Interview: Ed Balls
With soaring street violence and constant classroom testing, Martin Bright and Suzanne Moore ask the
By Martin Bright a... Published 03 July 2008 10:29We interview Ed Balls the day after yet another terrible murder of a teenager in London. Sixteen-year-old Ben Kinsella was stabbed four times in the neck and chest following a party to celebrate the end of his exams. Kinsella was described as a model student who was likely to get a string of A grades at just the sort of inner-city comprehensive the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families is trying to encourage to succeed against the odds.
We ask him if it is any wonder that parents in modern Britain are worried about their children, with stories like that appearing on the front pages of the newspapers so regularly (17 teenagers were killed with guns or knives in London in the first six months of 2008). Parents such as Cherie Blair, for example, who says she fears for her children on the streets because of gun and knife crime.
Balls is adamant that schools themselves remain a safe haven for children. "There is no evidence in the last ten years of any rise in any of these crimes in schools," he says. "In fact, it almost never happens."
He does recognise, however, that schools have a crucial part to play. "The most important thing to do is to make sure schools are a place where, in partnership with the police, teachers are doing prevention and the kids know that if there's something going on which they are worried about, then they can speak up. It's about a cultural change."
It is exactly a year since Ed Balls took over at the newly created Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) with the express intention of changing the culture of childhood. He is responsible not just for primary and secondary education, but also for strategies on youth crime prevention, youth offending, play schemes, youth alcohol and drugs. Jointly with the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, he is also responsible for youth justice and, with the Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, for children's physical and mental health. The Children's Plan, a ten-year strategy published in December 2007, is a vastly ambitious attempt to shift the emphasis in policy to the needs of young people.
Under Balls, there has been a marked departure from the more punitive instincts of Blair-era policy and towards children, inside and outside the classroom. The so-called Respect agenda has been quietly shelved and the obsession with Asbo rhetoric curbed. In the classroom, there has been a serious attempt to address concerns about the testing regime. Balls is already looking at reforming tests for 11-year-olds to allow them to be taken when teachers feel the pupil is best prepared. This "testing when ready" approach is designed to be more like a music exam, one which the children enter only when their teacher believes that they have reached a certain standard.
We suggest that above and beyond all the other pressures faced by young children in 21st-century Britain, they are also being tested to within an inch of their lives. Many teachers and parents are in despair at the stress tests - especially National Curriculum tests (SATs) for seven-year-olds - are causing. Balls is initially dismissive of the suggestion that large numbers of seven-year-olds are being traumatised by testing because their parents are warned in advance.
"It doesn't happen in every school," he says.
We agree, but suggest it's quite normal. "It's totally the wrong way of doing things," he says.
The wrong way of testing
But it happens a lot, we say. We know schools that do it. Some of them are quite close to where Balls himself lives in north-east London.
"No seven-year-old should ever know they are doing SATs," he says bluntly. This is an odd answer. We know that he knows that we know what's going on. Schools think they are doing the right thing. We say that many schools send out notes to parents warning them that the tests are coming up and asking them to give their children extra support. It has been suggested that some schools lay on special treats, such as film shows and even sweets, to soften the blow.
The discussion becomes decidedly heated and at one point Balls just shakes his head and says "rubbish". But he also begins to shift his ground: "The best headteachers will ensure that no six- or seven-year-old knows they are doing SATs. I promise you that is the case. If you are telling pupils in Year 2 that they are doing SATs next week then that's the wrong thing to do. You should not be stressing the children."
It appeared to be an issue close to his heart. "They don't need to do the SATs in a sit-down environment," he says. "It's something that can be done as part of the school day. Honestly. And there are loads of schools doing that."
And those that aren't?
"I feel as angry as you about that. I cannot believe they are doing that. They should not be doing that."
Balls has been charged with being too interventionist, too prepared to meddle. On this issue, however, there is little he feels he can do to control the way individual schools run their tests, short of abolishing them altogether, which he is not prepared to do because they are a useful tool for teachers. His frustration is evident. There is a distinct feeling that he would happily wring the neck of every headteacher who announced tests for seven-year-olds in advance this summer, if that wouldn't set an even worse example to Britain's children.
Beyond the stress of curriculum tests, Balls emphasises that most British children's experience of childhood is essentially a happy one. "If you get most of your observation from reading the press, you get really pessimistic about what happens to children and young people," he says. But he also recognises this is not the case for all young people: "There are schools, families, areas, where children are really getting a raw deal. We all get angry about the fact that if you live in a deprived community in terms of income, you are much more likely to be scalded in the bath or be run over by a car in your area, as well as much more likely to not do well at school."
Balls turns to his own experience of childhood in Nottingham to illustrate the point that things were not necessarily better in the past. "When I was growing up, when I was ten, 11, 12, my mum and dad didn't want me to get the bus to watch Nottingham Forest play at home because when you went to the football you got beaten up. In the good old days it was pretty bad, actually."
Yet he does recognise a crucial difference: that the gap between those who do well and those who have a tough time is wider than it was, especially in a context of drug and alcohol misuse. Naturally, he traces this back to the "bad old days" before new Labour. "One of the consequences of the Eighties and Nineties is that a lot of young people had a tough time themselves, and their kids have gone on to have a difficult time as well," he says.
For Balls, the key to tackling youth violence is intervention at an early age, but he knows many schools do not have a good working relationship with the police/social services. It should be possible, he argues, to identify children at risk of problem behaviour by identifying those who have an older brother, sister or a parent who has spent time in custody. But many heads wouldn't have this information to hand.
As the New Statesman hits the news-stands, the DCSF will be publishing plans for legislation to set up "children's trusts" that bring together the various agencies responsible for children in a given area. The move comes as a result of recommendations by Lord Laming following the death of Victoria Climbié in 2000. Laming found that the abuse eight-year-old Climbié suffered had come to the attention of social workers, hospital staff, police and the local authority, but there had been no mechanism to act together to help.
Get to them earlier
Balls points to a number of schools that now have child psychologists, children's health services and advice for parents all located on-site. But he concedes there are still big problems of communication between the various agencies responsible for children. He tells the story of a boy at a school he recently visited, whose father had committed suicide in prison the previous year, and who was playing truant.
The headteacher explained the problem to social services, who said it was too serious for them to deal with. She then went to the agency that helps adolescents with mental health problems, which said the child would have to spend six months on the waiting list. When the head said the problem was urgent, she was asked if the boy had harmed himself, because a physical manifestation of the problem was needed before intervention would be possible. Balls's conclusion is that heads must be given the means to intervene early, and immediate help from other agencies when they demand it.
Despite everything, the Children's Secretary remains positive about the generation now going through the school system. "The majority of kids are doing better in school, have a more stable education, do more volunteering. More are doing music. Actually, they are the best generation of young people we've ever had, and we demonise them stupidly."
As we leave, we ask for a final verdict on the state of the nation's children. "The vast majority are doing great and the ones who aren't, we should be getting them earlier," he says. "And we should help parents to see that the world isn't such a scary place."
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists





















11 comments
My God, Ed Balls is employing some appalling sophistry with regard to SATs. Over the past 15 years or so, the push to ever more prescriptive curricula and more measurement has created huge amounts of performance anxiety in the education system. And, worst of all, is removing professional autonomy from educators. Children are not being taught how to think or question anything, merely pushed through a mechanistic process to turn out the service fodder for the 21st century that employers demand. Judging by recent comments from employers and the levels of literacy of school leavers, even this goal is not being met.
When SATs are tied so very closely to league tables, and they in turn can affect the whole future and standing of the entire school is it any wonder that staff transmit their anxieties to the children? The whole SATs / tables system is a terrible solution to the problem of setting and maintaining educational standards. Their use positively encourages the use of sharp practice and, in some cases just plain cheating, just to elevate scores in a table that don't really tell you what a school is like at all.
But according to Ed, it's all the fault of the schools. This is such a transparent attempt to pass the buck that it would be plainly laughable, were it not for the fact that I am afraid he might actually be sincere. The worst thing is that no one else across the mainstream political spectrum seems to be saying anything different. Perhaps they hope if things stay the same for long enough, then parents will not remember when they were not so and will become inured against the hideous stresses we are expected to place our children under. And when anyone does try something different, like diplomas, the hysterical accusations of adulteration of standards starts. This is why, now, we are stuck with an A Level system that is increasingly irrelevant and useless.
The wider cult of the metric is of great concern to me and is also starting to creep into HE too. Stories published this week about degree inflation and pressure on academics to wave through international students whose grasp of English is so tenuous as to be pretty much non-existent are just small indicators that the era of the comprehensive university is upon us (trust me, I work in one). Ed Balls is not unique, just the latest in a long line of education ministers who has covered their ears and whistled so they can't hear the concerns of those of us in the education system telling them some rather uncomfortable truths about education policy and its implementation.
In the words of Albert Einstein: not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.
Balls strikes absolutely the right tone here. He dismisses the media hysteria that seems to attach itself to stories involving children and yet acknowledges the kernel of truth upon which the stories are based. He sounds humane and measured - and, when attacked, manages to avoid sounding defensive.
It would be a good thing if Ball's tone was replicated throughout the media.
Good article, I do like Ms Moore. She writes a good article and has a good heart.
I do feel Ed Balls is a easy target. There are good initiatives going on in schools such as the new key stage 3 and 4 curriculum, extended schools, surestart, assessing pupil progress, the creative curriculum and the use of studio schools for disaffected boys to learn BTEC skills even at the age of 14. Also there are many excellent state schools, far more than the press like to tell you who employing excellent practices. One school that is on the largest council estate in manchester is particularly outstanding.
What i would say that is that as a country we want to look at school systems such as Finland that consistently top international tables. They don't test, but constantly assess the students through independent learning activities. Also the best countries don’t teach their students formally until they eight or above but use constructive play.
I've recently been to Finland and visited a few schools. It was interesting. Finland isn't Britain, so comparing the two places is a bit unfair. Education for an independent Finland was recognized as a national priority decades ago and there was a clear national concensus about what needed to be done in terms of allocation of resources, methods and attitudes to learning.
Reaching the position Finland now enjoys took decades, this is important to remember, these things take time and a lot of effort, and that's even if one can agree on the longterm education strategy! In Britain there has never really been agreeement about longterm strategy has there? Isn't education an ideological battle-ground? Doesn't education in Britain reflect and illustrate the class-based nature of society as a whole?
Finland was an occupied country for centuries. By the Swedes and by the Russians. It was really a colony, exploited and ruled from afar. Obviously once it gained its independence everyone could agree that raising educational standards was a vital priority, as unlike Britain one didn't have a collosal industrial sector or an empire.
What Britain should have done was scrap the entire system when Labour came to power after WW2. The class-based system should have been totally reformed from the ground up. Eton and the public schools and the grammar schools should have been abolished and uniform comprehensive system introduced across the board. If this has been done fifty years ago, British society and not just the education system, would have been very different and far healthier than it is today. Today, probably far more radical methods are required than would have surficed fifty years ago.
writeon: 9/10
Why does the British education system too and frow?
I have a simple theory on this, they change the method/system of education so that poor to medium educated parents can`t help their children. When my children stated school, both I and the wife couldn`t get our heads around the way the work was set out and what was expected...
....no wonder there`s no social mobility in Britain....is this by design?
"Design" that's a rather complicated concept to get into in relation to why something like the education system doesn't work the way it's supposed to, isn't it?
Clearly powerful groups in British society fought tooth and nail to defend their interests and priviliges in relation to the structure of the education system, which was weighted in their favour. This is a matter for discussion, or real debate, it's just a fact. And there's nothing "wrong" with a group defending their interests, however, when this group is a small but extremely powerful minority and their narrow "class interests" define the entire system and have a severe and negative effect on the overwhelming majority, then there is a problem.
Put simply, the UK education system reflects the "class bias" and "class nature" of British society, this is obvious to anybody with any sense and eyes in there head. We have schools for the rich, schools for the middle-class, and schools for the rest.
Finland, for example, has one type of school. Yet even here there are problems, Finland isn't paradise. The Finnish teachers I talked to were concerned about the impact of immigrants, who were solidifying into a sort of "underclass". Finnish schools, the ones I visited, had a lot more discipline than most UK schools. The teachers keep a keen eye on their kids and expect them to behave in a civilized fashion and there is far less "muckin' about". Finnish teachers expect and demand respect. The places I visited were "educational institutions" and there was an emphasis on hard work and efficiency. Expectations were high.
Finland used education as form of social engineering to create a new society after they acheived their independence. Finland shows that it's possible to change a society and raise educational standards substantially, only one needs to create a concensus for this kind of national project, something that's always been lacking in Britain, or at least a powerful minority has always been allowed to influence and distort British educational policy far beyond what their actual numbers deserve. But then this is the essence of a class-based society, where power and wealth are distributed so unjustly, in a nutshell.
Balls really should be a Notts County fan, he appears to have jumped on the Forest bandwagon in their glory years, can you trust a glory hunter?
What planet is Ed Balls living on? I am a supply teacher and have worked in many state schools. I have only come across one that I would want my own chidren to attend. The comprehensive system is the main reason why we have so many problems in our society. One size does not fit all!!!
Balls' complacency is staggering. While most children are safe and loved and well looked after a significant number are neglected by their parents or the absence thereof. Family income is an important part of the policy agenda but of limited impact on the improvement of children's lives where the priorities of the parents of the child are so massively different from the priorities needed to nuture and educate the child in modern Britain.
Labour's education policy has all but eliminate the educational content of schooling, replaced by the teaching of functional skills and impoverishment of a curriculum which is capable of stretcheing the able child. Balls' diplomas will further entrench the educational barriers to social mobility while providing little of vocational worth.
The comprehensive system is the main reason why we have so many problems in our society. One size does not fit all!!!
Why does it work in Finland then.
This idea that all comprehensive schools are the same, that one size fits all, is incorrect and misleading.
Schools, and the education system adopted in a country, do not exist in vacuum, the usually reflect the views and attitudes, and undelying social and economic values of society. For example, I don't think any reasonable person looking at Britain's schools could fail to notice that they appear to mirror the class-nature of the wider soiciety around them.
I know and have discussed the school system with teachers, academics, head teachers, and students from Europe, and mostly they are really shocked by the vast differences between the schools they visit. This is especially true when I talk to teachers from the Scandinavian countries, who think they've slipped through a hole in time!
It's perfectly possible to have a comprehensive system with substantial differences. It mostly depends on where the school is located. Wealthier areas have better and more successful schools than poorer areas. Families are crucial as well. Better educated parents have better educated, on average, children.
Children really have to choose the right parents, if they want to do well in school, seems to be the general rule.
I think that the lack of a properly functioning comprehensive system is probably one of the reasons why we have so many problems in society. Though one cannot really have a normal comprehensive system when the rest of society is so grossly unequal and even before children get to school they are being influenced by social and economic factors in their family backgrounds.
Schools and education can make a difference; but they can't really succeed if they are "out of synch" with the surrounding soiciety. Yet in Britain, education has been an ideological battleground for decades in an undeclared civil-war, and that's why so much doesn't function optimally and there is such wasted human potential. The children of successful and stabil families will always do well no matter what system one adopts, and in Britain they do very well; but others "pay" a high price for the success of the elite.
The reforms initiated, mostly by Social Democratic governments, in Finland, and in other Nordic countries, were designed to "lift" the educational standards of the poorest and worst educated groups in society and resources were specifically directed towards the "bottom end".
This emphasis wasn't easy and it wasn't cheap, but the Finnish experience does show that it can actually work, one can substantially raise overall standards and especially the educational standards of those who traditionally "failed" in the old "layered" system, and the benefits are tangible and beneficial for all of society.
But people in Britain don't seem to really want a fair, just, egalitarian and successful system for all, do they? People seem to prefer a socially stratified education system, which leaves so many behind, is massively wasteful, unsuccessful, and socially reactionary.