Memorandum submitted by Bob Prince MA
BUDGET AND
THE "POLITICAL
FOOTBALL", EDUCATION
If there is any merit in cutting budgets in education,
then prime candidates for cutting must surely include the backroom
services including inspection, curriculum development* (see para
14), and testing.
1. Within primary and secondary education the most
feared and hated department of government is OFSTED. Previous
to its invention the function of school inspection was carried
out by the benign and (some might say), largely ineffectual, Her
Majesty's Inspectorate (HMI).[1]
The Inspectorate prior to OFSTED had the merit of being, in real
terms, extremely cheap to run and had an in-built control of costs.
If budgets were tight, fewer inspections were done and then, only
needed, if real problems arose within particular schools. Inspections
of schools were carried out under the management of the local
authorities.
2. OFSTED however, has been conceived as an altogether
different tool of government and as I hope to demonstrate does
not have as its primary purpose, the monitoring of the performance
of schools (and other organisations). The primary purpose of OFSTED
has been to impose a politically based ideology on the education
system within the UK. I do not propose at this point to discuss
the merits, or otherwise of the ideological regime other than
to identify it. I do hope to shed light on the question as to
whether we need OFSTED at all.
3. OFSTED was created in 1992 by John Major's government
to enhance the work of the HMI. The over arching political ideology
operated by this and the previous Conservative administration
at this time was broadly, to find ways of enabling markets, rather
than the state, to provide economic solutions to problems of government.
Using market economics as a guiding principle of government the
problem arose, as to how the principles of the market could be
applied to social functions, such as education run by government.
4. Education was a particularly difficult problem.
As a proportion of the revenue spent by government the education
service was an enormous slice. What was more intractable was that
even though education cost such a lot of money, the tax payer
had no way of understanding what value they were getting from
education since the outcomes were to a large extent un-measurable.
Furthermore, education experts were divided as to what constituted
success when applied to education. Most education professionals
were agreed that the one thing education was not about, was to
supply the market with functionaries with which to run the commercial
life of the nation… it was much more than that.
5. Government by market economics was faced by an
ideological impasse when applied to education. How could it apply
market principles when (after all), it was supplying money to
an education establishment demonstrating serious reservations
about the application of market economics to the field of education?
The solution adopted was to run an education service bound to
a systemic analogy with the market with measured outcomes (profits)
driven by the possibility of catastrophic failure, school closures
(bankruptcy), or "special measures" (administration).
6. As a measure of the effectiveness of schooling,
exam results attained in the final years of secondary education
prior to 1992 left much to be desired. Pupils, whose early education
was unsatisfactory, were just not represented by those results
and therefore, exam results had little relationship to the quality
of schooling in the early years. Conversely, a good early education
meant that the final results might reflect just that, rather than
the quality of secondary schooling. The old 11+ examination, which
at least exposed primary education's role in measured results
could not be re-adopted because of the lack of political will
to reinstate selection for secondary education. The government
of the time therefore introduced the electorate to a whole new
set of concepts in state education provision.
7. The first of these was parental choice. If a child's
school did not perform satisfactorily parents could take them
to another school, just as in the market people could take their
custom elsewhere.
Secondly, continuous measurement of the school's
(not the child's) performance with annual testing of every year
(except the 1st) of schooling measured against targets set by
the state and not by the school (SAT).
Thirdly, inspection by both education professionals
& professionals drawn from business and other outside
interests (OFSTED).
8. It is my belief that, SATs results become analogous
to the currency of an education market with currency value being
set by the target for each year of pupils' education.
9. I also propose that in the same way, OFSTED inspection
became analogous to the audit carried out for shareholders with
the primary purpose of making sure that the company (tax payers)
derive maximum profit from their investment. OFSTED inspections
therefore become an extremely powerful way of defining the detailed
running of schools, the meaning of their activities and cultivating
wider public perception of the value of particular schools to
their communities. Publication of the results of OFSTED inspections
and the derived SAT results is seen to have a direct relationship
to application for school places, which in turn, affects the viability
of the school. In theory… we have a market.
10. How expensive is that market to run? How strong
is the value of its currency? Do its customers get the best value
for money? Do they really know what they want? Are they the real
customers?
I cannot hope to answer these questions, although,
in relation to expense there are some answers. The unavoidable
costs of the education system are: Accommodation (except where
distance learning is a viable option). Teachers. Media (books,
materials, wax tablets…etc.). All the rest is advisable but
not necessary and not always necessary in the forms that have
been adopted.
11. It would for instance, be unwise to abandon an
overall inspection system for schools where expectations of standards
in education are national rather than local. Is it necessary
to minutely inspect as frequently the detailed performance of
every school as we do now? Could we not trust schools to
be run by professionals and only inspect them if there is cause
for concern? The latter course of action would be dramatically
less expensive than the current regime.
12. The SATs assessment, is perceived by teachers
as disruptive, often meaningless and inaccurate as a method of
measuring schools and pupil's progress. Perhaps the greatest criticism
of the SA Tests is they have little to do with the outcomes of
education, many of which take a whole lifetime to develop. Pupils
do not progress in a linear fashion in their perception and understanding
of life, although, evidence of progression makes for a satisfying
statistical pattern. Anecdotally, SAT tests are prone to statistical
manipulation by all those involved, at all levels of the administration
of education, because, it is in everyone's interest to demonstrate
progress, year on year by individuals and by whole schools.
13. It is not surprising that the teaching profession
is almost in a state of mutiny on the question of whether SATs
should be carried out. The tests are expensive to administer,
(although perhaps not as expensive as decreasing the pupil/teacher
ratio, a measure, which would really be effective in increasing
literacy levels within schools). There is therefore a serious
question as to the cost effectiveness of SATs as they are now
run. If they are not producing meaningful evidence of achievement,
why assess in this manner at all?
14. *In tandem, national curriculum development also
seems to have expanded under successive administrations to the
point to which, its cost-effectiveness is open to question. I
do not however have sufficient knowledge of its detailed operation
and costs to discuss it here.
15. It seems that in a field, which is in essence
all about content, that of education, ideology has run roughshod
over the content itself, restricting it to specific targets to
be satisfied by specific timescales.
16. OFSTED should therefore be recognised for what
it is, a tool for imposing a political ideology on the field of
education. Even if one broadly agrees with the principles of that
ideology the organisation is an expensive luxury which does not
deliver front-line services to its clients, school-children.
17. Without some form of inspection possible some
schools would, over a period of time, decline as management slipped
into complacency. However, we should also trust that, classroom
teachers are highly motivated civil servants whom, almost all
have the best interests of their pupils at heart. We should therefore,
abolish OFSTED and its "currency" SATs and return to
the regime of a much smaller cohort of (nationally managed) inspectors
who only step in when problems emerge.
September 2010
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofsted. Back
| 
