Tag Archives: Philosophy

Schools in rural and coastal areas: issues and concerns

Posted on by
Reply

Today was the first day of the Liberal Democrats annual conference. This year it is being held in Brighton. A motion today was about rural and coastal education and the need to recognise the issues children and young people living in these areas face.

I was privileged to be call to speak in the debate. What follows is the text of my speech: for what I actually said, please go to the recording at: Autumn Conference 2026 – Saturday Morning – YouTube at 1:22:10 for the next 4 minutes.

Rural & Coastal Education

Conference, I have sympathy with this motion but, while like all of you I know what ‘rural’ means, I am less sure about what ‘coastal’ means. Does the term include cities such as Liverpool, Hull and Brighton, and are they markedly different to Manchester, Sheffield and Birmingham? As a one-time geography teacher, I need to think carefully about what are the locations such a place-based policy might exclude.

Sadly, the motion doesn’t have much our MPs can campaign on. So, here’s three ideas linked to the spirit of the motion for them to campaign upon and that voters will understand.

Raise the free Home to school transport age  to 18 to bring it into line with the learning leaving age. This will end the cliff edge at 16. Ensure everyone can get to college to study the course they want. Raising the £1 fare maximum age from 16 to 21 would be a start.

Importantly, revise the 2006 Education Act to include Academies or watch Academy Trusts close schools without any controls.

Look at taxation, such as motor insurance tax for those in rural and coastal areas forced by a lack of public transport to use a moped or car, but too young to have any ‘no claims bonus’. This tax is a penalty on learning for these young people, and a real disincentive to study.

Finally, much of both local authority and parent’s school transport cash goes back to the government in taxation. Urban authorities don’t pay this fuel tax, and neither should rural areas.

Living in a rural area should not mean a tax on learning for young people. Ater all, they don’t have a choice.

Conference on education, The message is simple, the message is clear, the message is from the Liberal Democrats:

Equal access to Education for Everyone.

Please support the motion.

The motion was passed both by the audience in the hall and the delegates following on-line.

Social mobility and the far right

Posted on by
Reply

The announcement that that Social Mobility Commission is to be abolished was announced when I was on holiday. As a result, I have only just caught up with news of its demise – one of the few QUANGOs to escape previous culls. While the term ‘class’ for its replacement within the civil service may be more ‘in your face’ than ‘social mobility’, I suppose it fits better with the debate about ‘White working class boys’ that has featured in many discussions about educational attainment during the past decade.

I am sad to see the Commission abolished. Taking work back into government departments inevitably makes policy discussion less transparent, and places greater emphasis on the work of think tanks. The Commission has had something of a chequered history, as might be expected given its role and the fact that rt worked under a Conservative government for most of its life. I documented one such event in this blog post from 2017 Social Mobility Commission | John Howson that interestingly also mentioned AI, and the risk of the rise of the ‘far right’.

‘With the IT revolution once again picking up speed, and predications of massive job losses from the growth in Artificial Intelligence awakening the Luddite mentality in many of us, the Commission must act not only as the government’s conscience on social mobility, but also as a source of genuine new policies that are radical and forward thinking. More of the same just won’t work.

We have seen in Germany that the failure to ensure the success of the economy across the whole country has inevitably led to the rise of the far right in politics. Social mobility is important, but we cannot ignore those left behind. They must not become the poor relations kept, for ever, out of sight.’ Social Mobility Commission | John Howson Still, it is sad to see a Labour government abolish it.

I had a number of discussions with officials at the commission over the years, most notably about teacher supply matters. The following post followed the publication of one of the Commission’s reports in 2019  We cannot ignore those left behind | John Howson and also shows that, even under Conservative control, those of us from all political parties concerned about the issue of deprivation and education were able to have our voice heard: such is the value of good quality scrutiny.

One of the key outputs from the Social Mobility Commission was its annual State of the Nation Report. It will be a disappointment to lose that scrutiny, and I hope civil servants will either want to continue it or ask The Office for National Statistics to take it over. Here are a couple of links to my blog posts about the report:

Class rules: not OK | John Howson

Industrial revolutions alter a country’s geography | John Howson

Birds of a feather | John Howson

As I write this on a Sunday morning, I am reminded of the phrase in Matthew’s gospel at Chapter 26 and Verse 11: ‘The poor you will always have with you.’

That statement is not an admission of defeat, but a call to arms’. Abolishing the Social Mobility Commission must not weaken our mission for a more equal society. Now, I wonder where that advocation will feature any policy resulting from the spending of the £76 million pounds received by a political party this week?

Higher Education: markets v planning for the sector

Posted on by
Reply

I don’t often write about higher education, as, although I spent more than a decade running a large department in a university, and also writing about activity-based costings in higher education, I don’t consider myself well enough briefed to comment regularly.

There are exceptions to my self-imposed rule, and this post is one of those. What persuaded me to write this post was a link to this article Universities on the brink: Decoding the UK higher education funding crisis and the path forward | The Educationist

Now, for most of this century, and indeed the last decade of the previous century, higher education providers have been free to operate in a market, with limited government intervention, except in areas such as teacher education, and providing courses for both doctors and the professions allied to medicine.

As I discovered when running courses for new heads of departments in universities about how higher education funding worked, most academics had limited knowledge and often less interest in the subject when asked to take on running department: at that time; even Deans were often more interested in course quality than the financial health of the departments they headed.

Regardless of the reasons behind the current financial malaise, should the market be left to bring the sector back to financial equilibrium? Of course, the government could just throw money at the problem, but I guess it hasn’t the funds, and anyway, the DfE might put NEETs and SEND above bailing out universities in any priority list.

However, I don’t think the government should leave everything to the market. After all, it is the largest consumer of graduates: 30,000 teachers per year to be trained; NHS staff; the defence forces; the civil service and local government. These are all consumers of graduates in large numbers.

Allowing the market to solve the financial problems might have unintended consequences. A major concern for me is around the mobility of new graduates. Many years ago, I studied where trainee teachers went to study, and there was a correlation between where a first degree or higher-level courses was studied, and where individuals entered teacher preparation courses. Universities without schools of education provided fewer recruits to teaching.

Well, Teach First helped solve that problem, at least in London, but I am concerned that market driven course closures could leave parts of the country without degree courses in some subject areas vital for the public sector.

For this reason alone, I think the government should ensure some form of course planning for the higher education sector, so that there are not areas without say, music courses or philosophy. Both are degree courses important as part of the pipeline for future teachers of music and religious education. As these are also both subjects that already fail to recruit enough graduates into teaching, reducing the number studying them on degree courses even further would endanger that pipeline even more.

The intervention of the government in place planning, even at a broad level, also makes economic sense to me, as moving students from loans to welfare is also not a good use of public money. How to manage the balance between leaving the future for higher education to the market, and an orderly return to fiscal rectitude might at least be worth a discussion amongst politicians and those that advise them.

Review of Post 18 Education and Funding

Posted on by
Reply

The Augar Report was published this morning. When generating a set of principles, this Review manages to be both potentially regressive and progressive at the same time, but for different groups in society.

The better news is mainly on the further education side, and the recognition of the importance of part-time study for some in society. However, even here, the Commission established by Sir Vince cable might have some better proposals for lifelong learning.

On higher education, the mixture of funding changes, wider government interference in planning through extending the range of subjects where government grant will be available, and general tinkering with the system seems likely to please almost nobody. If grant is available for Group 3 subjects, but not Group 4, and universities can only charge £7,500, how will the subjects in Group 4 fare? Will universities cross-subsidise, increase teaching groups, and reduce contact hours or just eliminate these subjects from their offer as uneconomic. I suspect much will depend upon the relative cost to income ratio at present.

As a means of boosting some STEM subjects, these proposals could provide incentives, but assumes there is a pool of potential undergraduates wanting to study these subjects, but not able to secure a place under the present system. One unintended consequence could be a glut of biological scientists, possibly with environmental approaches in their degrees, but no more physical scientists or engineers.

On apprenticeship, I was disappointed that Augar didn’t look at the funding pressure the levy places on small primary schools forced to pay the Levy by a quirk of fate. By suggesting eliminating permission for funding second qualifications, Augar would prevent these schools funding senior staff development through the Levy, as some are now starting to do under present arrangements. This is an area that the DfE needs to take notice of, as councils start repaying unpaid Levy back to The Treasury, including the cash collected from their primary schools.

The part of the report receiving the most attention is that concerning higher education tuition fees and repayments. A cap on total repayments is a good idea, but for public sector workers, subject to pay review bodies, the notion of paying postgraduate training fees is still a burden that Augar didn’t address.

As readers will know, I would require the government to either pay the fees of all trainee graduate teachers or offer all teachers full debt repayment for a period of service in public sector schools. Until then, I think the Pay Review bodies should comment on the effects of their recommendations on the teacher’s loan repayments under each of the different schemes in operation that year along with any proposed changes.

Aguar has a table suggesting that a modern language trainee teacher with a four year degree and a one-year training fee might amass some £117,000 of debt at the start of their career.

Finally, it would have been helpful for Augar to also have suggested better careers advice for pupils in schools to help them make informed choices

As a closing note, I hope this review, if implemented, doesn’t spell the end for philosophy, sociology and classical studies in our universities.