In a wide-ranging speech on education in Bristol yesterday, David Miliband says “I wish I could have done the International Baccalaureat”. He argues that “the enemy of high standards is boredom of pupils” particularly in secondary schools. And he points out that reform of the 14-19 curriculum was “one area, sadly, where Tony Blair was not the moderniser”.
It is incredibly important for Labour’s leadership debate that the candidates are prepared to discuss subjects in each other’s shadow portfolios, outside the confines of the hustings. The other leadership candidates should join this progressive education debate because it is a perfect ‘Red Wedge’ issue for Labour. With a new traditionalist Tory schools secretary, Labour can both use the issue to disrupt the coalition and attract disaffected Lib Dems.
David Miliband has a long history on advocating curriculum reform, dating back 20 years when he edited ‘A British Baccalaureate’ as a fresh faced researcher at the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr). In 2004, as schools minister, he tried to create the kind of reforms to GCSEs and A levels the progressive educational establishment was crying out for through the consensus building Tomlinson Review.
In his speech he said that one of his great regrets was being reshuffled out of the education department before the Tomlinson Review was published. If he’d have stayed, could he have convinced Blair? I doubt it because the review came just a few months before the 2005 general election and the fear was of a Tory campaign to save the ‘gold standard’ of A-levels.
There were other missed opportunities for Labour in government to seize this agenda too. The 2005 white paper on 14-19 education committed the government to a post-election review of the academic only diploma. But the new prime minister (Brown) let the new schools secretary (Balls) kick the review into the long grass.
The Tories have brought a very traditionalist approach to the curriculum into government with them. Michael Gove told the Times that “most parents would rather their children had a traditional education, with children sitting in rows, learning the kings and queens of England, the great works of literature, proper mental arithmetic… That’s the best training of the mind and that’s how children will be able to compete.” Gove’s attempt to turn the clock back could lead to increases in truancy and disruptive behaviour among bright and able teenagers who are used to learning through new and social media and doing arithmetic on their smart phones, rather than sitting in rows and learning by rote.
As David Miliband rightly argues in his speech yesterday “we need to look at how we promote team building and problem solving systematically within the curriculum and assessment system. At how we develop the social and emotional skills which young people need to become effective parents and citizens. At how we nurture the creative skills which are such a vital part of individual talent and so essential also to supplying the creative companies and industries which are among Britain’s strongest competitive advantages in today’s global markets.” A very different vision from Gove’s and one that requires curriculum reform that gives parity of esteem to vocational qualifications and allows teenagers to change courses and match different options.
One of the ideas David Miliband pointed to today was the idea of a five term year in order to end the long summer holiday. This is an idea first advocated by Sonia Sodha, now at Demos. He also questions whether university application could be reformed to include aptitude tests and additional preparatory years for “bright but underprivileged students who – largely due to the challenging circumstances of their home or school life – haven’t managed to achieve the standard A-levels”.
I would have liked him to have advocated an end to predicted grades – what’s known in academia as ‘post-qualification applications’. That’s another idea that has slipped from Labour’s agenda, no doubt because it would represent a huge change in the system for thousands of schools and hundreds of universities. But the most significant education reforms – like the abolition of O-Levels and introduction of GCSEs for example – are both the hardest to deliver and the most worthwhile pursuing.
Labour needs a new reform agenda for education and it is worth being bold in opposition because in government the twin barriers of vested interests in the educational establishment and the fear of political backlash will only ever water proposals down. This is ‘Red Wedge’ territory for Labour and so it has a new political significance.