compulsory high school maths courses.

Stephen should then spend some time in South East Asia. This part of the world dominates the international rankings. Although some concern about rote learning is leading to revisions in Hong Kong and Singapore, the clear work ethic is an inspiration. There’s no complacency here with Singapore focusing on courses for teachers that boost students’ performance. Students are expected to master concepts earlier than in the UK, both Hong Kong and Singapore expect students to be able to add, subtract, multiply and divide fractions by the end of primary school and Singapore introduces quadratic equations in the equivalent of year 9. These are now included in the UK's draft curriculum released by Michael Gove earlier this week.

India is teeming with interest in new tech. Stephen could join the country’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the packed out Indian Science Congress, thousands of papers presented and local school kids queuing in the heat for entry to a science exhibit. The UK Government has abandoned ICT and is now developing the replacement. Perhaps a visit to one of the highly successful Indian Institutes of Technology will provide some clues. There is no doubt the country has a passion for science that the UK should emulate. As Angela Saini notes in her book Geek Nation, the International Science Olympiads receive as much, if not more, coverage in the Indian press as the Olympics.

Next stop should be Germany and examining the reasons behind their renewed economic success. Stephen should chat with his fellow social democrat Gerhard Schroeder about the education reforms in the early 2000s that allowed the Germans to leapfrog Britain in the PISA league tables. And about why the German public wanted action following their “PISA shock”, when the entire country was outraged by their low rankings. They might have had different problems to the ones the UK faces but Schroeder realised radical reform was the only option. Measures included the introduction of national standards for the first time in all core subjects – German, maths, science and foreign languages – prescribing more rigorous content and reinforced by international benchmarking.

As he heads back to Britain, Stephen should check out potential reforms in the other part of his portfolio, childcare. In the Netherlands, innovative childcare reforms have put flexibility and choice in the hands of parents. The country now has twice the number of childminders per capita as the UK. He should also check out France’s Écoles Maternelle with a higher child to adult ratio than Britain and more qualified staff. In both countries, despite less Government spending, parents are paying out a considerably smaller portion of their income in childcare costs.

There is much to learn from outside the UK - and if Stephen is prepared to take on the vested interests in his own party – potentially room for fruitful discussion. Happy travels!

German Chancellor Angela Merkel talks to children during a visit at Erika-Mann-Grundschule elementary school in Berlin, Germany. Photograph: Getty Images.

Elizabeth Truss is the Conservative MP for South West Norfolk

Getty.
Show Hide image

Hannan Fodder: This week, Daniel Hannan gets his excuses in early

I didn't do it. 

Since Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy...

When I started this column, there were some nay-sayers talking Britain down by doubting that I was seriously going to write about Daniel Hannan every week. Surely no one could be that obsessed with the activities of one obscure MEP? And surely no politician could say enough ludicrous things to be worthy of such an obsession?

They were wrong, on both counts. Daniel and I are as one on this: Leave and Remain, working hand in glove to deliver on our shared national mission. There’s a lesson there for my fellow Remoaners, I’m sure.

Anyway. It’s week three, and just as I was worrying what I might write this week, Dan has ridden to the rescue by writing not one but two columns making the same argument – using, indeed, many of the exact same phrases (“not a club, but a protection racket”). Like all the most effective political campaigns, Dan has a message of the week.

First up, on Monday, there was this headline, in the conservative American journal, the Washington Examiner:

“Why Brexit should work out for everyone”

And yesterday, there was his column on Conservative Home:

“We will get a good deal – because rational self-interest will overcome the Eurocrats’ fury”

The message of the two columns is straightforward: cooler heads will prevail. Britain wants an amicable separation. The EU needs Britain’s military strength and budget contributions, and both sides want to keep the single market intact.

The Con Home piece makes the further argument that it’s only the Eurocrats who want to be hardline about this. National governments – who have to answer to actual electorates – will be more willing to negotiate.

And so, for all the bluster now, Theresa May and Donald Tusk will be skipping through a meadow, arm in arm, before the year is out.

Before we go any further, I have a confession: I found myself nodding along with some of this. Yes, of course it’s in nobody’s interests to create unnecessary enmity between Britain and the continent. Of course no one will want to crash the economy. Of course.

I’ve been told by friends on the centre-right that Hannan has a compelling, faintly hypnotic quality when he speaks and, in retrospect, this brief moment of finding myself half-agreeing with him scares the living shit out of me. So from this point on, I’d like everyone to keep an eye on me in case I start going weird, and to give me a sharp whack round the back of the head if you ever catch me starting a tweet with the word, “Friends-”.

Anyway. Shortly after reading things, reality began to dawn for me in a way it apparently hasn’t for Daniel Hannan, and I began cataloguing the ways in which his argument is stupid.

Problem number one: Remarkably for a man who’s been in the European Parliament for nearly two decades, he’s misunderstood the EU. He notes that “deeper integration can be more like a religious dogma than a political creed”, but entirely misses the reason for this. For many Europeans, especially those from countries which didn’t have as much fun in the Second World War as Britain did, the EU, for all its myriad flaws, is something to which they feel an emotional attachment: not their country, but not something entirely separate from it either.

Consequently, it’s neither a club, nor a “protection racket”: it’s more akin to a family. A rational and sensible Brexit will be difficult for the exact same reasons that so few divorcing couples rationally agree not to bother wasting money on lawyers: because the very act of leaving feels like a betrayal.

Or, to put it more concisely, courtesy of Buzzfeed’s Marie Le Conte:

Problem number two: even if everyone was to negotiate purely in terms of rational interest, our interests are not the same. The over-riding goal of German policy for decades has been to hold the EU together, even if that creates other problems. (Exhibit A: Greece.) So there’s at least a chance that the German leadership will genuinely see deterring more departures as more important than mutual prosperity or a good relationship with Britain.

And France, whose presidential candidates are lining up to give Britain a kicking, is mysteriously not mentioned anywhere in either of Daniel’s columns, presumably because doing so would undermine his argument.

So – the list of priorities Hannan describes may look rational from a British perspective. Unfortunately, though, the people on the other side of the negotiating table won’t have a British perspective.

Problem number three is this line from the Con Home piece:

“Might it truly be more interested in deterring states from leaving than in promoting the welfare of its peoples? If so, there surely can be no further doubt that we were right to opt out.”

If there any rhetorical technique more skin-crawlingly horrible, than, “Your response to my behaviour justifies my behaviour”?

I could go on, about how there’s no reason to think that Daniel’s relatively gentle vision of Brexit is shared by Nigel Farage, UKIP, or a significant number of those who voted Leave. Or about the polls which show that, far from the EU’s response to the referendum pushing more European nations towards the door, support for the union has actually spiked since the referendum – that Britain has become not a beacon of hope but a cautionary tale.

But I’m running out of words, and there’ll be other chances to explore such things. So instead I’m going to end on this:

Hannan’s argument – that only an irrational Europe would not deliver a good Brexit – is remarkably, parodically self-serving. It allows him to believe that, if Brexit goes horribly wrong, well, it must all be the fault of those inflexible Eurocrats, mustn’t it? It can’t possibly be because Brexit was a bad idea in the first place, or because liberal Leavers used nasty, populist ones to achieve their goals.

Read today, there are elements of Hannan’s columns that are compelling, even persuasive. From the perspective of 2020, I fear, they might simply read like one long explanation of why nothing that has happened since will have been his fault.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @JonnElledge.