Tag Archives: academisation

Reimagining Further Education Conference – Book now

The conference will bring together practitioners, researchers and key figures in the field of Further Education (FE) and will cover a range of themes from apprenticeships and work-based learning to accountability and governance in FE.
FEInstead of the conventional ‘stand and deliver’ format of many conferences, ‘Reimagining Further Education’ will be organised as group conversations framed and facilitated by a discussant and chair for each of the 6 thematic strands included. By exploring positive, imaginative and creative ways forward that enhance agency, workforce development and the professional ethos of all FE practitioners, this conference aims to put the ‘confer’ back into conference!
Dates:
29 Jun 2016 (9:00am – 4:00pm)
Venue:
Curzon Building , 4 Cardigan Street Birmingham B4 7BD United Kingdom (Map and Directions)
Price:
£50
Download the programme here: a5-reimagining-fe-programme-131074510792152821

If you are interested in attending the conference and/or would like to know more about it, please contact: suzanne.savage@bcu.ac.uk 

OR go to https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/reimagining-further-education-conference-reimaginefe-tickets-21208624567 to book tickets 
3 2 1

Pupil Premium, Academisation and Governance

Written by Dr. Rob Smith, Reader in Education, @R0b5m1th

Reactions Logo 03

Rob spoke on Radio WM during Adrian Goldberg’s show on the 30th March 2016 8am about pupil premium in the light of recent Perry Beeches. BBC WM

The pupil premium policy provides an example of tensions that are at the heart of English education policy at the moment. To start with there are the market structures of competition between different schools. With this marketisation comes a centralised model of governance through data (see for example, Ozga 20
09
). Schools are required to produce data so that their “pData1erformance” in relation to other schools can be compared. As we know, the consequences of this emphasis on performance data include a narrowing of the curriculum consequent on teaching to the test and the gaming of data. The problem with marketisation is that we may expect schools to be run public-mindedly, in the spirit of meeting all students’ needs, with a public service ethic, but the landscape in which they operate forces them to focus their efforts on being a viable financial institution with a staff drilled in the production of favourable performance data.

The academisation of all schools by 2020 is a further consolidation of the same policy of marketisation. The principle underlying this is that competition “is the rising tide that lifts all boats” (Willetts) – in other words the unfounded notion that competition is a like a force of nature that raises standards in every institution. In my view, this is a wildly one-sided view of the impact of marketisation. But it is important to note that academisation facilitates a more direct funding relationship between schools and central government.

Screen shot 2016-04-06 at 11.32.51

Within this marketised policyscape, the pupil premium policy is a redistributive policy that acknowledges the link between household income and educational attainment (see Lupton and Thomson 2015, here). In other words, the pupil premium policy is designed to address social justice in education. Pupil Premium is an amount of money (around £1000 per student p.a. in secondary) that is paid to schools based on census data they gather about the househoMeasuring1ld income of individual students’ families. The implication is clear: schools with additional financial resources are in a better position to meet the needs of those students and in so doing to address the inequality in attainment that currently seems to exist.

Now here’s the tension:

What happens when a policy that seeks to tackle social injustice is nested within an overall cultural environment of institutional self-interest?

In the last few weeks, we may have been provided with some answers in the Perry Beeches saga.

Perry Beeches was a shining example of the success of Free School and academisation policies. The principle underlying these policies are that academy chains provide a better template for raising student attainment and that local authority governance of schools needs to end. The performance of Perry Beeches 1 and 2 appeared to provide evidence for this claim. It was only with the poor inspection result of Perry Beeches 3 last summer that the success story started to unravel. This was followed in October 2015, by allegations to the Education Funding Agency (EFA) that Perry Beeches the Academy (Perry Beeches 1) “had recorded pupils on the annual census entitled to receive FSM where no entitlement existed” (EFA 2016, 3). This resulted in an investigation and a report.

I think the report speaks for itself. But I think it should also be read in conjunction with the Ofsted report for Perry Beeches 2 that took place in April 2014. In this report the school was deemed outstanding for leadership and management. Pupil premium was mentioned specifically:

“Over half the students are eligible for the pupil premium, which is well above average. This is additional funding for students known to be eligible for free school meals, those in local authority care and any with a parent in the armed services.”

Furthermore, governance was praised in this area:

Governors ensure pupil premium funding is used effectively to provide additional teaching and support staff, for intervention and enrichment support for the students for whom the funding is received.

Since then, the Chief Executive of the Perry Beeches Academy has resigned from his post but intends to continue as a head teacher. The academy chain is to be taken over by another academy chain. The failings of OFSTED to do anything other than affirm the school as a shining example and early adopter of the government’s academisation policy needs to receive greater attention.Measuring2

As for Pupil Premium, the episode provides yet another example of the worrying effects of the colonisation of educational cultures by a market mentality that is championed by the current government. While bowing to the forces of colonisation may secure funds for schools in the short term, this can lead to a distortion of the truth of the kind we are familiar with in commercial culture.

That can not provide a sound foundation on which to construct a world class education system.

Personal reflections on the 2016 London Mayor’s summit on music education: wants and needs

Written by: Martin Fautley, Professor of Education, Birmingham City University

Reactions Logo 03

On Tuesday 22/3/16 I attended the London Mayor’s summit on music education, a prestigious event held in the equally prestigious surroundings of City Hall, on the banks of the Thames, overlooking Tower Bridge. Nice! It was, however, a curious event in many ways in my opinion, and I shall try to explain why here.

Mayor Music 5

My role was to be on a panel concerning CPD and teacher development. I, and some of the BCU music education team, have been working on evaluating the Teach Through Music programme in London (read the reports here), and I was happy to talk about it, as I feel it has been a good thing, and made a differencScreen shot 2016-04-02 at 14.25.37e. But more on that later…

The day began with an address by Nick Gibb, the Minister of State for Schools, which can read here . This opener set the tone for some of the overall oddness of the day. NG didn’t mention the white paper ‘Educational excellence everywhere’, which had come out the previous week, at all. What he did talk about was a music education which seemed to me to be almost entirely to be about learning to play an instrument, and/or singing. Screen shot 2016-04-02 at 14.17.31

Screen shot 2016-04-02 at 14.08.49

OK, yes, he did mention the National Curriculum, but seemed to think it was about performing and listening only, composing never got a mention. But then neither did universal academisation, which has the potential to make the NC nugatory and otiose, so maybe the omission of composing is how those at DfE towers want to think of music education? Some nice children singing madrigals, and playing some Purcell and Bach will be very pleasant, won’t it? I don’t move in the rarefied atmosphere of the upper political echelons, so don’t know if it is normal for a politician to do his stuff then go (‘eats, shoots, and leaves’!), but there was no opportunity to ask questions at all.

One primary school teacher heckled from the floor “no forced academisation!” but that was as interactive as it got.

Read the teacher’s own reflections on the day here 

Then there were a series of panels, presenting on various aspects of music education. Then a rather nice buffet lunch, with a chance to talk to people. Networking, and getting a feel for the zeitgeist, is an important part of such days, I always think.Mayor Music 8

Screen shot 2016-04-02 at 14.16.20Following this, in the afternoon sessions, something began to bother me quite a bit, this was a mounting feeling that, as the late, great, Yogi Berra said, “It’s like deja-vu, all over again!”. Music Excellence London (MEL) had just spent a shedload of money on music education in the capital (that’s another issue, I know, especially as I’m writing this in Birmingham), and yet I got the feeling that people in the audience who maybe weren’t teachers didn’t know about this, hadn’t read the work on MEL and evaluation that Trinity Laban, Music Mark, Sound Connections, Alison Daubney and I had done, and didn’t seem to have engaged with what a longitudinal CPD programme might entail. There seemed to be a lot of “well, we can offer a splendid Chinese nose-flute CPD session for teachers”, rather than a joined-up, clearly articulated, research-informed programme, which MEL had entailed.

Now I know I am getting old, but parading one’s ignorance of history used to be something that was looked down on, now it seems to be something that is celebrated. If we had worked like that in ancient times, every few years or so someone would say “look, I’ve invented the wheel”. It struck me that a number of people there from the floor, as it were, were either thinking out loud in public, or making observations that betrayed that either they or their organisation had something to sell, or that they had little conception of what life is really like for a busy classroom music teacher. Alongside this, there seemed to be little knowledge or conceptualisation of what has gone before. When one of the contributors mentioned he had been taught by Brian Dennis, I wondered how many people had read his ‘Experimental Music in Schools’ book of 1970? Or, sadly, I also wondered how many have read, or even know about, the important music education book published the same year by Paynter and Aston, ‘Sound and Silence’? It struck me then that what might be termed the ‘institutional memory’ of music education is in real danger. I said in my mini-talk “we have to both know stuff, and know how to teach stuff”.

Screen shot 2016-04-02 at 14.18.30Mayor Music 4

This, for me, is important. And “knowing stuff” includes stuff that we have done before. Whilst we need – and want – new entrants to music education, we also need – and want – them to know something of what has been done in the past. So, the thought that was bothering me became crystallised – why do we seem to be still asking the same questions, ignoring the all the work, research, and words that many people have written (especially my words, I put a lot of effort into them!), and trying to start again?

I had been hoping that the summit would be a high point, a pinnacle, literally, a summit, to look back upon the achievements of MEL, which are, from my perspective as one of the evaluators, very highly significant indeed. Instead it felt to me like we were down at base camp bickering about whether we wanted Kendall Mint Cake or Lucozade, whereas in my view we want – and need – both!

It also reminded me that in teacher education we used to run sessions on philosophy, history, sociology, and psychology of education, but they have long gone. And now as government thinking seems to be that learning to be a teacher involves basically “sitting with Nellie” (which, incidentally, is describeMayor Music 3d nicely and pejoratively by Oxford reference here http://bit.ly/1RCRXqt), there will be little chance of inducting people into the rich community of practice of music education; which is a shame, as both Gove and Gibb have cited Matthew Arnold’s notion of “the best which has been thought and said”, and there is a lot in music education which falls into this description. But then Gove dismissed me and my ilk as “the Blob”, so maybe this is just my blobby thinking!

Anyway, in conclusion, this isn’t meant to be a criticism of the organisation, or of the arrangements, which were all fine, but just the feeling of “here we go again”. I think this is a worry, not just for music education, but for education generally. There is a lot that has been “thought and said”, and it ill behoves us as a sector to ignore, downplay, or negate this. After all, as Burke said “those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it”!

Screen shot 2016-04-02 at 14.10.35 Screen shot 2016-04-02 at 14.11.08 Screen shot 2016-04-02 at 14.12.00

Culture in action

Written by Christopher Bolton, Senior Lecturer in Drama Education, Birmingham City University@MrCJBolton

Reactions Logo 03

 

 

One of the potential outcomes of drama in education is its ability to develop participants’ metaxis. The meaning of this term has been defined by Boal (1995:43-44) as a lens that someone can use to view their simultaneous position in different ‘worlds’ and that this process enables a person to comment upon the two. Similarly, for Bolton (1992:11) metaxis is “the power of the experiences” that “stem from fully recognising that one is in two social contexts at the same time”, and it is with my ‘metaxical’ lenses firmly on that I have been considering the worlds of arts education and cultural education.

Chris

The recent release of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s white paper highlighted the important role of “culture in action” in “rejuvenating our society”. This “evolution” (interesting to note the use of the word ‘evolution’ as opposed to ‘revolution’; the word ‘revolution’ is reserved to describe the government’s devolution of power) discusses the importance of increasing opportunities for children and young people to participate, appreciate, create and contribute to the culture of society. The clearly stated aims include;

  • Everyone should enjoy the opportunities culture offers, no matter where they start in life
  • The riches of culture should benefit communities across the country
  • The power of culture can increase our international standing
  • Cultural investment, resilience and reform

Worthwhile aims, I think, and these are appealing on both a professional and personal level. The idea that “Everyone should have thchris 2e chance to experience culture, participate in it, create it, and see their lives transformed by it” is also worthwhile but interestingly one could substitute the word ‘culture’ for ‘education’ and the two worlds suddenly crash into one another, shattering my rose-tinted ‘metaxical’ lenses; darn it!

Contrast this view with the DfE’s white paper Educational Excellence Everywhere and I am left to glue together my shattered lenses and see things anew. The drive toward full academisation of all schools by 2020; the incessant energy forced into ‘core academic subjects’ through EChris 3Bacc; and the arguably continued further de-professionalisation of teaching through the QTS debacle, means that I should have perhaps left my lenses where they were (or would I then become another contributor to the ever growing number of those leaving the profession, interestingly ignored and denied by ‘those in the know’?). By forcing schools to concentrate on EBacc subjects and enabling them to do so through academisation, the future of arts and culture in education is perilously close to benefitting those who have had a better start in life; in fact it’s just unethical! How will culture benefit the young people of deprived areas if they are consistently forced to concentrate on an ever narrowing curriculum? Where will their opportunities come from? How will pupils from diverse backgrounds have access to cultural and arts education and meet the intention of ‘publicly-funded culture’ reflecting the ‘diversity of our country’?

The DfE have the answer; schools can now extend their day! Is this not the Government’s way of justifying the EBacc? Using my x-ray metaxical lenses I can see that when people start complaining about the lack of arts in education the Government will simply say that the arts can be taught during the extension of the school day. Unfortunately, as many colleagues will know, this happens already! The arts are being trivialised never mind marginalised!

I’ve heard, anecdotally, of many arts organisations facing challenging financial situations; of many drama departments closing; drama, music, dance and art losing time to more ‘academic’ subjects; Ofsted only inspecting EBacc subjects; arts teachers being ‘asked’ to teach other subjects or lose their job, it’s just plain wrong. See here for an interesting take on the state of drama in schools. Worryingly, “the most commonly withdrawn subjects” from UK schools in light of the EBacc “are drama and performing arts, which had been dropped in nearly a quarter of schools” see here (page 36).

Nicky Morgan claims that she “want(s) every single young person to have the opportunity to discover how the arts can enrich their lives. Access to cultural education is a matter of social justice.” How is enforcing the above fair? Young people are being disenfranchised by those in power. Potentially their access to arts and culture is being denied by those who have had a better start in life. Bruner (1996) wrote about education being a system that should help those growing in a culture find their identity and that the aim of education should not only be a transmission of culture but also provide people with alternative views whilst strengthening their will to explore them. How will this happen Nicky?

Chris 4

Professor Jonathon Neelands (2002:122) predicted a “cultural choice” that we now face in British education, 14 years ago, positing that schooling should be “designed to feed, nurture, guide and fulfil the humanising and compassionate potential of the imagination”. I think that the alienation of arts teachers also feeds into the students that they teach potentially leading to an “impoverished and limited sense of ‘self’ and ‘other’” despite the aims of the cultural white paper. This means that learners are often struggling to understand the world they are in and are potentially told what they should be doing, learning and thinking. I support Neelands’ calls for a ‘humanising curriculum’. Perhaps one that places the arts and culture at its core; why not? Interestingly, Neelands (:119) makes the point that “Policy makers have tried to persuade parents, commerce and the powerful constituencies that the greatest challenge we face is not the need to address new cultural work and career identities” or “new economies based on communication rather than manufacturing” or “endemic poverty and the creation of disaffected underclasses” rather we are told that “the real challenge is falling literacy test scores” or could that be PISA rankings, school league-tables, Progress 8 or Ofsted grading?

So what is the culture of our education system? We are told that culture and arts matter but they are increasingly devalued in our education system; schools are increasingly forced to value what is assessed rather than assess what is valued; teachers are leaving the profession and recruiting is increasingly difficult. Maybe we need to look at the world of Canada? Their government are investing $1.9 billion over five years in the arts.

Maybe I need some new glasses?

References:

Boal, A., (1995) Rainbow of Desire, London: Routledge.

Bolton, G., (1992) New Perspectives on Classroom Drama, Hemel Hempsted: Simon & Shuster.

Bruner, J., (1996) The Culture of Education, Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Neelands, J., (2002) 11/09 The space in our hearts. Drama Vol 9 No 2 4-10 in O’Connor, P. (2010) Creating Democratic Citizenship Through Drama Education. London: Trentham Books.