Getty
Show Hide image

When it comes to schools, Nicola Sturgeon lacks the guts to take on McBlob

Sturgeon welcomed Teach First north of the border, but the educational establishment decided otherwise. 

In the end, of course, it’s about whether you do or don’t have that burning desire to make a difference. Effective, radical education reform is horrible: bruising, attritional and at times zero-sum. Those politicians who deliver – think Andrew Adonis and Tony Blair, Michael Gove and David Cameron – do so in a climate of hostility, character assassination, and constant subversion by the education establishment, among the most conservative special interest groups in the country. That’s why the difference between success and failure often comes down to an individual’s possession of fierce moral mission, of an indefatigable commitment to drive through innovations that will in time benefit children and parents, if not union leaders.

It’s been a tough journey in England, where academies, free schools, the London Challenge, Teach First and other once-controversial programmes have helped reduce the attainment gap in some of the country’s toughest areas. But Scotland has barely taken baby steps. A succession of first ministers and education secretaries has proved too timid to challenge the McBlob, the Jabba-like agglomeration of teaching unions, native “experts” and training institutions that has for decades blocked meaningful change. Down south, even moderate reformers who are reluctant to use the Blob phrase about the English education establishment happily apply it to Scotland.

The latest success of McBlob has been to see off the arrival in Scotland of Teach First. A charity that fast-tracks the brightest graduates into challenging schools, there is nothing particularly unusual about Teach First: versions of it operate in around 40 countries. It has its critics and its flaws, but the most recent independent studies show its teachers have had a measurably positive impact on pupils’ GCSE results. Its Futures programme, which matches sixth formers with no family history of higher education with mentors who provide advice and practical opportunities, has seen 80 per cent of those who take part attend university, compared to 17 per cent of students from low-income backgrounds nationally. Sixty per cent of those interviewed by Oxbridge received an offer, something managed by only 25 per cent of total applicants.

A quarter of its most recent teacher cohort had themselves been eligible for free school meals and/or the Education Maintenance Allowance, while 38 per cent were the first in their family to go to university, and 14 per cent were from black and minority ethnic groups, double the percentage of the current teaching workforce. Almost 400 graduates from Scottish universities have signed up to work in English schools through the scheme since 2012.

The organisation had wanted to expand its activities northwards, an ambition endorsed by both the Scottish National Party First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and the Conservative leader of the opposition Ruth Davidson. Scotland has hundreds of teaching vacancies in its schools and gaps in key subjects. In most countries, an idea that was supported across the ideological barricades by the two most powerful people in politics would stand a reasonable chance of success. That’s not how things work here. As Sturgeon launched a government tender to find a provider of a fast-track route into teaching, a campaign began against Teach First. It was tarred as some kind of failed right-wing conspiracy, rather than a programme to bring the brightest graduates into teaching. Its successes were dismissed, its weaknesses blown out of all proportion.

An even more effective McBlob tactic was to make it impossible for Teach First to meet a central requirement of the tender, which stipulated that the successful bidder must have a university partner. In a classic stitch-up, Scotland’s universities announced en masse that they would not work with Teach First. One vice-chancellor who broke with the herd and offered to collaborate found that his own education department simply refused to co-operate. Teach First withdrew from the bidding process, citing difficulty with the timescale.

This is Scottish education – a highly politicised cartel that is closed to innovation, to outside entrants, to pressure from politicians or parents. The Educational Institute of Scotland, the nation’s main teaching union, is run by Larry Flanagan, a former Trotskyist and Militant Labour councillor, who claimed the introduction of Teach First would be a “betrayal of the high professional standards we operate in Scotland”. His solution to the teacher shortage is the same lazy cliche beloved of union barons everywhere: “Fast tracking a substantial pay increase would be the best recruitment tool available to Scotland's politicians.”

Scotland’s children badly need a hero. In Holyrood’s first couple of decades the needle has barely nudged on educational performance, particularly among the most underprivileged kids. In some cases it has gone in the wrong direction. When the nation was shown to be slipping down international charts, the SNP government simply withdrew from them. It has focused its attention on the confusing and confused Curriculum for Excellence programme, which is presented as equipping pupils for the modern world, but which lacks any kind of real cutting edge.

As Davidson wrote in the Scotsman this week, “no-one has the faintest idea whether the curriculum has actually boosted standards. All we do know, 13 years on, is that Scotland has slipped down the international Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s league table for attainment and that those nationwide Scottish surveys which the SNP has not yet abolished show a fall in literacy and numeracy standards among children in both primary and early secondary school.”

Sturgeon has promised that education – rather than independence – is her top priority. When I interviewed her a few months after she moved into Bute House she insisted “education and the attainment gap… that’s [what] I’m going to measure myself against.” She insisted boldly that “if anybody decides to be a block to making sure we’ve got the best education system then they should be moved out of the way. I’ll be confrontational with anybody if it’s about improving the educational experience of kids that come from the kinds of communities that I grew up in.”

As time passes and the evidence accrues, it becomes harder to see these as anything more than empty words. Sturgeon, it seems, is just the latest politician lacking the guts to take on the McBlob.

 

Chris Deerin is the New Statesman's contributing editor (Scotland). 

Getty
Show Hide image

The UK is suffering from an extreme case of generational inequality

Millennials across the developed world are struggling. But the UK stands out. 

 

“Don’t it always seem to go, that you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone”

Joni Mitchell’s lyrics may refer to her first trip to Hawaii, but they could just as easily apply to UK trends in generational living standards that the Resolution Foundation’s Intergenerational Commission has uncovered. That’s particularly so in light of new analysis comparing these trends internationally.

While there are huge living standards differences between high-income countries, there is also much shared ground, with the financial crisis and demographic patterns putting pressure on younger generations’ living standards everywhere. But the UK stands out. With the partial exception of Spain, no other country in living memory has experienced as large a “boom and bust” in generation-on-generation progress across both incomes and home ownership rates.

On incomes, the millennials (born 1980-2000) who have reached their early 30s are just 6 per cent better off than generation X (born 1966-80) when they were the same age. This is very small progress indeed when compared with the progress older generations are enjoying – baby boomers (born 1946-65) in their late 60s are 29 per cent better off than the silent generation (born 1926-1945).

These sorts of slowdowns have occurred in most countries, but not to the same extent. In the US, millennials in their early 30s are doing 5 per cent worse than their predecessors, but this compares to relatively modest 11 per cent gains for generation X relative to the baby boomers. In fact, in the US – despite higher levels of income – the absence of generational progress is what stands out. Typical incomes in the US for those aged 45-49 are no higher for those born in the late 1960s than they were for those born in the early 1920s.

Back to the UK. The “had it then lost it” story is also clear when we look at housing. Our previous research has shown that young people in the UK face much higher housing costs (relative to incomes) than older generations did when they were making their way in the world. In a large part this is driven by the rise and fall of home ownership.UK home ownership rates surged by 29 percentage points between the greatest generation (born 1911-1926) and the baby boomers, but this generation-on-generation progress has been all but wiped out for millennials. Their home ownership rate in their late 20s, at 33 per cent, is 27 percentage points lower than the rate for the baby boomers at the same age (60 per cent).

This fall between generations is much smaller in other countries in which housing is a key areas of concern such as Australia (a 12 percentage points fall from boomers to millennials) and the US (a 6 percentage point fall). As with incomes, the UK shows the strongest boom and bust – large generation-on-generation gains for today’s older cohorts followed by stagnation or declines for younger ones.

Let’s be clear though, the UK is a relatively good place to grow up. Ours is one of the most advanced economies in the world, with high employment rates for all age groups. In other advanced economies, young people have suffered immensely as a result of the financial crisis. For example, in Greece millennials in their early 30s are a shocking 31 per cent worse off than generation X were at the same age. In Spain today the youth (15-30) unemployment rate is still above 30 per cent, over three times higher than it is in the UK.

But, if everything is relative – before the parking lot came the paradise – then the UK’s situation isn’t one to brush away. Small income gains are, obviously, better than big income falls. But what matters for a young person in the UK today probably isn’t how well they’re doing relative to a young person in Italy but how this compares with their expectations, which have been shaped by the outcomes of their parents and grandparents. It’s no surprise that the UK is one of the most pessimistic countries about the prospects for today’s young.

The good news, though, is that it doesn’t have to be like this. In other parts of the world and at other times, large generation-on-generation progress has happened. Building more homes, having strong collective bargaining and delivering active labour market policies that incentivise work are things we know make a difference. As politicians attempt to tackle the UK’s intergenerational challenges, they should remember to look overseas for lessons.