Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Geoffrey Hackett
A Brief Résumé
My key interest in education after leaving school in 1962 was for 40 years as an employer in several industry sectors—Transport, Textiles and Television.
As a member of IOD and Manchester Chamber of Commerce I shared for many years colleagues concerns as to the suitability of educations output to be fit for work at any level and served on committees to form support links and advice for those about to seek employment for the first time.
My concerns for educations ability to provide a rounded and useful package became heightened in 1998 when at 52 I became a father for the first time and I became as focused on the provision as I had for many years been on the output of education.
For his pre-school and early years my son went to a private school in Cheshire. But in 2006 we moved south to Surrey and decided to let my son finish his primary education close to where I was working as a consultant in Chertsey.
By 2008 I had become a parent governor and was soon involved as Chair of the Children and learning committee. My son left the school in 2010 and went on to Esher High School. I stayed serving out my term a parent Governor I then became a Local Authority Governor and Chair of governors for the school
I stayed because while I had arrived as a governor of the school through a set of unusual coincidences it became very quickly apparent that this was a good school yet the local community considered it a poor school and the Ofsted reports for the last 11 years only managed satisfactory yet I and the majority of the parents with children there new it was better than that.
When I hinted that as my son had moved on his school perhaps I should resign Carole (my partner) said “perhaps they need you more than his ‘outstanding’ new school” so I stayed and I am pleased to say at our recent November Ofsted inspection the school became recognised as a good school in all categories and on the up.
Thought
If education is for society it has to be fit for and about society at all levels
For Additional Background Information
Following my leaving school in 1962 I worked in top management positions within transport, fashion clothing and property. In the last twenty years I have been responsible for the production of over 400 management development programmes, a screen writer and director of many TV broadcast management training programmes and author of the book Change? What Change? As I always become deeply involved in things I undertake I am also on the committee of Surrey Governors Association and attend local National Governor Association meetings.
I am sure the committee will receive much advice and input about the benefits and pitfalls of governors, of quality, of skill sets, of qualification, of function, of balance, of accountability, effectiveness and of value. So I will just concentrate on one issue which I believe is essential to implementing any change effectively and finish with one or two general thoughts for consideration.
With great enthusiasm and courage new ideas are launched into most organisations and institutions. Then a couple of years down the road every one wonders why such good ideas and improvements failed to be accepted or simply appeared to fail. the answer is always the same, not enough listening to people who talk little but perform well coupled with not having worked the effect of the changes through with consideration for all other aspects of change that may take place or of those which need to take place for the programme to work. Sadly this happens more in government than else where because with a limited time scale reforms are rushed through on the bases of “ivory tower” thinking and very little seeing it from the ground up.
Example: back in the 1980’s government were told we are going to have many choices of television channels someone worked out this would create many new jobs in media and colleges were encouraged to train students in media studies, film, television and journalism. That someone in effect got the idea that we would instead of one BBC and one ITV we would have twenty such channels and as the BBC and ITV employed some 50,000 people between them then we were going to need 500,000 trained staff to fill the jobs created. Colleges got large sums for teaching these courses larger than maths or science subjects able students were directed to these course.
Unfortunately colleges had no trained staff so English teachers and geography teachers read a few books and the students got plenty of “lights—camera—action” and no substance of what the industry is really like. Worse no one calculated that technologies being developed in Japan and elsewhere would mean that where you currently needed a crew of eleven to go out and film an interview today one journalist can do it on his own that where you needed twenty graphic designers working for a week to create an effect today one can create a far greater effect in ten minutes on a computer.
Worse no one calculated the de unionisation of such industries would take away restrictive practices that had lead to overstaffing and free-up people to be more effective for less money. So to expand the TV sector was not actually going to need 500,0000 more trained in TV and Media but maybe only another 50,000 all of whom would have been better trained on the job were they got real value experience from professionals in the right environment. In the nineties one was better employing geography or history students and training them than taking on a media student and having to de train them before you could train them properly result Thousands of disillusioned students/citizens/voters/society.
Thinking planning and testing any change plans through in the light of everything surrounding the situation is essential. At the moment the amount of new ideas legislation multiplied by the simple chaos that is created either good or bad as a side effect of implementation or even just considering implementation means that governors (like all people in education) have a lot to cope with. They may or may not be lasting issues but they are a real short term problems. What leaves the top table as a small matter can often become a very large problem when it comes to the implementation stage.
The concept that governing bodies can bring more of their “real world expertise to the corridors of learning and the ivory towers of thinking” may well be a good idea. However this will not happen without constructing an environment and the frame work for a free exchange of ideas and realisms and the flexibility of space for them to be understood and tested out.
Teachers who are pressured to get x or y percent of pupils beyond a target level set out their stall to do just that the process ensures that both talented and underperformers become ignored as staff seek the best way to get the maximum number over the target line so no Einstein’s, Newton’s or Edison’s for the future the process of targets usually means averaging and averaging creates mediocrity.
The concept that we are teaching our children for jobs which have not been created in technologies which as yet do not exist creates an excuse for some teachers to say “what am I teaching our children for—no one knows what they will be doing”. Sadly this was not what was intended the issue is we have to train children to be flexible to be respected, and respectful, free thinking, caring, concerned, intelligent kind members of our society. Who can enjoy the work that they do what ever that work is. for society will always want some one to do something so why not learn to be happy in your work and the whole world will benefit not every one is needed in an Ivory tower and as we recently discovered training 400,000 students to be plumbers may have finished up with a great deal more satisfied people at every level and in every corner of society than having 400,000 disappointed want to be media Spielberg’s wandering the streets of the world. (See panel on previous page).
Governors need encouraging in joining the ranks from all walks of life, not just retired teacher’s, lawyers, accountants and builders.
I feel it would be a pity to loose the volunteer aspect of Governorship and for most (especially parent governors) eight events a year at a couple of hours each is not a big ask. However to be an effective chair means far more commitment and many chairs of governors are in school for at least four hours a week they also attend many classes and other training events and try to network their knowledge maybe given the demand on people who generally need to be retired or semi retired to have the time to carry out this work with true effect and value to the school should receive a small annual payment of say between £4k and £6k per annum to cover the time they might have been working in B&Q or similar. Those on high pensions or of a generous nature could always be encouraged to donate it to a school project
Everyone in education should ask themselves and colleagues “What are we teaching our children for?” then listen to and answer it every day.