At every level or phase, there are contentious arguments about the ‘effectiveness’ of educational provision and about standards. There is much to learn from the different ways in which this question was tackled in the respective Reviews.
The Nuffield Review (p.51) regarding 14-19 concluded ‘poor rates of participation, high rates of attrition and low levels of attainment compared with our European neighbours’, reflected in the rather large number in the NEET category. Furthermore, the Review points to continuing divide in attainment between socially advantaged and disadvantaged groups.
The Primary Review (p.334 sq) noted the rise in ‘standards’ as these have been measured in tests of mathematics and science, but less so in
SECTION 12: THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
Conclusion
An over centralised system at every level, greater devolvement of responsibility to local ‘social partnerships’, the role of local authorities in bringing this about – all that is agreed. But the shape of such partnerships – their funding, organisation, local accountability, and limitations within a national framework – is a question bequeathed by the Reviews for others to answer. At the same time, the system should be
accountable at the different levels of local authority, regional planning, partnership (or consortium) and individual provider – accountable both to national needs and to the aims and values endorsed by the local learning systems or consortia.
stifles innovation, destroys trust and increases costs. We need a better balance between accountability and earned autonomy. Professionals in all walks of lifelong learning need their trust in the system raised, along with the system’s trust in them’.
What would seem to be necessary is the
collection of evidence which enables government, parents, employers and the community to make a judgement about the extent to which the different parts of the system enable the aims of education (e.g. as set out in Section 2) to be realised. That requires the posing of the right questions, concerning, for example:
• participation trends in post 16 and in adult education (e.g. by age, gender, ethnicity);
• the degree of inclusiveness within the system;
• sense of ‘well-being’ (NR p.59/60; MCWB)
• meeting the skills required by the economy;
• meeting needs of the disadvantaged in society (IFLL, p.52, asks how the system perform when seen from the perspective of a disabled adult, a cared-for child or an ex-prisoner);
• raising the levels of core and functional skills in numeracy and literacy;
• enabling progression through the system to further education, training and employment;
• creating a more cohesive and responsible citizenry.
National data is, of course, important – in this all Reviews are agreed. But, as both Primary and Nuffield Reviews point out (p.332 sq. and p.63 respectively), such data about the system as a whole can be obtained on a light sampling basis along the lines pioneered by the Assessment of Performance Unit (APU) without that interfering with the day-to-day learning programmes of schools. The system of accountability should not have the direct impact on teaching and learning (‘teaching to the test’) which currently the system has (CPR p.313 sq.; NR p.62, 67).
9 Challenge:Learner circumstances are diverse and wide-ranging, so that no one school or college has the resources or expertise to meet the needs and aspirations of all young people within it.
Principle:Local collaborative and democratic learning partnerships (embracing schools, further education colleges, universities, employers, independent training providers, and voluntary bodies) should be established to promote continuity in provision for lifelong learning.
10 Challenge: There are too many different funding streams, often for the same work, creating unfair and often inefficient distribution of resources.
Principle:Funding should be directed to locally developed partnerships, with regional oversight by local authorities which will be in a position to understand the educational and training needs of the different phases and communities.
11 Challenge:The present system of qualifications is highly complex in terms of progression routes, levels and equivalences, and little understood by employers, young people themselves hand higher education.
Principle:Qualifications should reflect the aims of learning, including the practical, informal and experiential, and should provide a framework which is enabling, clear and stable.
12 Challenge:There has emerged a highly centralised and detrimental control over education and training.
Principle:The Government should ensure necessary resources, teacher supply, legal frameworks, curricular entitlement and overall accountability, but place responsibility for detailed provision with institutions, partnerships and authorities in particular localities.
Part III: What sort of system would
achieve educational aims?
Conclusions
Government Ministers have often said that they are committed to evidence-based policy. Here we have presented evidence from the recent past, based on comprehensive and independent Reviews covering education and training ‘from cradle to grave’’. From that evidence we emphasise the following broad recommendations.
1 Start with (and continue to ask): ‘What counts as an educated person in this day and age?’
This may seem an obvious question. yet it is rarely asked in a systematic way. There may not be total consensus in the answers which are given. But the constant asking of this question reminds of the profoundly moral nature of educational policy in terms of the values of personal well-being and of public good. 2 In the light of the no doubt rich answers we
get from asking about the development of ‘the whole person’ (regardless of class, ethnicity or gender) and their contribution to an ever better society, we should maintain a wide vision of worthwhile learning. This should be practical and vocational as well as academic. It needs to draw on the ‘different voices in the conversation between the generations of mankind’ within the sciences, arts and humanities. It must build upon the experiences and informal learning acquired in home and community. It should provide the motivation for lifelong learning. It should be flexible enough to provide for very different personal, social and economic needs. 3 Recognition must be given to the central role
that teachers play in any educational and training system. No policy, howsoever well thought out, has merit unless it is thoughtfully implemented by those who teach. They alone have the
pedagogical expertise for communicating the knowledge, values and skills, which we have inherited, to the developing minds, interests and aspirations of the learners. But that expertise needs to be nurtured through rigorous initial training and then through high quality continuing professional development. 4 We should make sure that the provision of
educational opportunities begins with the needs of learners, not with the interests of providers. No school or other institution can alone provide continuity of learning experiences. Local collaborative partnerships need to be created and funded. These bring together schools and colleges, employers and independent training providers, higher education and youth workers, third sector organisations and members of the local community. All bring to the partnership their respective and much needed expertise, opportunities and resources for realising that wide vision of worthwhile learning.
5 Finally, Government needs to be modest about what it can achieve – for two reasons. First, there are limits to how interventions can change a complex system; that requires the daily difficult and professional work of teachers. Second, governments and their ministers change, often at frequent intervals. Policies come and go. Too much power gained by one Minister may be used for the opposite purposes by the next. In conclusion, we invite everyone (Ministers, civil servants, advisers, head teachers, college principles, teachers and many more) to review the twelve challenges which arise from the evidence of these Reviews, and to seriously consider the principles which we have proposed.