Education

Free schools: good for all schools

Free schools are all well and good – but what about the schools that remain? Some CoffeeHousers raise this question in response to my earlier blog, and it’s important enough to deserve a post in itself. Because introducing new schools to compete with council schools is the best way of raising standards for all – and studies around the world prove this. The ‘free schools’ agenda is not some Govian brainwave, but a simple reform that is being enacted from Chile to Obama's charter schools. The fullest example of this has been in Sweden, which the Gove system is modelled on, where about 13 percent of upper secondary kids are now in free schools.

Which side are you on? | 26 October 2010

At last, The Guardian is reporting the grassroots rebellion in education. It has picked up on the story of Fiona Murphy who blogged on Coffee House yesterday about her trouble with the Tory-run council in Bromley. But hang on... the "grassroots revolt" of which the Guardian speaks is the councils, trying to protect their monopoly control over state schools. Here is the extract: "A flagship government policy has provoked a grassroots revolt against the coalition, with senior Conservative and Liberal Democrat councillors lining up to attack the introduction of free schools, one of education secretary Michael Gove's most cherished projects...

Reading between Laws’ lines

In The Guardian today, David Laws argues for increasing funding for the pupil premium to £5 billion in the next parliament. But, revealingly, rather than talking about achieving this through the Liberal Democrat manifesto, Laws want to secure the increase this side of the next election and so writes about how it relies on persuading George Osborne of the premiums’ worth. Laws appears to be putting down a marker that increased funding for the premium needs to be part of Osborne’s pre-election spending review which should be in autumn 2014. If everything goes according to the coalition’s economic plan, the coalition will be able to announce plans to cut taxes and increase spending in the months before the next election.

A Conservative council joins the secret war against England’s schools

For the parents where I live who are campaigning for a better local school, the Spectator's expose on 'the secret war over England's schools' - with its description of how groups like the National Union of Teachers are attempting to stymie Michael Gove's plans for making education better - was familiar territory. The only difference here in Bromley is that it isn't left wing activists who are standing in the way of Mr Gove's reforms for better schools: it is our Conservative-run Council.   Having said earlier this year that they wanted our local school, Kelsey Park Sports College, to become an Academy - a decision that was a welcome relief for many local families - the Council is now backpedaling like crazy.

Sticking up for free schools

I'm on the train back from doing Radio Four's Any Questions – broadcast live from Derby, repeated at 1.10pm tomorrow – where I had a bust-up with Christine Blower of the NUT. CoffeeHousers may recall she was the star of a cover story we ran a few weeks back, about the campaign of bullying and intimidation levelled against headteachers who are trying to seek Academy status. She raised that article during recording, and things kinda kicked off. I told her she should be ashamed of the way her union thugs try to intimidate young teachers who seek to break away from local authority control and reach independence. She denied writing the words ascribed to her, I sought to read them to her – and things descended from there. Anyway, a few thoughts... 1.

Labour’s Kill Clegg strategy

One question swirling through the sea of British politics is this: how will Ed Miliband act towards the Lib Dems? The Labour leader certainly didn't flinch from attacking the yellow brigade during the leadership contest, at one point calling them a "disgrace to the traditions of liberalism." But surely he'll have to soften that rhetoric in case the next election delivers another bout of frenzied coalition negotiations. Which is why Andy Burnham's article in the Guardian today is worth noting down. In making his point – that the Lib Dems haven't won the pupil premium they sought – he does all he can to force a wedge between Nick Clegg and his party. It's "Clegg's failure". It's "Clegg's ideological journey". It's a "problem for Clegg," and so on.

Osborne blunts the axe – slightly

As expected, the Chancellor announced reductions in public spending – though not quite as severe as indicated in the Emergency Budget last June.  Government expenditure will fall by 3.3 percent over four years rather than 3.6 percent as expected, leading George Osborne to state – correctly – that departmental budgets will be higher than those pencilled in by Labour – an outcome many may not regard as desirable.  In fact, Osborne will be spending 2 percent more in 2014/15 than Gordon Brown was in 2008/9. Departmental spending will fall 10 percent rather than 13 percent - largely paid for by more optimistic assumptions about savings on welfare and debt interest payments.  Capital spend was hit the hardest - being cut by 28 percent.

Doing things right, but in the wrong way

In today’s spending review, George Osborne was absolutely right to hold the line on eliminating the structural deficit within one parliamentary term. In the Emergency Budget released earlier this year the coalition won fiscal credibility (and breathing space from international financial markets) by setting that goal. Failing to follow through on this goal at the first sign of difficulty would have damaged the government’s credibility and reputation in the eyes of international markets.   The Chancellor was also absolutely right to highlight the need for public service reform and to look to the welfare budget to provide some large and early savings.

The slog starts today

Welcome to Stage Two of the government's life. The first stage was the Budget, which established the size of the fiscal mountain looming over the coalition. The third stage will be the difficult, four-year slog up to the top. But today – the Spending Review – is all about determining the route for that ascent. In just a few hours we will know when, where and why the pain will come. Don't forget to pack sandwiches. Of course, with this roadmap being drawn out in Westminster, we already know some of the details. This morning's papers major on the fact – snapped from Danny Alexander's hands yesterday – that almost 500,000 public sector jobs will be lost over the next four to five years. And then there are the actual departmental settlements.

Laws helps Gove

Michael Gove has just been explaining in the Commons where the £7 billion for the fairness premium that Nick Clegg announced on Friday will come from. Revealingly, David Laws was present as Gove answered this urgent question. I understand that Laws was crucial to both the pupil premium being implemented at a decent level and the real-terms increase in the schools Budget.   Laws himself told John Pienaar’s show last night that “obviously I've talked to him [Nick Clegg] about some of the things that I've been associated with in the past, like the schools funding issue... because I was the schools spokesman in the last parliament”.

The universities strike back

A wander through to p.14 of the Sunday Times delivers one of the most eyecatching political stories (£) of the day. The headline: "Cambridge may go private in fees row". And the content: that officials at Cambridge Uni are dissatisfied with the findings of the Browne review, which they see as too restrictive. Their issue is with the fees that are imposed by the government should a university charge above £6,000 for a year's tuition. This, they claim, prevents them from pulling in the kind of Big Bucks that Ivy League institutions have in their bank accounts - and could lead to British universities falling behind.

The government protects yet more spending

This morning’s papers announce that cuts to the defence budget will be considerably less than 10 percent, following an intervention from David Cameron. Liam Fox has fought a valiant rearguard to protect his budget; success has come at significant personal cost.  And that’s not all. The BBC has learnt that the schools budget is to receive a real terms spending increase when the Fairness Premium for the disadvantaged and the Pupil Premium are added to the final reckoning. This is politically interesting: education is the one issue where Labour’s opposition has been coherent. Michael Gove was eviscerated over his incompetent cancellation of the school building project and his free schools programme has not been the immediate success its supporters expected.

The cuts are almost settled

We are entering the end game of the spending review. The Department of Education settled this morning, according to both Tory and Lib Dem sources. Although there is confusion about whether the money for the pupil premium is coming from inside or outside the education budget – Clegg’s speech suggested outside but other Whitehall sources are not so sure. Liam Fox has told friends that he knows the final number for the defence budget and that it is a lot better than expected over the summer. Fox has played a blinder in terms of defending his budget but this has come at a huge personal cost for him. Even supporters say that they don’t think his relationship with Downing Street will ever fully recover.

Clegg sweetens the pill with a fairness premium

Only five days to go until the spending review – and after weeks of emphasis on the cuts we're about to see, the government has today unveiled a new spending commitment. It comes courtesy of Nick Clegg: a new "fairness premium" targeted at the least well-off young people. Lib Dem Voice has full details here, but the basic point is that £7 billion will be spent, across 4 years, on programmes for disadvantaged 2 to 20 year-olds. Much of this will go towards the "pupil premium" that we've heard so much about, and which should advance school choice in the most deprived areas. Putting aside his genuine commitment to it, Clegg is facing two ways with this announcement: the public and his own party.

Counting down to the spending review

Only one week to go, folks, until the main event itself: the Comprehensive Spending Review. And judging by this morning's papers, the Treasury have almost settled on their final acts. Only the welfare, eduction and defence budgets have any significant question marks hanging over them. Those question marks, though, are fading fast. A story in this morning's Times (£) reports that David Cameron has endorsed the building of two aircraft carriers, but has decided to delay the Trident upgrade until after 2015. No, strictly speaking, he's not going back on this. Rather, the idea is that the coalition will keep on working towards a replacement for Trident between now and the next election – but will hold back from signing the very final contracts until five years hence.

Cable backs the Browne report

The Lib Dem website still says that the party stands for the abolition of tuition fees, so Vince Cable had to draw on all his presentational skill this afternoon. The ‘current system of university funding is no longer feasible’ he said, before adding that Scotland’s free system is unsustainable. Second, he made clear that he and his party have always supported a ‘progressive graduate contribution’. The Browne report incorporates a progressive contribution into an alternative to the current system; Cable vowed to introduce a ‘specific proposal along the lines of the Browne report.’ Cable also dealt with the politically sensitive issue that these changes would not disadvantage middle income earners.

Cable and Clegg scrambling to repel errant MPs

The Lib Dems have met the Browne report with a mixture of cordiality and outright antipathy. According to the Guardian, Greg Mulholland is the ring-leader of a band who will vote against a fee rise come what may. Lib Dem ministers are describing the Browne report as ‘unpalatable’ in its current form but recognise that fees must rise and are ‘keeping their powder dry’. The stumbling block is Browne’s recommendation that interest free loans be scrapped. This stark move was to be offset by raising the threshold and tapering interest rates to protect the disadvantaged. There are also concerns that the affluent will be able to pay off their debt quickly, whilst everyone else is lumbered with debts for 30 years.

The scale of IDS’ and Gove’s challenge

Yesterday was a day of weighty reports. At 700 pages, the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s ‘How Fair is Britain?’ won the thoroughness stakes. Aside from the usual findings that a disproportionate number of young black men are imprisoned and that the white working class is outperformed at school by Indian and Chinese migrants, it made some telling discoveries. The report found that a staggering 50 percent of Muslim men and nearly 75 percent of Muslim women are unemployed in certain regions. No clues as to where, though the reasons as to why should now be familiar: the figures correspond with the Centre for Policy Studies’ view that Britain has the highest rate of household worklessness in Europe.

A sustainable and permanent solution

‘A sustainable and permanent solution’, that was Lord Browne’s refrain this morning. Browne has aimed to fill the £1bn university funding black hole with a system that doesn’t prejudice the disadvantaged or force universities to privatise. Browne recommends that the tuition fee cap goes, but insists the Treasury should collect a levy from universities that charge above £6,000: fees set at £9,000 will cede 50 percent of £1,000 above £6,000, which will rise to 75 percent for fees of £12,000. This tapered levy is designed to discourage institutions from charging US-style of £20,000.