Michael Gove is a sharp politician. His speech this month at the ippr described a society where the state is remote and individuals are unable to shape the services they want. The crucial relationships that sustain our wellbeing are failing; relationships between parents and teachers, GPs and patients, politicians and frontline public servants. In other words, he acknowledged what progressives have always known, that we are all implicated in each other’s lives and that when our sense of the collective break downs our power to effect change evaporates.
And to a certain extent his diagnosis about relationship breakdown is right when we look at schools. I remember the frustration felt by parents who couldn’t get answers from teachers, from students whose potential remained unfulfilled because they could not engage, from teachers who felt they were constantly under attack by ministers looking to get a quick triangulated headline.
So what is the answer and how can we challenge the Tories?
Gove is clear what he wants. Academies mark II: More freedom, less bureaucracy and greater choice. He paints himself as progressive and market friendly, drawing social democratic cover from the Swedish ‘free school’ model which allows schools to open and close with relative ease. But in so doing he shows he lacks the imagination to tackle the problems he himself identified and remains firmly stuck in the education politics of 2001. He fails to understand what Labour now should: tinkering with institutional structures won’t make the real difference when it comes to frontline delivery.
Labour’s narrative has to be different. The story should go like this: our first parliament was about heavy lifting from the centre. Standards were poor and ministers needed to drive the system with their bare hands. The second parliament was about getting diversity of provision, accepting that modernised institutions are a crucial part of making government more accessible. Academies, faith, specialist and parent-promoted schools have supported individual preferences while keeping the whole system together. But the third parliament now needs to be about the next phase of reform; focusing on a more effective set of relationships that can deliver outstanding public services.
So what does this look like in practice?
First, more freedom at the frontline, more accountability. We need a new and mature contract between government and the practitioners who will make or break ministers’ policy initiatives. The relationship should be based on a principle of earned autonomy. The state should let go when it comes to the curriculum, external testing for younger children and administrative requirements but teachers should expect more drastic action if they abuse their freedoms. Government needs to put its trust in Ofsted, local authorities and parents to identify problems and if things do go wrong then they can send in the cavalry – but not before. If schools are performing well they should be able to have as much freedom to innovate as they want.
Second, recruit and retain the best teachers. The top education systems in the world (Singapore and Finland) have different structures and institutional frameworks but their unifying trait is the quality of their teachers. We need to encourage greater competition for teacher training places and expect the country’s top graduates to become headteachers. And yes, if teachers are not up to it we should make sacking them a serious possibility. Some aspects of pay should be related not to the performance of children, but to the performance of schools as a whole and weighted for disadvantage – acknowledging that moving children on is a group effort and is harder in some places than others.
Third, focus on one-to-one or group support. Progressives should look to personalise support as much as possible whether that is through booster literacy classes for kids struggling to keep up, mentoring sessions for headteachers from leaders outside of education or non-judgmental advice for parents. Some of the challenges that families and schools face are determined by individual circumstance and we need to acknowledge that in our package.
So while this year has seen Ed Balls face scandals over SATs marking, teachers striking and interminable debates about standards, it is time for Labour to change the message and give some definition and drive to our education agenda. Indeed, maybe by re-examining this touchstone issue for all progressives we can engage the party and the wider public and show that we have the vision and courage to win a fourth term.