Class and Education - Lampl

[Xenia]

In today's FT:

Break down the barriers in English education

By Sir Peter Lampl

English schools are undergoing another major shake-up as Michael Gove removes them from local authority oversight and introduces a broader range of providers. No wonder, then, that the first fortnight of the new school year has been a turbulent one. Many headteachers are angry that Ofqual, the exam regulator, regraded GCSE English papers downwards midyear. Teaching unions are threatening a work-to-rule protest over pay and pensions. And many more schools have become academies, with more control over funding, governance and the curriculum.

This is the battleground of English education. But another piece of news this week was even more significant. On Tuesday the OECD reported that our schools were the most socially segregated among advanced economies. This underlines the biggest problem facing England?s schools: the close relationship between family income and how good a school a child goes to. The result is that children from poorer backgrounds have fewer opportunities to move up the ladder.

English education has improved under successive governments. Standards of teaching, and especially school leadership, are better. There have been significant improvements in London schools, particularly for some ethnic communities. But this is not good enough. We have to outpace other economies, particularly in Asia, that have improved faster. The UK languishes in 25th place in the OECD?s league tables for reading and in 28th place for maths, where Shanghai is now the best in the world. This does not reflect the position of all our young people. Rather it is a stark reminder that levels of social mobility have worsened since the 1960s and remain very low, despite government investment and reform in education.

I believe one reason for this is that governments have focused on structural reform, such as creating academies or free schools, rather than on improving teaching. Yet it is good teaching that really matters. Teachers? salaries account for four-fifths of a school?s costs and this reflects the value they deliver. Research by McKinsey has shown that the world?s best-performing education systems are those with the best teaching. The OECD now rates leadership in English schools highly, but we still have much more to do to improve teaching.

First, we need to attract more of the best graduates to the classroom. Ten years ago I helped establish the Teach First programme in England, modelled on the successful Teach for America programme. Teach First is recruiting almost 1,000 graduates this year from top universities, including Oxford and Cambridge, to teach in inner-city schools for a minimum of two years. Approximately half then leave to pursue other careers.

It has been a great success. But with 36,000 teachers recruited each year, it is only a part of the solution. In Finland and South Korea there are 10 applicants for every teaching place. Here we regard it as a success if every place is filled.

Even more important will be to improve the quality of the existing 440,000-strong workforce. Sutton Trust research shows that English schools could move into the world?s top five education performers within a decade if the performance of the least effective 10th of teachers were brought up to the average.

While improving teaching is crucial, we also have to address inequality in our education system, which has a substantial cost to society and the economy, since it prevents many of the most able children from non-privileged backgrounds from achieving their potential.

The best schools in England are world-class. But they are also socially exclusive. Seven per cent of English pupils go to fee-paying independent schools, which are out of reach for the rest of the population. Another 4 per cent attend the remaining selective grammar schools, which draw just 2 per cent of their pupils from the poorest households. The top-performing comprehensives ? mainly faith schools and comprehensives in well-off areas ? take just 6 per cent of their pupils from the poorest households. This compares with a national average of 16 per cent.

We should address this inequality in three ways. First, we should use random ballots to determine admissions to our urban secondary schools, rather than basing admissions on how close you live to the school or how religious you are. This would ensure a good social mix. Second, grammar schools should select more fairly, attract able students from poorer backgrounds and provide them with the extra help that better-off pupils get in prep schools or from private tutors.

Third, we must open independent day schools to all. Their students are 55 times more likely to win an Oxbridge place and 22 times more likely to go to a top-ranked university than a state school student from a poor household. The absence of poorer students from these universities is a shocking waste of talent.

My independent day school was totally funded by the local authority. Indeed, seven out of 10 independent day schools were principally state funded until 1976 through the direct grant scheme and local schemes.

Between 2000 and 2007, I co-funded a pilot scheme at Belvedere, an independent girls? day school in Liverpool, replacing fees with admission based on academic ability. Parents paid according to means. As a result, a third of pupils paid no fees. Academic standards improved and it was a happy place for pupils of all backgrounds. Moreover, the cost per pupil was less than at the average state school.

More than 80 leading independent day schools would back such a state-funded scheme, which would benefit more than 30,000 able students, whose parents could not afford full fees. It would require selective admissions, which political parties oppose. Yet far from creating new selection, such a scheme would democratise existing selective schools and break down the barriers between the independent and state sectors.

Taken together, I believe that these measures to improve teaching and reduce inequality would transform social mobility and unleash a wealth of talent to fuel our economy. And they would put England in the education premier league.

The writer is chair of the Sutton Trust and of the Education Endowment Foundation "

If you were to take on an employee for work that may not last above a six month period and give them the impression that they could rely on you to enable them to keep their family in clothes and go out and get a mortgage on the back of your job, then you would be lying through your teeth, so better to be honest with them and not pretend you can offer anything more than you are, though, wordfactory - in other words, you are not a business that can take on permanent employees, regardless of the regulations (or you aren't a business that is willing to suffer lean times in order to keep good employees for when they have enough work to show their worth, or you are actually exploiting people you contract in by always using the same people because you trust them but not wanting to take them on as employees even though you know they would be excellent at the job, you just don't like the hassle of being an employer and having to be responsible for anyone other than yourself..., or you aren't a business capable of expanding, because you don't trust anyone enough to ever give them a sufficient chance to show you what they could be worth to your business...). Some people make good employers, others are hopeless at it. At least some of the hopeless employers recognise that fact and opt out of taking responsibility for providing any sense of security to anyone other than themselves.

Oh it is by no means certain that improved rights in some areas help people. Give women too good maternity rights and they are entrenched as the one in the couple who does the dross stuff at home. The case for the minimum wage has certainly not been proven. I am not saying have no legal protections at all for employees but I amn ot the only person in England arguing these points. It is the big topic of the moment, isn't it as any of you opening a paper will see - do we free small employers (which is where most people work) from regulation? On just this April the government reverted to a 2 year minimum service for most unfair dismissal. It had been a year until then (although in my memory it used to be 2).

However I am not a die hard on these issues. Some form of anti discrimniation legislation does help and I am not against board quotas for women of 40% for a few years until we have women up to 40% or even 80% on some boards. Indeed why not 100% on some.

Xenia, regardless of the regulations, are you really the sort of person that WANTS to employ other people, or do you actually prefer to run your own show and have total control?

You would love it wouldnt you Xenia if there were no legal protections for employes.
And no minimum wage etc.
Your dream world.

Xenia is right that red tape puts people off employing people permanently - I probably fall into this category as both employer and employee - I do freelance/zero hours work that should really be 'properly' employed but is cheaper and more flexible for the employers to avoid that; and also am self-employed and have considered taking staff on to help with that, but could only use freelancers as the work is too temporary and unsure to make a permanent staff member practical.

So I know at first hand the downsides but also upsides of being a 'casual'employee - not getting the same range of benefits stinks BUT I set my own hours, largely and can tell them to bugger off as and when I like.

So Xenia may find she really wants her usual person to do X for her - but as she has no formal working arrangement with them,they might decide to ignore her...

True. Some work is better suited to being done in that way. Some work clearly isn't. I don't think government is really any better at contracting out than it is at employing people...

'Give women too good maternity rights and they are entrenched as the one in the couple who does the dross stuff at home.'

Do you mean like in the US, where women get their scant six week unpaid leave and still end up doing the baby stuff because the men (who tend to be paid more from the getgo) have to keep their noses to the grindstone or risk being fired one bright fine morning without any warning and then escorted with their family photos out of the building. Men who take paternity leave are frowned upon in the more dog eat dog professions (such as law) and you are expected to get your 3,500 hours a year billed no matter what your family situation is. When you work in an employment environment where there are no unions and no regulations stopping employers from doing pretty much as they please, the results are bad for men and women alike. I have said this before, but be careful what you wish for when you advocate untrammeled capitalism. Unless you have lived and worked in the US you do not have any idea what you are wishing for.

Good post math.

rabbit from the way you characterise employers who shy from taking on permenant staff I can only assume you have never been in that position.

It is so easy to yap yap yap when it's not you and your business on the line.

People can choose the regime they want. A lot of people want to live in the UK and US and we have more in common than differences compared to many other places. I have said before one reason my family has done so well and I am healthy happy and well off is because I had very few maternity rights. Women today are denied that chance so tend to go flexitime, earn very little and then once they are boring housewives their husbands leave for someone 20 years younger without paying up very much as it's all hidden. I am not sure the improved maternity rights have ensured more women h ave seized positions of power - they have just enabled a family structure where of course woman languishes at home for months as she is paid to do so whilst Mr Big Boss continues unchecked and the flextimer's income dwindles into pin money and she loses all effect power and gets depressed.

Not all employees are women,less than half
Not all women get pregnant by a long way.
So lets not try and emphasise that aspect.

Thats a point,do you only employ women?
That would be discrimitory.

wordfactory,good try at helping Xenia.

Agreed that the unfair dismissal rules may have gone too far.Dont know,never had to do that.
But,the vast majority of employment rules and rights are there for a very good reason.
To stop the likes of ,oh,whose 2 names might I want to put here, exploiting,yes exploiting workers.
Can you tell I am still livid?

amillion some businesses do attract mostly women: hairdressers, clothes shops, family law firms etc etc

I once worked for an all female law firm (exccept one dude who workd PT) and four of us were pregnant at the same time!!! My poor boss. She went under some time later .

And, no, I didn't come to xenia's rescue, I simply thought some people were making incorrect points. Frankly, your personal dislike of xenia and myself is a bit stalkerish. I think you need to take stock.

wordfactory,you were the one who joined or rejoined the thread.
It could be said you are stalking me!

And you too are obsessed with female workers and mainly female workplaces.

Open your eyes to what Xenia has said on here.
Do you agree with her last few posts?
Seems so.

Do you employ people?
Are you being dicrimatory when you employ them?
Do you exploit them?

amillion I am not remotely obssessed with female only work places. But I have enough intelligence and imagination to undertsand that they are difficult place for an employer.

Yes I do have people who work for me. I have a mixture of employees and free lancers. I keep the number of employees I have at absolute fighting weight. Too many hugely impacts upon a small business. We can't continue with half the workforce on maternity leave. Or off on sick leave.

I'm fidning though, that people are far more open to free lancing these days. Many people, especially women prefer it. I know I do. I hope never to be an employee ever again.

Do I think maternity rights have made matters harder for women? I doubt it. I would prefer women to be given a reasonable amount of time off after their birth with their jobs held open. However I do think small businesses should be allowed to insist on asking their emploees' plans earluer. Too many women hang on til the last second saying they will go back when they know they won't. They want to hedge their bets, which is undertsnadable, but it makes life impossible for the employer. It means some employers avoid employing women of a child bearing age.

What I do see around me is a massive recession. Businesses barely surviving or going to the wall. Unemployment is as high as when the last lot of Tory boys were in power. We need to help small business and new businesses sustain through this tough time. And to do that we need to listen. Characterising employers negatively (pace Rabbit) fails quite spectacularly to understand that most employers are ordinary folk just trying to make ends meet.

I know much about small businesses.

I know some things about maternity rights,prob not as much as you do.
Maternity rights may or may not be over generous.

I know a lot of small businesses are barely survivng,and run by ordinary folk.

But,
"I can ensure no one has any protections of employment who work for me"
wow

"The case for the minimum wage has certainly not been proven"
Yes it has in my book.

It may not be proven in some peoples eyes who now have to pay it.

And some dismissal rights are essential?
Would you agree with that?

The process for unfair dismissal is very stressful and when an individual is faced with emotional personal circumstances and having been booted out of a job unreasonably it can feel like a huge mountain to climb.

Let's not even go there if you are trying to take on a large corporate; you need to arm yourself with a very good and expensive lawyer and do a lot of preparation and hard work, plus put yourself through a stressful process. I have supported a friend through it and after many hurdles they settled out of court... but this was a very small amount in comparison to the stress, upset, sense of loss & self worth and also loss of earnings she had experienced. My feelings after all that is that it is rarely worth it.

In my view there is a huge difference between large corporations and small one man band outfits and I find it a little ludicrous that they are treated the same. I know they have tried to address this. In many years working I have seen a lot of ill practice, often may I say nothing to do with profits but more to do with inexperience, short sightedness and low morals. Let's not forget that we are all humans and some people like to sack someone just because they "don't get on with them/their face doesn't fit/they won't go out with them" - this does still happen.

Yes, which is why the Government is considering changing the law for smaller businesses but I do not think they can unless we leave the EU so as ever it is probably just a load of hot air. it is a delicate balance between prtection but not so much small businesses don't take others on.

The BBC appears to have been almost forcing some of their people to set up personal service companies even if they did not want them.

I certainly remember when I was in my 20s the difficuulties when you are very very tired and working full time with 3 children under 5 or 6 and your nanny takes maternity leave and all the massive admin. It is not easier these days, it's harder. The HMRC on line stuff is more not less time consuming. They have shifted burdens from the state to the employers even more and yes as a small employer you do get the SMP back that you pay when your nanny goes on maternity leave and I think 6% on top of that but that 6% is a ludicrous joke and by no means compensates for all the form filling. That is one employee mother having a baby who had a nanny and masses of admin relting to that - instead of some kind of annual reward and a bunch of flowers fom HMRC - wonderful you because you pay all the tax and all those who don't simply don't have to spend all those hours on the forms and make huge gains.

On the minimum wage I don't really have a problem with it particularly except in more general terms because our silly state makes up your income if it's low anyway so that someone on say £13k a year may be as well off as someone on £25k because of how tax and housing benefit works so it's lal a bit of an interventionist nightmare but hard to sort out if you want to keep a welfare state which guarantees certain basic levels eg for our family here we would get £20,400 a year in housing benefit if I chose not to work plus all the other benefits. It feels to be far far far too generous and a disincentive to work for many.

I think rules vis a vis unfair dismissal are imperative.
I would however change some aspects of them (which the governemnt are now doing).

I don't have an issue either with the MW. The sort of people I employ would not expect to ern that little anyway.

However I do know there is a huge balck economy and I do wonder if MW were lowered would those employers put more people on their books? Prbably not. Those poeple are probably the types who will always seek to exploit. But I don't claim expertise in this.

What I do know, however, from setting up and running a silly amount of my own businesses (set up my first one at university) over the years, is that small businesses fair better when you can be flexible with staff.

wordfactory - I characterise employers that way because that's the way I see it. And I do have experience of a small employer finding it extremely difficult to get rid of an employee who made life toxic for everyone else around her and who should have been got rid of long ago (but the main problem there was a lack of ruthlessness - the small employer was actually too nice... - rather than a lack of any foot to stand on when it came to being legally entitled to get rid of her... in other words, remove all her rights and he still would have found it really difficult to tell her to go, because he was too aware of the impact that would have on her, unlike a large, faceless employer). I also have experience of large employers getting rid of people in an unnecessarily cack-handed way, or keeping them on and letting everyone else suffer, because nobody can be bothered to deal properly with the problem. As orangeberries points out, you are dealing with human beings here: big or small business, there is a lot of twisted behaviour as a result of people feeling the need to justify what they are doing to ease their consciences, regardless of the law or the needs of the business. There will never be a perfect balance. I do agree, though, that small businesses and large businesses are poles apart and there should be more sensitivity in the law to account for that, but not at the expense of all employee rights. And I would hate to work in an all-women environment where the women kept going off on maternity leave... would also hate to work in an all women environment where all the women took one day off to have their babies and then came straight back to work as though it hadn't happened, because otherwise they would be sacked...

Lets put it the other way round.
Which rights do you think are good workers rights,both of you?

And if I set up my own business, I strongly suspect I would be averse to growing it to a size where I had to employ other people unless I felt I really, really had to, because regardless of the law, it is a leap of faith to trust other people to help you with your business and I would have a hard time making it. I think a lot of people meet that brick wall and it isn't just the law that stops them jumping over it.

And not just womens rights,Xenia,unless you do indeed only employ women.

Realised wordfactory,you havent actually said that you employ any men in your business either.

When it comes down to it, women do get pregnant, not men. In some jobs, it's not just the giving birth bit that temporarily suspends your ability to do your job, it's the whole pregnancy. Whatever a small employer is or isn't allowed to ask a woman about her plans, they are still going to be put off employing a woman for that reason.

I employ men.

However the nature of most of my businesses attracts majority women.

The truth is though, as rabbit righly said, most small businesses, at least the ones that are going to survive, need to stay extremely light on staff for as long as is humanly possible. Free lancers make this muvch easier these days. Many free lancers tend to be women in my area.

What rights would I see kept?

Maternity leave. I would like to see six months offered and the employee have to tell the employer that they intend to return by three months. More leave can of course be negotiated and larger firms could use longer periods or better paid periods to attract good staff.

Unfiar dismissal. For employees on staff for two years. I would like to see a cap on comp for small businesses.

What I would most like, though, is felxibility. I do this currently by using free lancers, but I'm sure it would suit some people better to be employed and for me to sort out NI, sick pay, materity leave etc. But I can only do that if I can have felxibility. Tricky conundrum.