Registered user login:

The thinking: Needed: courage and ingenuity

Peter Wilby

Published 14 May 2007

Peter Wilby on why education remains the priority

One effect of Gordon Brown's impending move to No 10 is that we can utter the word "egalitarian" again. The prominent Brownite Ed Miliband, for example, uses it eight times in his 12-page essay for the latest publication from the Institute for Public Policy Research (Politics for a New Generation), even daring to refer to an "egalitarian project".

If this is to be more than rhetoric to reinvigorate Labour activists, the Brownites need some hard strategic thinking. Anybody who has worked in the Treasury will know that trying to make 21st-century Britain more equal is like trying to push water uphill. Globalisation - and Britain, through financial services, depends highly on the most globalised industry of all - tends to make the distribution of income and wealth more unequal. The answer, according to standard new Labour thinking, is to boost the incomes of the toiling masses by giving them more marketable skills. Miliband doesn't demur. "The starting point must be education," he declares.

I will leave aside my scepticism as to whether this is indeed the solution. My concern here is whether a Brown government could design an education system that improves the performance of the bottom 40 per cent. For the past 25 years, governments have bet the house on parental choice and Labour, with academies, trust schools and so on, has multiplied the options available. In theory, "bad" schools, mostly in deprived areas, should be dying for lack of customers. But choice doesn't work without slack in the system. Again, Treasury experience should tell Brownites that empty school places are expensive and wasteful.

So schools choose parents, not the other way round. Here the market does work as theory predicts, with schools excluding "bad" parents, or at least "bad" children, if they possibly can. The result is growing segregation - some racial, but most social - within the comprehensive system. Those children perceived as undesirable, for whatever reason, are clustered in "failing schools", making the schools even less attractive, not least to teachers. Yet research suggests children from poor homes perform best if schooled with those from more affluent backgrounds. If schools were mixed socially and academically, the number of "bad" ones would plummet. For these reasons, Labour MPs insisted on strengthening the school admissions code in the latest Education Act.

Many devices by which schools excluded undesirable children were outlawed. But the code still allows selection by proximity, and richer parents pay premium prices for houses close to "good" schools.

The new code encourages solutions. Councils can band children by ability and allow each school to select only a limited number from the top band. Or they can decide by lottery which parents get places in over-subscribed schools. In either case, some middle-class parents get bounced into "bad" schools. Up with that they will not put. It is no use telling them that, if their children attend, the schools will soon be "good". They will create a political stink, as they did when Brighton introduced a lottery this year.

That's the problem for a Brown government. New Labour's central aim was to secure middle-class commitment to public services which, it feared, would otherwise wither away. It promised levels of choice and personal service like those in the private sector. In other words, whatever middle-class parents want, they should get. After this month's election results, Brown won't be keen to deny them. But how can schools then do what is required for Miliband's "egalitarian project"?

The think-tank Compass's website offers ideas (see "Education: a model for public service reform" at www.compassonline.org. uk/publications/thinkpieces). Very small classes in deprived-area schools might attract even the most prejudiced middle-class parents. Choice could be replaced by a new form of accountability, in which schools are run by area boards voted in by parents of under-18s.

No doubt there are drawbacks to both proposals. The solution favoured by the education department's most influential adviser, Sir Cyril Taylor - to create "partnerships" so that parents apply to clusters of schools, rather than individual schools - may be better. But a Brown government will need courage and ingenuity to reconcile egalitarian ambitions with political realities.

All mouth . . .

We are now the party of the whole country
David Cameron on the Tories' electoral gains

He didn't do it by choosing the easy way. He did it by sound judgement, holding his nerve and putting the long-term interests of Britain first. At general election time, that is still the route to victory
Tony Blair praises Gordon Brown's handling of the economy as he finally endorses him

I believe that it is in all our interests that the incoming prime minister should have the widest opportunity to make a fresh start
John Reid decides not to challenge Gordon Brown for the Labour leadership

Scotland has changed for good and for ever Alex Salmond on the SNP's narrow victory

We would obviously have preferred more votes, more seats and more councils
Menzies Campbell on Liberal Democrat losses

If there is a hint of the miraculous about these hope-filled times, and there is, then it is very important that we acknowledge those who believed that miracles could happen
Irish President Mary McAleese on the return of devolution to Northern Ireland

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

3 comments from readers

gnuneo
16 May 2007 at 16:21

gee i dunno - how about making the whole school system work better, instead of playing with 'market economics' in a sector that cannot be as easily measured in output as 'financial profit'?

how about actually involving the students in designing and running the schools, as scandinavia, northern germany and holland have tried to great success?

the best way to teach democracy is through role models and experience - the first place for the State and wider community to start teaching democratic principles is in the schools, not just through lessons but through direct experience of it working.

make the schools nicer places for the students to be in and learn (and i don't just mean the latest computer hardware and well painted walls), and 'failing schools' will largely be a thing of the past.

for a society that claims to have "brought democracy to the world", we are certainly lax about its principles being actively utilised. Children are the citizens of the future - if you want empowered citizens, then empower your children.

Jim Knight MP, Minister for Schools
16 May 2007 at 17:48

Choice and voice can help us deliver better schools for all

Peter Wilby underplays the importance of choice in education. It has been a vital catalyst in improving school standards across the board, and progress on this front has been stark: ten years ago, more than 600 secondary schools failed to get more than 25% of their pupils securing at least five good GCSEs; now fewer than 50 are failing on that measure.

Clearly choice must be sensibly managed, otherwise it does risk benefiting articulate and affluent parents at the expense of the least advantaged. The new Admissions Code is designed to help make the process fairer and more transparent, as Mr Wilby acknowledges.

But I appreciate this policy of managed choice cannot work in isolation. This is why I am passionate about the potential of parental voice in helping to shape the character and standard of schools.

Voice is all about parents feeling they can enter into constructive dialogue with their children’s school and engage with them in a way that improves standards across the board. Many schools have already taken important first steps, such as using technology so that parents can access information on their child’s attendance, behaviour, homework, timetable, school news and academic progress. I also encourage the establishment of Parent Councils, to give more parents a voice about the issues that matter, and we will be producing a resource pack for schools to help support such developments.

Mr Wilby is wrong when he suggests that the government’s strategy is for “bad schools to die for want of customers”. On the contrary, we want the power of parents and pupils to energise and inspire all schools to greater heights.

We make no apology for broadening choice for parents. But now I want to see the energy and resource we know parents will use to get the best choice of school carefully harnessed and redirected to help schools boost performance, drive forward personalisation and ultimately ensure that every school becomes a good school.

Jim Knight

Minister for Schools

Admin
17 May 2007 at 14:42

From our letters pages.......

Peter Wilby is right to focus on parents as a means of developing more accountability in schools.But why just ‘middle-class parents? What of ‘working-class’ parents? Does he suspect they are not interested or capable of engaging with school issues? If so, we must enable them to develop their capacity and interest in their children’s education. That would mean reviving adult education, currently withering due to ‘full-cost fees’. At the same time the proportion of mature students going to university has declined in recent years. (It was more than 50% in the early 1990s.) Consequently, Peter Wilby’s prescription for a Brown government having, “courage and ingenuity to reconcile egalitarian ambitions with political realities” should include restoring adult education budgets and re-connecting with the idea that economic benefits flow not just from instrumental skills but from intellectual growth.

David Browning

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Peter Wilby

Peter Wilby was editor of the Independent on Sunday from 1995 to 1996 and of the New Statesman from 1998 to 2005. He writes a weekly column for the NS.

Read More

Vote!

Should Darling have been bolder with the 45% tax rate?