The media is working itself up into a minor frenzy this morning about what Andy Burnham might say about education in a speech to be delivered this morning.
According to The Telegraph, he is going to reject Tony Blair's approach to education, which was all about getting 50% of young people to university. Since that goal was always inappropriate, because an academic education does not suit everyone or meet the needs of all employers, changing that approach is desirable.
Others are getting excited about the prospect of local employers being asked to advise on the curriculum to be used in their local area of the country. It is this suggestion that I take issue with.
I would, firstly, note that there is nothing new about this. I became a governor of a school in Wandsworth, South London, in the late 1980s precisely because the Tories were at the time promoting the idea that, if only more local employers were on the governing bodies of schools, children might be better prepared for the needs of the workplace. It was in that role that I was appointed. I remained a governor for 13 years, being joined by Sadiq Khan for a while along the way.
Why this was considered necessary in a primary school baffled me at the time, as it did the excellent headteacher I worked with there. I felt, as I do now, that education for work was just one aspect of education, amongst many, and not necessarily the most important one at that. Preparation for life was, I felt, much more useful, and there is much more to life than work. Nothing has changed my mind since then.
I also think the suggestion that employers might know what education is required to meet their needs is slightly naive because, very obviously, there is no one answer to that question. The skills required of a hairdresser are not the same as those required of a dental technician, or those necessary to work in a call centre. A delivery driver is not going to use the same skills as a care worker, except that both might require a driving licence, and no school that I am aware of does at present provide driving lessons, although it could be argued that this is a notable absence on their part. I could continue making these comparisons, but the point is clear. Just as not all people are suited to university, not all people have the same skill set, or match the requirements for all jobs. In that case, who is to decide which employers get priority? Is it the biggest, the loudest, those who make the biggest donation, or what? None of this makes any sense.
There are several things that could, however, make sense. One would be to design education around the needs of both genders, and they are not the same. Boys do find it much more difficult to work without frequent periods of physical activity than many girls do. Deny that, and you will have problems.
And do provide an appropriate physical environment for learning, including clean air and natural light. Concentration skyrockets if you do.
At the same time, design education for understanding, not learning. Unless you explain why fractions and percentages are useful, and what role they have in the world beyond the classroom, the chance that anyone will want to learn them is incredibly low. There are vast numbers of examples of teaching that miss this fundamental point, and it is no wonder, as a consequence, that we have people leaving school who do not understand basic concepts because that understanding has never been imparted to them. They have been told to learn what a frontal adverbial is, which they will never need to know, but not why.
After that, educate to feed curiosity. A wise employer wants a curious employee because they are the ones who will add value. That, though, is precisely the quality that education seems designed to destroy. Take a five-year-old, and you have an intensely curious person. “Why?” is their favourite word. By the time you get to 18, the education system has done everything it can to remove that spirit of inquisitiveness from them.
Let me also make the obvious point, which is that you need to teach, taking neurodiversity into account. Maybe 15% of children in most classes will have some form of neurodiversity, which is sometimes described as creating special needs, which in itself is inappropriate. There is nothing special about these needs. They exist. We know they do. They always will. There must, as a result, be an adaptive evolutionary benefit to them. The only problem is that we treat them as abnormal, and so label them as special. What education needs to do is treat them as normal, but different, and ensure that education meets the needs of those who have them as well as it meets the needs of those who do not. Do that, and a great many of our problems with alienation from the workplace throughout life would disappear.
There are more issues I could raise, but my point is a simple one. If you assume that the purpose of education is to supply an economic input for use in the workplace, you do not know what education is all about. If you reinforce that misunderstanding by suggesting that employers must define what education is for, when employers will not agree on the issue, you just set up the education system to fail, yet again. Instead, you need to create an education system that provides children and young people with the chance to learn in ways that suit them, and that help them integrate better into the very many and varied communities of which they will be a part throughout their lives.
This will require that they know how to read and write. It does not require that they have the ability to write an essay, because well over 90% of people never will once they leave school, so why do we make it such a priority (and also teach how to do it so badly)? At most, they need to learn how to send a clear email, text message or short letter, because that is all that many of them will ever do once they leave school. They will read a great deal more, but employers will rarely ask for essays: they will ask for basic communication skills.
Likewise, when it comes to maths, they do need to know how to do basic arithmetic, understand concepts like percentages, interpret charts, appraise financial products and know how to use a spreadsheet. There are few who need more than that. Troublingly, there are many who do not even have those skills.
But, most of all, education is about encouraging inquisitive engagement, and when its primary goal is to teach conformity, rather than the development of the individual and their potential, it is bound to fail.
I am not expecting to hear anything about education today that will fulfil my hopes and expectations.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Could not agree more with your comments. Education is all about preparation for life and being inquisitive. It should also be more flexible so that people can go back to learn about subjects when they are older when the need for certain skills may be more evident and/or someone is more interested in a subject. Learning is a lifelong activity, inquisitiveness is something we all need.
Thank you and well said, Richard.
Let’s keep young Blair and his investor Sunak out of vocational education, too.
With regard to educating for life, not just widgets for a production line, a bit of philosophy would not go amiss. I studied a bit in France and, when doing the masters, here, went out with my French lecturer. I noticed the benefits of some philosophy at school.
I agree
I did not get to it until later
Thanks again for a most relevant article!
Might person-enabling, relevant learning/education include the following?
1) The acceptance and energetic use of “Liquorice Allsorts” education which is the wholehearted acceptance and positive use of our all being different and needing to stick together
2) The attitudes and skills to perceive society as it really and deeply is and how it could be made altogether kinder and more enabling
3) The attitudes, skills and knowledge which enable.students of all ages to be assertive querists and imperts
Might so many of the present presented education problems result from the 1988 Eduction Reform/Deform Act which resulted in making the student fit the curriculum and its communication instead of the much more effective reverse?
Querist – one who is good at asking questions
Impert – one who develops “unofficial” expertises which always facilitate analytical questioning and often brings fresh, relevant insights
Steve,
I have always been a Impert(inent) Querist and have benefited far more from that than from 7 years at grammar school in the 1970s.
I am not entirely sure how Burnham’s education plans fit with his regionalisation plan. I understand he is going to say (how I hate hearing news of what someone will say – why not wait until they have said it?) that their should be local input into the curriculum, linked to local industries. Is the assumption now that people remain in the same locality for their entire working life? Or is it an attempt to limit people to stay where they were born? Part of the problem is the lack of opportunities in local industries, so let’s train people primarily to work in those, rather than in industries that may move in later.
All good points
And the assumption is also you have a job for life
All very bizarre
Could Burnham’s speech just be fodder for the media?
Nothing wrong with announcing and discussing problems but it does little good (and could cause damage) unless you have a workable plan of action to reach a solution.
Plans?
Action?
There goes another flying pig…..
Very well said, Richard.
We all know that Finland has the best education system – OK we would if those who don’t could be bothered to enquire into such things. – so what’s wrong with us?
Is it “British exceptionalism”? Stupidity? A belief ingrained from early childhood that “it’s wrong to copy”?
Personally I blame the education system….
Thank you.
Mauritius, a former British and French colony and with a hybrid legal and education system, is looking at Finland. The trigger for that was a young woman / mum from the Franco-Mauritian oligarchy setting up her own school in a disused sugar mill. Children are often taught in the orchards and fields surrounding the 19th century buildings. It’s very healthy and thought provoking. Teachers were sent to Finland for training.
Your comment and her innovation remind me of an ITV morning show about education in the early 1990s. John Rae, former head of Westminster, wanted the Japanese system considered. Someone in the audience screamed, “We can’t have a Japanese system ’cause we’re British!” A young Boris Johnson was on the panel* and thought that if children don’t want to go to school, they should not have to. Much of the audience ate out of Johnson’s hand. The rest is history.
*I can’t remember why Johnson was on the panel, but it’s common now for these types, but not the likes of Richard, to be on. Richard and Mike know why these audiences are selected.
Sadly so….
This article has lifted my spirits in these chaotic times. I couldn’t agree with you more and have been saying similar things for years.
As an employer in the hotel industry my main criteria for employing a young person was about their ability to get up in the morning!
Later as a teacher in inner city schools I realised how inappropriate our education system is for many youngsters. My first question on hearing Blair’s 50% was what about the other 50%? I did a science degree at university and yet since then have never felt the need to solve a quadratic equation but have had to study subjects for myself including IT which I subswquently taught.
The late Sir Ken Robinson in his TED talks echoes your need for curiosity and how we beat it out of them and also your take on neurodivergence.
I would make communication and numeracy skills the core and make every other subject a matter of choice. Pupils would have the same supervising teacher throughout their school careers who would make certain they left with a burning desire for more knowledge and the ability to achieve their goals.
I like Ken Robinson. It is a shame he died too young. He had much good stuff to say, and said it very well.
I agree with what you say about education, but so many children are already mis-educated before they get to school. How many parents have patience to deal with constant “why” — or even occasional whys, in many cases. Travel on a bus and you’ll hear it. Stereotypes are imposed — little girls mustn’t play rough games at a party, because it will mess up their pretty clothes. Little boys have their soft toys taken away at an early age when they still want them. And the start of creativity is often despised because it’s not yet good, and it’s always messy. Some children show strong inclinations towards something even before school — Gerald Durrell for insects, etc; my own brother the actuary for numbers — but most don’t. We could fix a lot of things via schools and education, but it’s much harder to know how to fix the parents!
We got told off when out boys went to school.
Apparently we were meant to have taught them to read before they got there. This was, I stress, a state school. We had not done that. They knew numbers, colours, very large numbers of words (we never dumbed down) and they could converse on many issues – and still can. We left the school to do reading. Apparently that was a mistalem expectation. I never understood why.
What they did know was how to play. They later learned to read. They still can play. Sometimes I wonder which is more useful. At four, rising five, I have no doubt.
One of my aunts went to school in Norway, at the usual age of 7, and was bored because she had learned to read at home. It took a while for the school to digest this; they didn’t believe her at first, and clearly considered it their job to teach reading!
🙂
I went to a brilliant comprehensive during the late 70s just before Thatcher started the politicisation of education. We were free from the national curriculum and endless testing. I was in the fourth comprehensive intake in what had previously been a secondary modern school and the whole ethos was to prepare us for the world. We were taught music through film and advertising themes etc. Individual character was encouraged and at 16 two thirds went straight out to work. There wasn’t a lot of vocational teaching other than typing, childcare and woodwork, but we were taught to think for ourselves. The varied achievements of my cohort are way above what you would expect, from entrepreneurs, to head coach at Wimbledon, authors and scientists. I recall very little rote learning.
I’m currently working as a clerk to governors for a small federation of primary schools and frequently hear the curriculum is too crammed to add what they would like and there is great stress around SATS preparation and achievement. The one thing we need is less government intervention and to let teachers teach. Sadly, it doesn’t sound like that will be allowed to happen.
Much to agree with
You touch on it Richard but we must improve the physical state of many classrooms.
For a start providing them with clean air.
@1goodtern on X/Twitter works in many schools and documents the deterioration in health of our children because of repeated covid infections making them more susceptible to other infections.
It is a massive issue, as is the presence of artificial light at all times. It is wearing, and sometimes unavoidable – but as much natural light as possible is vital.
And let’s put in a shout for music and foreign languages, those “useless” subjects that have been systematically removed from the curriculum, but which create opportunities for so many, over a whole lifetime.
Agreed
I had a great music education at school
I still pick up the clarinet occassionally, but a recorder (I have a range) more often.
Sadly my father’s collection of 78’s did not come to me here in Australia after he died, but as a child we played this one on many a Saturday morning. I’m trying to play saxophone theses days, less confusing than the clarinet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPPuR5EHC5g&list=RDEPPuR5EHC5g&start_radio=1
Funnily enough some children have been taught to drive at school………..
Someone recalled his days at a school for the blind – bear in mind that there are very few people who cant see anything. He and his year were taken by the school to a disused airfield and allowed to drive – under supervision. As the head remarked they would never be allowed to drive but it would be very useful for them to have experienced driving and understand at least a little bit of what it was about.
Schools could of course teach everyone basic car maintenance – tyres, oil etc, road safety, cycling and I suggest very usefully the requirements around tax, insurance MoT etc.
Back in the 90’s I used to envy my female colleagues who had done ‘business’ courses post 16 and could type rapidly and accurately while based on my typing I was more suited for a career in The Police (Famous for one finger typing)
Finally my oldest son got me a book on Maths for Christmas, not the ‘how’ but the ‘why’ – all those beautiful curves in buildings are expressed through maths, navigation is done with Maths – Christs Hospital was founded to teach boys maths so they could become Navy or Merchant Navy officers, and of course apply Ohms Law to a Bournemouth Line Express – 8x365hp traction motors taking power from a 750V supply then Maths & Physics starts to make sense.
🙂
As a teacher of over 45 years experience – I still keep my hand in with supply teaching – it makes my anger rise when I hear the usual guff from politicians when they talk about this very serious subject. It only proves that they are indeed clueless or slaves to some fiendish and in humane educational ideology.
Every education secretary since Jim Callaghan has essentially been useless from a strictly educational perspective. We can understand this coming from the Tories, but Labour’s cowardice in the face of neoliberal idiocy has been their downfall in this policy area. The current academy system is the monument to both parties in education.
Andrew Adonis came up with the idea of academy schools because of what he thought were the shortcomings of by his time, greatly underfunded local education authorities. Michael Give then used this attack on local authorities to produce what is now an essentially “privatized” public education system which is slowly collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions. It is a tragedy that the country will pay for in spades in the not-too-distant future.
Tony Blair’s “Education, Education, Education” is now “Shambles, Mess, Chaos!”
So much to agree with.
Just to be clear, I do know all about the “inhuman” and about the idiotic Michael “Gove”!
Manchesterism and Burn’emism looks a lot like the rationale behind Network States. At the age of 14 the school curriculum becomes tailored to the needs of zone employers; university research and graduate output is aligned to the zones corporate partners. Job Centre’s devolve powers to the mayors. The disciplines being defunded are the ones that promote critical thinking. It is managed human capital production for the zone economy, publicly financed whilst privately directed. Look up the Manchester Baccalaureate https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/what-we-do/education-work-and-skills/technical-education-city-region/the-greater-manchester-baccalaureate-mbacc/ and Burn’em’s relationship with Backstone and the property developer Renaker. Designate a zone, attract private capital with planning and regulatory controls removed, throw in a bit of public subsidy to further grease the wheels, then call it regeneration, levelling up, restoration or perhaps Manchesterism.
Thank you, Richard.
From 2010 – 2, I was part of a City and government initiative to help reboot the economy. I led the strands for regulatory reform, alternatives to bank finance, immigration reform and vocational reform.
What stunned and frustrated me were the grandstanding, inertia and even prejudice exercised by Treasury, Home Office and Business department ministers and officials, especially May and Cable.
I suggested to Cable’s team that they visit Germany and study vocational training and trade guilds, development bank finance, devolution and the Mittelstand. No interest at all.
Most of politucs is perfromative in the UK, and maybe beyond.
Why? Because too many in it want their bread buttered.
Having been through the graduation process recently – and reflected on the student debt accrued – we now have a prime minister seemingly banging on about and undermining a very expensive education process!!
It does not add up. So, all the most recent graduates have just wasted their time and money have they? Well thanks Andy! None of this makes any sense to me at all.
The real issue is Labour’s raising the cost of employment along with other stupidity as they rob Peter to pay Paul because they simply cannot accept the fiscal and monetary power they have at their fingertips. It is to do with sticking to austerity and continuing to run down the public sector.
And Kemi Badenoch banging on about being better off on welfare benefits? Honestly, I don’t know anyone doing well on welfare when they get sanctioned for missing a bus to register on job seekers allowance etc.
I feel that this focus on education is just like making it up as you go along and is also just a distraction from what the real issue is – a simple but severe lack of government investment.
I can only throw my hands up in exasperation. It is beyond a joke.
Much to agree with
Thank you Richard, I am now 80 and avidly click on your blog every night – continuing education, I find the infographics especially useful. This piece on education reminded me of being 10 years old and starting at a new school where I was given my first French text book, this included common verbs with their tenses, well I did not bother with ‘imperfect’ because clearly that was not up to scratch. This was yet another odd idea from adults …..
I like that….
Yes to everything already said, and I’d like to add the need, like the Finnish, to train our teachers to masters level, and let them do their job. We know our pupils we know their needs, we can also teach multi subjects, but always to university level, but well enough to get them to proficient standard. As a teacher and curriculum manager in Scotland schools and colleges, I have sometimes been so upset when my Additional Support Need (ASN) pupils have gone to a maths or English class if 30 pupils and not been supported, where as I can teach that curriculum through my art classes, and with their needs understood and supported, as they are creative students. Also some pupils who love maths can be taught Art through that medium.
So instead of stopping classes after 50 mins and moving to the next, some more joined up thinking where pupils strengths can be used to, as others have said, show the why instead of always the how.
Much to agree with
My son is working in a brain injury rehab unit and wants to apply for medical school. He has a first class degree in speech and language therapy so you would think he could apply.
However he has to pass a UCAT timed maths test before he is allowed to apply. It is the kind of maths problems that made me totally reject maths at school.
So no matter how good a GP he would be, he has two attempts at this exam and that’s all.
My fellow NHS campaigners and I believe home economics, food production and cooking should be learned at school by all pupils. We are living in a world where kids are fed a lot of ultra processed rubbish and many have little example of home cooking. Too many are not healthy.
We are thinking of making videos to offer to schools (which have mostly been privatised and are on a Gove-ish bandwagon)
Go for it!
Good luck to your son.
They know what is wrong in education yet none of it has been addressed. This indicates intention. As the saying goes, there is nothing more terrifying to our mortal gods that a knowledgeable, well educated public that cannot be easily fooled.
The part about boiling education down to nothing more than churning out little cogs that slot into the employer machine for use, abuse and subsequent discard is truly repellent; yet this model if anything has become far more extreme over my lifetime and there is no indication that will change.
I think you may be right
I agree with Andy Burnham that Tony Blair’s decision to concentrate on increasing the number of university entrants has had the unintended consequences we face today. We have one million young people not in employment or education and graduates without careers! Thanks to a three year day release and evening classes, started in 1961, I have enjoyed a worthwhile career spanning over 40 years in the construction industry. I believe that improving careers advice for 14-18 year students and increasing funding for technical education will provide worthwhile careers for school leavers. Without an adequate educated workforce we will be unable to adapt our built environment to cope with the climate emergency we now face!