Sunday thoughts: Warm words, hard policies, pension wrangling
Much love at the language that has been used by the new Secretary of State and her team in speeches, letters and receptions this week. And indeed, it’s hard to be a teacher or school leader and not be pleased at sentiments like this:
“It’s a great honour to serve as Education Secretary. Serving the young people who will become the leaders of tomorrow, and working with the public servants – heroes – those who teach in our schools, who run our nurseries, who lead our colleges and head our universities, and the children’s social workers who care for the most vulnerable. [And I want to] show gratitude for their selflessness and service to the future of our country.”
Stirring stuff indeed. Heroes!
Except, my mistake, that’s the profession’s favourite SoS, Gavin Williamson, giving a speech to an audience famous for their love for teachers, Conservative Party Conference in 2019.
Or when the SoS said:
“The education system can and should be a motor to drive social justice, helping to build a fairer society, where people are rewarded on the basis of their talents and the efforts they put in. It can and should extend opportunity and serve to improve the life chances of every single young person in this country – no matter where they are, what their background is, or who their parents are. We should strengthen the teaching profession by supporting it to become vibrantly diverse. And the system should do all that while still valuing the amazing workforce we are so fortunate to have in this country. And without you and your phenomenal efforts on behalf of the young people you care so passionately about, none of that would have been possible so let me say – thank you.”
What a welcome focus on collective social justice, and the passion for teachers’ phenomenal efforts.
Again, my mistake. That’s Nicky Morgan, speaking to the NASUWT in 2016.
You get my point. I could have probably dug out speeches from Gove, Cleverly, Malthouse, or anyone else who served as Education Secretary for more than 48 hours (soz, Michelle), which would have had similar lines.
This is a classic example of the “halo and horns” behavioural heuristic. Yes, Phillipson’s lines are good, and well-aimed at telling the profession she wants to work with them, and she respects them. But – again – every Secretary of State does this. The difference seems to me that people are more inclined to believe Phillipson, based on the “halo” effect of a Labour Minister saying it, against the “horns” effect of a Conservative politician saying it.
It's not wholly that, of course – it’s legitimate to say that the Conservative government may have had fine words of respect for the profession, but the track record was one of not backing that up, whether one thinks of pay, or wider school funding, or workload, or many other things. But my point is that judgement of a government should be based on what they are, and what they do – not what they say in the halcyon early and enthusiastic days of an administration.
And we’re starting to see the outlines of what this activity could be, now. The full DfE Ministerial team has been appointed, and it’s pretty much square pegs for square holes. Stephen Morgan, who was very popular as a Shadow Schools Minister, is back holding some of that brief, and some of the childcare brief. Cat McKinnell switches over from Shadow to full Minister. And Janet Daby, who has professional experience in the field, takes the junior brief for wider children’s services. Interestingly (worryingly?), someone observed to me the other day that one of Jacqui Smith’s qualifications for that role may be less her prior experience as a SoS, and more that since leaving politics, she’s served extensively in the NHS in non-executive roles, where her job has involved restructuring financially failing institutions…..
The Sunday Times reports that there’s going to be an Education Bill in the King’s Speech next week. There’s needed to be one for a while; one of the consequences of Zahawi’s Education White Paper and then Bill foundering in the Lords is that a lot of other less controversial things that need legislation have been on ice for a couple of years.
The Bill is rumoured to include
Mandatory breakfast clubs in all primary schools (including Academies)
A limit on branded uniform items a school can require
Academies to follow the National Curriculum
All teachers to have QTS
Ofsted to inspect MATs
A register of home educated children
Tightening of Ofsted powers over residential special schools
There’s a lot in there, and I’ll do a separate post when the draft legislation is published. My instinct is that this splits into three camps: wholly uncontroversial (Ofsted powers around residential special schools, uniforms, breakfast clubs); sensible on the face of it, but foreshadowing possible wider arguments among a small group who will vehemently disagree (QTS, home education); and more fiddly than it sounds (Academies and the curriculum, inspecting MATs).
The home education register I wholly agree with – less so for the tackling attendance problems, and more as a principle of safeguarding for all children. It will be vehemently opposed by a proportion of the home education lobby, and while I respect their principles, I just disagree – and I suspect the majority of people do too, and this will go through very easily.
On QTS, Academies and a National Curriculum, and inspecting MATs – there are good arguments for all of them in principle. But it is indicative of the complexity of the system that working through exactly what this will mean and how is not as simple as it sounds.
I would hope that there will be a White Paper or consultation before legislation on these, because what exactly it means, and how it interrelates with
a changing Ofsted framework and the proposed removal of single grades
wider proposed changes to accountability via changing Progress 8, and possibly EBACC
the forthcoming curriculum and assessment review
Kevan Collins’ new focus on stuck schools
is absolutely vital. For example, how will we know what a stuck school is if we don’t have Ofsted grades? Will the changing Ofsted framework for schools also now be applied to MATs, and will we have MAT report cards too? Or will there be different frameworks for group structures? Will non-QTS teachers in schools be grandfathered into the system or will they have to go back and qualify? How flexible will existing disapplication rules in the National Curriculum for maintained schools be applied under this legislation, if at all, and will this change with the new curriculum and assessment review?
And speaking of things which seem wholly sensible but will cause a row, United Learning has put out what looks like an excellent proposal whereby they will offer all of their teaching staff a choice of two pensions – with staff opting into the less generous (but still pretty good) alternative to TPS receiving the saved employer contributions as increases to take home pay. The offer under the new pension is a starting salary of £45k in London and £38k outside it; a 15% salary uplift or 24% increase in take home pay before student loan contributions.
I’m pretty blown away by this – both because I think it’s brilliant in principle, but also because I’m so pleased it’s come from the sector, rather than DfE. It’s another example, following hot on the heels of the Dixons 9-day fortnight, of where the real innovation in the system is coming from.
But there’s howls of pushback. Most of them, I simply don’t agree with. This doesn’t break the law of UL not offering a pension or offering inducements to exit TPS; it’s not leaving teachers in penury (given the new scheme has three levels, all of which are pretty good); no one has to switch and everyone who wants to can stay in TPS; and a lot of the narrative is pretty patronising to teachers when it suggests they don’t fully understand what they may be giving up (I’m pretty sure they do: there’s evidence that they’re dropping out of TPS anyway to save money and this way they get something back! Also, they can switch schemes annually).
I suspect the real, implicit argument, is that this weakens TPS more broadly, both financially (though of course it’s an unfunded scheme anyway), and conceptually. A good example of where unions can be more on the side of their older and more generously pensioned members, rather than fairly representing all of their colleagues, I’m afraid. Not on. All power to UL, and let’s hope it works.
Finally, a piece in the Guardian this week tips Chris Skidmore as the new chair of Office for Students, amid much discussion about the regulator’s upcoming role in helping to address universities going bust. Which gives me a neat segue to say that Public First’s work on that very topic is out this week! And I will be discussing it at length with anyone who is interested, and to be honest lots of people who aren’t interested either.