Why Fiona Millar is right

OK so I don't think she's right about everything but I agree with a lot of what she says here about school admissions.

She's right to argue that the school system needs to be genuinely comprehensive if all children are to get a good education. And she's right that arguments for diversity of provision and school choice are undermined if the admissions system is palpably unfair. For those of us who think school choice can be an important tool for creating real educational opportunity in disadvantaged communities this is an important challenge.

I've always found it odd that some proponents of  choice policies also want more grammar schools. The two are clearly completely incompatible. Imagine a town with two hospitals - the first is allowed to turn away anyone they think looks a bit too sick. The second has to take anyone who turns up. The really sick have no choice in this system - they're going straight to hospital number two. And - to stretch the analogy a little further - what would happen as a result? Hospital number one would get all the easy cases; look good in league tables and have no trouble recruiting staff. Hospital number two would have a much harder job; have to deal with all the deaths in town and struggle to find anyone prepared to work there.

The same is true for schools. Selection simply gives in-demand schools the opportunity to screen out the hardest to help pupils, leaving them to congregate elsewhere. More selection would do nothing to increase the overall number of good school places; it would just distribute them differently, and in a way in which the poorest would lose out most. No politician is going to take the political hit required to convert the remaining grammars to comprehensives.  However, they could be encouraged to federate with nearby schools on the model of the Bright Futures academy trust which is built around Altrincham Grammar Girls School. Parents still can't choose AGGS for their child they can at least send them to a school which has access to their staff, facilities and peer networks.

Fiona's also right to challenge academies' freedom to be their own admissions authority. While the vast majority of academies don't abuse this freedom, some do; and it's not an area where there are any obvious educational benefits to autonomy. When the first handful of academies were set up it made sense to protect them from often hostile local authorities who might have used control of admissions to undermine them. Now, though, it's a different story - well over half the secondary schools in the country are now academies and no local authority is academy-free.

I can't see any reason why local authorities shouldn't be given control over academy admissions - at least if academies make up a reasonable proportion of schools in the area. As LAs divest control of schools it makes sense for them to focus on ensuring choice is working and that schools have a fair intake. This means coordinating admissions but also exclusions and special educational needs (academies already have to participate in fair access protocols and take children with a statement of special educational needs). It may also mean working to attract the best academy sponsors into the area. (Lest anyone think this is a change of heart on my part, I said all this back in 2008.)

But enforcing the admissions code more thoroughly would only deal with one kind of unfair selection. It is well established that house prices act as a form of proxy selection. Because most comprehensives select by catchment area wealthier families can buy their way into the best schools; denying choice to poorer families who are displaced. This is much harder problem to deal with (and not one Fiona, or her fellow campaigners, talk about much).

One option would be to introduce cross area lotteries but, while they might have a wonkish attraction, they're highly unpopular with parents and for good reason. It would be such a logistical nightmare that you'd risk the middle classes departing state education en masse for cut price independent schools.

This is where I see the value of free schools. If great providers - usually already involved in running excellent schools - can respond to demand from parents, who can't afford to move, by setting up new schools, then choice becomes more meaningful. The free schools I'm most excited by are those that meet this need in genuinely deprived areas, like Greenwich Free School, Reach Academy in Feltham and King's Leadership Academy in Warrington. It makes sense, in a time of scarce resources, to focus the free school programme much more tightly on these areas over the next few years.

So I agree with Fiona that fair intakes matter and that those who want real school choice should support her campaign for a genuinely comprehensive system. I wonder if she agrees with me that free schools - if properly focused and regulated - can help make this a reality?

On Equal Marriage

Next week the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill faces its last major hurdle. The House of Lords will vote on Tuesday on an amendment that would throw the progress of the Bill into turmoil. Various faith groups and other anti-equal marriage campaigners are pushing hard to get this amendment accepted.

This issue is a particularly uncomfortable one for me. Not because I'm undecided - I'm a passionate supporter of the Bill. But because I try hard to approach all political issues - even contentious ones - analytically and with empathy towards those I disagree. But this one's making me angry.

In trying to understand why two defining moments come to mind.

The first was an argument with my best friend at the age of 18 (he's still my best friend). He is gay and I was the first person he came out to when we were 14. Because of our friendship I prided myself on having an unusually advanced understanding, for a straight teenager, of the traumas of growing up gay. On this occasion, though, I made a fool of myself. I can't remember the context but I told him that I wouldn't want to have a gay child because I'd worry they'd be bullied. He was furious with me; and it took me a while to understand why. Eventually I realised I was essentially admitting defeat on his behalf; resigning myself to accepting there would always be prejudice against him and anyone else of his sexuality. From that day on true equality for gay people has been right at the top of my personal agenda.

The second moment was in 2009 when I was working in David Cameron's policy unit. Somebody (possibly me) had suggested we should announce our support for equal marriage in the run up to the election. There was enough interest from senior people  for there to be some discussion on the merits. And I quickly realised that one of my colleagues was strongly opposed. We spent the best part of two days arguing it out. We got nowhere. My liberalism and her faith were irreconcilable. Others saw that too and decided not to press ahead with such a controversial announcement pre-election. I've never been more frustrated and disappointed in a professional context.

So this debate feels very personal to me and I do really struggle to understand the mindset of the opposition. I realise much of it, as with my old colleague, comes from a position of faith which I don't have. But then plenty of people of faith support the change. As the psychologist Andrew Solomon has written:

"In the gnostic gospel of St Thomas, Jesus says, 'If you bring forth what is within you, what is within you will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what is within you will destroy you." When I run up against the the anti-gay positions of modern religious bodies, I often wish that St Thomas's words were canonical...Keeping the homosexuality locked away within me nearly destroyed me, and bringing it forth has nearly saved me".

Even more bewildering is the opposition from commentators who claim to have no real issue with equal marriage itself but complain that Cameron is making a tactical error by "prioritising" the issue. For a start this change costs nothing and there's no pressure on parliamentary time. But more than that correcting injustices wherever we find them should always be a priority. Passing this Bill would be a huge signal to the thousands of young people around the country keeping their true selves locked away. It would give thousands more people the opportunity to celebrate their relationship on the same level as their straight friends. How many chances does any Government have to have such a direct impact on so many people for so little cost? How can that not be a priority?

Perhaps sometimes it's OK to be angry.

Ofsted's Challenge

As the last few weeks has shown yet again there are few areas of consensus in education. But if anything comes close it's this: Ofsted inspections are too inconsistent. And despite Sir Michael Wilshaw's genuine commitment to judging outcomes not pedagogy too many inspectors are ignoring him. (Though others aren't).

At the highest level these concerns are now openly discussed. In his Times' article on Monday Michael Gove wrote:

"The quality of inspection is still sometimes inconsistent. That’s why...the chief inspector, is rooting out weak inspectors and recruiting more serving heads to monitor other schools."

I take from this that conversations have been had and action is being taken but I fear toughening up the training and recruitment of inspectors, while essential, won't be enough. There is a deeper problem of trust which NAHT general-secretary Russell Hobby expressed well in his conference speech at the weekend:

"I believe Sir Michael Wilshaw when he says there is no model lesson, but it is a brave school leader who takes this to heart, when there is no way of knowing whether the team which turns up on your doorstop will have read that bit of the guidelines."

Until reasonably-minded leaders believe that Ofsted will judge them on impact not teaching style the prospect of an inspection will continue to act as a major drag on innovation and autonomy in many schools. I say "reasonably minded" because leaders need to take responsibility for not being unnecessarily cautious. But right now the uncertainty is too great. And it's very hard for teachers to stand up to their leaders' insistence that "Ofsted wants us to do it this way" unless they can be certain they really don't.

I'm sure many in the profession would argue the best solution is to scrap Ofsted altogether; but this would be a big mistake. We need to be able to hold schools accountable in a way that isn't entirely reliant on data; and that can help leaders and governors understand weaknesses in their school. This fascinating report from the LSE suggests that schools found to be inadequate do see a real and sustained improvement in outcomes.

However, while I think we need Ofsted, I also think it needs to do more to rebuild confidence than offer reassurances about their motives. Something more radical is needed. I'm not sure what it will take but perhaps they could start by stopping talking about teaching altogether and instead focus only on  learning. It is, in any case, unhelpful to brand an individual teacher as "requiring improvement" or "inadequate" on the basis of a single short observation. But it is, usually, possible to tell if there's good, or outstanding, learning happening in a school: if classrooms are calm; pupils are engaging with appropriately challenging material and their progress is being properly tracked.

As John Hattie has put it :

“I’ve given up on teaching. I don’t care a damn about teaching any more...[you go] into a classroom and seen some crusty bugger who sits in the corner and has been teaching this way for years, and it’s not the dominant style, but they have incredibly positive impacts on kids. Why would you change them? Our debates are too concentrated on how we teach, whereas all the visible learning work tells me it needs to be about the impact of how we teach. Observe the impact....It is a sin for a teacher to observe another teaching in the act. All they do is tell them (nicely and subtly) that they should teach more like them. The only reason for observing is to observe learning”

After all if inspectors weren't allowed to talk about teaching they wouldn't be able to criticise it...

Whatever it takes?

Last week I sat in a classroom while a teacher chastised an eight year old girl for taking a pencil from the boy sitting next to her. She was made to stand on a line at the back of the class and was “red carded” meaning she had to leave the class. In two hours in this school, in one of the poorest parts of Brooklyn, I saw no other examples of bad behaviour from any child. In fact I barely saw another child off task.

That eight year old didn’t know it but she is at the epicentre of the education reform debate in the United States. She attends a “no excuses” charter. A school that believes it can compensate for the entrenched poverty in the community in which she lives through a relentless focus on academic achievement and good character. Its opponents would say this method of compensation is authoritarian, excessive, unsustainable and even racist.

I’ve visited a number of “no excuses” charters in the past couple of years and, broadly speaking, I’m on the side of the schools. No one else, to my mind, has come up with a compelling alternative for creating meaningful education choice in America’s poorest communities. The best “no excuses” charters achieve extraordinary results that few public schools can match. (Critics would note they can have high attrition rates too and, often, a lot more money than public schools).

That said it’s difficult not to feel uncomfortable in some of these schools. They can feel like unhappy and authoritarian places where the pursuit of tests scores, and college, is coming at a pretty high emotional cost for teachers and pupils. But the very best “no excuses” charters I’ve visited show it’s possible to create a positive and warm environment while also pursuing excellence. As more and more sponsored academies and free schools look towards the charter movement for inspiration it is important to understand what differentiates the very best.

But before exploring this; some more background. Charter schools, like free schools, are publicly funded schools operating independently from the traditional public (state) school systems. 40 States allow charter schools and they all have different legal models which makes studying the system at a national level almost impossible. Typically they are not bound by the strict tenure rules which often prevent public school leaders from dealing effectively with poorly performing staff or by state level rules on curriculum or length of school day. As a general rule those States that have adopted very laissez-faire models have more failing charters whereas those with stronger quality assurance systems, like Boston, Newark, New York and New Orleans, have seen greater benefits.

Although the policy was originally designed to create more opportunities for diversity and innovation in education, the charter movement, at least in poor urban communities, has coalesced around a single model that seems to work better than anything else: the “no excuses” charter. In New York the big four chains (Uncommon, Success, Achievement First and KIPP) all have a “no excuses” model. They all perform well in state tests and have a strong record of getting pupils into college compared to public schools with similar demographics.

These are the fundamentals of the “no excuses” model:

·         An intense focus on college. Classes are typically given the name of their teacher’s alma mater or referred to by their graduating year (“the class of 2025”).

·         Lots of wall-displays with both motivational quotes and “shout-outs” to students who’ve reached a given goal or done well in state tests.

·         Extended days with a heavy focus on academic work and sometimes Saturday/holiday school.

·         Very strong behaviour management. At the extreme this can mean complete silence at all times including lunch break but more often will mean any off-task behaviour during lessons will be consistently punished.

·         The extensive and consistent use of techniques like SLANT to keep pupils on task and lots of professional development in these techniques (and behaviour management) for staff.

·         Fast paced teaching with rapid-fire questions to pupils and, often, significant amounts of direct instruction.

·         A predominantly young staff disproportionately recruited from Teach for America.

These widespread similarities, though, hide some significant variations that can lead to very different environments. Probably the most important is the relative importance given to teacher’s ability to develop an independent pedagogy. At some of the most successful chains lessons are essentially scripted. The executives in these chains will tell you, pretty bluntly, that what they want from new teachers is a willingness to work very hard and follow the set lessons plans without diverting. They have a formula that seems to work and they believe that following it is in the best interests of their students.

At other chains – notably KIPP (which isn’t really a chain at all but a set of regional franchises) – the attitude is markedly different. They aim to hire strong teachers, give them high quality professional development but then given them significant pedagogical freedom (as long as they get good results).

This greater freedom for teachers translates into a stronger relationship with their classes and the ability of both teachers and pupils to express their personalities. While all “no excuses” charters are strong on behaviour management it feels much less oppressive in those where teachers have had the opportunity to build strong relationships with pupils through teaching. It also leads to lower teacher turnover.

At the moment both models seem to generate good results and it’s not clear yet which model is more scaleable. It may that my preference for the more independent model is based on my own prejudices about what teaching should look like. I can’t help but feel, though, that models which give greater agency to teachers and pupils are likely to be more successful at generating long-term benefits above the ability to pass tests and get into college. One reason for KIPP’s move towards a more pedagogically autonomous, and more relaxed, model is that they found pupils, having reached college, were struggling to cope in a less structured environment.

As a teacher at one of the more formulaic charters put it to me “the things we’re doing seem necessary but insufficient”. Lots of structure is fine but it should be used to give the space to build strong relationships rather than to substitute for them.

The Internet is Flat

Yesterday Michael Gove made a speech to headteachers praising a number of favourite bloggers - including Oldandrew; Tom Bennett; David Weston and others.

The reaction amused me. A lot of people seemed to think he couldn't possibly read the blogs himself. Perhaps, it was suggested, he has a minion who presents him with occassional supportive blog extracts to help him feel in touch?

Nothing could be further from the truth. He reads dozens of education blogs, including many he didn't mention yesterday. And while he's a particularly voracious reader (he is a former comment editor after all) he's not alone.

There's a very common misperception that politicans and advisers of all parties don't listen; that they have no interest in what practioners or ordinary people think about their policy area. In my experience the opposite is true. They're all desperate for information and feedback from the outside world. That doesn't, of course, mean they agree with or act on the feedback but they certainly want to know what people think.

It's difficult to convey how claustraphobic working in a Ministerial private office is. As a Minister or adviser you are swamped with material from your department. During my time as one of Michael's advisers I received an average of 200 emails and 100 pages of policy submissions a day. That's on top of constant internal meetings. It was a struggle to see anyone from the outside world. Even when you did they usually wanted something. Schools visits were, normally, carefully stage-managed. When the Minister visits you don't take them to see bottom set year nine being taught by a supply teacher...

So twitter and blogs are a lifeline; a way to access at least some unvarnished truth about what people really think. And while I don't want to overdo the impact of the blogosphere - policy is still primarily driven by the traditional internal processes - I do think its rise is having quite a profound effect.

Suddenly an insightful classroom teacher like Tessa Matthews, Laura McInerney or Joe Kirby has a direct line of communication to the Secretary of State and his advisers. Anyone can make a case against a policy and if it's strong enough to be picked up and retweeted a few dozen times there's a good chance it will be read by the people who matter. I can think of a fair few changes to nascent policy ideas off the back of a particularly perceptive blogpost which raised points that had been missed during internal discussions - and not necessarily from the bloggers you'd expect.

None of this means we don't need more structured ways of ensuring teacher's voices are heard. In yesterday's speech Michael joined the bipartisan chorus calling for a Royal College of Teachers - and plans are advancing. Work also needs to be done to build research networks through Teaching Schools.

But I still think it's exciting that for the first time ever any teacher anywhere can sit down and write something that could shift national policy.

Race, Culture and Education

I woke up this morning in a good mood. The sun was shining. My twins had chosen to wake me through speech rather than the usual method of jumping on my head. Then I turned on my phone and saw a link to this article ("Race row Tory town tells Gove super head we don't want inner city pupils here").

Durand is an outstanding primary in Lambeth. The headteacher Greg Martin, an extraordinary and ambitious man, wants to continue providing an excellent education for the young people in his care up to the age of 18. He wants to do this by opening a boarding school in Stedham, West Sussex which would be the first entirely free state boarding school in the country. (There are 36 existing state boarding schools but they charge most parents for the boarding element).

A group of local residents are unhappy about this plan. Not because they don't want a school nearby - the proposed site is a former fee-paying boarding school - but because the majority of the pupils will be from ethnic minorities.

Some of the quotes from those opposed are just bizarre: "When you’re a teenager, isn’t it too late to start appreciating the countryside? I don’t know if it’s the right environment."

But the comments from local councillor John Cherry are breathtaking:

"Ninety-seven per cent of pupils will be black or Asian. It depends what type of Asian. If they’re Chinese they’ll rise to  the top. If they’re Indian they’ll  rise to the top. If they’re Pakistani they won’t. There are certain nationalities where hard work is highly valued. There are certain nationalities where they are uncertain what this hard work is all about. If the children are not allowed out of the site then it will make them want to escape into the forest – it will be a sexual volcano...Stockwell is a coloured area – I have no problem with  that. To be honest, I would far rather Durand took over a secondary school in London rather than  shoving everybody here."

These comments have been roundly, and rightly, condemned. After reading them it took me a little while to calm down and stop throwing things. But then I started wondering why Mr Cherry holds such astoundingly ignorant views and started to worry about the wider discourse around education, race and culture.

It got me thinking about the many conversations I've had over the past few years about the very noticeable difference in performance between ethnic groups (or "national" ones - all of this terminology is ill-defined and slippery). Often these conversations focus on "culture" as the primary driver of difference; rather than race or nationality per se. In some cultures (e.g. Jewish or Indian) - so the argument goes - education is highly valued. In others (e.g. Pakistani or white working class British) it isn't.

Is this, though, really much less reductive than Mr Cherry's comments? Indeed was he simply reproducing a garbled, and more overtly racist, version of that type of argument?

In reality the relationship between ethnicity, culture, geography, socioeconomic status and exam performance is incredibly complex. It cannot be reduced to simple rules of thumb.

Take, for example, the performance of poor Bangladeshi students in GCSEs. Last year 58.6% of Bangladeshi pupils on Free School Meals achieved five good GCSEs with English and Maths. That's bang on the national average for all pupils. In comparison 30.9% of white British pupils on FSM achieved the same benchmark.

What does this tell us? It's tempting to assume (as I've done in the past) that this is because Bangladeshi "culture" values education. But then remember that over half of the Bangladeshi population lives in East London and a third in Tower Hamlets alone. Then remember that London has seen much greater improvements in exam performance than the rest of the country and Tower Hamlets has been a particular success story.

Last year FT journalist Chris Cook looked at the extent to which London's higher performance was driven by higher performing ethnic groups and found that the effects were complex. Or in his words:

"Is the capital so good because it has these children, or do they do so well because they are in London? Well, the answer is “both”."

This is reinforced by conversations I've had with LA officials and headteachers who have been involved in the transformation of education in Tower Hamlets. It took - they will tell you - a significant amount of hard-work to engage parts of the Bangladeshi community in the schools' work. It wasn't automatic that pupils from these communities would perform well - indeed they weren't until fairly recently. Even since 2007-08 the Bangladeshi students on FSM achieving five good GCSEs with English and Maths has improved by 17% compared to 11% for white British.

The contributions of heads; teachers; community leaders; parents and the pupils themselves can't be easily separated. Reducing high-performance to ethnic or national "culture" is dangerous for two reasons. First because it can lead to Cherry-style reductionism. Secondly because it implies there's only a limited amount schools - and individual families - can do. The example of Tower Hamlets (or of, say, Park View Academy in Birmingham - which gets phenomenal results in a predominantly Pakistani area) shows this simply isn't true.

Thatcher: Education Secretary

"We construct simple images of politicians but look carefully at the records of Thatcher, Reagan, Carter, etc. and those images dissolve."
Canadian author Dan Gardner on twitter earlier today


For a conviction politician Baroness Thatcher's could be extremely pragmatic. Nothing shows this side of her political character better than her time at the Department of Education and Science (1970-74).

Her own views were typical for a Tory at that time: a supporter of selective education with a traditional curriculum; concerned that universities were full of time-wasting hippies and so on. Yet she abolished more grammar schools than anyone else; defended the right of teachers to define their own curriculum and secured funding, against the Treasury's wishes, for a significant expansion of Higher Education.

Her first act as Secretary of State was more in keeping with her reputation. She scrapped the requirement that Labour had placed on LEAs to move to a comprehensive system. This, though, had little effect as most council's plans were too far progressed.

(Nevertheless the press - including most of the Tory papers - thought she had gone too far. The Sun wrote "it is wrong to abandon the target of making all state secondary education comprehensive...Mrs Thatcher's idea of leaving everything to local choice - or local chance - won't work.")

She was unable to convince many councils to retain selective education and ended up signing through 3,284 schemes for comprehensivisation. Under her stewardship the number of children in comprehensives doubled from 30% to 60%.

There was, perhaps, little she could have done to halt the flood but it's interesting that she didn't really try to fight. She could, for instance, have tried to persuade cabinet colleagues to legislate to give her more power to stop structural reform. Until her final years she had a good eye for the fights she could win and she knew this wasn't one of them.

Her views on pedagogy were solidly traditional. She had a strong dislike of what she saw as "value-free" child-centred teaching. But again she did nothing to challenge the standard view of the time that politicians had no business interfering in the classroom. Indeed soon after taking office she gave a liberal defence of the status quo: "A Minister should not have power over ideas...I would not like to see over here a system as in France where all schools keep to the same curriculum". (Of course she changed her mind as Prime Minister - though she thought Ken Baker's curriculum was far too long.)

Her major achievement as Education Secretary was to use her legendary stubbornness to win significant extra funding for her department. Her 1972 Education White Paper ("A Framework for Expansion") promised a 50% increase in spending over the next ten years - which puts the £9 million saved from her infamous school milk cuts into some perspective. This spending led to further increases in numbers going to Higher Education; new primary school buildings and a large increase in the number of teachers. Even more ambitious plans for free nursery places were scrapped as the economic downturn gathered pace.

These proposals were so popular that she won over many educationalists who had initially scorned her as a right-wing Tory. She even won a standing ovation at the 1972 NUT conference.

Her own memoirs suggests she was somewhat embarrassed by her record at the DES describing the 1972 White Paper as "all too typical of those over-ambitious, high-spending years..."

Nevertheless she accepted the praise at the time and her comparative success set her up for a long-shot leadership challenge....


(Quotes taken from John Campbell's biography)