On the 12th July the Institute for Government, NESTA and the Design Council hosted a seminar on the future of education in light of the Big Society agenda.
On the panel were Christine Gilbert (Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills), Sir Alasdair MacDonald (Head teacher, Morpeth School), and Peter Lauener, Chief Executive of the Young People’s Learning Agency.
This note provides an overview of the discussion.
The coalition government’s aims for education
There is a fundamental disbelief within the coalition government that the best education system can be designed centrally. Head teachers, parents, and pupils know local educational needs better than Whitehall and therefore, by devolving power to the groups they will be able to design a more effective education system. An education system which engages with, and is accountable to, students and parents represents a change in paradigm which is why not all the details are sketched in.
Big Society in education
The school’s involvement in the community is important. For example, in Peterborough, teenage pregnancy rates were addressed through a network of different organisations including NHS Peterborough, the local councils, community organisations and schools using social marketing campaigns on internet sites Facebook and YouTube. The argument was made that charities and community groups could offer a more rounded education than just academic attainment. As a result, schools need to recognise and encourage other parts of the community to education children and address social outcomes that look beyond educational achievement.
What might local accountability look like?
The growing importance of information
There is great public appetite for information on school performance, which is reflected in the fact that the Ofsted website gets 7-8 million hits a day. However, in a marketised schools system which depends on the public making informed choices, the role for independent information potentially becomes even more important. As a result, whilst the inspectorate’s role in promoting improvement and keeping the secretary of state informed about the quality of service will still remain important, providing information for parents to make informed choices will become a priority. There may also be a greater role for intermediary bodies and community run websites in driving local accountability in a way which suits local interests.
The management of risk in a devolved system
There was suggestion that the state had tried to manage too many risks and thus had stifled the education system. There may be a withdrawal of inspection from some areas if there is public acceptance of the level of risk. There has already been change in this area, for example the reduced inspection of outstanding schools, and grading the level of inspection in relation to performance data.
However, what is not so clear is what happens in cases of failure. If there is limited progress in an area once central government has stepped back, there may be pressure on government to step back in and encourage change. It is not yet clear whether central government wants to avoid this hoki coki. In addition, if the government does want to avoid intervention in cases of failure, it is not yet clear how knee jerk reactions can be avoided. One suggestion was that cases of failure should be met with more decentralisation and more competition.
The role of Local Authorities
One of the questions addressed by the speakers was the future role for Local Authorities as power is devolved to individual schools. A suggestion was that Local Authorities could champion pupil interest and act as a check on producer [school] interest, as well as picking up residual elements such as admissions. The precise role is yet to be defined and there is a need to think about the “beef” that Local Authorities could provide in the future.
One potential role may be in bringing Big Society elements into the education system by, for example, removing bureaucratic and legal barriers community organisations face in collaborating with schools and by encouraging community coordination in areas where social capital is low. In addition, there may be a role for Local Authorities in regulating the market system for schools.
A critique
Empower professionals?
The argument was made that head teachers already have a large amount of power and whether more power is needed, or even wanted, was questioned. Giving head teachers more power will allow them to change the “conditions of service” such as aspects of the curriculum. However, many professionals within schools like to have clear conditions of service and embrace the minimum standards ensured by the national curriculum.
Unequal devolution of power may have a negative impact
There is some professional fatigue with the apparent tendency of every new government to “start over” and instigate structural change without a high degree of challenge. Challenge to structural change in the education system was raised through the discussion. It may be the case that “outstanding” schools rush for academy status, but the impact this will have on the other schools has not been fully tested. Schools should be thought of as existing in an ecosystem where change in one school can have an impact on other schools. The opportunity cost on the whole school system of targeting resources at a particular school needs to be carefully considered.