Still no response from Michael Gove
I have given up hope that Michael Gove will reply to the questions I posed to him – on his invitation – last month. I’d like to say this is because he is on the run from my brilliant interrogation but I suspect it’s just that I’m not worth bothering with (even if other bits of the Conservative Party are quoting me!).
But I will keep nagging away: because I know a bit about education, because it matters, because I am fascinated by the gap between the rhetorical attractiveness of the Gove agenda and its less convincing basis in concrete policy. Also, given how highly disparaging the Conservatives are about what is going on now in most schools it is only fair that they should have their own ideas put under critical scrutiny.
Today and later in the week I want briefly to explore two recurrent critiques in Michael Gove’s pronouncements. The first is the allegation of ‘dumbing down’; the second is of onerous or inappropriate national interference in schools by Labour ministers, particularly through exam targets.
On dumbing down MG has been very clear that he wants to set the bar higher. Pupils will be discouraged from taking ‘easier’ subjects; examinations will be more rigorous; more use of streaming and setting will encourage schools more explicitly to separate the able from the less able. I don’t agree with this approach for reasons I have described before. But the point I want to make today is that the Conservatives need to be clear about the implications of this policy. There are three interpretations:
a) The Conservatives think that raising the bar and forcing more schools to do what works best will swiftly increase the number of pupils achieving a significantly higher standard. The problem with this is that most international evidence suggests it is very hard in mature school systems like ours to achieve this kind of step change in absolute attainment. If the bar rises quickly the number reaching it will, at least in the short to medium term, have to fall. Also, the Conservatives’ ability to force schools to do anything will be limited by their other commitment which is to free schools from central interference and let parents set up and manage their own schools. As an example, MG has been clear that he is very unenthusiastic about competency based curricula like the RSA’s Opening Minds but over 200 school have voluntarily signed up to OM. Will the Conservatives force them to abandon an approach which so many schools say works for them?
b) The Conservatives recognise that raising the bar will mean fewer pupils reach it but they see this as a price worth paying. If so then the Conservatives are abandoning a long held cross-party commitment to increase participation rates in post compulsory education. There is nothing wrong with this policy (the Treasury would certainly be keen on it), but it is a radical break not just from UK but from international practice. If the Conservatives are intent upon it they should say so explicitly.
c) The Conservatives want to raise the academic bar and also maintain the trajectory of high participation. They will do this by more clearly distinguishing between those with academic and those with vocational abilities. The problems with this are, first, that as far as I can see, the Conservatives don’t yet have a policy for school age vocational education. Second, they will need to explain how they intend to overcome the historic failure in England to develop a vocational route into post compulsory education with the same status as the academic. The Conservatives are clearly intent on doing away with diplomas (they said the other day that they will not count them in assessing school performance), but we don’t know what – if anything – they intend to replace them with.
The reason ministers, schools, and universities have ‘lowered the bar’ on the academic performance needed to get into higher education is that we have wanted to increase participation rates (at post 16 and into HE) faster than we have been able to increase underlying levels of academic attainment. There isn’t much evidence that this has damaged the performance of the top 10% (in most international surveys it is among this group that England scores highly). The policy has arguably been unfortunate for the bottom 40% as it means that not going into HE is now a bigger hurdle to employment than before (for example, you can’t now become a nurse without a degree).
The group that will be most impacted by the Conservative reforms is that which has benefited from the expansion in post 16 participation, a group largely but not exclusively comprising middle class children. So unless the Conservatives can find a magic bullet to achieve a substantial and rapid increase in underlying ability their policy will presumably make it harder for above average (but not brilliant) middle class children to get to college. This is a policy that I think Sir Humphrey would have called ‘bold’.
Comments
7 Comments on Still no response from Michael Gove
-
Adam Fox on
Tue, 18th Aug 2009 1:08 pm
-
Liam Murray on
Tue, 18th Aug 2009 2:58 pm
-
Paul Nash on
Tue, 18th Aug 2009 4:01 pm
-
carl allen on
Tue, 18th Aug 2009 7:40 pm
-
Martin Robinson on
Tue, 18th Aug 2009 9:28 pm
-
Tessy Britton on
Tue, 18th Aug 2009 10:04 pm
-
Martin Robinson on
Tue, 18th Aug 2009 10:36 pm
It’s great to see a thoughtful response to the Conservative’s education plans which would, it seems, see a smaller education sector. Fewer post 16 places, fewer teachers/lecturers. The Treasury will be happy!
So the next point must be that if none of these young people are going into further or higher education where are they going…..
“The reason ministers, schools, and universities have ‘lowered the bar’ on the academic performance needed to get into higher education is that we have wanted to increase participation rates (at post 16 and into HE) faster than we have been able to increase underlying levels of academic attainment.”
That’s quite a striking admission Matthew – and evidence of that mindset that considers increased participation an indisputable ‘good’ regardless of the quality or purpose of that participation. However lengthy the process might be I’d argue that policies focused on that ‘underlying attainment’ (rather than moving the goalposts) are ultimately more in both the child’s and society’s interest.
I agree it needs articulated better but if Gove and co. indicate a shift in that direction they’ll have gone a long way to winning my support…..
I started teaching in1974. I remained at the chalk face for 15 years before joining the advisory service. After a further 10 years, all enthusiasm beaten from me I turned by back on it to do other things in local government.
My views on education and learning have been largely unchanged in all of that time. A phase of retrenchment in ‘old values and styles’ will not improve either schools or learning. Making success in education harder by raising the bar will not increase its value. Devaluaing the achievements of the many in order to revalue to achievements of the few will not make this nation any more competative.
Education must be valued for itself. Achievement must be applauded regardless of it’s magnitude. Most of all we must recognise that the right to an equitable access to a lifetime of learning is a fundemental human right.
Until Mr Gove and his colleagues lose this Old Etonian approach to education and realise the value that every individual can bring to our society they will never achieve social cohesion nor will they reap the benefits of a society that works to improve itself.
Not much talk here about raising the children and the 80:20 rule on developing ability for a variety of children and the situations they find themselves in.
Talk of bar movement avoids the necessity to properly train each child.
The argument about ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ subjects is, potentially, an incendiary and divisive one. I tackle this in my blog post: http://blog.yesassess.co.uk/2009/08/big-endian-or-little-endian.html
However, Michael Gove’s insistence about moving away from the obsession about students achieving 5 A-C grades should be applauded.
I would like to see if the RSA could organise a civilised and thoughtful debate with thinkers from ‘both sides’ to see if some constructive dialogue can be opened and maintained between the protagonists, after all future generations deserve nothing less.
If there is anything I could do to help this occur, or to just take part, then consider the offer made.
‘Raising the academic bar’ as a concept is well worth debating. There is nothing at all wrong with wanting to see improvements in achievement – but how improvement is measured is not as simple as sometimes described, and it could be argued that it’s most complex forms reveal intellectual, practical or creative capacity.
In the US they have recently launched The National Testing Survey which aims to discuss new testing methods. One of their main points is that teachers teach to the test, and an increase in the sophistication of the testing, should bring deeper teaching methods and curriculum. (More below)
On the subject of Opening Minds, my own belief is that Opening Minds and similar teaching mechanisms, that enhance the metacognitive self-monitoring capabilities of learners, could represent future educational development, regardless of new political frameworks.
============================
http://testingsurvey.us/
“BEYOND FACTS AND FORMULAS
Is it possible to design reliable, objective tests that do a good job assessing skills like critical thinking, problem solving, and analytical writing?
Judging from recent contributions to scholarly journals, educational testing experts are developing a range of promising approaches to assessment that go beyond facts and formulas.”
@ Tessy: where you say, “One of their main points is that teachers teach to the test, and an increase in the sophistication of the testing, should bring deeper teaching methods and curriculum,” I wholeheartedly agree with you. That is why, at YesAssess, we believe it is essential to assess skills and competencies in a way that doesn’t distort a student’s education by teaching to the test. We prefer a subtle and useful assessment that gives considered information to each individual, the school and other interested parties. From this, informed changes can occur to teaching and learning in both the formal and informal curriculum.
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
RSA Comment- RSA Projects Blogs
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.