Whilst the negotiation continues…… click here to watch the conference video of the three would be education ministers.
Patrick Kirk
Ed Balls, Michael Gove and David Laws on the platform at the NAHT Annual Conference 2010 – 1st May 2010
May 4, 2010
With less than a week to go until the election, Balls, Gove and Laws took time out of their hectic schedules to visit the NAHT Annual Conference in Liverpool. The session started with an introductory speech from each of the visitors.
Ed Balls: Ed commended the conference delegates on their passion for helping every child to succeed. Later in the session Michael Gove passed on the same compliment to Ed! Balls was clear about the need for a new accountability system – the Report Card needs to reflect the progress made by every child. He went on to reinforce Government spending on education – a doubling in real terms – and confirmed the Labour Party’s commitment to continue the increase in educational investment over the coming years. Later he challenged Michael Gove to ‘come clean’ on the Conservatives’ plans – a challenge to which Gove chose not to respond. Balls reinforced the desire and need for every school to be a ‘good’ school, that this would be key to parental choice, and that ‘every child matters’.
Michael Gove: His theme was that Government must listen to and trust education professionals. That Head Teachers must have the ‘freedom to flourish’ (suitably aligned with the conference theme) and that OFSTED must be transformed. He proposed that inspections must be driven by observation and not data – claiming that inspectors arrive at schools with pre-determined views based on data. Gove believes that the profession must be free from fear, free from interference and free to inspire. He recognised the need for benchmarks and said that we need to learn from other countries. Gove advocated that with freedom and trust comes accountability – so there’s no escape from being measured but there was no clarity as to how!
David Laws: ‘Freedom to Flourish’ was announced as a Liberal Democrat theme, something that we should expect to see loud and clear when they are in power. Laws commended Ed Balls and our current Government – they’ve redressed many of the issues they inherited from the previous incumbents – they’ve improved standards (we now have many high performing , inspiring schools), they’ve made a step change in investment. Laws claimed that if we have a change in administration, we need to ensure we don’t undo the good things that have been achieved to date; we must not return to the previous Conservative regime where education isn’t prioritised. However, Laws acknowledged many challenges that still exist – too many children still leave our education system with inadequate qualifications, there are excessive levels of political interference, excessive legislation is part of the problem – not part of the solution. For the Liberal Democrats they’re proposing 1. To pass an Education Freedom Act to end political micromanagement and interference – it’s counterproductive and stifles innovation. 2. To bring additional funding, education is their number one spending commitment and they’ll give head teachers the freedom to set their priorities without ring fencing funds. 3. Schools need a clear system of accountability that is reflective of performance not catchment areas.
There followed a number of questions from the floor to which each of the speakers were asked to respond.
If we have a ‘balanced’ government which of them should hold the Education portfolio?
Balls: providing a rising budget is key – something the Conservatives won’t commit to. Gove: would want to work beyond the boundaries of the Conservative party.
Laws: the keystones are Funding, Freedom and Accountability. Freedom to innovate should be for all and not just for the few. This was a dig at the Conservative policy where the ‘new free’ schools and academies would exclusively enjoy freedom – he added ‘don’t vote Conservative’.
But did they answer the question – I think not!
They were invited to comment on the new Primary Curriculum that was dropped from the Education Bill that was rushed through the House in the final days of the session.
Gove: It wasn’t fit for purpose.
Laws: It didn’t go far enough.
Balls: The Rose review was well received by the profession; it’s a shame that there wasn’t time to see it through.
What are their views on free nursery education?
Laws: we’ll continue it, we must start early to combat disadvantage.
Balls: per pupil funding will increase, we’ll keep SureStart and increase nursery provision without introducing top-up fees.
Gove: he’ll ensure that they safeguard the free entitlement.
What are their views on SEN and Inclusion?
Gove: we’ll change the process for assessing the level of need. We need to build centres of excellence.
Balls: parents should be able to choose between special schools and mainstream schools – selecting the most appropriate provision for the needs of their children. He added that the Conservative sums just don’t add up.
Laws: there should be real choice and where there is inclusion there should be the funding to support it.
What are their views on Diplomas?
Laws: keen to make more vocational training and qualifications available. There should be a ‘’General Diploma’ which builds on and includes existing qualifications.
Gove: the entitlement is undeliverable. The credibility of Diplomas is variable and they need to be validated by professional bodies and trade associations.
Balls: the development of Diplomas has involved more consultation and engagement than ever before. They’re new and growing. The statements by Gove have not been constructive and have done those following the courses a disservice.
What about CPD?
Balls: it is the most important issue; we now have a better qualified and skilled profession than we’ve ever had. We have inspirational leaders.
Gove: we need to raise the prestige and esteem of the profession.
Laws: the quality of teachers is key. When we look at other countries we must learn the lesson and eliminate political interference.
What about our pensions?
Gove: we will review public sector pensions; those with a pension of over £50k per annum will feel the impact. (So teachers will be safe!)
Laws: we’ll not abolish final salary pensions; we will review how they are funded because they’re currently too expensive.
Balls: we’ll keep our pension promises.
What about the concept of ‘freedom’?
Laws: if you vote Conservative there will only be freedom for the few – we think it should be freedom for all.
Balls: we have the best professionals we’ve ever had; we’ll trust them. But beware of the Conservatives’ budget cuts.
Gove: there will be freedom for all.
So how did they do? Gove gave a very polished opening speech – it felt as though his researcher had attended the conference. He fared less well during the question and answer sessions, looking nervous at times, and consistently ignored challenges from the other two concerning both funding and prioritisation of education. Balls was confident and at times bullish, defending current achievements as well as setting out his stall for the future. He certainly attacked Conservative policies; repeatedly asking Gove to talk about funding. Laws was very assured, making clear statements which were well received by the delegates, praising some of the Labour administration achievements, repeatedly saying that the electorate shouldn’t turn back the clock and vote Conservative. There are definite signs of a burgeoning alignment between Messrs Balls and Laws.
In the news on the BBC website:
Comment on the conference – Head teachers should not be treated like football managers and face the sack if they have a bad year.
Comment on education policies: Three largest parties clash over education priorities.
Patrick Kirk
With less than a week to go until the election, Balls, Gove and Laws took time out of their hectic schedules to visit the NAHT Annual Conference in Liverpool. The session started with an introductory speech from each of the visitors.
Ed Balls: Ed commended the conference delegates on their passion for helping every child to succeed. Later in the session Michael Gove passed on the same compliment to Ed! Balls was clear about the need for a new accountability system – the Report Card needs to reflect the progress made by every child. He went on to reinforce Government spending on education – a doubling in real terms – and confirmed the Labour Party’s commitment to continue the increase in educational investment over the coming years. Later he challenged Michael Gove to ‘come clean’ on the Conservatives’ plans – a challenge to which Gove chose not to respond. Balls reinforced the desire and need for every school to be a ‘good’ school, that this would be key to parental choice, and that ‘every child matters’.
Michael Gove: His theme was that Government must listen to and trust education professionals. That Head Teachers must have the ‘freedom to flourish’ (suitably aligned with the conference theme) and that OFSTED must be transformed. He proposed that inspections must be driven by observation and not data – claiming that inspectors arrive at schools with pre-determined views based on data. Gove believes that the profession must be free from fear, free from interference and free to inspire. He recognised the need for benchmarks and said that we need to learn from other countries. Gove advocated that with freedom and trust comes accountability – so there’s no escape from being measured but there was no clarity as to how!
David Laws: ‘Freedom to Flourish’ was announced as a Liberal Democrat theme, something that we should expect to see loud and clear when they are in power. Laws commended Ed Balls and our current Government – they’ve redressed many of the issues they inherited from the previous incumbents – they’ve improved standards (we now have many high performing , inspiring schools), they’ve made a step change in investment. Laws claimed that if we have a change in administration, we need to ensure we don’t undo the good things that have been achieved to date; we must not return to the previous Conservative regime where education isn’t prioritised. However, Laws acknowledged many challenges that still exist – too many children still leave our education system with inadequate qualifications, there are excessive levels of political interference, excessive legislation is part of the problem – not part of the solution. For the Liberal Democrats they’re proposing 1. To pass an Education Freedom Act to end political micromanagement and interference – it’s counterproductive and stifles innovation. 2. To bring additional funding, education is their number one spending commitment and they’ll give head teachers the freedom to set their priorities without ring fencing funds. 3. Schools need a clear system of accountability that is reflective of performance not catchment areas.
There followed a number of questions from the floor to which each of the speakers were asked to respond.
If we have a ‘balanced’ government which of them should hold the Education portfolio?
Balls: providing a rising budget is key – something the Conservatives won’t commit to. Gove: would want to work beyond the boundaries of the Conservative party.
Laws: the keystones are Funding, Freedom and Accountability. Freedom to innovate should be for all and not just for the few. This was a dig at the Conservative policy where the ‘new free’ schools and academies would exclusively enjoy freedom – he added ‘don’t vote Conservative’.
But did they answer the question – I think not!
They were invited to comment on the new Primary Curriculum that was dropped from the Education Bill that was rushed through the House in the final days of the session.
Gove: It wasn’t fit for purpose.
Laws: It didn’t go far enough.
Balls: The Rose review was well received by the profession; it’s a shame that there wasn’t time to see it through.
What are their views on free nursery education?
Laws: we’ll continue it, we must start early to combat disadvantage.
Balls: per pupil funding will increase, we’ll keep SureStart and increase nursery provision without introducing top-up fees.
Gove: he’ll ensure that they safeguard the free entitlement.
What are their views on SEN and Inclusion?
Gove: we’ll change the process for assessing the level of need. We need to build centres of excellence.
Balls: parents should be able to choose between special schools and mainstream schools – selecting the most appropriate provision for the needs of their children. He added that the Conservative sums just don’t add up.
Laws: there should be real choice and where there is inclusion there should be the funding to support it.
What are their views on Diplomas?
Laws: keen to make more vocational training and qualifications available. There should be a ‘’General Diploma’ which builds on and includes existing qualifications.
Gove: the entitlement is undeliverable. The credibility of Diplomas is variable and they need to be validated by professional bodies and trade associations.
Balls: the development of Diplomas has involved more consultation and engagement than ever before. They’re new and growing. The statements by Gove have not been constructive and have done those following the courses a disservice.
What about CPD?
Balls: it is the most important issue; we now have a better qualified and skilled profession than we’ve ever had. We have inspirational leaders.
Gove: we need to raise the prestige and esteem of the profession.
Laws: the quality of teachers is key. When we look at other countries we must learn the lesson and eliminate political interference.
What about our pensions?
Gove: we will review public sector pensions; those with a pension of over £50k per annum will feel the impact. (So teachers will be safe!)
Laws: we’ll not abolish final salary pensions; we will review how they are funded because they’re currently too expensive.
Balls: we’ll keep our pension promises.
What about the concept of ‘freedom’?
Laws: if you vote Conservative there will only be freedom for the few – we think it should be freedom for all.
Balls: we have the best professionals we’ve ever had; we’ll trust them. But beware of the Conservatives’ budget cuts.
Gove: there will be freedom for all.
So how did they do? Gove gave a very polished opening speech – it felt as though his researcher had attended the conference. He fared less well during the question and answer sessions, looking nervous at times, and consistently ignored challenges from the other two concerning both funding and prioritisation of education. Balls was confident and at times bullish, defending current achievements as well as setting out his stall for the future. He certainly attacked Conservative policies; repeatedly asking Gove to talk about funding. Laws was very assured, making clear statements which were well received by the delegates, praising some of the Labour administration achievements, repeatedly saying that the electorate shouldn’t turn back the clock and vote Conservative. There are definite signs of a burgeoning alignment between Messrs Balls and Laws.
In the news on the BBC website:
Comment on the conference – Head teachers should not be treated like football managers and face the sack if they have a bad year.
Comment on education policies: Three largest parties clash over education priorities.
Patrick Kirk
Education and the Election 2010 – news roundup
April 19, 2010
A few sources of information as the campaigns develop:
- TES – Your guide to the big three’s election pledges
- SchoolDuggery’s Blog – The Education Vote 2010
- BBC – Policies Compared
- Politics.co.uk – Education
- The Telegraph – Election 2010
- The Guardian – Election 2010
- The Times – Election 2010
- One News Page – Education Policies Election 2010
Patrick Kirk
A few sources of information as the campaigns develop:
- TES – Your guide to the big three’s election pledges
- SchoolDuggery’s Blog – The Education Vote 2010
- BBC – Policies Compared
- Politics.co.uk – Education
- The Telegraph – Election 2010
- The Guardian – Election 2010
- The Times – Election 2010
- One News Page – Education Policies Election 2010
Patrick Kirk
Education and the Election 2010
April 15, 2010
Following on from my earlier posts about The Spectator Conference and the Learning & Technology World Forum we’ve been watching the political debate around education and how the parties are positioning education issues within their manifestos. The profile of education is rising during the campaign and in my searches I came across SecEd – ‘The only website for secondary education news and jobs’. On the site is a page entitled: ‘Taking your questions to Parliament – 15 Apr 2010’ where a number of teachers and school leaders have posed questions to the three main parties. SecEd has written responses to the questions from Messrs Ed Balls, Michael Gove, and David Laws which have been summarised by the site editor. From the article:
On parents choosing schools rather than the other way around – the consensus appears to be that if all schools are good schools then everyone would get the school of their choice – of course, the approaches to achieving this are somewhat different!
On the gap between the funding that is spent on education and the funding received by schools – Messrs Law and Gove are both saying that there should be less money spent on ‘quangos’ and bureaucracy. Ed Balls has already reduced the budget for Becta by £40 million so perhaps he agrees – he states that with the increased settlement and further efficiency savings (within schools), schools should be able to meet the cost pressures they face. It’s interesting to note that part of the efficiency savings are to be met through smarter procurement – key aspects of the work of two organisations (quangos), Partnership for Schools and Becta – so let’s hope that the cuts within these organisations don’t make this goal unachievable.
On change, about having time to embed success before moving on to the next big idea – I’m not sure about their responses. Gove: we’re going to give schools more freedom – yet he’s already made pronouncements about curriculum reform. Balls: we’ve had a lot of successes since we came into office and we’re going to build on these successes. Laws: there’s been too much meddling by politicians – we’ll pass an Education Freedom Act to ban this meddling.
On how to keep politically driven agendas out of education – there’s a level of agreement here – greater freedom for schools with increased accountability – again though, how to achieve this varies considerably.
On Diplomas – the responses varied from Laws: they’re a flop, to Gove: they need some changes to Balls: they’re a success story but we need further work on some areas (functional skills in particular – have a look at Guroo for functional skills for useful resources). So no consensus there then!
On SATS, league tables and testing – Gove: we need some changes but without them the work of some of our brilliant schools would have gone unnoticed. Balls: we need a smarter and fairer accountability system. Laws: they don’t work and are in need of reform.
On fair funding – Balls: we’ve reviewed funding mechanisms and are proposing changes but there should be local investment where it’s most needed. Laws: unfair funding is a real problem and we’re proposing changes. Gove: funding mechanisms are too complicated and obscure and so we’re proposing changes. There’s a theme running through this response!
On OFSTED and head teacher recruitment– Messrs Gove and Laws: we need OFSTED and we need changes in the framework. Balls: there have been problems with the recent changes in the inspection framework; we need to clear up some of the myths. Head teacher vacancy rates have been less than 1% for the last 10 years; we need to ensure that we reward those leading underperforming and challenging schools.
On pensions, pay and conditions – Gove: we’ve no plans to reform teachers’ pensions; we want to give schools more flexibility on pay and conditions. Balls: we’ve no plans to reform teachers’ pensions; and we believe that the pay and conditions agreements are a universal right – organisations can supplement them but not dilute them. Laws: we need to examine pensions across the public sector and we need to reform the rigid and bureaucratic pay and conditions rules.
On whether their education philosophy is substantiated by research – Laws: we took evidence from many involved in education. Gove: I’ve visited schools and spoken to teachers, I think good things are happening in Singapore, Finland, Sweden, and the USA. Balls: I’ve visited many schools and had dialogues with those involved including students. Most of the best ideas come from schools not from Whitehall. I’m not sure that any of them answered the question!
On funding for attendence, behaviour and attainment initiatives, post-16 participation, PE, school clubs and sports – Gove: we’ll devolve budget responsibilities to schools – it’s up to them what they prioritise. Balls: school funding will continue to increase we’ll build on the progress we’ve made. Laws: we’ll invest extra funding in schools but they’ll have to decide where their priorities lie.
So – the debate is getting under way – there’s even consensus in some areas – if you want to read more then try the following links to the education manifestos: Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats.
Patrick Kirk
Following on from my earlier posts about The Spectator Conference and the Learning & Technology World Forum we’ve been watching the political debate around education and how the parties are positioning education issues within their manifestos. The profile of education is rising during the campaign and in my searches I came across SecEd – ‘The only website for secondary education news and jobs’. On the site is a page entitled: ‘Taking your questions to Parliament – 15 Apr 2010’ where a number of teachers and school leaders have posed questions to the three main parties. SecEd has written responses to the questions from Messrs Ed Balls, Michael Gove, and David Laws which have been summarised by the site editor. From the article:
On parents choosing schools rather than the other way around – the consensus appears to be that if all schools are good schools then everyone would get the school of their choice – of course, the approaches to achieving this are somewhat different!
On the gap between the funding that is spent on education and the funding received by schools – Messrs Law and Gove are both saying that there should be less money spent on ‘quangos’ and bureaucracy. Ed Balls has already reduced the budget for Becta by £40 million so perhaps he agrees – he states that with the increased settlement and further efficiency savings (within schools), schools should be able to meet the cost pressures they face. It’s interesting to note that part of the efficiency savings are to be met through smarter procurement – key aspects of the work of two organisations (quangos), Partnership for Schools and Becta – so let’s hope that the cuts within these organisations don’t make this goal unachievable.
On change, about having time to embed success before moving on to the next big idea – I’m not sure about their responses. Gove: we’re going to give schools more freedom – yet he’s already made pronouncements about curriculum reform. Balls: we’ve had a lot of successes since we came into office and we’re going to build on these successes. Laws: there’s been too much meddling by politicians – we’ll pass an Education Freedom Act to ban this meddling.
On how to keep politically driven agendas out of education – there’s a level of agreement here – greater freedom for schools with increased accountability – again though, how to achieve this varies considerably.
On Diplomas – the responses varied from Laws: they’re a flop, to Gove: they need some changes to Balls: they’re a success story but we need further work on some areas (functional skills in particular – have a look at Guroo for functional skills for useful resources). So no consensus there then!
On SATS, league tables and testing – Gove: we need some changes but without them the work of some of our brilliant schools would have gone unnoticed. Balls: we need a smarter and fairer accountability system. Laws: they don’t work and are in need of reform.
On fair funding – Balls: we’ve reviewed funding mechanisms and are proposing changes but there should be local investment where it’s most needed. Laws: unfair funding is a real problem and we’re proposing changes. Gove: funding mechanisms are too complicated and obscure and so we’re proposing changes. There’s a theme running through this response!
On OFSTED and head teacher recruitment– Messrs Gove and Laws: we need OFSTED and we need changes in the framework. Balls: there have been problems with the recent changes in the inspection framework; we need to clear up some of the myths. Head teacher vacancy rates have been less than 1% for the last 10 years; we need to ensure that we reward those leading underperforming and challenging schools.
On pensions, pay and conditions – Gove: we’ve no plans to reform teachers’ pensions; we want to give schools more flexibility on pay and conditions. Balls: we’ve no plans to reform teachers’ pensions; and we believe that the pay and conditions agreements are a universal right – organisations can supplement them but not dilute them. Laws: we need to examine pensions across the public sector and we need to reform the rigid and bureaucratic pay and conditions rules.
On whether their education philosophy is substantiated by research – Laws: we took evidence from many involved in education. Gove: I’ve visited schools and spoken to teachers, I think good things are happening in Singapore, Finland, Sweden, and the USA. Balls: I’ve visited many schools and had dialogues with those involved including students. Most of the best ideas come from schools not from Whitehall. I’m not sure that any of them answered the question!
On funding for attendence, behaviour and attainment initiatives, post-16 participation, PE, school clubs and sports – Gove: we’ll devolve budget responsibilities to schools – it’s up to them what they prioritise. Balls: school funding will continue to increase we’ll build on the progress we’ve made. Laws: we’ll invest extra funding in schools but they’ll have to decide where their priorities lie.
So – the debate is getting under way – there’s even consensus in some areas – if you want to read more then try the following links to the education manifestos: Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats.
Patrick Kirk