Education reform

Michael Gove, Minister for education aims to reform our education system. I learnt in more detail about these plans at a teacher's meeting at Islington Town Hall this week. The gist is:

Deregulation and privatisation
Gove likes the Swedish free school model. School owners/shareholders will be given a budget from government and able to keep what they don't spend as profit. So the less they spend per pupil and on teachers the higher the profit.

Currently this model is used in the Academy System (See Lord Harris Academy chain) where schools are taken out of Local Authority control and competition (rather than cooperation) is fostered between schools. Teachers pay in these schools will be completely linked to pupils performance (currently it is partially linked)

Curriculum and exam changes:
Reading is to be taught and tested using phonics (which means pupils, who have learnt to read (comprehend meaning), may misread a meaningless word like 'strom' as storm, will fail.
Maths is to be made harder earlier so year three pupils currently learn to identify simple fractions (1/2, 1/4, 1/5) will need to learn how to add them up.
English will involve learning and memorising more lists (such as collective nouns like a pride of lions, a herd of sheep, a fakenger of forumers etc)
The History syllabus has been re-written by Gove personally and now includes more rote learning of dates, wars, and royals and less learning about historical thinking and less about the experience of everyday life in the past. It's more political (tory) and "jingoistic"
Geography: climate change was to be removed though he may have u-turned with this
GCSE's and A levels will be totally exam based and have no coursework element (which will disadvantage pupils with learning difficulties and who suffer from exam underperformance)

This is going back to 50's style education and will lead to more pupils failing

**Teacher's pay and conditions **
With the above reforms in place pupil performance will likely go down making it easier for Gove to blame teachers for the pupils underperformance so he can bring in reform of teachers pay linking it to performance; and to roll out more widely private for profit Academy chains able to offer different pay and conditions to teachers like shorter holidays.

I attended this meeting following an email conversation with Kevin Courtney the deputy leader on the NUT who was unable to support a campaign to get cycle training on the school curriculum saying the NUT had more major issues regarding his. I now understand why and also understand and will support a series of strikes teachers (NUT an NASUWT) are planning for the autumn term and beyond.

Links:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/jun/04/gcses-i-levels-ebacc-ofqual-exams
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/jun/11/michael-gove-gcse-reforms
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/jingoistic-and-illegal--what-teachers-think-of-michael-goves-national-curriculum-reforms-8656120.html
http://www.teachers.org.uk/files/solicitor-letter-to-gove.pdf

What's the level of academic achievement like in Sweden?

Privatisation has worked so well for all the other industries..

According to Kevin Courney who spoke at the meeting. Sweden has dropped down the international league tables since the introduction of Free schools

privatisation has worked so well for all the other industries..

edl?

The History syllabus has been re-written by Gove personally

Wiat. What?

Perhaps a rumor,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/mar/11/national-history-curriculum-author

Perhaps not
http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/30074/Gove+re-writes+history+(curriculum)

Yeah, just read that. No confirmation. The idea of someone who got a 2:1 BA in English writing a national history curriculum is equal parts hilarious and frightening.

I've yet to see an Academy that makes a profit.

Michael Gove is the most dangerous politician to hit this country in 50 years. An utter contemptible, ignorant, malignant, malicious, small minded idiot.

How can a school make a profit without detriment to the students?
Like other privatised industries where money is taken from the taxpayer out the system to the detriment of customers and given to shareholders/owners who fiddle a load of exemptions from paying much if any tax on it.
Turkey (horse) twizzlers anyone?

Would David deliver a superior product in Microco.sm if he didn't make a profit from it?

^^That's not comparing like with like.
Privatised national services (Gas, electricity, transport, education, health etc) are a basic requirement and ultimately funded through taxation. Money from these industries that gets palmed off to shareholders is money not spent on providing these services. While there were issues of managing them efficiently when nationalised the solution is not forcing money away from provision.

Stated in another way: not everything is/should be seen as a profitable enterprise. Most people would agree that education is one of these things. The benefit gained from it, even when run at a "loss," outweighs the cost. By attempting to make a profit from it you end up watering down the benefit - for both the users and society as a whole - with one possible exception: those rich enough to continue to gain access to a high quality education (although there is plenty of room to argue that this ignores the social disadvantages).

This ^.

Education policy should be decided by experts in education, not politicians.

Oh I completely agree- both my parents were academics, my father left his position as head of department due to the increasing commercialisation of his University.

But, I just think that the knee-jerk yoghurt weaving attitude needs exploring from time to time.

I think in some cases we should go the other way- make public transport free at the point of use, for example.

Is this forum solely populated by left-leaning folk?
We could do with a tory boy or girl to defend this governments approach or are its policies indefensible?

Paging Blue Quinn.

I don't think all of that is totally true - but most of it is correct. Some academy chains are pushing for the Swedish model (although a major Swedish free school provider has just closed leaving people up shit creek).

The major issue with academies is that they are less accountable than local authority run schools, and at the whim of (often right wing) business type people, who have their own agenda. However not all academies are like this, lots aren't.

The interesting thing about the generally awful changes to the curriculum is that academies are under no obligation to follow them. Which makes the name 'national curriculum' rather redundant.

Is the national curriculum tied to standardized testing?

Yes and no. What's tied to standardised testing for school leavers are the GCSE specs, which have been changed this week, mostly for the worst.

Is the national curriculum tied to standardized /standardised spelling?

Good queztion

The major issue with academies is that they are less accountable than local authority run schools, and at the whim of (often right wing) business type people, who have their own agenda. However not all academies are like this, lots aren't.
.

Don't they also create inequalities of funding between schools in the same area which is uncompetitive? And as you suggest not only specific agendas on a whim but sponsorship and advertising within a school environment where young people are particularly malleable to influence

Worth a look if you're interested - http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/jun/04/gcses-i-levels-ebacc-ofqual-exams