I found your article intriguing and thought provoking. Thank you. Too many aspects on which to comment. Interesting that Andy Burnham wants to overhaul education. Loads in the press today about wanting to address opportunities for those youngsters who don't or can't see a higher education degree as an option for them. As someone who's been banging on about this for the last two decades it feels too little, too late. No mention in the press that over 80% of secondary schools in England are academies or free schools. They are in law independent schools, albeit in receipt of funding through central government. They aren't bound by the national curriculum. They aren't bound by many obligations that apply to local authority controlled schools. It'll be interesting to see what comments Mr. B makes about that.
In respect of James Callaghan's speech I can understand his feelings. In 1976 I'd completed my degree and a teaching qualification although I was unconvinced that teaching was for me. I'd done my teaching qualification based on teaching English and drama at secondary level. Three teaching practices in Manchester disuaded me. I enjoyed the kids and had no problems with discipline. It was the system and the attitudes of the service teachers that put me off. After spending three years trying a variety of other jobs I ended up being offered a post in a primary school and that was the road I followed
1976 marked the ending of the compulsory 11 plus in England. I'd failed the 11 plus though ended up in a comprehensive school so had the opportunity to progress to A levels. The pass rate was around 20%. Those deemed suitable for an academic education. Though only about 10 to 12% went on to H.E. And as that percentage would have included those in private education who probably wouldn't have taken the 11 plus and those like me who failed it, the 20% deemed academic patently wasn't a secure assessment.
In the days of grammar and secondary moderns most teachers in grammar schools were graduates and in secondary moderns they were mostly T.Certs. This was of course before teaching became an all degree profession. In my comprehensive we had a mixture. As I understood it only subject graduates got to teach A level. Would Mr. Callaghan have considered the use of drama in history lessons a bit liberal I wonder or Elephant jokes to teach clause analysis in English ditto. They got me top grades in O level. My A level teachers may well have had good degrees but boy were the lessons dull.
I never had a problem with the national curriculum or the various English and maths strategies that followed. I favoured the approach advocated by Professor John McBeath. Act first and ask for permission after. I think the NC was way too content heavy but there was no expectation that you had to teach it by the letter and certainly no hard or fast rules on how to teach anything. As a head I was much more interested in teachers being enthusiastic, well informed and well prepared.
If Andy Burnham plans to shake up secondary education I wish him well. Will he be radical enough to dismantle multi academy trusts and return schools to local authority control and accountability I wonder. And will he also take the next logical step and ask what's the real purpose now of higher education.
“It was always going to be unsustainable for education to receive so much funding from central government, but for central government to have so little say over it.”
Replace central with federal, and this is the situation in Australia.
We have a national curriculum which is ‘adapted and adopted’ eight different ways for eight different jurisdictions. Yet the funding demands on ‘the government’ (when we have nine) always means the federal level.
That's interesting and not dissimilar to the UK. We're a much smaller population than Australia I think but England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland each have different approaches to education and the implementation, or not , of education policy. I suspect the same is true for many countries. It definitely is in the USA.
The UK is almost three times the population of Australia. 😁
But we have separate versions of the Australian Curriculum for six states: Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland.
The two territories probably have their own as well, but I haven’t looked into that.
Indeed. The UK is a relatively small country comprised of four nations with four distinct education systems. And yet all too often the UK government based in England refers to policy as if that will apply across the UK which it won't. Plus academies and free schools are currently exempt from many UK education regulations including implementation of the agreed national curriculum.
Great piece Daisy. I completely agree about politics and education. If you try and take the politics out you end up putting someone else's politics in. As a History teacher I have always been fascinated by what we choose to teach and actually how much power is in the hands of a Heads of Department. It's interesting to compare the UK with those countries that mandate text books like the US and provide a state defined interpretation on Columbus or Darwin. History by definition is about understanding story and whose stories we tell shapes future thinking and the world we live in.
Also super interesting on the challenge of devolution. I think, however, that the biggest difference of the Andy Burnham premiership will be about the explanation of what he is doing and why. If you can explain to people the reasons and the links for any changes that most people will give leaders more of a chance.
Finally I also think that it's interesting to see the shift around the idea of everyone to university starting to shift and parity with technical education. I studied the 1927 Hadow Report which set the basis for the 11+ but also celebrated the German system of technical schools. We have lived through the 2000s push to university which was fueled by Charter Schools in the US talking about 'college for everyone' and a belief in breaking generational patterns. This has worked brilliantly for many but not all.
Thanks again for a really thought provoking piece about now and the year I was born!
I found your article intriguing and thought provoking. Thank you. Too many aspects on which to comment. Interesting that Andy Burnham wants to overhaul education. Loads in the press today about wanting to address opportunities for those youngsters who don't or can't see a higher education degree as an option for them. As someone who's been banging on about this for the last two decades it feels too little, too late. No mention in the press that over 80% of secondary schools in England are academies or free schools. They are in law independent schools, albeit in receipt of funding through central government. They aren't bound by the national curriculum. They aren't bound by many obligations that apply to local authority controlled schools. It'll be interesting to see what comments Mr. B makes about that.
In respect of James Callaghan's speech I can understand his feelings. In 1976 I'd completed my degree and a teaching qualification although I was unconvinced that teaching was for me. I'd done my teaching qualification based on teaching English and drama at secondary level. Three teaching practices in Manchester disuaded me. I enjoyed the kids and had no problems with discipline. It was the system and the attitudes of the service teachers that put me off. After spending three years trying a variety of other jobs I ended up being offered a post in a primary school and that was the road I followed
1976 marked the ending of the compulsory 11 plus in England. I'd failed the 11 plus though ended up in a comprehensive school so had the opportunity to progress to A levels. The pass rate was around 20%. Those deemed suitable for an academic education. Though only about 10 to 12% went on to H.E. And as that percentage would have included those in private education who probably wouldn't have taken the 11 plus and those like me who failed it, the 20% deemed academic patently wasn't a secure assessment.
In the days of grammar and secondary moderns most teachers in grammar schools were graduates and in secondary moderns they were mostly T.Certs. This was of course before teaching became an all degree profession. In my comprehensive we had a mixture. As I understood it only subject graduates got to teach A level. Would Mr. Callaghan have considered the use of drama in history lessons a bit liberal I wonder or Elephant jokes to teach clause analysis in English ditto. They got me top grades in O level. My A level teachers may well have had good degrees but boy were the lessons dull.
I never had a problem with the national curriculum or the various English and maths strategies that followed. I favoured the approach advocated by Professor John McBeath. Act first and ask for permission after. I think the NC was way too content heavy but there was no expectation that you had to teach it by the letter and certainly no hard or fast rules on how to teach anything. As a head I was much more interested in teachers being enthusiastic, well informed and well prepared.
If Andy Burnham plans to shake up secondary education I wish him well. Will he be radical enough to dismantle multi academy trusts and return schools to local authority control and accountability I wonder. And will he also take the next logical step and ask what's the real purpose now of higher education.
“It was always going to be unsustainable for education to receive so much funding from central government, but for central government to have so little say over it.”
Replace central with federal, and this is the situation in Australia.
We have a national curriculum which is ‘adapted and adopted’ eight different ways for eight different jurisdictions. Yet the funding demands on ‘the government’ (when we have nine) always means the federal level.
That's interesting and not dissimilar to the UK. We're a much smaller population than Australia I think but England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland each have different approaches to education and the implementation, or not , of education policy. I suspect the same is true for many countries. It definitely is in the USA.
The UK is almost three times the population of Australia. 😁
But we have separate versions of the Australian Curriculum for six states: Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland.
The two territories probably have their own as well, but I haven’t looked into that.
Indeed. The UK is a relatively small country comprised of four nations with four distinct education systems. And yet all too often the UK government based in England refers to policy as if that will apply across the UK which it won't. Plus academies and free schools are currently exempt from many UK education regulations including implementation of the agreed national curriculum.
Great piece Daisy. I completely agree about politics and education. If you try and take the politics out you end up putting someone else's politics in. As a History teacher I have always been fascinated by what we choose to teach and actually how much power is in the hands of a Heads of Department. It's interesting to compare the UK with those countries that mandate text books like the US and provide a state defined interpretation on Columbus or Darwin. History by definition is about understanding story and whose stories we tell shapes future thinking and the world we live in.
Also super interesting on the challenge of devolution. I think, however, that the biggest difference of the Andy Burnham premiership will be about the explanation of what he is doing and why. If you can explain to people the reasons and the links for any changes that most people will give leaders more of a chance.
Finally I also think that it's interesting to see the shift around the idea of everyone to university starting to shift and parity with technical education. I studied the 1927 Hadow Report which set the basis for the 11+ but also celebrated the German system of technical schools. We have lived through the 2000s push to university which was fueled by Charter Schools in the US talking about 'college for everyone' and a belief in breaking generational patterns. This has worked brilliantly for many but not all.
Thanks again for a really thought provoking piece about now and the year I was born!