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'm curious why "multimodal" is being interpreted as just more coursework. That's really what comes to my mind.

Surely multimodal, when used right by "written assessments" could mean, to me, alternative modes to writing. So it could mean more practical exams, oral exams, more scope for alternatives to writing answers for those with SEN or some physical disabilities...etc.
Not a case of written coursework vs written exams?

Interesting things going on in Scotland and Wales...

As far as I'm aware, the Curriculum for Excellence in Scotland has been widely criticised and led to falling standards. Not sure we should be looking north for any answers.

www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/education-in-scotland-curriculum-for-excellence-has-failed-and-should-be-replaced-by-a-focus-on-knowledge-and-discipline-murdo-fraser-msp-3621289

Creative approaches are fantastic in primary, particularly the youngest children, surely?

And again what's meant by that creative approaches? Is it, for example, bringing music, arts, creative writing into geography, history, politics, sociology, etc? Is it using images, diagrams, and music in teaching materials and not just words? Is it both of those things, or neither?

I know what I think but I seem to the thinking on different lines to others here, perhaps.

The hint at creative approaches comes here:
"including high quality team-based learning which will lead students to understand how to approach the delivery of projects in the workplace.""

'Team-based learning' = group work and it's shit for learning. Unless you want to learn that some poor sod in the group got lumbered with all the work while the rest slacked off, and you'll have to reteach what you wanted them to learn anyway using more 'traditional' methods.

Been there, done that.

"If it's widely accepted in schools as more effective, that's because we've done our own research in our own classrooms."

Lots of shit is widely accepted in schools though.... learning styles, brain gym, multiple intelligences to name but a few. I remember at one local primary the class was split into their different learning styles and the teacher had to teach each group according to its preferred learning style.

Even the current trend for evidence based learning is now being questioned, due to the history of teachers misapplying educational research.

PS Did you have any research on exams being more equitable than other forms of assessment? Thanks!

On an equal opportunities slating of education policy, bloody Rishi is at it too. twitter.com/samfr/status/1585382440788688896?s=61&t=k4TOzTbu8OtImUjReBowXg

He wants a 'British Baccalaureate' and compulsory maths and English post-16.

Well, if he'd actually spoke to anyone in education before spouting this crap, he'd know that education is devolved and so 'British Baccalaureate' means 'English Baccalaureate' and we've already got one of those. He would have also read the Smith review of post-16 maths education from 2017 and discovered that while compulsory maths post-16 would be lovely, we don't have the teachers to deliver it.

Thanks, Rishi.

"Team-based learning' = group work and it's shit for learning. Unless you want to learn that some poor sod in the group got lumbered with all the work while the rest slacked off, and you'll have to reteach what you wanted them to learn anyway using more 'traditional' methods."

I think that depends on your subject, and what you're trying to achieve. I don't think you can generalise for all subjects across all key stages. I always have used group based learning, but it naturally works for my subject (Humanities thinking type subject). I'm well versed in doing it now, and have well used strategies to ensure all get involved and it's not left to 1/2 students.

Even the current trend for evidence based learning is now being questioned

Dylan Wiliam questioned it years ago, in his talk "Why teaching will never be a research-based profession' to ResearchEd 2014.

It's not so much teachers misapplying education research as education research being largely a bunch of shite.

Daisy Christodolou looked at exams vs teacher assessment, think she links to the research daisychristodoulou.com/2015/10/tests-are-inhuman-and-that-is-what-so-good-about-them/

Have read the Daisy stuff, but that's not comparing exams to coursework per se, but to teacher assessments. It's an assumption to think that coursework is teacher assessed, and it doesn't have to be... certainly coursework used to be marked by external examiners (I know, I used to do it!)

There is certainly problems with teacher assessment, but this is very different from saying Exams is the most equitable form of assessment. If you have anything on that, I would be interested to read, as have I have said, I've read lots about the inbuilt inequalities in exam based assessments.

Coursework is open to cheating. Controlled assessment - again cheating, unless you do it in strict controlled conditions.

So if you have a controlled assessment in strict conditions that is marked by an external examiner - that's basically an exam. Like art exams.

So I assume no evidence for this opinion then?

Interesting as I'm not in England. (Ex-teacher, returning to teaching but not the same area as before and wouldn't want to teach in England right now sadly)

Team-based learning isn't at all synonymous with creative approaches to me. Nor is it necessarily what my examples were 🤣.I am aware the terms can be very context (time and geography) specific.

Feel affirmed in my thoughts about education in England, reading this thread. 😥

The current curriculum and assesment methods are exacerbating problems in mental health and SEN though. That’s why they need to change. How can it ever be fair that children with dyslexia are marked down for spelling and grammar in most subjects at gcse? Criteria for any accommodations has been made stricter, relies on arbitrary testing and is basically down to what your school offers you.

If the assessment criteria have a SPAG element, is it a separate and limited set of marks? I’m not in the UK system.

Yes there’s a certain number of marks for spelling that I believe varies by subject but is not restricted to the English language exam. So for example marks are also lost for poor spelling in science. No you can’t make up for those marks by doing well in other areas. Makes no difference whether you have a diagnosis of dyslexia, nothing short of disability discrimination, so demoralising

Yes, in my subject students can gain an extra 3% of their marks for having good SPAG. I teach a humanities subject. It doesn't sound like much, but that's the best part of a grade. And yes, there is no consideration as to whether the student has dyslexia or anything in awarding these marks.

If a child qualifies for a scribe (which is pretty unusual that a school will support them in providing one) they are eligible for the spelling marks if they spell out every single word verbally (correctly of course!). I don’t know if that ever happens, I can’t imagine doing that in an essay based subject, it’s hard enough to order thoughts to
just use a scribe.

Isn’t it 3% of the marks (and 5% in some subjects) rather than an extra 3%? So if you don’t get the SPAG marks your maximum mark is 97%?

Isn’t it 3% of the marks (and 5% in some subjects) rather than an extra 3%? So if you don’t get the SPAG marks your maximum mark is 97%?

Yes, you're right... I only worded it that way as that is how we award marks as examiners. I mark the paper and then add on the SPAG marks, and the two together make up the final marks, so if they don't get the SPAG, then they can only get a maximum of 95%. I did just double check and SPAG is worth 5% of their overall marks in my subject, not the 3% I said earlier

@echt In Science SPAG is not assessed. There used to be 'quality of written communication' questions which were 6 markers where 1 out of the 6 marks was awarded based on SPAG.

They've gotten rid of those now.

Education needs to change, children are tested to death & for many kids they are taught to fail because the exams are all that matters. There should be less of children age X should be able to do Y & Z, curriculums need to be more flexible. Instead of GCSE at 16 & A levels at 18 why not let schools have the flexibility for children to be able to sit GCSE up to age 19? Some children haven't the maturity to study for exams at 16 but if they were able to study the curriculum over an extended length of time would be able to pass & could also do Btec & vocational subjects along with the GCSE but stay in school instead of being expected to start again at college. Obviously there would have to be increased funding & sixth forms expanded but if more children were able to gain better grades their chances of getting a job & being able to pay into the system through taxes when they leave.

I’m not being argumentative but why do we need AS levels to enable starting with 4 A levels and dropping one? The exams aren’t needed surely? Then the least favoured can be dropped at the end of the first term - Christmas.

"Creative" is one of those weasel words which you can't argue with because it sounds lovely and nobody is against creativity, right? But which actually signals "education that is lacking in rigor and actual standards, and where tutors and parents will basically end up picking up the slack outside school hours."

Just stick to what we've got and reduce teacher workloads, for goodness' sake. Don't copy Scotland and Wales with the happy-clappy skills-based "creative" twaddle; the results have been shite so far.

Is it, for example, bringing music, arts, creative writing into geography, history, politics, sociology, etc? Is it using images, diagrams, and music in teaching materials and not just words?

All of that already happens in schools, though, and my subject (Physics/ Sciences) can't be the only one where all of those are being used frequently to enhance learning. It's all about where it is appropriate, though - yes, I can ask students to write creatively when addressing, say, sustainability of resources, but it would be inappropriate when teaching electromagnetism, where technical abilities and the application of precise vocabulary count far more. I use more diagrams and flow charts etc. than I care to count.

But I was also there under the last Labour curriculum, where I was made to use the cheesiest songs to remember simple concepts, student discovery, which is nothing short of dangerous when handling circuits or pH scales and endless bits of group work, which mostly led to misconceptions and irritated academic students, who resented being placed in groups with those who'd inevitably spend their time doing anything but study.

I also remember doing one of my years in primary as part of my university course at the time when spelling just about anything phonetically was fine and acceptable (because doing so = student discovery), leading to many engrained spelling mistakes students would later on be penalised for in their secondary exams.

Having said all that, we do need to look at parental responsibility when it comes to a lack of skills of some children, and this is something no government has wanted to touch for some time.

Too many parents either shield their children too much from real-world stuff or don't engage with their children enough. And there just are no excuses for why it's so many children. Even children in poverty can learn a lot.

For that, I would like to see performance-based pay go. It would mean that teachers could focus on teaching, and no one would resent getting the middle or bottom sets, where attitude and behaviour are often the real barriers to learning. It would mean my colleague, who is excellent at getting children to do his bidding, but is on way too little money because of petty excuses from school, would not consider leaving the profession, because my HOD always takes on the top sets and A-level groups and leaves the rest of us to struggle and ultimately miss out on pay rises.

But, given PBP was always a cost-cutting measure, it all comes back down to investment. Will Labour actually throw money at the issue?