Video: Levelling Up

Richard Arrowsmith sets out the possibilities for improving our schools.

Explore Richard’s ideas further in his article mourning the passing of Sir Ken Robinson

Thinking of Sir Ken Robinson

The death of Ken Robinson at the early age of 70 is a great loss. He is not a household name but, rather like Tim Brighouse, his ideas have meant a lot to people in education. He tried to work with both Labour and Conservative governments but was unable to persuade them of the benefits of what he termed ‘creative education’. Sadly, this did not appear very prominently on either of their lists as it threatened the control they were trying to exercise over teaching and teachers.

What a mess we have made of the twenty first century. It has been such a poor start to a new millennium. It seems so little time ago that I was writing eagerly to various people and organisations with thoughts about the Labour Party’s vision of a National Education Service to match the NHS. Alas poor NHS! Alas poor NES! How far backward we seem to have gone since then.

Our virus-stricken times keep throwing up anguished cries that we must not go back to the way things were. Today is undoubtedly an opportunity to reassess things, but the only thinking about education seems to be about how and when to get children back to school. No one is talking – and certainly not thinking – about what they will do when they get there! In modern parlance, state education is not ‘in a good place’.

If we ignore the famous rumours about back of fag packets in taxis, the last attempt at serious thinking was Kenneth Baker’s Education Reform Act in 1988. In the 32 years since then we have seen seventeen different Ministers of Education. If you take out Gillian Shepherd, David Blunkett and Michael Gove who did eleven years between them, the other fourteen barely averaged eighteen months in office. Even the Labour government’s famous slogan ‘education, education, education’ produced seven ministers during its time in office. It is not difficult to draw conclusions about priorities from these statistics. The list contains very few with any meaningful experience in education or known interest in it. This neglect is shameful.

Much of the 1988 Act focussed on organisation, management and control. A national curriculum took away teachers’ key function of inspiring curriculum development and content and required them merely to deliver it Headteachers had to juggle with new financial and staffing responsibilities to compete with their role as educational leaders. An inspection regime grew up which teachers quickly came to see as antipathetic, reporting to parents and the press directly and not offering training or support which might have been more helpful at a time of great change. An obsession with data transformed every school and became more important than anything else in assessing how good a school was. The underpinning ethos was, of course, for schools to compete with each other instead of sharing expertise and ideas. This resulted in some schools becoming aggressive in their self-promotion and putting limits on options and children’s choice in order to ensure maximum points and results. Where money was limited, many heads and governors quickly learned that more pupils equal more money in the budget. As this harsh new regime unfolded, ministers looked to other countries to see what worked well and there were some failed attempts to introduce ideas which depended on national contexts and history more than educational wisdom.

Seen in this light it is possible to view the Baker changes as detrimental especially as there have been so few attempts to achieve independent evaluation of the national curriculum, Ofsted and the use of data in schools. These are houses built on sand with no ‘building regs’. Certainly since then, political arguments within education have held sway over educational issues and expertise.

One is tempted to stray into contentious areas by asking why there has been so little new and radical thinking in education, envisaging the schools of the future and how reading, writing, learning factual information and using technology may need to change considerably to keep up. Could it be that most teachers, parents, administrators and politicians feel that, broadly speaking, the English state education system cannot be much improved? Perish the thought, but could it be that there are politicians who would not want to see private education challenged by a greatly improved state sector? We still have a colossal group of people of 65 and over whose education was either by definition second-rate (i.e. the 80% to 85% who didn’t make it to grammar schools) or was disrupted by poorly managed changeovers to comprehensive education. We are not a race which thinks about politics other than in tribal and cliched ways fed by strongly partisan media. The cost of this is very clear in our strongly divided society today. Has the case for comprehensive education ever been won? Why, when there is no longer any data-specific reasons for the existence of grammar schools, do we continue to feel nostalgic about them and want them back? Given that we cannot easily change some of these massive obstacles, is it not the responsibility of governments to provide leadership and ideas and seek consensus instead of imposing untried and dogmatic changes?

I well remember, as a young head of department in Clwyd in the 1970s, the reply given by Keith Evans, our CEO when asked for his opinion on the state of education in Clwyd. “I wouldn’t like to say about education,” he replied drily, “but there’s an awful lot of teaching going on.” Until today’s challenging times, there has scarcely been a moment when there was a will to stop the bus and question whether the vehicle and the destination were right for the passengers. Do we dare to ask now?

There is a marvellous moment in ‘A very British coup’, when Harry Perkins, the newly elected Labour prime minister who is about to board the train to take him to London, is asked by a reporter ‘Are you going to abolish first class, Prime Minister?’ ‘No’, he retorts, quick as a flash, ‘I am going to abolish second class.’

We need a 21st century education policy which ‘levels up’ the general population and leads to an electorate which has access to life-long learning by which it has become well educated and well-informed If this ever happens, we have got to confront the issue of how the deep-rooted class system which does not serve us well, has long been a brake on education. Vested interest has been desperate to preserve it. Equality of access is such an important challenge and major change of minds and institutions is the only way to achieve it

There are all sorts of statistics about the dominance of the route through private schools to Oxbridge and on to the top influential jobs in the country. There are always calls from the political left to abolish private education but it wouldn’t be necessary if, like Harry Perkins, we could succeed in abolishing second-class education.

Have you ever watched University Challenge and marvelled at how students taking sciences at Oxbridge can spot a Mahler symphony within seconds, recognise and name a pre-Raphaelite painting the next minute, link a line of poetry to its writer, name and quote American sociologists of the 1930s and picture the family trees of medieval monarchs? The other team’s captain may well be doing a PhD in English, but she can answer complex maths questions, appear to know the periodic table off by heart, be conversant with the Solar System as well as mammals of Tasmania.

How do they do it? It cannot all be pub quizzes. While the comprehensive school route produces some prodigiously able and well socially balanced individuals, it is hard to deny that the elite route has a cultural roundedness and breadth which is admirable and desirable if we want to see these qualities spread across a much wider population.

A serious government would bring both sides together, get them to park their prejudices and sit down together to look at the ingredients of success in both systems with a view to making them more widespread and thus improving society. It seems a monumental challenge which can only lead to uncomfortable truths and seemingly impossible ways forward, but we must try. To make it a little easier, I want to consider ways in which comprehensive education can change radically before looking at the hot potato of selection by wealth.

Looked at objectively – and ignoring the shadow of private education hanging over it – there is still much to commend about state education. More than half the students achieve good to outstanding academic outcomes and are on a progression route to more specialised academic or vocational areas. Students are overwhelmingly compliant – more so when handled well – and many children whose home lives leave things to be desired experience patience, kindness, people taking time with them and showing good examples of behaviour and socialising. Teachers may be weary and frustrated but they remain a well-motivated and good-hearted set of people – with exceptions of course. Parents generally have good experiences of school. A generation ago when comprehensive education was much maligned in a hostile press, a national survey found that most parents up and down the country were aware that comprehensive education had its problems but felt happy that their own particular school was a good one and was doing well!

But now, let us look back at that shadow. The 6% or so who do not use the state system appear to have a much better education. The school sites might have their own swimming pool or a fully equipped drama studio. Their extensive grounds open the door to a much wider range of sports Their debating society welcomes national figures to trigger new thinking and knowledge. Famous musicians come and perform in their concert hall and their school visits take them to the four corners of the world. Good for them. We would all like to do the same. Our children are as good as these. So what is the real issue here? Are they staffed by better teachers? Is it about envy? Is it about fairness? Should we not allow wealth to purchase such advantage? I suspect that all these thoughts lead to dead ends.

For me the real issue is to ask why we have chosen not to endow all schools or clusters of schools in this way. OK, money! I know. But is there a darkness somewhere in this easy response? Do the elite want the rest to catch them up? When a government promises idly to ‘level up’ have they subconsciously drawn a line where the process will stop? The impact of the 6% in adulthood on the top jobs nationally and even internationally is out of all proportion. When they leave school, they move seamlessly into a lifelong club which protects them. Their contacts are ubiquitous Their reach extends to every corner. What is the point in being a member of an exclusive elite if everyone else has the same chance of success?

Like Harry Perkins, I would like to abolish second class! What better investment is there in our nation’s future? I have reached retirement having not seen continuous improvement in public life and facilities. Is it not a worthwhile aim for 21st century governments to see the lot of all its citizens improve during their lifetime?

What might it look like if state education were genuinely first-class so that it injected new life into the now meaningless phrase ‘world class’? What needs addressing most?

I remember Tony Blair musing that it is difficult to prioritise when everything is equally important and urgent. For me, everything on this list is important. Some are achievable with determination and not much change. Others require a revolution in thinking.

1. Pupil motivation

2. Curriculum diversity

3. compulsory v voluntary and mixed age learning

4. home-based learning

5. big increase in cultural opportunities

6. smaller classes

7. timing of the school day

Pupil motivation

I wonder how often meetings about this have been held in the corridors of power? In seventeen years and two headships, I can hardly think of anything which was designed to improve pupil motivation. Yet every teacher knows there is an elephant in the corner in many classrooms. A significant minority of students are not switched on by many areas of the curriculum. It is so apparent that learning to learn and enjoying it is the Holy Grail of educating a child. I claim no expertise in early years education, but it seems to me odd that children have to spend their time in school learning facts and skills which adults have determined in advance as being important – nay essential for them. They learn to fail very early on in Britain. Even if they pick up a little on the way through primary, the secondary transition is often a point where some go backwards again and find the environment hostile. With a mindset on data targets, some secondary schools are quickly into setting which suits the able and self-motivated children well, but creates an underclass at the same time. The problem of poor motivation is partly self-imposed and partly deeply rooted in society and family life. The latter is much harder to deal with though a National Education Service could do much to improve the self-esteem and motivation of young adults who were themselves demotivated at school and now find themselves as parents who fear that their children’s lot will be the same as theirs. Lifelong learning for adults is not on anyone’s list at the moment sadly. The former, however, can be addressed if we rethink our priorities for early learning initially, scrap all the nonsense about data and targets and engage children more in active learning, play and creative activities rather than confusing them with a diet of facts and concepts. There is a massive volume of work already done by experts waiting for ministers to listen, but they will have to detox from the achievement and data agenda before their ears, eyes and hearts can be open to some good old-fashioned common sense.

A personal view on curriculum diversity: the National Curriculum was always a hindrance which would inevitably lead to mediocrity. It was known among some colleagues as the cure to which there was no known disease. And yet, 30 years later, we still take the view that children , be they in Penzance or Penrith, must all learn the same things despite significant differences in the regional situations in which they live. Local history, geography and employment should be more important. The dominance of subject groups in teaching was always an easy choice, but a more integrated curriculum would be more relevant, would make more connections in students’ minds and broaden teachers’ horizons increasing the need for them to work with other subject disciplines. At the moment it is far too easy for teachers to be ‘an island entire of itself’. There was a brief moment when cross-curricular themes like economic awareness and citizenship were floated but by this time, teachers were so tied up in knots they couldn’t take any more on. It was too big and complex an area just to be tacked on the end of the subject linear requirements. I accept that teaching English across the curriculum is a daunting concept, but there would be easier places to start. We briefly and successfully used the RSA competences curriculum in KS3 where more emphasis was placed on skills acquired. Alas. The data steamroller put an end to that. We cannot even ensure that our children can all swim or ride a bike safely. I haven’t even mentioned vocational education; an area where there have been so many wasted starts and ill-considered structures. Let them all do geography GCSE instead.

Compulsory versus voluntary education is an unexplored area. Some would even scoff at the idea. Yet we expect children to learn in ways, situations and circumstances which we would reject as adults. We would want choice of subjects, choice within subjects, choice of time and place where learning is attempted. Is this impossible for schools? Try it in small ways. Introduce a ‘third session’ at lunchtime or after school and see how many will sign on for new activities: art appreciation, law, additional technology projects, poetry, Italian, first aid, dance. I know from experience that this works, increases motivation and enjoyment and often leads to better results. We even once taught drama in one week blocks over five terms to GCSE with extraordinary results. OK – it needed some careful management but, nothing ventured, nothing gained. In the process of venturing down this road, it is also worth allowing the idea of mixed-age learning to develop, not only among children but involving adults too. We have allowed ourselves to believe that children can only learn certain things at certain times and we know that to be nonsense in our hearts. Once again the barriers are too great to think about it.

I wondered if the isolation enforced by Covid-19 might have prised open the door on the issue of home-based learning which had previously resided in the ‘too hard’ file. We now know that some teachers in some subjects in some schools have sufficiently grasped the potential of the internet and wider technology to begin a transformation of the teaching process. A good amount of distance learning has occurred. We have yet to evaluate how successful it has been (is anyone at the DfES on the case? Thought not.) Some children have missed a lot of schooling, others not so much, Some have discovered the motivation to learn for themselves – the Holy Grail referred to above. How long have we had computers? Why hasn’t this happened on a large scale sooner? Possible answers include the cost of staffing, training and equipment needed. Maybe it hasn’t occurred to any of the seventeen ministers passing through the DfES. What would children do in the classroom if they had already done it at home?

How, in such a crowded curriculum, can we find more space for cultural awareness for all children? A recent television programme studied Senegal in some detail and many people there felt that the country owed much of its stability as a new African nation to its emphasis on the arts, especially music, street art and dance. Well, Britain is not Senegal and does not have 60% of its population as young people, but there is somewhere an unpleasant lingering idea that culture and academic elitism are two sides of the same coin. Yet I remember the impact of having a large-scale exhibition of the art of a 20th century painter available in school for a month or so. It was very rewarding to see children talking to each other and to staff as they stood gazing at the large images. I can recall a hall full of adults and children electrified by a visiting group of Uganda children teaching us their dances. I was always attracted by the concept of ‘Greats’ as once offered by Oxbridge colleges and I feel there is a place – but not a space – for such motivating input to be made. It could, at least, be a compulsory component in the Sixth Form! That would be better than nothing, If ‘levelling up’ means anything, and I am not sure that it does, a huge increase in cultural visits and visitors to schools would have to be part of it to begin to close the gap on the private sector.

I am aware of research which indicates that class size does not make significant difference in children’s learning. I am not sure who commissioned such research but if you ask anyone what they think the key benefit of private education is, they would probably say smaller classes. It is obvious. But throughout our lifetime, governments have conspired not to fund smaller classes. Some tried to limit class size to 30 – already a lost cause. I once read the idea that class size should start tiny in primary and gradually increase as students go through the system. You do wonder how much more effective primary education would become if children were taught in groups of ten to fifteen. What price are we prepared to put on 21st century education? How much better would our future be with motivated, culturally aware and academically successful children? Pay the price.

So, having tossed out quite a few ideas which you can call revolutionary, transformational, pie-in-the-sky or loony left thinking depending on your viewpoint, I finally arrive at the issue of the school day. English schooling is based on the premise that children’s lives have to fit round the working life of their parents. Many parents express frustration about homework because their own lives and working hours are so busy that they cannot give the time their conscience tells them they should to their children. Lunch hours are telescoped into as little time as possible because of the problems of supervision. Saturday sporting activities are greatly reduced for a whole range of non-educational reasons. The school week is fragmented into days and subjects. You may be taught half a dozen reasons for the Cuban Missile Crisis on Monday morning and expected to trot them out verbatim on Thursday afternoon when you next meet your history teacher. A whole range of home economics possibilities is removed when lesson times are changed from one hour to fifty minutes. Maths teachers fume when children are ten minutes late from PE. Remember Christopher Robin and Edward Bear coming downstairs and bumping the back of his head because there isn’t time to think of a better way of doing it? We go on living with these problems for this flawed reason. It would be fun to imagine a complete rethink of the timing and nature of the school day. Allow more time between lessons, create opportunity for private study (don’t call it homework) to be done in school or at some education centre in the town or village. Rethink the balance between what you do in the morning and what you do in the afternoon (and possibly the early evening). When do children appear to learn best? Maybe even think of two different organisations responsible for developing academic skills and knowledge on the one hand, and personal, social and active skills on the other. One in the morning and one in the afternoon? Crazy?

I am aware that I am trying to shine a light on too many different things each of which needs much more exploration. I was motivated in writing by my frustration about the phrase ‘levelling up on the one hand, and on the expression of hope that things will not just back to being the same when the virus scare is lessened sufficiently for levels of normality to resume. Thinking of Ken Robinson where I started, I cannot truly imagine that the fate of these ideas will be any different from his.