Tag Archives: House of Lords

Debate about Oak Academy

Posted on by
2

There is to be a short debate in the House of Lords this afternoon, initiated by a Conservative Peer, about the creation of the Oak Academy to provide government funded resources for schools to help teach the curriculum. The House of Lords library has a helpful briefing note ahead of the debate Oak National Academy: Impact on the publishing and educational technology sectors – House of Lords Library (parliament.uk) I find the debate about the Oak Academy interesting in the light of the lack of any concerns about the government’s creation of a recruitment portal and control of the ITT application process.

Clearly, control of the curriculum through a body such as the Oak Academy can have implications for the publishing and technology industries that are both sectors that are large export earners for the education sector. This debate reminds me of when the same sector challenged the BBC over their potential control of education resources in the early days of the internet.

I will be interested to see the arguments put forward on both sides today. I am sure that there will be concerns that Ministers can direct schools to use Oak generated resources, and ensure that the values imbedded in such resources contain values approved by the current government. What might this government and a Labour government have to say about lessons generated by Oak Academy in such circumstances on the issue of industrial relations and the right to withdraw labour in any dispute between employer and their employees in history materials generated by the Academy.

Similar arguments were current when the Education Reform Bill in the 1980s mandated a National Curriculum. The concerns were around the powers of any Secretary of State to dictate to teachers what to teach and how to teach it. Of course, since then, we have seen Ministers dictate on phonics and multiplication tables, and schools being forced to follow the ministerial line even when authorities question its validity.

The Oak Academy started with good intentions during the covid pandemic, and removing the profit element, could produce materials at a lower cost than the private sector. Lower costs would be helpful to schools, but there does need to be effective oversight of materials being produced. There is also the issue of whether schools should be compelled to use Oak Generated materials? I am sure that these and other issues will be raised in today’s debate at Westminster.

As the chair of TeachVac, www.teachvac.co.uk the job board for teachers established before the DfE vacancy site was even considered, I can see the concerns of the industry about the loss of income from a lucrative sector that always needs new resources. However, there is a need for a wider debate about the role of government in state-funded education in a democracy, and that debate is more important than just the possible loss of business to existing providers. We cannot ignore the fact that ‘values’ are implicit in much of what we both choose to teach and how we then teach it.

Their Lordships 1: DfE 0

Posted on by
Reply

If the Schools Bill brought before parliaments soon after the state Opening this spring was a football match that might be the current score line. Today the Minister, Baroness Barron, The Under-Secretary of State for Education has written to all members of the House of Lords announcing major changes to the Bill as first presented to parliament. as a copy has bene placed in the House of Lords library, I feel able to comment on its contents.

 The government still wants an all-academy system, but more of that later. The Minister has said that

The Government has carefully considered the views of the House and as such intends to remove Clauses 1-4 and Schedule 1 from the Bill. Noting that amendments have been tabled to oppose that Clauses 1,3 and 4 stand part of the Bill, the Government intends to support the removal of these Clauses, and table further amendments to remove Clause 2 and Schedule 1, which also form part of the measure.

There have also been concerns on the Academy Trust Termination and Intervention powers (Clauses 5-18 and Schedule 2). This concern is reflected in the amendments that have been tabled to oppose that these Clauses and Schedule 2 stand part of the Bill. I can confirm that is also the Government’s intention to support these amendments.

The Government will support these amendments at this stage and bring forward revised proposals in the House of Commons.  Extract from letter to Members of The House of Lords

I am not sure when I can last recall such a comprehensive review by a government on a Bill of this nature.

The survival of the Bill now depends upon the wider political scene. If there were to be an autumn general election, called by the Prime Minister as a result of a combination of changes in the Labour Party and the Prime Minister taking the view that a general election was less of a problem than a Standards Committee Inquiry, and any consequences resulting from such an inquiry, then the return of the Bill might depend upon whether there was sufficient parliamentary time in what is known as the ‘wash-up’ to see the Bill through all its stages before parliament was prorogued.

Of course, if there isn’t a general election there will be plenty of time to create an all-academy school system with no local democratic scrutiny of schooling.  Presumably, so long as the faith communities can be dealt with to their satisfaction, no other groups will matter.

However, it is to be hoped that the importance of ‘place’ in the delivery of an education system will be recognised. Whether local authorities will want to put the same effort into managing admissions and transport under the new arrangements will be an interesting set of questions.

Who controls teacher preparation?

Posted on by
Reply

Last week the House of Lords had a short debate on Initial Teacher Training. Initial Teacher Training – Hansard – UK Parliament This is an important subject that doesn’t receive enough attention. Each year the government in England trains more teachers than the total workforce of The Royal Navy and schools recruit possibly around 40,000 teachers each year including those moving between schools as well as new entrants and re-entrants.

The government has conducted what it has termed a Market Review into ITT or Initial Teacher Education as many would prefer to call it. ITT Market Review: more thoughts | John Howson (wordpress.com) Personally, I prefer the more neutral Teacher Preparation Programme (TPP) for the experience, but it is a matter of taste and semantics.

The debate in the Upper House included contributions from a former Labour secretary of State along with many other knowledgeable Peers from all sides of the House. There is concern amongst some universities including both Oxford and Cambridge about the degree of government control over the TPP curriculum and the role of the civil service. Last time government took a detailed interest in the functioning of TPP courses there was at least a Quango in the form of Teacher Training Agency that had some credibility with the teachers and academics providing the preparation programmes. Those with especially long memories will recall that I worked for the TTA for nearly a year over the change from the Major to the Blair governments in 1996-1997.

As lord Storey said in the debate “In the last decade,… there has been a steady growth of different routes into teaching, and ITT has become very fragmented. Teaching is now pretty much a graduate profession, with most teachers getting their degree before deciding which route to take. In addition to the traditional degree plus PGCE route, the balance has swung very much towards school-based initial teacher training. The traditional years spent at university, with a placement in a school for an extended teaching practice, has been replaced for many students with a year based in a school, with the school buying in the pedagogical element from a university.”

Then, there is Teach First, Teach Next, Troops to Teachers and on the horizon the iQTS discussed in the previous post on this blog.

The DfE has taken control of the admissions process alongside the certification of providers, so perhaps as the main employer of teachers it us understandable that it would want to be involved with the curriculum.

However, it does seem less than sensible to risk the meltdown of a system that handles such large numbers of would-be teachers relatively economically at a time when central government is looking to make economies. Do we want to go back to a time when the Russsell Group universities train teachers for the private sector schools both at home and overseas in parallel to a government scheme for training teachers for the state school sector?

If you are interested in the subject do read the excellent contributions to the debate using the link at the top of this post.

Baroness Williams of Crosby

Posted on by
Reply

I am saddened to hear of the death earlier today of Shirley Williams, Baroness Williams of Crosby.

Baroness Williams was one of the founders of the SDP and had previously been an education secretary during the Labour government of the late 1970s. Created a Life peer in 1993, Baroness Williams played an important background role in education for the Party in her role as a senior politician of wide experience. Her great speaking ability motivated many audiences in both the conference hall and at fringe meetings during many Liberal Democrat conferences over the years. She finally retired from the House of Lords in 2016, but remained an inspiring figure for many in the Liberal Democrats.

In a blog post when another Liberal Democrats stalwart of the House of Lords, Baroness Sharp of Guildford retired, I paid tribute to these two Peers along with Annette Brooke the former MP. All were important for the Liberal Democrats in the field of education, from early years to higher education.

I first encountered Shirley Williams when she was Secretary of State for Education. She initiated The Great Debate in Education on the back of the Prime minister’s famous Ruskin College speech. This was the start of the shift from a national service locally administered to a nationally driven education service that we now have in England. I had achieved some notoriety after appearing in the national press and was invited to several media events where Shirley Williams was the speaker. I especially recall one such event in the Royal Institution where she was opposed Norman St John Stevas, possibly one of the best Secretaries of State we never had.

It was Shirley William’s misfortune to be secretary of State when the government of Jim Callaghan was teetering on the edge of collapse. She had to endure the ‘winter of discontent’ and during that period she failed to stop the caretaker’s strike in Haringey that lead to several weeks of school closures.

Although successful in taking North Yorkshire County Council to court over the need to create non-selective education in Ripon, it was too late in the parliament and the life of the Labour government for any action to be taken on the result that backed the government’s view of the 1976 Education Act, and so, along with the other selective schools that she tried to convert to comprehensive education, selective education still remains in that part of Yorkshire, helped by Mrs thatcher’s prompt repealing of the 1976 Act as one of her first actions as Prime Minister.  

Shirley Williams was an inspiring orator and a joy to listen to when speaking at Liberal Democrat events, either extempore or from a prepared speech. She was not a good timekeeper and was often late, but nobody ever seemed to mind. She was also a great European and had the courage to from a new political party. Along with many other, I will miss her.

Trade Unionist honoured by Labour

Posted on by
Reply

Education will have a new voice in the House of Lords following the announcement of the creation of Christine Blower, the former head of the NUT, as a peer in the dissolution honours list announced today. Christine was proposed by the Labour Party, and will join a distinguished bench of Labour peers with a deep understanding of the state education system. Sadly, the same cannot be said for either of the other two main parties, and there are not enough cross-bench peers with an education background.

The House of Lords has always had more to say about universities and higher education than schools or further education, although some peers have sat on the governing bodies of both colleges and schools.

The Lib Dems Education team in the upper Chamber has been fronted in recent years by Mike Story, an ex-headteacher from Liverpool. Lord Storey has done an excellent job in difficult conditions. Indeed, over the years, despite the Lib Dems being strong on education as a policy area right back to the ’Penny on income Tax’ in the 1990s and the work of Don Foster, Phil Willis, David Laws in government and even Ed Davey for a short period of time, the Party has never had an large team in the Lords. However, for a long while it did have Baroness Williams with her experience as a former Secretary of State, and Margaret Sharp to speak on higher education.

No doubt Baroness Blower will want to address the government’s announcement of the wish to create more free schools, a policy that doesn’t solve the pupil place problem many local authorities are facing and seem more ideological than practical in its nature.

AI and education – The view of the House of Lords Committee

Posted on by
Reply

The section on education in the recent House of Lords Report on Artificial Intelligence (AI) was one of the more confusing sections in terms of understanding exactly what was being suggested as the way forward. You can read the Report, published earlier this week, at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldai/100/10010.htm#_idTextAnchor094

Not surprisingly, industry representatives told the Committee how badly prepared young people were in this country and more needed to be achieved lest we fall further behind. Then, there was the counter argument about not cutting other subjects to make time for developing these new skills and knowledge. If you want creative industries then you need to include creative subjects in the curriculum not to relegate them to some cultural backwater and just treated by schools as an afterthought.

The Committee heard that there is the downside of our modern digital world, once it was the bad effects of posters and newspaper adverts and video nasties on children, now it is reduced attention spans, shallower cognitive capabilities and experience a loss of identity as a result of time online and using social media. One witness warned the Committee, “that the idealised world represented on social media “leads to many illnesses including eating disorders … and serious mental illnesses”.   The implication being that schools must put in place strategies to prevent such outcomes among future generations exposed to the perils of the modern world.

The Committee recognised that the 2014 change to the curriculum on IT in schools across England needed time to take effect. However, the removal of any consideration of moral and ethical issues to do with social media and digital technology from the curriculum was regretted by some witnesses; no doubt more so over recent weeks as the various concerns over social media and the handling of personal data have emerged. Personally, I think the downgrading of Religious Education at examination level, where there was a real opportunity to discuss issues of ethic, morality and philosophy, by excluding the subject from the EBacc was a mistake.

The Committee went on to welcome the projects outlined in last autumn’s budget for more computer science teachers and the establishment of a National Centre for Computing with industry to produce training material and support schools with the teaching of computer science. But, they didn’t really seem to probe very deeply on what is actually happening on the ground in our schools. IT and computer science teacher vacancies remain at the lower end of range seen over the past four recruitment cycles according to TeachVac’s data http://www.teachvac.co.uk; so perhaps those already in post are staying put and there aren’t large numbers of new posts being created. Whether there would be jobs for 8,000 extra teachers by the end of this parliament as envisaged in the budget seems highly unlikely.

As I wrote in my blog post when the number was leaked the weekend before the budget:

If the 8,000 number does make it into the budget, then so as not to look as if the Treasury doesn’t talk to the DfE there will have to be some form of explanation. Personally, I would add 10% to the Teacher Supply Model and split the rest between for professional development for existing teachers: spending 40% on those on professional development for secondary school teachers already teaching computer science and not fully qualified; 40% for lead teachers in the primary schools, starting with a programme for MATs and dioceses and the allocated the remaining 20% for programmes for teachers of other subjects to embed areas such as geographical information and other subject-related techniques into curriculum development. I might keep a small pot of cash back for new methods of preparing teachers that don’t rely upon face to face contact.

Finally, the Committee said: “the Government should explore ways in which the education sector, at every level, can play a role in translating the benefits of AI into a more productive and equitable economy.”

You try and work out what that really means.