Hardship High: Seldon's Selective Schools

(Image: Sir Anthony Seldon auditioning for the Apollo Theatre's stage production of 

Saturday Night Fever)

On Friday 3rd March the iNews website published an article by ex-Master of Wellington College, Sir Anthony Seldon, on 'How we could solve education’s inequality problems with just 100 new schools' . Seldon believes that education's lack of equity could be easily solved by building 100 new  selective Free Schools. According to Seldon, these 'May Schools' would be different from grammar schools as they would only be for the 'bottom 25% of the population'. Seldon goes on to suggest that the schools would only target 'bright, disadvantaged students who the current system is failing'.  But only if you're the poorest of the poor. If you're just outside this arbitrary measure then you'll just need to get on with being let down. Throughout his article Seldon goes on to answer 'your questions' which he writes and poses to himself. Nonetheless, there's still a few things that bother me...

Why only the bottom 25%?

This seems somewhat unfair when given that 28 - 30% (CPAG, 2016) of children are now living in poverty? Is it not pretty cruel to tell a child that 'we know you're poor but you're not quite poor enough for our selective school'. I suppose there's no need to worry though as these borderline impoverished kids can always try and get into one of the new (old) types of grammar schools. However, they will of course have to compete against middle class children who's parents can afford to pay for extra tuition to get their children through the 11-plus exam.

What about Hardship High's entrance exam? 

According to Seldon, middle class children would not be able to apply unless they happen to be in the bottom 25% of the socio-economic groups. Anyhow, these tests will somehow separate those with genuine academic potential to those who have been 'drilled' to pass the 11-plus by being 'far more subtle'. What does this even mean? And will subtler be interpreted to mean easier in the eyes of parents, peers and potential employers? 

And the stigma?

There's already a huge stigma attached to children who claim Free School Meals. Thankfully, this has been reduced through the introduction of electronic payments however many pupils know which of their peers are entitled to a free meal each day. How will children feel going to Hardship High or Council Kid College? Will knowing that you're the best of the bottom 25% fill you will pride and aspiration? 

Seldon also goes on to suggest that his May Schools will eventually lead to 15,000 pupils each year looking to go on to study at university. Even if these pupils do finish Hardship High with a decent set of results doesn't mean they'll want to go to univesity to rack-up 50K worth of debts. Unless the university's he proposes are attached to these schools offer  grants and bursaries for disadvantaged students. Also, how will these schools be viewed by univeristies? After all, they only select from the bottom 25% of children. Disadvantaged children already are disproportionally represented (6%) at Russell Group Universities (Guardian, 2016). These schools could increase this segregation even more. 

How will these schools affect the disadvantaged children?

One of the criticisms of grammar schools is that they often lead to cultural assimilation where 'working-class children are turned into middle-class citizens' (Jackson and Marsden, 1962, p. 15). Historically, many of these children felt disconnected from their communities and friends as they were expected to engage in more middle class arts, sports and culture (Todd, 2014). Seldon also seems to ignore the potential harm which can be caused by Boarding School Syndrome (Schaverien, 2015) which is caused by sending children away from normal family life at a young age. 

What about those children who don't get in?

'These entrance exams would be geared towards whether the child could benefit from an academic school career'. Should every child not be afforded this opportunity? So, what happens to those children who don't get into the new grammar schools, Hardship High Schools, or any of the other schools who decide to convert to selection under the government's proposals? There's an underlying elitism and snobbery here that only grammars and May Schools can provide a rigours and academic education. Seldon might do well to visit many state schools across the country who are managing to do this within very limited budgets. 

Seriously though, where does the money come from?

Seldon claims that the 100 new schools would cost £3bn to build but attempts to justify this by arguing that the money is only for the most able and disadvantaged in society. I'm sure this will go down particularly well with teachers whose schools are facing budget cuts under the government's Unfair Funding Formula. Seldon does, however, suggest each Hardship High School will be attached to an independent school who will be able to 'provide academic enrichment in certain subjects'. I'm sure schools such as Wellington College, who charge up to £37K per year fees, will gladly help these Hardship High Schools as it will protect their charitable status which collectively reduces the public purse by about £250 million in tax each year (Independent, 2016). 

I'm sure the 13th Master of Wellington College meant well when he wrote this article on Friday but his Hardship High Schools won't help to reduce inequality but will lead to further educational segregation and a much worse deal for the majority of poorer children. 

References:

Child Poverty Action Group, 'Child poverty facts and figures' (June 2016). 

Guardian, 'Universities told to raise number of working-class and black students', (February 2016). 

Independent, 'Private schools catering for the global elite are spending lavishly because of their huge UK tax breaks. (10th May 2016)

iNews, 'Sir Anthony Seldon: how we could solve education's inequality problems with just 100 new schools' (3rd March 2017). 

Jackson, B. and Marsden, D. (1962), Education and the Working Class. Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd. 

Todd, S (2014), The People; the rise and fall of the working class. London: John Murray. 

Schaverien, J. (2015), Boarding School Syndrome: The Psychological Trauma of the 'Privileged' Child. Abingdon: Routledge. 

This is the re-working/ writing of a post I wrote yesterday. Realised I've got much more to say about the government's expansion of selection schools. It's coming soon...

Why I still love EduTwitter

EduTwitter can seem like a bit of a dark place at times. Take yesterday for example. That George Monbiot article really seemed to polarise opinion; especially amongst some quarters who, amongst other things, seemed pretty annoyed that someone who isn't a teacher had something to say about the current educational system. For me, there were things I agreed with:

1. Our exams systems is archaic. 
2. The curriculum is too narrow. 
3. The best teachers use character, creativity and inspiration. 
4. Teachers are leaving the profession in their droves.
5. Children love learning. 
6. Forest schools are great. 

And things I disagreed with:

1. Not all teachers 'stuff kids with facts'

2. Schools teach skills that are redundant.

3. The Essa Academy is what we should be aspiring towards. 
4. We should ditch traditional subjects. 

What I came away with is that, yes, the education system needs serious reform. However, we're not going to get from here to there (if that's where we want to be) overnight. I suppose what's really reassuring is that debates are even happening. Ten years ago teachers didn't have such a platform to voice and challenge different views. 

Anyhow, this wasn't really the focus of the post. Having read much of the debate yesterday I was reminded that I am very much guilty of only reading philosophers and ed theorists that confirm my own worldview. So, I asked EduTwitter for a bit of guidance. Within minutes people responded. So, I'd like to thank the following for their help and suggestions:

@mfordhamhistory 

RS Peters

Michael Young

@imagineinquiry 

Kieran Egan

Gert Biesta

@EdSacredProfane

Margaret Archer

Dave Elder-Vass

@GFThommo 

Ranciere

@MrMStuchbery 

Nietzsche 

@complexsoc1

Brent Davis and Dennis Sumara

John Creswell

@sputniksteve

Stephen Gorard

And the less helpful @nickcorston, @gracerobinson46. @chrisrossiter and @@alanwhitfield80 for suggesting I read The Daily Mail......

Again, this evening I asked for a bit more help with a session I'm delivering tomorrow about teaching history through film. Having posted the question 'what's the #BestHistoricalFilm?' I was inundated with awesome suggestions. I don't have the time to list all the responses but would like to thank the following tweeters for some great suggestions:

@memneon
@Sue_Cowley
@ian_bec
@Gwenelope
@DisIdealist
@Wp1Wendy
@Phillallman1
@brighton118
@complexsoc1
@cjs76
@zwalfy
@EYBrofessional
@_PaulHamilton
@SkimStoneTheatr
@DackBlog
@TeaLadyJune
@GlynRogers
@Joga5
@MooreNixie8
@JonHegerty
@kenradical
@NLWallis
@Thembinkosi
@5N_Afzal

Apologies if I've left anyone off the list but trying to write this quickly so I can watch a film! 

Guess what I'm trying to say is that Twitter is still a wonderful place to connect with fellow educators. Promote and challenge ideas and share great practice. It's probably worth remembering that. 

Finally, shameless plug:

If you're interested in joining the #debatED then please get involved on a Tuesday evening between 8.30 - 9pm. 

#debatEd: Process and Purpose

I've been sitting on the idea of hosting a weekly Twitter edu debate for a while now. If I'm being honest, the only thing that's stopped me is the worry that no one would get involved. Yep, just me debating with myself and probably losing in the process. But, in the words of Frank Turner, 'no one gets remembered for the things they didn't do'.......

The process:

#debatED will involve a weekly debate on a Tuesday evening between 8.30 - 9pm where one motion will be debated. I originally thought about proposing two however after a few helpful comments I can see that this is probably too ambitious within 30 minutes. The focus will change each week and might include areas such as funding, leadership, pedagogy, SEND, curriculum etc. To take an arbitrary example, the motion might be 'pupils should not be taught sex education until Year 9'. This will hopefully generate debate with some people arguing for and against but also putting forward alternative narratives. I don't intend for the motions to be controversial per se but I do hope they will promote interesting and challenging debates. 

Once the debate has ended a poll will be created (lasting for 1 hour) asking people to vote for or against the motion. The #debatEd will then be shared via Storify. 

The Purpose:

Every day I follow interesting discussions and debates on Twitter. I just thought it might be worth trying to have a weekly platform where there is focus on one aspect of the wider educational debate. I see this as being quite distinctive from #UKEdChat as it's not about discussing education but rather debating it. That said, it needs to be respectful. This is not to say everyone needs to agree but it'd be good to debate ideas rather than berate people. The main purpose is to stimulate debate around educational issues. There is no political agenda as the @ed_debate account will be politically neutral. Consequently, none of the motions will be reflections of my own beliefs/ values. 

I'd love to see this develop into real face-to-face events. Education is far too important to be left to MPs to debate in their cosy little chamber. It's the people at the chalkface that need to be given a voice and a platform. This will hopefully go some way to providing that. I'd also love for other educators to moderate and propose motions on a range of topics. If that's something you'd like to do then please please do get in touch. 

Anyhow, it would be great to see you getting involved on Tuesday 9th February at 8.30pm. It'll be about budget/ finances however I'm not going to post the motion until 8pm on the day. I could do it sooner but where's the fun in that......

Neoliberalism - The Great Lefty Conspiracy

It's New Year's Day and I'm sat in a pub in Snowdownia. Surrounded by the natural beauty of this glorious landscape I'm attempting to finish a post that I've been meaning to write for a while. To give it some context, it stems from an exchange with one of Twitter's 'Edu Gurus' who claimed that neoliberalism's influence on education was nothing more than a progressive/ lefty conspiracy. I politely beg to differ.......

Neoliberalism has dominated political discourse since the 1980s and has had a devastating impact on many areas of social policy in the United Kingdom (Ball, 2009; Goodson, 2014). Broadly defined, neoliberalism is the belief in minimal state intervention, deregulation, privatisation and individualism (Hursh, 2007). The Laissez Faire economic approach underpins neoliberalism’s commitment to unrestricted and unregulated market economies.  Consequently, the state’s role in providing education, health and security is diminished as individuals are expected to provide for their own social needs (Mouffe, 2005; Davies and Bansel, 2007). This is the antithesis to ‘Civic Welfarism’ which focuses on ‘securing equity through developing approaches to collective rights and needs (e.g. education, health)’ (Gunter, 2016, p. 89). One needs only to look at the situation in the National Health Service where the number of contracts being outsourced to private companies has doubled in the past five years (Campbell, 2016). Similarly, Her Majesty’s Prison Service, has witnessed a steady and gradual handing-over of public-sector assets to private companies (Poyner, 2012). In education, government policy has been driven by a neoliberalist agenda and desire to transform education services into profit-making commodities (Apple, 2006; Davies and Bansel, 2007; Ball, 2009; Lakes and Carter; 2011; Goodson 2014). This has been reflected in the rapid growth in academies and free schools, whose lack of transparency and accountability has led to widespread criticism and has prompted some observers to suggest that they actually increase segregation and hinder social mobility (West, 2014; Benn and Downs, 2016).

According to Benn and Downs (2016), the marketisation of education has become more prevalent in recent years with education businesses permeating many aspects of policy and practice in the United Kingdom. Ball (2009, p. 86) has suggested that this is because ‘education businesses can sell school improvement – offering schools ways of accommodating themselves to the demands of state performativity and the production of new organisational identities’. These privately funded education businesses offer schools training, consultancy, interventions and a plethora of learning ‘solutions’ (Benn and Downs, 2016). A prime example can be seen within the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) marketplace. One of the leaders in this field is Frog Education Ltd. who claim they are ‘helping to re-shape school processes, not just creating efficiency, but improving outcomes’ (www.frogeducation.com). However, schools are paying companies such as Frog Education Ltd. thousands of pounds per year even though the academic impact of using a VLE has not been widely researched (Demian and Morrice, 2012). The VLE market is but one small example, within one area of education, of how businesses are influencing practice in schools, often out of view from the public (Ball, 2009). 

Marketisation of education is by no means only restricted to the United Kingdom. Ball (2009) argues that international consultancy firms now have influence on educational policy on the world stage. For example, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PWC), whose services are now offered worldwide and who have undertaken work for the World Bank and the European Union which has impacted upon education on a global scale (Ball, 2009). Not only are these multinational companies influencing educational policy but concerns have been raised about their financial transparency. Or indeed lack of. Pearson PLC. (https://uk.pearson.com) is one of the leading global educational businesses involved in publishing educational literature as well as providing assessment services for educational institutions and corporations. However, this Public Limited Company has been identified as one of many Financial Times Stock Exchange Companies (FTSE) who have used tax avoidance schemes to maximise profits (Tarek, 2015). It could be argued that profit-making organisations making so much money out of public services have a civic duty to contribute an equitable share back into the system. 

Ben and Downs (2016) argue that the global education reform movement (GERM) has been able to develop an enticing argument that only increased marketisation and competition can remedy failing public education across the world. This has led to a situation where policy is created in one country and then adopted by the ruling classes, vested interest groups and powerful political elites in another (Goodson, 2014). This has been notable between the United Kingdom and the United States where policy borrowing has been commonplace for many years and yet the respective educational systems remain largely unimpressive on an international stage (Benn and Downs, 2016; Whitty, 2016). One of the main problems is that many of the policies being initiated are ‘based on a mix of selective evidence, intuitive prejudice and corporate influence’ (Goodson, 2014, p. 774). Furthermore, globalised policy construction has allowed for corporate entry into the shaping of national curricula.

The marketisation of education has an enormous impact on the curriculum and severe consequences for learning and teaching (Ball, 2003). It has been argued by Davies and Bansel (2007) that the purpose of education has now been transformed to ensure children become dutiful subjects who are able to contribute to the knowledge economy. According to Ball (2009) the increase in private interventions has not had a positive impact on learning. If anything, the increased intervention is detrimental to the creation of a socially just educational system. Consequently, marketisation is increasing segregation in schools as they are placed into league tables and judged on every aspect of their provision (Coldron et al., 2010). While defendants of neoliberalism would argue that increased competition means greater choice for parents and pupils, in reality the main beneficiaries of the system are affluent middle-class families who are more likely to find ways of ensuring their children attend the higher achieving schools (Coldron et al., 2010). It has been argued that this segregation is fueling a social injustice and condemning some children to a sub-standard education (McLaren, 1998; Hargreaves, 2003; Benn and Downs, 2016). Indeed, ‘research consistently shows that reforms have failed to deliver on the promises of educational equity for students across social class, race, language, ethnicity, and disability’ (Gurn, 2011, p. 144).

Francis and Mills (2012) argue that within the neoliberalist educational landscape there is a real urgency to develop policy and practice that can contribute to socially just education. However, the idea of equality and social justice are at odds with neoliberal dogmas as individualism usurps collectivism (Adams, 2013). The obsession with judgements and measures is providing less time for teachers to provide opportunities for their pupils to become more creative and critical in their thinking and learning. Creativity and criticality are too often forced out of the curriculum in favour of subjects such as science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) as they make excellent bedfellows for neoliberalism and the drive towards a knowledge economy (McLaren, 1998; Adams, 2013). Shor (1992) argues that the curriculum is where a dominant culture or ideology can either be maintained or challenged. For neoliberalism, it would certainly appear that the curriculum ebbs towards the former. According to McLaren (1998, p. 6) this is geared towards ‘providing students with the requisite technical expertise to enable them to find a place within the corporate hierarchy’ (McLaren, 1998, p. 6). It has been suggested that one way to counter this development would be to develop a curriculum focusing on STEAM where the Arts are as equally as important as the sciences (BFI, 2016). Adams (2013) has suggested that by removing subjects that promote criticality and dissent, governments may very well be supressing democracy. One need only to look at the current provision for political education to see how it has moved away from a critical focus to something more akin to civic nationalism. A political education should not be 'good for the economy, but because it is the necessary foundation for the life of the citizen (Turner, 2009, p. 293).

The ideological assault on education has had alarming impact on teachers whose ‘dreams, desires and voices are often silenced’ (McLaren, 1998). Teachers’ autonomy has been undermined as they are forced to adopt curricula, pedagogies and assessments determined by someone else (Hursh, 2007). This erosion of teacher autonomy is having a significant impact on retention with more early-career teachers leaving the profession within five years than ever before (Benn and Downs, 2016). Goodson (2014) has argued that this has also led to teachers becoming more compliant and less radical in their pedagogical approach as teachers are expected to be apolitical rather than taking an open stand against inequality and injustice (McLaren, 1998). Throughout professionalised education, the role of the teacher has become one that is viewed through a neoliberalist discursive lens resulting in constant measuring and judgement of teaching practice and teacher ‘performativity’ (Benn and Downs, 2016). As Ball (2003, p. 217) explains ‘performativity is a technology, a culture and a mode of regulation that employs judgements, comparisons and displays as means of incentive, control, attrition and change based on rewards and sanctions’ (Ball, 2003, p.217). The result of increased performativity has led to a weakening of teachers’ powers which ultimately has a negative impact on children's learning (Apple, 2006).

It could also be argued that the competitive and individualistic nature of neoliberalism is being transferred to children in schools.  Throughout education children are encouraged to compete with each other through merit stickers, higher grades and academic and sporting awards (Kanpol, 1999). There are also external pressures from the inspectorate and league tables which are, often unknowingly, passed on from teachers to pupils. In a recent conference paper Burgess et al., (2016) suggested that offering direct financial incentives to children from disadvantaged backgrounds can help to improve their attainment in subjects such as mathematics and science. This approach is at one with neoliberalism by attaching monetary value to learning. Essentially this viewpoint further strengthens the arguments that ‘to support a market economy we need to encourage everyone to think of themselves as individuals who always act in ways that maximise their own interests’ (Apple, 2006, p. 23). Furthermore, it instils in young people an ideological view that the main purpose of education is an economic one. This model of education is very much based on creating workers who can contribute to the economy rather than thoughtful citizens who are more concerned with human wellbeing and environmental concerns (McLaren, 1998; Hursh, 2007).

One of the main achievements of neoliberalism has been its ability to convince people that there is no ideological alternative (Hursh, 2007). The neoliberalist model permeates many areas of educational policy and practice with ‘market fundamentalism and soulless standardisation’ having a hugely negative impact on childrens’ learning (Hargreaves, 2003, p. 160). To develop children's capacity to think critically can act as a buffer against ideological indoctrination. Criticality and creativity can also serve as ‘the antithesis of the crushing performativity and segregation of market-led education’ (Adams, 2013, p. 249). More importantly, however, developing children's political literacy can help them to realise that ‘even the world’s most dominant political ideologies can be challenged, and their actions are capable of making a positive difference’ (McLaren, 1998, p. 6).

HAPPY NEW YEAR, y'all!!