Guest Post: Commentary on One Nation Recovery Papers

This challenging paper is a timely contribution by One Nation to the developing debate about future changes in education policy. The Future of Education written by Flick Drummond and Cheryl Mackrory and published by the One Nation group of MPs – a discussion paper which looks beyond the current Covid crisis.

The authors, quite new to Parliament, are members of a group of around 100 MPs showing support for a position which could be described as soft right in terms of the current Conservative government's administration. Neither the Secretary of State for Education, Gavin Williamson, nor the Schools Minister, Nick Gibb, are members of the group.

Government Legislation

The paper shows support for much government legislation such as the commitment to spending over £3.6 billion helping families with child care support. However the relative disadvantage of a third of 4 and 5 year olds is noted and support for the Government is qualified by a recognition that there is still much more to do to achieve true levelling up in this area. The Government's provision of pupil premium finance is also welcomed but once again there is hesitation and a recommendation for the future. The use of the money is considered excellent if it is used to help raise attainment throughout the school - it is stressed that schools should have the responsibility for promoting overall standards. 

It is understandable that the paper should applaud existing legislation but too often there is a lack of detail in considering the practical implications of such action and the possible outcomes of proposals. This is particularly true of the fewer, more radical, policy changes which are put forward. 

Children Learning

The paper includes much advice regarding the growth and development of children which it has to be assumed is directed towards practitioners, local authorities and universities. Only indirectly is there an attempt to influence the overall direction of Government policies. On the whole this advice, particularly regarding the early years, is sound but there is one significant respect in which the authors' lack of professional training and experience leads to fundamental error. Throughout there is an assumption that 'early development' and 'formal learning' are separate entities. Of course the reality is that children's growth, and hence education, is a continuous developmental process from birth onwards and it is unfortunate that the thinking revealed by the paper is confined to the administrative divisions which are applied to the education system. The lack of continuity across the stages and the difficulty in achieving smooth transition are issues which should have been addressed. The phrase 'teachers have a duty to ensure our children .... are ready for primary school' reveals the fundamental weakness in a paper which seeks to look forward.

Parents

The Early Years section, defined as children younger than four, contains much useful advice concerning the upbringing of young children. However there are few specific recommendations beyond the need to raise the level of the workforce's skills and improve their conditions of service.

There is a focus upon disadvantaged families and a good quality home learning environment is considered essential to moderating the impact on cognitive and socioemotional difficulties. The barriers which inhibit progress are outlined in some detail but there are all too few practical suggestions of action. One slightly outlandish idea is to enlist the services of 'celebrity' parents who can model good practice. Not to recommend the funding and expansion of family centres is a major weakness. This confirms an unwillingness to challenge existing government actions and, with particular relevance to this section, the persistent and serious underfunding of local government. Generalities include the need to extend facilities for children's play.

The development of a BEd/PGCE which is focussed on the early years is one of the more decisive recommendations and this is discussed below under universities.

Schools

The quality of teaching is seen as the most important lever in improving attainments although this is somewhat overshadowed by an adjacent statement, unaccompanied by any evidence, that good leadership by a headteacher can turn around any school regardless of the structure or type of school. It is suggested that retired teachers should be encouraged to return to service and that good practice might be shared more on the lines of the London Challenge. Two contentious proposals are that there should be career advice in primaries and that the length of the school day should be extended. Perhaps the most radical proposal is that additional subject specialists should be added to the staffing of primary schools. The latter would be welcomed by the primary sector but it is likely that practitioners would prefer that such teachers should work alongside them rather than through a subject timetable which would undermine the core strength of the primary sector resting as it does on the class teacher's responsibility for a class throughout the working day. It is this which promotes the close knowledge of the child and his/her family and encourages a fluidity of curriculum that best meets the individual needs of learners.

Local Education Authorities

A restructuring of the school year is recommended. School holidays should be spaced through the year so not all families would have to take expensive holidays at the same time. Local authorities in regions could work together so that schools take different holiday dates. It is significant that this issue is approached from the parental point of view rather than the best interests of pupils. and there is no recognition that a number of LEAs have already experimented with such a restructuring. 

There is strong support for the ending of GCSE and the removal of external examinations at the age of 16, Concern is expressed that students who are relatively unsuccessful academically often experience a strong sense of failure at a time when they will be entering a further two years of education. A Baccalaureate-type of education qualification at the age of 18 could be either academic or vocational or an apprenticeship.

References to LEAs are muted and there is mention of Learning Trusts such as the trust now abandoned by Hackney. However there is no recommendation and it might be inferred that there is no immediate threat of a further reduction in the educational role of local authorities.

Universities

Regret is indicated that we have moved away from specialised teacher training colleges with rigorous programmes covering pedagogy and child development. This may be a coded reservation regarding the government's introduction of school centred training. The renewed inclusion of child development is welcomed. This has too often been minimised through an instrumental focus on classroom practice. 

The Chartered College of Teaching is seen as a welcome resource and should be promoted further to raise the status of teaching as a profession. 

Government control of university courses is ensured by the DfE through the maintenance of a list of qualifications that must be met by early years practitioners. The paper recommends the provision of a BEd/PGCE specifically focussed on early years. This should have the same entry requirements as primary courses with a similar training bursary and the award of Qualified Teacher Status. It is be commended that child psychology and child development should be included. This is one of the most practical and significant recommendations made by the paper. If implemented there could be real benefits for children and the education system as a whole.

Recommendations deserving serious consideration

It is argued that entry to school in the September following the a child's 4th birthday results in some children being 'school ready' and some not. Again this rests on the false dichotomy that learning by under fives is significantly different in character to 'formal schooling'. However the paper's recommendation of entry at 6 is largely related to the later entry preferred by other developed nations. The even later start at 7 in top performing PISA countries such as Finland and Singapore is disregarded. The recommendation is slightly modified by being couched as follows, 'perhaps a later start of formal schooling and an extension of the Early Years curriculum to the age of 6 would be more appropriate'. The major weakness in this proposal is that there is little consideration of what would be a major requirement in terms of staffing and resourcing --- the provision of nursery education for the children under 6. 

A question is asked,' Do we need SATs and should there be more flexibility'? The paper prefers Ofsted for the evaluation of schools and says that rather than having SATs, it would be better to evaluate a pupil's progress rather than national testing at 11. The recommendation is that testing should be designed as a tool for feedback to individual teachers and schools rather than being used to monitor and penalise schools. There is a reference to coursework as a way of monitoring how the individual is performing. Once again there is little indication of the implications of such a radical shift in government policy and at present there are no signs that this would be considered by ministers.

Proposed response by parents and teachers

In welcoming the One Nation paper as a material contribution to debate about the post Covid future of education it is suggested that associations of primary teachers and parents should highlight three of the proposals which have been set out. These would be most likely to have significantly beneficial effects on early years and primary education. Support by practitioners, even when accompanied by appropriate reservations and consideration of wider implications, could accelerate the necessary transition from debate to Government action.

The raising of the level of training and status of early education by the introduction of focussed BEd/PGCE courses with such provision matching current primary courses.

Entry to school at the age of 6.

A major change in the function of SATs.

John Coe, December 2020