Lessons for Burnham: Significant Change Needed in Our Schools

Andy Burnham’s initial thoughts on education suggest that the next three years could be quite lively ones. Taking up the themes of the Milburn report on NEETs he is quoted as saying:

‘We need a complete rethink of how we support the next generation to succeed, and it has to start with the education system. The days of a school system configured entirely around the university route will be brought to an end.’

‘University is great for those who want it, but when are we going to focus on the life chances of those kids who want something different? When? The country hasn’t done that for a long, long time.’

‘People have argued over many years for an education system based on parity between academic and technical, and that is what we will build, giving every young person growing up here a clear path into a re-industrialised Britain.’

There were some initial signs of this thinking in the announcement of the Manchester Bac designed to provide alternative vocational pathways from 14. But there is much to do before these ambitions can be turned into reality and it is likely to require recognising that there will need to be some significant change of direction from Labour’s policies to date.

To begin with, some fundamental questions need addressing. What does ‘focussing on the life chances of those who want something different’ actually mean. I would suggest two starting points.

First, we need a hard look at the vocational curriculum. Above all, we need to stop talking about pathways. The urge to sort learners into to tidy packages needs to be resisted. This applies as much to the MBac as it does to the government’s proposals for new Level 2 qualifications and for T Levels. If we’re not careful, we will be basing our whole system on the assumption that 16 year olds – or maybe even 14 year olds- can convincingly make life determining career choices at such an early age.

Burnham is right to call out a school system that is ‘configured around the university route’. The whole structure of the14 to 19 curriculum needs to be challenged. The Gove-Gibb legacy of judging schools exclusively on academic subjects and entry to HE has to go. But building in selection into academic and vocational pathways at 14 is not the answer either. We need a flexible offer through which students can follow a common core curriculum but also explore a wide range of options, so as to be better prepared for more specialisation at 16. There is nothing sacred about building a curriculum around courses the size of a GCSE – shorter modules in some areas can offer more choice and can be offered across the 16+ divide.

We also need to resist the temptation to drive vocational courses into becoming more academic. This can be seen in the insistence on final written examinations for BTECs. The classic of this genre at the moment is the assumption that a V level will often be taken with one or two A levels. The whole point of the BTEC approach is to address the needs of students for whom academic A levels don’t work. If we’re not careful the effective choice will be T levels or A levels with a token V level tacked on. Moreover, this presents big problem for FE colleges that don’t attempt to compete with schools in the A level market.

An essential implication of this approach would be the need to recognise that individual schools can’t do it all on their own. Offering a range of academic and technical options would rarely be viable in terms of either class size or facilities. Given that (sadly?) we’re not likely to be restructuring our system around 14 to 19 community colleges, some level of local collaboration involving schools and colleges will be needed. This will mean challenging both school autonomy and the over-weening power of MATs.

The second area to be addressed is that is that of school culture. The Milburn report and Peter Hyman’s linked research documented clearly the level of disaffection amongst school pupils who are not bound for HE and who know all too clearly that they are not valued by the viciously competitive school environment. The approach to teaching and learning that wipes out any pupil initiative and any control over their own learning is central to this disaffection. So is the behaviour management style laid bare so clearly by the Mossbourne report.

This increasingly prevalent school culture is a problem for all pupils. It singles out for approval those who are prepared to conform and those who are prepared to trade temporary boredom for the promised future rewards. But if, as is the case for a third of secondary pupils, rewards are not on the horizon then the outcome is the level of disillusion so clearly documented by Milburn and Hyman.

If Andy Burnham is serious about challenging the fundamental flaws of our education system, he will need to address these two issues. And fundamentally he will need to challenge the widely held myth that education has been a success story since 2010. So far Labour policy, whether in the Francis Review or in the Schools White Paper has started from the assumption that things are going pretty well and only a bit of tinkering and tidying is needed.

Burnham’s initial rhetoric suggests that, to some extent, at least, he gets this. But no one should underestimate how entrenched the Gove-Gibb cohorts are and how little has been done to open up the DfE to different and more challenging voices. Tom Bennett is still there. The boss of a MAT recently exposed for putting a child in isolation for half a year is still Chief Inspector. New words need to be accompanied by some new people and a new willingness to challenge the dead weight of Tory orthodoxy.

Join the SEA here

.