Brick Walls and State Schools

I was born in 1988, the year the National Curriculum was born. Conservative government, privatising principles, nationalising education. "Greater control and direction = better results" was the basic formula. Of course, results then didn't mean quite what they do now; the phrase 'school results' today brings to mind GCSE and A Level grade percentages, league tables, report cards. 22 years ago they meant success in the National Curriculum's aim: children should be 'equipped with the knowledge, skills and understanding that they need for adult life and employment.' And if you're a boff who wants more info, try here: http://www.educationengland.org.uk/articles/07ncteacher.html

Personally I've had a good range of educative experience: I spent my primary years in a tiny village C of E school, with weekly story times from the local vicar, and weekly trips to the swimming pool, during which misbehaving boys would be sent to change in the girls' locker rooms as punishment. Unlikely to be legal these days, but that's how it worked. There were about 75 pupils, most of us knew everyone else's names, and we scraped our knees on gravel playground, sat on heat-absorbent tarpaulins on sweltering sports days, and got to climb the church tower before we left.

I then spent a 'prep year' at a local private school, full of terrifyingly tall sixth-formers and impressive buildings. A geeky type, I probably deserved some of the ribbing I got for writing "I LOVE SCHOOL!" all over my stationery, but even at the tender age of ten I could perceive a certain favouritism among the teachers, the effortless way in which wealthier children seemed to get into less trouble, and I certainly wasn't ready for the snubs I earned from my peers for being a second-hand blazer-wearing, goody two-shoes, council house kid. Having thrown in the goody-two-shoes towel and taken to rampant swearing and petty theft, I wasn't any happier and jumped at the chance to be taken out of school - to be taught at home.

Home education is a whole other world, but not, as many seem to think, an isolated, mind-numbingly insufficient educative world of extended play times and group meditation. I found myself part of an entirely different community, one made up of a surprisingly high number of ex-teachers, intelligent and educated men and women, the occasional hippy (also intelligent and educated, lest I be accused of discrimination), all of whom had decided that for whatever reason, the national curriculum wasn't delivering and they wanted the freedom to help their unique children with their unique strengths and weaknesses.

Fast-forward six years and I was plunged back into the private sector, suited and booted for sixth form in a large Methodist school, with leisurely summer afternoons watching the First Cricket team, wind-surfing lessons, and politics trips to Westminster (involving The Embarrassing Incident of the Knife, details of which will be divulged at a later date).

Now I'm winding up a degree at Oxford University, and I can't help thinking that, even though I didn't experience every form and aspect of education (I was never in a city school, for example, and I never had to sit GCSEs), I've had a fairly rounded run. I'm glad that my parents had the guts to go against the grain and find what was best for each of their five children. I'm glad I had the privelege of schools which, whatever their faults, had dedicated and motivated staff. I'm aware that this isn't everyone's experience, but I know it's what governments and political parties have been working toward - isn't it?

Having waffled away about Me, I'm now turning to Us: because the future of British education won't affect us so much as our children, if and when we have any, and the experience of British education over the past decade or so is going to make a drastic difference to our political, social, and economic future as a nation. Doing the maths (and that's with an 's' because I'm not American), the 18-year-olds about to vote for the first time are Labour Babies, educationally speaking. They went into school in 1997 or thereabouts, and they've had 13 years of Labour-directed educative development.

In the 1960s through to the 1980s, the general situation of education remained fundamentally as it had been at the turn of the century: teachers had control of 'the secret garden', because education was understood to be about the needs of the individual child, and teachers were the best equipped to address such needs. They knew how to develop curriculum because they had classroom experience; schools took responsibility for curriculum development because their reputation rested solely on their self-determination. Local Education Authorities existed, as did an examination system, and along with parental involvement these helped to give shape to curriculum to ensure that it wasn't entirely teacher-driven.

The National Curriculum has brought various benefits, and this isn't going to be a debate over whether or not it should exist - a complete moot point, under the circumstances. What we need to know is how it has developed, and where it's going, and who wants to do what with it.

SO - documented evidence gives us:

An expansive curriculum: addition of new subjects like 'PSHE (Personal Social Health and Economic Education)/ General Studies (this for me during 6th form entailed five lessons on how much debt university would put me in, and five lessons which I never had due to timetable foul-ups, on sexual health, condom-and-banana style. I'm sure other schools did better.)
In 2007 a body of experts attacked the proposed National Curriculum for under-fives, which would apply to 25,000+ private and public nurseries as well as professional childminders. Dr House, a leading child psychologist, expressed concerns that 'The central State is defining what child development is. It means that a pre-school would have to pursue the Government's defined view of healthy child development, even if it contradicts with their own view.'

A measured curriculum: year in, year out, the GCSE and A Level results cause a national discussion in the media for a few weeks on the supposed dumbing-down of exams in order to raise national grade averages, and put schools in a better place on the dreaded league tables. Initially intended to enable educative authorities to pin-point and help schools with struggling children, league tables have become the bane of many a teacher's life, and the stress is apparently being passed down to students - I don't know if a national student poll has been taken to verify this, but if it was I didn't hear about it. It is true that there is a drop in students choosing 'harder', knowledge-based as opposed to analysis-based subjects at exam level. And I have plenty of perfectly capable friends who were denied the supposed free choice to pursue four A levels, being told instead to focus on the three they would do best in.

A centralised curriculum: fair access, pretty much absolutely... to state schools, if you're in the catchment area, if there's room for you (a frequent problem with schools high on the league tables), if the quality, ability and resources for teachers are equal across the board, if class numbers are reasonable enough for the teacher to give one-to-one help to each pupil as it's needed...etc. The ideal is wonderful, but obviously our current curriculum alone cannot achieve all of this. So should changes to the curriculum really be the priority right now, if current standards are not being met uniformly?

OKAY, ENOUGH! HERE ARE THE IMPORTANT BITS: PARTY POLICY

Labour:
Extra catch-up lessons in maths, reading and writing for those who fall behind.
'Every parent will have the power to get a better school for their child' says their video: unspecific as to method.
All school-leavers will have guaranteed sixth form, college, or apprenticeship places.

Conservatives:
All state schools will be able to offer the international exams offered by private schools.
20,000 more young apprenticeships to be created.
Parents given power to save threatened schools from closing (also unspecific as to method, but you're a clever cookie, you can look it up).
More frequent inspections for failing schools.

Liberal Democrats:
Cut class sizes.
Enable teachers to have more classroom time (how?)
Provide schools with money for evening classes and one-to-one tuition.
Six-stage timetable for scrapping university tuition fees for first-time undergraduates.

So there you go, much waffling later. Feel free to go find out more. I'll see you next time for a discussion of political tactics, or Why Do Politicians Think We'll Vote For Them Just Because They Slag Each Other Off...