Why are Labour so shit at education policy?

[noblegiraffe]

It should be pretty clear that I am as keen as anyone to see an end to this Tory government and their destruction of education through consistent and persistent underfunding and deprioritising.

So it is incredibly depressing to turn to the education policy of a Labour manifesto and every time experience a feeling of wtf.

Anyway, Labour have just realised a report that will be used to inform education policy in the next manifesto, and it's that sinking feeling once again.

They acknowledge that teacher recruitment and retention are a massive issue.

And then:

"This will include, beginning from initial teacher education, being trained in a wider range of methods than the traditional ‘chalk and talk’, including high quality team-based learning which will lead students to understand how to approach the delivery of projects in the workplace."

"Labour should introduce multimodal assessment so that young people’s progress is no longer just measured through written exams"

"A syllabus should be designed to ensure all students have accessible and practical, hands-on applicability of digital skills, so that they are able to engage with the transformative approach to problem solving that is rapidly changing the economy."

"For primary and secondary school, Labour should design an inclusive, inspiring, creative and future broadening curriculum which will liberate talent, promote the enquiring mind of every young person, and prepare young adults for the ever-changing world, designed to ensure that no child is left behind. Not only are we preparing students for their contributions as employees, but unlocking their potential as entrepreneurs, and therefore the innovators and job-creators of the future."

And how will ripping up the curriculum and assessment system again improve teacher recruitment and retention, eh, Labour? Teachers were massively pissed off with Gove when he did it, it created massive workload and we're still dealing with the problems of its rushed implementation.

Teachers will see the prospect of all their current practice and knowledge being ripped up and put in the bin and say 'fuck this, I'm off'.

I understand that Labour want to be seen as the party of bold and ambitious plans. But education cannot support bold and ambitious plans. It needs careful investment, tweaks to the current systems that will lead to immediate improvements (like reintroducing AS levels), and major focus on fixing immediate problems that urgently need fixing, like the state of school buildings, mental health and SEN support. Not the curriculum and assessment system.

And Labour need to talk to and listen to actual teachers who will have to implement their ideas before publishing their policy.

So if anyone on here has anyone in Labour's ear (or an MP you can beg), please tell them to stop this crap before it gets to the manifesto.

schoolsweek.co.uk/major-labour-review-calls-for-creative-curriculum-and-less-exams-focus/

Actual report:
labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/WR-16813_22-Labour-Skills-Council-report-Edit-19-10-22.pdf

Sorry I borrowed it from my uni library!

I agree so much about the sociology. The paper 2 I do (Eduqas) does at least get them to understand research methodologies - but it would be so much better if they were able to put it into practice.

Many MN parents are huge fans of EPQ which is definitely 'multi modal'. A lot of the 'research' students do for it is woeful because they have simply never done any before at GCSE (endless badly worded quick online questionnaires). However, if taught and done really well, it sets them up better for uni than almost any A Level subject.

I used to teach a subject which fell foul foul of Gove's reforms and its coursework was brilliant.

@gohoggie Bloom’s taxonomy is not meant to be interpreted as a value judgement about what types of activity are good or bad, it’s about relative complexity. Besides, evaluation is at the very top of Bloom’s taxonomy anyway.

”Doing a research project” is something that you need a foundation of knowledge to do well. Just practicing doing research projects won’t make you an expert in research projects. There’s a reason why expert scientists who carry out groundbreaking research in genetics are different people from the ones doing groundbreaking research in astrophysics and they are very different to the people doing historical research or sociological research. Practicing doing research projects doesn’t make you a sociological, scientific or historical researcher. Building up a strong framework of knowledge about a subject or topic over many years is what gives someone the tools they need to be a great researcher. There’s nothing wrong with a bit or research here and there, but at secondary age the most important thing is that they build a foundation of knowledge. That’s how you get deeper understanding.

As a PP said, you can’t start analysing, evaluating or synthesising until you actually know stuff.

so what works for one subject might not work for another, so just because it doesn't work in maths or science, that doesn't make it a bad idea for humanities or arts type subjects.

But from what I'm reading, that's what we've got. The tech teacher saying that their subject has coursework that rewards the drafting process and risk taking (would love to see a markscheme for 'risk'!). Music and PE definitely have performance elements.

The argument seems to be that piggy would like it back in English.

cowgirl would like some knowledge taken out of the science syllabus

Am I happy with maths? No, it needs something doing for the kids at the lower end, and I'd like to see an intermediate tier.

Individual issues with individual subjects.

Not requiring a 'curriculum overhaul', blanket changes of assessments and teaching approaches. They could talk to individual teachers of individual subjects!

endless badly worded quick online questionnaires

Incidentally, Gove took 'creating good questionnaires' out of the maths syllabus.

And out of most subjects where it would have been a jolly good idea...

Ah. If people know what a good questionnaire is like, they'll spot a biased one, which is no good when the government wants a survey to come up with a particular answer.

That Jacob Rees Mogg consultation on bringing back imperial weights and measures is a great example.

Interesting article on TES that points out the workload implications of curriculum and assessment reform along with criticism of the constant swing between trad and prog depending on the government of the day www.tes.com/magazine/teaching-learning/general/blunkett-report-missing-teacher-expertise

"Not requiring a 'curriculum overhaul', blanket changes of assessments and teaching approaches. They could talk to individual teachers of individual subjects!"

To be fair, Gove did that when he brought in his reforms. I was one of the teachers who went to the DFE in London to give feedback and shape the reforms. Unfortunately, Gove didn't listen to 95% of what we said as practitioners at the time. Whilst we did get one small win, the vast majority was ignored.

However, I wouldn't want to stick with a broken system just to cut down on teacher workload. That's lazy thinking to my mind and does a disservice to our students. I would rather see the system reformed, but done in a measured way, over time and in conjunction with teachers.

I also think the swing between parties isn't just in education, unfortunately it's in all aspects of life.... Conservatives constantly cutting services, Labour comes and spends to get it back on track, but that increases taxes and debt, so the Tories get back in to cut again. Isn't that all we've seen in the past 50 years of govt?

gohoggie

We all know how this will go.

The problem is that this won't be a phased introduction it will (like always) be a drop in change across everything and then just as we are getting to grips with it all, someone else will come in and change it.

TBH we will be lucky if its fully implemented before someone else changes it again.

What is needed is a cross party policy of gradual reform, that leaves the system alone so that we can see if it actually works. and that doesn't even touch on funding.

"What is needed is a cross party policy of gradual reform, that leaves the system alone so that we can see if it actually works. and that doesn't even touch on funding."

Totally agree on that!

I totally agree. I think improved funding and an overhaul of SEN funding would do FAR more for all children than another reshape of the curriculum. It takes years for schools in primary to get the right resources, school trips, training for support staff and that’s what actually makes the curriculum any good or not. First year of a new curriculum is always crap however good in theory it might be.

Id like to see any child with a medical diagnosis come with some degree of extra funding rather than relying totally on notional delegated SEN budgets. The current system is hugely unfair since some schools have lots of diagnosed ADHD, autistic etc children without ECHPs.
The delegated budget should pay for SENCO and some basic interventions. Then additional money should be paid to schools per child on SEN register who meets a much lower threshold than ECHP (at the level of what would be school action plus in the past).

Realistically, most BTECs are going to stay in the short/medium term. A lot of post 16 providers can't find workplaces to take people on for T-levels, and the work experience requirements are quite onerous/strict. So a lot of colleges etc have rowed back on offering T-levels at all, or offering very many of them. And they are a non-starter for schools in general.

I get the feeling that T-levels are going to be a bit of a failed experiment- but god knows how much money has been wasted on them already!

Not requiring a 'curriculum overhaul', blanket changes of assessments and teaching approaches. They could talk to individual teachers of individual subjects!

Imagine!

I think this would be excellent, definitely- and I think it applies at secondary level too. There are lots of students in the classroom who require sometimes quite complex interventions, but don't meet the threshold for an ECHP, or get a poorly written one which doesn't actually entitle them to any TA time.

And then it all falls on the teacher to implement, and they have a choice between meeting the needs of say, 3, children perfectly, or 5 children adequately, or trying to meet the needs of the majority and know they are perhaps letting children down, because actually the provision isn't adequate for them.

But something along the lines of perhaps pupil premium- a small additional payment for each child registered as having SEN could fund more intervention/TA support/resources such as reprographics to produce suitable resources etc, that would be really good.

Ideally it might also fund mass screening for dyslexic type difficulties/slow processing, maybe in, say Y5 and again in Y9. (Someone suggested this on another thread and it seemed like a really good idea to me!

No classes over the size of 20 and every teacher primary or secondary get 10% minimum PPA and their own TA.

that would be my starting point

We screen everyone on entry with NGRT and a writing speed test. It always turns up something interesting.