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

I think less contact time for teachers would be a better initiative than smaller class sizes. I'd rather teach 30 students for 4 hours a day than 15 students for 5 hours a day. Of course, at the moment I'm teaching 32 students 5 hours a day...

Teacher assessment/coursework also just means that that job that exam boards are currently paid to do (and is a nice little side earner for teachers) will be landed on teachers who will be expected to do it alongside their normal full-time job of teaching for free.

Nothing that increases teacher workload should be accepted as education policy.

@noblegiraffe yes another reason why TAGs and CAGs were such a scandal.

I'm torn because exams are the fairest way of assessing children, at least on my reading about biases in teacher based marking, but I also think there should be a greater range of options for those students who don't cope well with exams and there shouldn't be exams for the sake of it in subjects that don't lend themselves to exams.

I'd be devestated to go back to coursework or controlled assessment at GCSE for my subjects."

But why does coursework need to be marked by teachers? Am I the only one old enough to have examined coursework? It used to be marked by exam boards (until cost cutting came!)

Coursework doesn't increase teacher workload if it is instead of an exam. (not talking about TAGs here which were basically exams administered by teachers).

It does if you have to mark it.

I can do that - sitting in a pub with friends.

That pretty much sums it up.

It’s no good having good ideas if they’re too impractical and expensive to implement.

WRT AS levels, I didn’t think they were a good idea when they came in but subsequently found they worked well. BTECs are tried and tested and deliverable, none of which apply to T levels. I rather like a combination of coursework and exams at GCSE - even in Maths, where open ended investigations can deepen and broaden understanding and skills - but I know it’s not a popular view. Of course it was time consuming, and time is harder to find now when every spare second is taken up by gathering and analysing data frequently to no discernible useful end.

Am puzzled by who is behind Labour's report.But then the Tories still listen to Ken Baker who must be at least 109 by now.

Btec transforrmed the chances of ds and lots of his friends, several of whom were written off at school.

Lord, yes about the data - and that is in fact a direct consequence of 100% terminal exams.

David Blunkett.

And no mention of his inclusion policy and closing of special schools which led to a lot of problems in education today.

Hi lola, long time no see!

I teach English (no coursework) and a subject with 30% coursework. The workloads are different but in the NEA subject the admin is given no time at all by SLT - if more of us had it it would be. The workload around Easter to May day is intense. But, all year round, I would say English is more demanding on my time and produces more marking - and waaaay less autonomy. It is also far less creatively challenging for me, and for the students. And more spoon fed.

I knew it was Blunkett. That's what I meant!

@noblegiraffe Why don’t you go into politics? I often wonder on threads like this where there are clearly experts with good ideas, why they never consider politics. This country would be better off for people like this being in public office.

@noblegiraffe

"Exams aren't a great solution, but they're better than the alternatives. Progressive teachers need to stop arguing 'but alternatives just haven't been implemented properly'."

Have you got any peer reviewed research to evidence this? Genuine question. I'm doing my EdD in exam revision, and whilst this is a tangential topic to the one I'm studying, I would be interested to read it, as what I've read so far suggests there is great inequality in examination assessment. So I would genuinely be interested to read what you have read.

The entire current education system is not fit for purpose.

There have been too many govt bods involved constantly jamming who even knows what into the ever growing 'curriculum', who appear to have never even been in a school.

It does need ripping up & redesigning, but it needs that to happen with people who have a good ten years of actual teaching sitting down & working it out, along with industry/employers so that children can receive an education that actually equips them for life & work in a modern environment.

It's never going to happen because it would require paying teachers to do this as a full time job for a few years & all govts only want to pay that sort of money to their mates who walked past a state school once.

But all the previous ones have essentially been 'and another thing' (as Graham Donaldson would put it) curriculum tweaks, because we are lumbered with a pre Internet-age coverage based national curriculum as a starting point. Curriculum for excellence in Scotland and curriculum for Wales (under labour) have generally the right idea and more in keeping of what's happening internationally.
Having said that, I agree that I don't think England is in a fit state with its completely burnt out workforce. But long term a good think about curriculum priorities would make teaching a job more worth doing, once progress was made in sorting out the mess (insufficient camhs provision, TA pay and school budgets to start with)

Cross post as I'm slow.... but this is more eloquently put!

I agree. There is lots of research that smaller classes doesn't help outcomes which always gets trotted out. Of course the factor that is ignored in most of those studies is larger classes are more likely to have higher numbers of children with undiagnosed or unsupported additional learning needs. If it was 20 mid attaining kids vs 30, it wouldn't make that much difference.
But more non contact would be more useful and I agree would make more difference with retention.

Let's hope Labour also look seriously at retention and workforce. Desperately needed.

I completely agree OP. Labour, please listen to everyone, don't waste money messing about with curriculums and assessment, focus on improving delivery of what we've got by improving teacher pay and retention, properly funding schools, stopping the funnelling of ALL money into MAT's while LA schools have access to literally nothing now for essential building maintenance. The list goes on.

Rather than rushing to reform the curriculum (my last year in teaching was 2016 when the new GCSE specs were released in the July for teaching in Sept on no additional resourcing which was already tight) there needs to be a serious look at workload and focusing on the core tasks of the teaching process and shedding the timewàsting data culture to score political points. That would significantly help with retention and morale with no additional funding required.

SLTs need to be able to focus on the core of teaching/ learning (and all the parts of that like pastoral support, SEN provision) not a constant battle of playing the game for political survival, and passing that on through staff with constant audits/ Mocksted/ data collection. There's schools near me that seem to play pass the parcel of new MATs and management every time OFSTED comes to the area, then there's the whole game of new uniforms, sad face stories about petty rule enforcement leading to isolations etc. It rarely results in a lasting culture change and upturn in learning standards.

I can't see it hitting any manifesto though because why would whatever brand of government want to reduce their influence and ability to claim that they're doing better than their predecessors.

Any curriculum reform needs to be resourced, well considered to individual subjects and brought in with time to prepare. It's not something to rush, especially in current circumstances.

Schools need addition funding/ external support with SENs, pastoral care, careers.
There should be appropriate education places for all young people and it's a false economy while children, their families and schools are left to struggle. MATs are a flawed model because you need a localised overview of provision in the area.

I've never really thought of it that way.

In my opinion 100% exams is hugely unfair on students who excelled at DT, computing and creative subjects. But suffer from poor reading and writing skills, or very bad exam anxiety.

I get it for things like maths and sciences, possibly even English. But if I'd been made to do 100% exams on my DT subjects I would have hugely failed and not be in the career I'm in now.

So I suppose either way it's unfair on someone. There has to be a happy balance though.

Exactly my thinking on exams, but much more eloquently put.