What does Mr Gove know about teacher training?

I watch BBC Parliament and subscribe to http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ email updates for the 3 Stoke-on-Trent MPs.

Whilst I'm not a Labour party member and I'm no particular fan of Dr Tristram Hunt MP, he did ask a particularly interesting question of Mr Gove;

"what recent assessment he has made of his Department's measures to improve teacher training"?  

The reply was wholly inadequate, particularly considering this was a written reply, giving Mr Gove a bit of scope to provide some detail.  But his reply was merely;

"A high quality teacher in every classroom is essential for raising standards in schools. Our strategy to recruit the best graduates to train as teachers and move to a school-led system of training, has led to 71% of teacher trainees with a 1^(st) class or a 2:1 degree starting teacher training this year. This is the highest proportion recorded."

I've written an annotation on the web site, which I had to curtail because of the 'house rules' which disallow opinion, rants, or messages to a politician, all of which I feel inclined towards!  So I decided to expand a little in this blog.  (I have also written a previous blog relating to Mr Gove.)

Now looking at Dr Hunt's question and Mr Gove's answer, I really have to say this is an inadequate answer to the question! The question asks about assessing any improvements to teacher training. The answer only addresses recruitment to teacher training, not what happens during or after that training.

Even the datum given is not provided in sufficient context. 71% is "the highest" proportion recorded. But compared with what? Compared with 70% would be saying very little but compared with 50% would show a significant change. But we are given no additional data with which to compare the 71%.

Having more recruits to teacher training with 1st or 2i degrees is likely indicative of a greater knowledge and understanding of their subject in the recruits, which is reassuring. We want teachers to know what they are talking about. However, academic attainment in their degree subjects is only one aspect, one of very many qualities, which can potentially contribute to good teaching. None of the other qualities of the recruits are mentioned.

Importantly, recruiting the student teachers is only the start of the process. They then need to acquire and develop a whole range of skills and knowledge through their training in order to become the high quality teachers that Mr Gove and all the rest of us of course would wish to see in all classrooms.

So the question, still unanswered, is how effective is that training and in particular the measures Mr Gove has taken to change this, in facilitating the desired outcome?  In particular, Dr Hunt is asking how Mr Gove and his department are assessing the effectiveness of the 'improvements' they have made in the training. Indeed, until there is such an assessment, how do they know there are in fact improvements? Mr Gove cannot assume that just because he has a somewhat greater proportion of recruits fulfilling only one of many criteria, before any specific teacher training has taken place, then that is job done!

I would really like to see Mr Gove provide a much more substantial answer to Dr Hunt's question.  I have noticed Dr Hunt popping up in parliament quite a lot lately and putting questions to Mr Gove, to which he generally receives very poor responses.  Nevertheless I hope he will continue the questioning on education matters and not let Mr Gove off the hook on this issue of teacher training, which is so important to the nation's young people and indeed to teachers.

See also twitter: @Nicky_Davis_ @TristramHuntMP @educationgovuk @govewatch #govemustgo #gove #education

Some ‘Highlights’ From The Education Act 2011

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/21/notes/contents

This act completed its passage through parliament by receiving royal assent on15^th November 2011.  It makes for some grim reading in places.  I have picked just a few selected areas to comment on, from my personal point of view.

Section 2 gives school staff the power to search students if there are reasonable grounds to suspect they have weapons, illegal drugs and alcohol or stolen property.  Action would be needed on these things but it is the role of the police to deal with criminal offences, I would think it unlikely that staff would want to get involved in this way.

Section 5 removes the right of parents to 24 hours notice of detention of a student outside school hours.  This is not a good idea.  It may cause disruptions to other members of the family, including other children, and could cause transport problems and undue worry to parents.  Parents are blamed for poor parenting but it doesn’t help if they are not given the information or control they need relating to their child.  If they know about the detention beforehand they have the opportunity to add their own discussion with their child and reprimand.  Of course schools can still choose to give advanced notice despite the act.

Section 13 imposes reporting restrictions on allegations of teacher misconduct until this has been investigated.  This seems fair under an initial presumption of innocence.

Section 20 requires community, voluntary and foundation schools to participate in surveys.  This is daft as it does not include academies and free schools, especially given that it is clear that Michael Gove is undertaking a massacre of the other types of schools anyway.  Perhaps that‘s why he puts the requirements in, to find further excuses to academise these schools against their will.

Section 25 abolishes the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency.  I can’t say I’ll miss it but that is not to say I have any confidence whatsoever in the way curriculum might be developed in its place.

Section 29 requires maintained schools to secure impartial careers guidance for students about all 16-18 education and training opportunities.  This is a good idea in principle but sources of such advice could be difficult to find. Again, why exclude academies and free schools from this?  Don’t those students have the same right to an informed choice?  Or will they be channelled down a route not necessarily chosen by them?

Section 31 repeals the key stage 4 diploma entitlement.  Good, this was a crazy, cumbersome and largely useless system the previous Labour government was imposing, business led with hardly a consideration of students and teachers. 

Section 35 on school meals is good in the sense that it does not allow maintained schools to profit from school meals.  But why leave academies and free schools able to overcharge for meals?  But it allows different charges to different pupils for the same meal, which is just obviously unfair.

Section 37 demands that any new school proposed by a local authority must be an academy.  For those of us who believe that academies do not allow proper democratic involvement by parents and teachers in their governance, as well as giving a poorer guarantee of a broad and fair education, this is obviously not a good thing, but unsurprising given that both the previous Labour government and the current Conservative government have forced this route.  Decent education is in decline under all these politicians.

Section 46 allows far too much meddling by the Secretary of State in local authorities’ financial provisions for the schools it maintains.

Section 55 seems to be the one being used by Michael Gove to force academies on schools deemed to require intervention.  This is despite the fact that there is no evidence that this will improve performance.  And what about underperforming academies?  What is to be done with them?  He is just a bully who does not care a jot about what local families using the school think.  How can he imagine such a horrible tactic will encourage a school to flourish?  More on that one to come I think.

Section 74 requires under the Conservatives, as it did under Labour, that compulsory education or training will be extended to age 18.  I don’t agree with this.  I am a strong believer in the value of post-16 education but I would not like it to be compulsory.  If a young person wishes to start work at 16 instead, I don’t see why they shouldn’t.  Not that there are many jobs to go to at present.  This reduction in choice can only be a bad thing, for the young people ending up in more education when they don’t want to be there and for the other young people and teachers they may be causing disruption to.

Section 76 allows in higher education higher interest rates for student loans, plunging students into even more debt, disgraceful!  If the state wants the young to be educated then it, we the taxpayers, should pay for this and not burden these young people with huge debt they will still be saddled with much later in life.

Well there are good points in this act, but they are few and far between.  It does look like some bureaucracy is removed but at the expense of democratic rights, particularly of local communities, the students and their families.  There is rampant academisation under the Tories, as there was under Labour.  The future education for our young people looks very bleak indeed.

Lack of High School Places in Stoke-on-Trent

The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily the views of any body or organisation I am a member of.

The shortfall in high school places for the young people of Stoke-on-Trent is something I have been banging on about for years, (see 21/11/08, 1/1/10 , 27/2/10 , 28/8/10 ).  Nobody listens of course, but the latest Stoke-on-Trent cabinet meeting on 26th January 2012 has prompted me to have another go.  Item 7 concerns BSF.

BSF in a nutshell:

BSF is the controversial ‘Building Schools for the Future’ programme initiated by the previous Labour government to privatise the schools system and contrary to their promise to refurbish or rebuild every high school, resulted for some in Bulldozing Schools for the Future.  There are some rather nice refurbishments and rebuilds although some schools have been cajoled into academisation in the process.  Under the current Conservative government privatisation and academisation continues unabated but instead of the Labour approach of trying to bribe schools with funding for their buildings, the Conservative approach is to cut off funding and just send in the heavy mob to force academisation.  Either way, privatisation abounds and democratic rights are reduced for families and teachers.

In the webcast of the cabinet meeting Councillor Ruth Rosenau, Cabinet Member for Regeneration stated (0:19:16) that both options C in the meeting document were agreed.

One of these involves moving Abbey Hill special school from Abbey Hulton to Longton.  The other changes the planned refurbishment of Holden Lane High School to involve much more rebuild.  These changes bring the total council contribution to BSF to nearly £60million.

Holden Lane is currently in special measures and the governing body has been replaced with an ‘Interim Executive Board’.  Councillor Debra Gratton is Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Life Skills and is a governor at Holden Lane. 

  

The new plans for Holden Lane provide only 900 pupil places compared with the previously planned 1050.  Debra Gratton stated (0:21:30) that Holden Lane currently has 970 pupils on roll and asked if 900 places is adequate.  Joanne Tyzzer, Assistant Director City Regeneration, said the numbers had been checked against total school capacity across the city and there is no problem.  Well – I would like to see the proof of that! 

The meeting documentation refers to "Pupil place planning projections (updated August 2011)".  I do not have these projections (I have now requested them from the council).  I have some previous projections and have analysed post-BSF high school place provision in the city against these numbers.  My analysis shows, much the same as it has previously, that Stoke-on-Trent is one high school short.  The latest reduction in places at Holden Lane does not help matters. 

Stoke-on-Trent City Council does not provide information on school capacity in a very coherent or transparent way but the information gleaned from the references I give in the first sheet of my spreadsheet indicates a total of 13,800 places.  This is better than the 13,500 in the original SERCO BSF strategy and provides 2,010 surplus places across the city by the year 2014.  Some surplus places are desirable to allow for parental choice and pupil population distribution within the city.  So what’s the problem?  The issue is that 2014 is the year that high school pupil numbers drop to their lowest point before rising significantly.  By the year 2020 high school pupil numbers are projected to reach 14,642, giving a shortfall of 842 places, that’s one entire high school short!  With increasing birth rates there seems no indication that this may fall.  Quite apart from any issues concerning the quality of education, I have grave concerns about educational provision for high school pupils just in terms of number of available school places in the city.

The problem is in fact worse than this when the geographical distribution of pupils is considered, as shown in the second sheet of my spreadsheet.  Clearly some assumptions are involved but it can be seen that the lack of places provides fewer problems in the far North of the city.  There is a particular dearth of provision towards the centre of the city, particularly in the Abbey Hulton and Bucknall areas. 

There has been a strong public campaign by the Community Schools Action Group (CSAG) to retain high schools on the Mitchell and Longton sites rather than merge Mitchell and Edensor to one school, the Discovery Academy on Willfield, but despite Labour lies of support on this, more lies ensued and the merger went ahead, destroying Willfield Gym in the process.  The lack of interest in providing pupil places for the families of Abbey Hulton was highlighted at the Willfield planning meeting.

CSAG are still pursuing a plan for a school on the Mitchell site, now by proposing the R J Mitchell Free School.  If this goes ahead it will help a little with the pupil numbers problem and it is certainly geographically in an excellent location where there is an absence of high school provision.  This could provide for families in Bucknall, Berryhill, Townsend, Bentilee and Abbey Hulton.

I look forward to receiving more up to date pupil projections from the council.  There should be 3 more years birth data now available beyond the numbers I have.  The council really ought to be planning beyond 2014 and planning properly for 2020.  I would like to see the projections beyond 2020.

Analysis spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgnPMdnm-yQhdDlDRTZuMGFXbnFuRDhWTUloNTloQmc&hl=en_GB&pli=1#gid=1

Pupil projection data:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BwnPMdnm-yQhOTI2ODA5NjgtODQyYi00ZjU3LWFiZjItMDhhOGU3ODU0ZWEy&hl=en_GB