At their Conference today the Lib Dems have unsurprisingly but not unwelcomingly defeated its leadership over the issue of free schools. Lib Dem MPs have already voted in favour of the academies and now Lib Dem members have shown their disapproval. And there was me thinking that it was a one-member-one-vote system that decided party policy?
Anyway, the question of free schools is one that deserves scrutiny and it is something that I had initially thought was a great idea, even before I learned that SNP Education Secretary Mike Russell had floated a similar idea recently.
However, after consideration of the issue (and after a boozy discussion on the matter with a retired teacher a couple of weekends ago), I now know that had I been in that hall with those Lib Dem members, I would have voted with the majority against the proposals that Michael Gove is looking to implement with zeal.
The main reasons that I have come to this conclusion is quite simply based on the twin teamwork concepts that you’re ‘only as fast as your slowest team member’ and that ‘a rising tide lifts all boats’.
Taking the former of these philosophies first, there is no doubt that the better educated a child is on the lowest rung then the more likely it will be that that child can climb out of poverty and ensure social mobility is realised. However, free schools will inevitably favour those who are further up the social ladder than those stuck at the bottom. For all the rhetoric that problem areas can be targeted and the middle classes will ensure the income stream net is wide, I simply don’t believe it and instead believe that free schools will become ivory towers for the relatively well-off that leaves the kids that are already behind even more stranded with their standing start in life.
The second point on free schools is that a rising tide lifts all boats. That is, if a nationwide education system is available to all and improved across the board then all of society benefits. That has generally always been, and should remain, the plan A for the UK’s (and Scotland’s) education system. A logical extension to this argument is that private schools should be abolished, something the Labour party has considered from time to time (despite some of its leading lights sending their own children to private schools)
For me, this is less of a priority and not even necessarily an appropriate step. Private schools are built and maintained with private money and that marks them out as a separate argument to ‘free schools’ which take money from the public pot. Indeed, private schools save the public money (albeit with tax breaks) and the free schools cost the public money so the two really shouldn’t be conflated. Not that I’m actually suggesting that that is what happening.
Scotland once boasted the best education system in the world and that was through the old-skool, tried and tested approach of universal access and treating all pupils equally.
We shouldn’t lose sight of that either side of the border and, the political implications for the coalition to one side, I can only celebrate the Liberal Democrat delegates’ resolve in sticking to their principles and ensuring Free Schools are rejected by their party, even if it does ultimately prove to be a symbolic gesture.
Still, good to know that Lib Dem members believe that fair is worth fighting for.
#1 by Indy on September 20, 2010 - 2:51 pm
The difference between Michael Russell and Michael Gove is that Mike Russell actually went to Sweden and looked at the way they have done things in-depth and found out it’s not quite as rosey as it is painted in some quarters. Indeed Sweden has seen a drift downwards in international educational performance as well as in individual learning.
That’s not to say that there is nothing that we can learn from Sweden. But the so-called Free Schools revolution in England is rash in the extreme and the Lib Dem members are right to oppose it.
#2 by commenter on September 20, 2010 - 3:37 pm
Yep. Stick with the tried and tested council control that has resulted in educational excellence.
#3 by Douglas McLellan on September 21, 2010 - 4:04 pm
‘You are only as fast as your slowest team member’
Enforcing this is one of the most damming aspects of school today. The belief that every child is of the same academic ability or even inclination means that every clever child, every child interested in soaking up as much knowledge as possible is held back unless they are truly gifted in Maths for some reason.
Organising by age is not the same as organising by ability. The golden age of education in Scotland was when education started around five and lasted for about five years when the brightest went to university and others went to burgh schools (if they continued with education).
So keeping the rest back to be with the slowest member is not a good thing.
“a rising tide lifts all boats” really does depend where the boat has been anchored prior to the tide coming in as a high tide can swamp many boats if their anchor chains are too short. This tenuous metaphor is supposed to highlight the fact that not every school pupil is the same in school and, in fact, the quality of education means nothing a pupils parents doesnt care about school or education. The kids that do well in school are the ones whose parents value education and support their children in it.
If private schools are so bad (and people complain about the fact that the Westminster government is led by the privately educated) then why is everyone against their state(ish) equivalent, the grammar schools. Where is the success of the comprehensives now that the last of the grammar school kids are heading into retirement?
Why not let a different system try to enhance education where comprehensives are, as the saying goes, bog standard?
#4 by Indy on September 22, 2010 - 1:04 pm
When was this golden age Douglas?
Let’s look at the reality of how it was in the good old days when we had a two tier education systen. In 1951 87% of young adults were leaving school at age fifteen or younger.
Is that what you would like us to go back to? An education system which caters mainly for the elite and does nothing for the majority?
#5 by Douglas McLellan on September 22, 2010 - 2:56 pm
Golden Age
When the world looked to Scotland and how to successfully educate all children was in the 19th century. Nothing about the 20th century education system in Scotland was world class.
We need an education system that is open to all but recognises ability. Elitism has nothing to do with it. Unless elitism is good parenting? Unless elitism is taking responsibility for the wellbeing of your own kids? Why do we look to schools as surrogate parents? The success of any child is not really to do with the schools, it is more to do with the value that a child places on education.
University is not, and will never be, an effective route to further the education every child (or, frankly, the 50% Labour target). This is not elitism – this is my own painful experiences and observations. I went to uni, sought a way out because I could not do it, got elected as a Sabbatical (which meant I could delay telling my parents I couldn’t do it), watched so many 1st years drop out because they found it too hard and then left without completing my degree. Only the OU (fantastic invention) meant I got a degree when I was a wee bit more able to study.
There would be no point leaving school at 15 or younger now as there are no jobs so only a person who wants mass youth unemployment would want that. However, we need an education system that is not so focussed on equality of outcome where every child is deemed to have the same ability and will all get the same results within an acceptable narrow band.
The most successful woman I know left school at 16 without even bothering to sit her final exams. But she liked hairdressing. She started at a local hairdresser washing hair and going to college to learn about hairdressing. In her early twenties she was ready to learn more and did evening classes in business studies. Now 34 she owns a number of salons as well as a very successful mobile hairdressing service. But at 16, she was view with almost disdain by her teachers because she did not want to learn the way they wanted to.
And education system should recognise the needs of each pupil, not force them towards a piece of paper that may mean nothing to them. Is that elitist?