Education Leader and Manager September 2010
4
10
12
20
In this issue
Adult learners’ fees
How safe is your pension?
The Women’s Leadership Network
ACM/ATL merger
Looking ahead Four months into the Coalition Government, and at the beginning of a new education year, ACM General Secretary Peter Pendle sets out some of the challenges facing the education sector. AMiE is a partnership between ACM and ATL
We are certainly moving into a period of uncertainty and change: the new Coalition Government has radical plans that it intends to implement quickly.
The Tories are uncertain about the durability of their partnership with the Liberal Democrats and will ensure that their key policies impress the electorate and deliver impact, so that if there is an early election, they are well placed to go to the country. (Even though their haste makes them look foolish on occasion, as happened with the way Education Secretary Michael Gove handled academies and the demise of Building Schools for the Future.)
Possible effects of new government policy
2
Cover story by Peter Pendle, ACM General Secretary What does this mean for us? We had hardly finished deciphering the National Commissioning Framework when the Tories tossed it out: indeed, the new-born system for funding and planning 16–18 provision died in infancy. The divide at 16, which the last Government had systematised, looks more blurred – there are even murmurs of a single budget for further education colleges. These and other overtures to the college sector from the new administration are welcome, but cannot distract us from the depth of the funding cuts (though this may partly be the intention behind them). Colleges now face unprecedented funding challenges. Rationalisation of provision and functions, and a growing number of mergers, are likely as funding pressures increase. Following the capital funding debacle, we have seen adult responsiveness budgets across England slashed, and funding for 16–18 provision is being squeezed. Train to Gain funding will disappear and not all of it will be reallocated to the sector. Colleges across England and Wales are planning to make staff redundant: the latest predictions are that more than 10,000 jobs will be lost.
Cuts to public expenditure will be top priority in the October Spending Review
The Government has made it clear that funding the budget deficit with cuts to public expenditure will be their top priority in the forthcoming October Spending Review. Schools funding is supposedly protected from the worst effects of the cuts, but the funding for a large slice of further education provision rests with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, where savage expenditure reductions are being planned. Unusually for any administration, this Government seems better disposed to colleges than to the university sector.
Nevertheless, the pay and pensions for those who work in education will undoubtedly be targeted for savings. Further education and sixth form college employees will receive no pay increase to speak of next year. School teachers will receive the final year of the School Teachers’ Review Body recommended increase, but nothing in the two years that follow. Pension scheme arrangements are likely to deteriorate, and the lie that the changes cannot be retrospective has been exposed with the move from the Retail Prices Index (RPI) to the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) as the measure of inflation. Reactions to the Government’s initial actions have been mixed. There were those in the profession who welcomed the abolition of the General Teaching Council as some relief from red tape. Freezing the introduction of the new safeguarding arrangements pending a further review (see also pages 6–7) is sensible, and we hope that lighter-touch regulations will come through. Supportive words have been spoken by ministers on the role that they see for further education colleges in helping deliver the recovery: but colleges’ contribution will be constrained by funding reductions. The end of funding for Building Schools for the Future is a poor and unpopular decision and leaves many young people working in flat-roofed, system-built, concrete 1960s buildings, with leaky ceilings, failing heating systems and spaces that do not cut the mustard with regard to the demands of modern learning. Only slightly less unpopular has been the Government’s new academies policy. In spite of Michael Gove’s clumsiness on this, there is some clever thinking behind it:
AMiE is the leading trade union and professional association for leaders and managers in colleges and schools. Our services Our services include:
moving the battleground from national to local level has removed the detailed consultation requirements. AMiE is not implacably against academies – in rare circumstances, academy status may benefit pupils. But on balance we believe that the arguments against academies (loss of oversight of the best interests of all young people in the neighbourhood, the introduction of selection, an end to national conditions of service, etc.) point to their being against the best interests of young people. However, if the programme is successful (and that’s a big if, since the lack of interest so far has taken the Government by surprise), it may well be rolled out to ‘good’ and ‘satisfactory’ schools. Further, isn’t it curious that the message on the one hand is that only colleges with a turnover of £25 million are viable, and yet on the other hand secondary and even primary schools with relatively tiny budgets are encouraged to become independent? Worryingly for sixth form and further education colleges, academy schools with aspirations to open sixth forms will be able to do so if they choose, and this has the potential to damage colleges. The inevitably limited curriculum offer of small sixth forms does not serve students well. AMiE, and ACM before it, has long argued that what the education sector needs is system stability, less red tape, fewer quangos, and more flexibility for leaders to respond to the needs of their pupils, students and locality. We know from the experience of other northern European countries that sound and stable structural architecture is the best strategy for consistently high and improving success rates. We will continue to lobby for this: don’t hold your breath.
1 representation, help and advice on all employment matters. Our casework service is recognised as simply the best offered by any trade union
1 publications and best practice guides on curriculum and management issues
1 policy influence in political circles 1 education news updates 1 pensions advice, including information leaflets on important topics such as improving your pension prospects
1 good deals on insurance and many other services and products.
Our membership We welcome college managers at all levels in further education colleges, sixth form colleges and adult education provision; school headteachers, deputy headteachers, bursars and heads of department. We also have many members in national organisations, training organisations and other areas of the education sector, including higher education.
To join AMiE To join AMiE, call 01858 411 541, visit our website www.amie.uk.com or email membership@amie.uk.com AMiE is a partnership between the Association for College Management (ACM) and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL)
3
College funding
4
Adult learners’ fees Bob Vesey, Vice-President, AMiE
Bob Vesey considers the recent independent review of fees and co-funding in further education in England, chaired by Christopher N Banks CBE.* Before the incorporation of further education colleges in the early 1990s, financial support for learners in FE varied between local authorities. While most offered fee concessions to students on benefits, the benefits that led to reduced fees varied between each local authority area. For particular types of course, some local authorities also offered discretionary awards, but these were relatively few and were limited to full-time students on particular types of course, such as Access to Higher Education courses. This amounted to something of a postcode lottery for students, with those living in the major urban centres having greater access to financial support. Incorporation did little to change this. The Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) and later the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) set out the conditions under which colleges and other providers could claim for the costs of fee concessions, but otherwise colleges remained free to set their own fees and fee remission policies. Significant variation has, therefore, remained a key feature of the landscape for financial support for students in FE. This is very different from higher education, where national prescription has applied for more than half a century. One of the major changes that the FEFC brought in involved the introduction of a major data collection exercise through the Individualised Student Record, later to become the Individualised Learner Record. This involved the collection of a significant amount of information about student fees and fee remission reasons at the level of the individual student.
With such a large volume of data collected by colleges over almost two decades, it is more than a little surprising that neither the LSC nor the predecessor, the FEFC, has used the data to support a detailed analysis of the impact of fee variations on participation and levels of demand for learning in the FE sector. The Banks review focuses on using the data to assess the reasons for the failure of recent government policy to increase the fee contribution made by individuals and employers to support learning in FE. Since 2004/5, government has set targets for a gradual increase in the fees collected, so that by 2011/12, 50% of state contributions for education or training in FE would be paid by the learner or employer. The target has not been met and the report shows that for 2008/9 the contribution from fees in respect of adult-responsive provision was ÂŁ129 million against an expected income figure of ÂŁ260 million from those who paid fees. While some colleges have raised fees in line with the increasing fee assumption, a substantial number have used their autonomy to avoid doing so. Given that colleges retain the additional fee income collected, it does not appear rational that some opted not to raise fees in line with the expectation. But as the report shows, in the last two years for which the data has been analysed (2007/8 and 2008/9) the fee collected per learner increased but total income remained the same and participation fell (paragraph 17). As a mechanism for raising income, this was perhaps not the best strategy. As these kinds of changes were mirrored at college level, raising co-funded fee contributions in line with government targets would make it more difficult for a college to hit its income and participation targets. In other words, the targets were in conflict with each other and it is not surprising that the fee targets have not been met.
However, the 50% fee assumption is as much about changing culture as it is about raising income. One view of the market for further education is that it is distorted by the level of subsidy that exists and that this would not be the case if co-funding worked more effectively. This is summed up in the report when it is suggested that: ‘The aim of co-investment ... is to encourage the people who can pay to invest in courses they want, not subsidise them to take courses nobody wants.’ It would not be difficult to take issue with that statement. FE has always been demand-led and if courses historically did not recruit sufficient numbers, they did not run. If nobody wanted subsidised courses, they would not have enrolled. The Banks report does not challenge the basis on which large numbers of learners in FE are fully subsidised. The report argues, however, that there are some within the scope of the fee remission policy ‘who would be willing and able to pay co-investment contributions’, while others outside the scope of the policy are ‘neglected by the current system’. There is thus a need for the current policy to be re-evaluated. The report makes a compelling case for fees policy to be reviewed and modified and for fees policy and financial support for students to be considered together. Given the present financial constraints facing government, it is highly likely, just as in higher education, that individuals and employers will be expected to pay a greater contribution to the costs of education and training. In reviewing policy in this area, it is important that the Government and its agencies create a new set of policies that enable the sector to continue to provide for those who are not able to make a significant contribution to the costs of provision. At the same time it is also important that any new arrangements do not place further demands on the sector to collect data from individuals or from employers.
5
Financial constraints make it imperative that colleges and other providers are not required to invest more of the increasingly scarce resource in administration and data gathering, particularly as evidence suggests that the funding agencies have not been especially proactive with regard to making use of the data collected. It would also be beneficial to all partners – government, employers and students – if any new policy enabled the Government and its agencies to move away from the micro-management of the sector that has developed in the recent past. Some of the recommendations in the Banks review need to be challenged on the basis that they will do little to facilitate a more hands-off approach to the sector. For example, the suggestion that the Government should ‘clearly set out which courses they will fund’ presupposes that the Government, rather than the market, knows best what individuals and employers need. This is unlikely, but it also requires that data continues to be monitored and analysed at significant levels of detail. This is an important report and is likely to be taken seriously by the Coalition Government. Colleges need to work with the Government and its agencies to ensure that revised policies on financial support for learners work to the advantage of all partners. Where fee increases have been applied in the past, the effect has been to reduce participation in education and training. That trend needs to be reversed, if we are to develop the skilled workforce needed to enable effective competition in an increasingly competitive world. *Christopher N Banks (Chair) Independent Review of Fees and Co-funding in Further Education in England: Co-investment in the skills of the future: A report to Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, July 2010 (available at: www.bis.gov.uk/co-investment).
Significant variation has remained a key feature of the landscape for financial support for students in FE
Safeguarding children and vulnerable adults
6
John Lowe, AMiE Council member
Vetting and Barring Scheme: common sense at last?
Safeguarding children and vulnerable adults is a particularly sensitive political and emotional issue
The new Home Secretary, ISA changes Theresa May, announced on So far, the only thing that has been stopped is the introduction of the Independent 15 June that the Government is Safeguarding Authority (ISA) registration to review the Vetting and Barring scheme that was due to come into force in and Criminal Records regimes, November. Interestingly, the legislation to introduce this, the Safeguarding Vulnerable to ensure that they are scaled Groups Act, was passed in 2006, so the back to common sense levels. previous Government did not exactly This is good news for those of us who have consistently campaigned against the excessive bureaucracy and inappropriateness of the Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS). It is particularly pleasing to hear her say that ‘we’ve listened to the criticisms and will respond with a scheme that has been fundamentally remodelled’. At the time of writing (20 July 2010) we are still awaiting the details of the process for this remodelling and it is difficult to guess the outcome. The Government has already shown itself capable of taking draconian action in the world of education (abolishing Becta, the General Teaching Council and, of course, capital building projects), but safeguarding children and vulnerable adults is a particularly sensitive political and emotional issue. By the time this newsletter is published, we should be much wiser, but meanwhile we can only examine the immediate implications of the decision to carry out this review.
rush to implement its own scheme. The changes introduced in October 2009 are still in force. The ISA will continue to manage the lists of those barred from working with children or vulnerable adults. It is a criminal offence for someone on a barred list to apply to work or volunteer with children or vulnerable adults in regulated activity. Equally it is a criminal offence to employ or engage someone in these circumstances. A Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) enhanced disclosure will reveal whether potential employees or volunteers are on a barred list. As far as existing employees and volunteers are concerned, they now have a duty to declare if they are on a list, and this might require a change in contracts of employment or engagement. Another completely new legal obligation placed upon employers is the duty to refer to the ISA certain cases of conduct that might be a danger to children or vulnerable adults.
7
‘Congress calls on the General Council to press the government for changes in the referral system to ensure that its operation is fair to referred individuals and that the referral criteria used are consistent, clear and easy to follow.’ Many other unions in the TUC are concerned about the way in which the ISA handles referrals, particularly the very restricted rights of representation and appeal, and the motion should attract strong support.
CRB checks and forms
If employers remove someone whom they employ from regulated or controlled activity, or if the person leaves while under investigation for allegedly causing harm or posing a risk of harm, they are legally obliged to refer this information to the ISA. This has to be done in considerable detail using the official form, though employers do not have to provide any information that they would not already have or gather using standard employment procedures. This is a complex topic and it is important to study the ISA’s own 37 pages of guidance, which can be found at www.isa-gov.org.uk/PDF/ISA%20 Referral%20Guidance%20%20V2009-02.pdf
Union concerns This issue of referrals has been causing ACM/ AMiE some concern – so much so that we are submitting a motion on it to the TUC Congress in September. The motion reads: ‘Congress fully accepts the importance of protecting children and vulnerable adults from those who might cause them harm and recognises the need to maintain lists of adults barred from working with such groups. However, Congress believes that the current ISA referral regime is flawed in that it is not properly understood by providers of regulated activities, and does not apply sufficient rights to referred individuals for representation and appeal.
As far as CRB checks are concerned, it is business as usual. Checks which have been required or permitted since October 2009 are still in force. Furthermore, since April this year a further responsibility was introduced for FE colleges, where many support staff will count as being engaged in controlled activity. Employers who do not know whether a new entrant or mover into controlled activity is on a barred list have to apply to the CRB for an enhanced disclosure. The disclosure will reveal whether or not the person is on a barred list. If they are, they may still be employed, but only under strict supervision. This category of controlled activity is also currently under review, so the requirements may change yet again.
Register for updates The easiest way to keep abreast of the changes to the VBS is to go to the ISA homepage (www.isa-gov.org. uk) and click on the link to register for updates, which will be emailed to you as they are issued. There is also a link on this homepage to the ISA’s guidance on referrals and a copy of the referral form.
There are also some practical changes to the CRB application procedures. The CRB had, of course, changed its form to incorporate requests for ISA registration as well as disclosures. This new purple form replaced the old one in July and it is still to be used to request disclosures. Enhanced disclosures will still cost £36 and standard disclosures £26. The new form is to be completed, but with questions relating to ISA registration omitted. However, in Section X, Questions 64 and 65 ‘Are you entitled to know whether the applicant is registered to work with children / vulnerable adults?’, you should answer YES if you require a check of the relevant ISA barred lists. Full details can be found in the FAQ section of the CRB website: www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/ faqs.aspx (accessed 20 July 2010).
School leadership conference
8
Yvonne Fleming, National Officer for School Leadership, AMiE
Heads and teachers are the best people to run schools, not bureaucrats and politicians
Seizing Success 2010
Some 1,800 delegates from as far afield as New Zealand and Canada gathered at the National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services annual headteachers’ conference in Birmingham in June, to listen to a diverse group of speakers on the theme of leadership.
9
Given the change of government and the current economic climate, of particular interest were the addresses of Steve Munby, Chief Executive of the National College – an organisation itself facing budget cuts – and Michael Gove, the new Secretary of State for Education.
Leadership as service Steve Munby’s speech focused on ‘Leadership as service’. He identified seven criteria for effective leadership that have emerged from research that the National College has been involved in recently:
1 empowering and developing others as a means of growing leaders of the future – particularly important given the number of projected retirements of senior leaders in the coming years
1 the careful stewardship of resources – a salient point, given the harsh economic times
1 the need to be collaborative – in this respect the concept of national and local leaders, as well as mentors, came to the fore, linked to the idea of ‘moral purpose’, and there were warnings of the dangers of ‘isolationism and empire building’ – a dig perhaps at the Coalition Government’s academies programme
1 understanding the context of the people that leaders serve – especially when it comes to managing change, which is not always greeted with enthusiasm
1 the need for leaders to continue to be learners – it has been calculated that it takes 10,000 hours to master any skill, and that does not take into account a changing context
1 being resilient and utterly determined to succeed – this will give impetus to others to follow and support; failure is not an option
1 holding courageous conversations – outcomes for children matter, so it is important that weak performance is challenged and improved.
Greater freedom for heads Michael Gove took up the theme of service and began by commenting that heads and teachers are the best people to run schools, not bureaucrats and politicians – a point that was well received by the audience. School leaders are to be given more freedom to drive improvement but within the context of collaboration and system-led leadership, which he feels will foster the ‘moral imperative of social mobility’ and will provide a ‘pupil premium’ for the disadvantaged. On the issue of accountability, Mr Gove felt that the emphasis should be on ‘focused inspections’, high-status teaching and training, alongside parental choice and diversity. The latter pointed to the development of free schools and academies, which he feels will achieve a ‘whole-system improvement’, especially when linked to a culture of continuing professional development and a new approach to Ofsted. The National Curriculum will also be pruned, with a simple core as a benchmark against which everyone can measure themselves. Assessment will also be reformed, so that standards are sustained by evidence and are comparable with those abroad.
Interesting times As the constant announcements on everything from behaviour to vetting and barring attest, we are in for interesting times. What is key for all leaders is to proceed with knowledge and awareness of what any possible changes can bring – especially in areas such as the academies programme, where the future for individual schools and the maintained system as a whole is still far from certain. AMiE will be monitoring the situation closely and will provide recommendations to members on an individual and generic level, once the full facts are known. However, if you have any concerns or views on any of the possible reforms being mooted, please get in touch with us: yvonnefleming@amie.uk.com
10
Employment matters
How safe is your pension? David Green, Director of Employment Services, AMiE
A series of statements in the media about ‘gold-plated’ public sector pensions and a government intent on budgetcutting has, not surprisingly, had AMiE members reaching for the telephone. Indeed, the AMiE national helpline has received a steady procession of calls from anxious members all worried about their Teachers’ Pension or local government pension. So what do we actually know? First, the government will make changes to most – if not all – public sector pension schemes. However, before this happens new regulations will need to be laid before Parliament, so nothing is going to happen overnight. But change is coming, and it is unlikely to be to the advantage of scheme members. The good news is that already accrued rights will be protected. This has been made clear by Prime Minister David Cameron and reinforced by John Hutton, who has been charged with leading the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission that will review our pensions. So all pensions benefits up to the date of any changes should be safe.
The good news is that already accrued rights will be protected
However, before the Commission even started its review, the Government introduced a very subtle change that is going to affect us all. Where previously pensions were index-linked to the Retail Prices Index (RPI), they will now be linked to the Consumer Prices Index (CPI). The CPI has traditionally risen more slowly than the RPI, so future annual pension increases look set to be smaller than they might otherwise have been.
There are, of course, some key scheme changes that might come out of the Commission’s review. For example, one possible change is an increase in employee or employer pension contributions (or indeed both). Another is for a slowing of the accrual rate. When the Teachers’ and local government schemes were changed from 1/80th to 1/60th schemes for benefits/new entrants from April 2007, the lump sum was removed in place of the faster accrual rate. Some observers fear that the rate may now revert back (say to 1/70th), but with no complementary lump sum being reintroduced. Of course, both of these possible changes are pure speculation at present, but until we see the Commission’s report we simply can’t rule them out. As for more radical changes, such as the scrapping of defined benefits, we can only hope it is just newspaper editors who would like to see this, rather than members of the Commission itself. AMiE, along with many other unions, has made a submission to the Commission. At the time of writing we are awaiting the outcome of the Commission’s findings.
The view from Wales
11
Supporting teachers Brian Thornton, AMiE Regional Officer for Wales
As the new academic year begins, we see the birth of newly merged colleges pointing the way towards a transformed education landscape. Challenges ahead The financial imperative now meets with a political will and clearly there will be further change, some of it radical, over the next few years. AMiE understands the need for rationalisation, but we have been arguing that the rationalisation must be brought about without compulsory redundancies and in a reasoned, timely and holistic manner. This academic year we will have the results of the reviews into school and FE governance, which may impact on the nature of the incorporated status for FE institutions in Wales and also on the manner and structures within which educational institutions communicate and make decisions on provision. The complex issues regarding funding methodology must also be faced; we have a year’s grace to determine how the proposed changes to the funding regime can be amended or otherwise dealt with.
Helping staff cope with stress
Rationalisation must be brought about without compulsory redundancies and in a reasoned, timely and holistic manner
A concern in all these changes must be for the well-being of the staff employed in education. There is not only great uncertainty in the sector, but also a continued pressure to do more, better and in less time. This can lead to stress, overwork, illness and an absence of a proper work–life balance. AMiE in Wales has developed excellent working relations with Teacher Support Cymru, which gave a presentation to the AMiE Wales Committee outlining the support that it can offer to our members and the education sector as a whole.
Teacher Support Cymru has a useful website (www.teachersupport.info), which provides those in the education sector with detailed information on a wide range of issues that affect their work and personal lives, including an online stress test that helps you reflect on your own experience of stress and pressure. Teacher Support Cymru has produced a range of factsheets to help all those working in education to stay safe online when using social networking sites. These include:
1 Facebook – privacy settings 1 12 ways to protect your online privacy 1 MySpace privacy settings 1 Twittering for those in education – consider privacy settings
1 Rate my Teacher website – an overview and how to deal with any problems
1 Advice for those in education – dealing with cyberbullying. All these factsheets, and many others, are available at: www.teachersupport. info Specific resources aimed at post16 education can be found on their associated site at: www.recourse.org.uk Of particular interest to AMiE members may be their leadership section, specifically for leaders and managers in education. You can access this via the home page (www.teachersupport.info) by clicking on ‘Leadership’ at the top of the page. Teacher Support Cymru has recently developed a new ‘Lead by Example’ tool, and is keen for AMiE members to try it out and let them know if you find it useful. For support with cyberbullying, or any other personal or work-related issue, you can call the Teacher Support Cymru free, confidential, bilingual Support Line on 0800 085 5800. Lines are open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you have any queries about the work of Teacher Support Cymru, please contact: sandra.taylor@teachersupport.info
12
Equality and diversity
Why do we still need the Women’s Leadership Network? Thalia Marriott, WLN Director
The steering group of the Women’s Leadership Network (WLN) recently considered the question: Does the learning and skills sector still need us? A look at the current percentage of women college principals, a quick read through the evaluations from our recent conference and the feedback from our regional network meetings left us in no doubt that it does. What price diversity in a recession? What does it really matter if we set aside the promotion of equality and diversity for a few years? After all, wouldn’t it make good sense to concentrate our energies on getting through the recession and managing our ever-shrinking resources?
We need to recruit our managers at all levels from the full pool of talents, regardless of race or gender
We all know the answer to this: it matters a great deal! Unfortunately, however, there are signs that it may already be happening: in the WLN’s latest research into the percentage of women principals, we found not only that the percentage had remained the same for two years, but also that seven out of the eight college principals who lost their positions as a result of a merger last year were women. And the number of black and minority ethnic (BME) principals continues to rise at a disappointingly low rate each year. Fighting to improve the diversity of our managers and principals is not just morally right – it’s the best thing for the sector in business terms. Slowing down the process of achieving diversity in senior management will cost us dear, just at a time when we need to watch the pennies.
What’s the business case for diversity? We need to recruit our managers at all levels from the full pool of talents, regardless of race or gender, if we are to ensure that organisations are well equipped to meet the increasing demands of the job. It doesn’t seem as though this is happening currently:
1 While 64% of the workforce are women, only 36% of principals in England are women.
1 Only 29% of principals in sixth form colleges are women.
1 Only 3.5% of learning and skills senior managers in England are from a BME group, while the workforce profile is 8.4% (LLUK, 2009). Governors and senior managers are failing to select from the full range of skills and talents. As indicated in a recent report by the Learning and Skills Improvement Service (LSISb, 2010), by failing to promote those on whom they have spent time and money training, organisations must surely be receiving a poor return on their investment. And this is happening at a time when we are seeing a decrease in the overall numbers applying for senior posts in the learning and skills sector. Both men and women are deterred by a variety of issues around their perception of the role of principal, and these reservations will be increasing in the current recession. All the more reason to ensure that we encourage as many people as possible to aim high!
So what’s going on here? Governors are not always impartial: anecdotal evidence from recruitment specialists indicates that some college governors still have a preconceived idea of what a principal is and looks like (white, male), and are reluctant to recruit outside this image.
13
Audience at the Women’s Leadership Network annual conference, this year held in partnership with the Network for Black Professionals Many women lack self-confidence: evidence from research carried out with secondtier managers shows that women are far more likely than men to lack the confidence necessary to put themselves forward and be successful in applying for senior posts. They are less likely than men to be interested in becoming a principal in the first place, and are far more likely than men to be concerned that they are not up to the job.
According to the above research, there are inconsistent approaches across the sector towards encouraging and bringing on talent in terms of both equalities practice and access to professional development and support.
There are still many barriers to women’s career progression: research involving 470 online respondents and eight regional meetings recently carried out by the WLN and the Learning and Skills Network, funded by LSIS, found that half of the women had encountered barriers such as domestic commitments and the effects of career breaks, lack of organisational structures for promotion, lack of mentoring or career coaching, and poor line management.
The comments and suggestions put forward by the 470 respondents included the need for:
In some colleges, there is a negative culture which is not conducive to equalities, nor indeed to encouraging anyone to plan their career progression.
What should the sector do about it? 1 robust and supportive line management, effective appraisal and increased opportunities for development
Both men and women are deterred by a variety of issues around their perception of the role of principal
1 flexible working arrangements and effective support to enable women and men to return after career breaks
1 opportunities for mentoring, learning from role models, networking and other confidence-building activities
1 sound equalities practice across the organisation – particularly in selection and recruitment.
14
Equality and diversity – continued
There are still many barriers to women’s career progression
And what is the WLN doing?
What can YOU do?
The WLN exists to support women in their career development within the learning and skills sector, and our activities are based on what women have told us they need. Currently our priorities are:
Make sure that your organisation joins the WLN today! We now have 65 corporate members, but we still need your support to continue our work.
1 regional networks – WLN network and research meetings have now been held in eight out of the nine English regions, and in six regions there are regular network meetings 1 an annual conference – this year we joined with the Network for Black Professionals and attracted over 210 women and men to our diversity event in May. Sector leaders talked about their own career journeys, and workshops led by sector experts addressed issues such as finance, coaching, and achieving diversity
1 the WLN mentoring programme – this year, with the help of the Black Leadership Initiative, we ran a pilot programme of mentoring for 16 women, and hope to raise funds to expand this
1 gender research – we regularly check the percentage of women principals in England and also bid for funds to research gender issues and identify good practice
1 awareness-raising and influencing the
To find out more about us, go to www.wlnfe.org.uk or contact Thalia Marriott at thaliamarriott@wlnfe.org.uk If you would like to hear about events and network meetings, we’ll put you on our mailbase.
References LLUK (2009) Further education workforce data for England: An analysis of the SIR data 2007-08. Lifelong Learning UK. LSIS (2010a) Leading and managing in recession: same or different skills? Learning and Skills Improvement Service. LSIS (2010b) The voices of women: leadership and gender in the further education sector. Learning and Skills Improvement Service. LSN (2010) The next generation of leaders: motivation and leadership in the FE sector. Learning and Skills Network. WLN (2010) Climbing the greasy pole to the glass ceiling. Women’s Leadership Network. Available at: www.wlnfe.org.uk
sector – working with the Association of Colleges, last year we ran workshops for governors and for emerging leaders. We ensure regular press coverage, and through our steering group and membership raise gender equality in a number of forums.
New choices for schools The Coalition Government’s Academies Act 2010 has brought with it some new choices for the establishment of ‘free schools’ and a new generation of academies, starting with those schools rated as ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted. The AMiE President’s Council will be considering these choices at its meeting in September in order to best advise and support members in any decisions they may need to make in the coming months. If you would like to enter the debate, your views will be most welcome. Please contact Yvonne Fleming, the AMiE National Officer for School Leadership: yvonnefleming@amie.uk.com
Applying research in the classroom
Taking research into polices and practice Yvonne Fleming, National Officer for School Leadership, AMiE
School and college leaders in the north of England joined academic researchers and teachers from the School of Education at the University of Durham in April, to look at the effect that government initiatives have, and may continue to have, on teaching and learning in their organisations. The message was clear: government initiatives should not be ‘policies of assertion’, but should be based on clear evidence that they would have a positive effect on young people’s learning. This point was clearly illustrated with the example of the National Strategy on literacy, costing £500 million: the positive effect was too small to be of any statistical significance and now the strategy is being abandoned. Cold water was also thrown on the assertion that school performance standards are rising, when measured by GCSE and A-level outcomes. Dr Robert Coe, from the Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring in Durham, argued that the comparability of these tests over time should be questioned and that other data, such as the Advanced Level Information System (ALIS), does not seem to indicate that this is the case. A recent study by Professor Steve Higgins at Durham University on the uses of technology in the classroom casts doubt on its effectiveness in terms of learning outcomes, even if it can be useful as a motivational tool.
An example of childcentred research So how can research help improve the outcomes for all young people, whatever their starting point? Professor Eric Taylor, Emeritus Professor of Child Psychiatry at King’s College London, presented a striking example of research with a clear focus on the young person. His work centred on ‘difficult children’ and, in particular, those with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
Recent research has shown that ADHD is a medical condition, where genetic influences play an 80% part in its incidence in young people. The degree of prevalence differs between countries, with the USA having the greatest and France the least. It is often associated with complex emotional and behavioural problems which can worsen over time. Although the prevalence of ADHD has remained the same, the perception of it as a problem has become greater in some countries, for example in Hong Kong and China, where the emphasis on academic achievement is great and its recognition as a problem has led to greater identification. This research has led to several recommendations:
1 ensure that a young person has proximity to the teacher in the classroom
1 manage transitions, such as at the beginning and end of lessons
1 allow pacing and ‘letting off of energy’ 1 ensure that a teaching assistant can give immediate feedback on the effect of the young person’s behaviour on his or her peers
1 emphasise the importance of clarity of goals and a constantly novel approach to rewards
1 monitor medication in consultation with parents to ensure that the correct drugs and dose are prescribed, taking the whole day into account and not just the time at school or at home. The importance of parental training has also been constantly emphasised to ensure a consistent approach.
Message for policymakers As David Ford, Head of Achievement Services at Durham County Council, put it: ‘research into practice should then be used to put quality-based practice into policy’. Let us hope that decision-makers take this to heart before any more policy initiatives are foisted on teachers and the young people in their care.
15
16
Government plans for colleges
Good news for colleges Ian Nash, Freelance education journalist and media consultant
This article was first published in Education Journal (issue 123, p.18). It is reproduced here with the kind permission of the publisher and the author.
Buried in one of the last ever reports to emerge from the Department for Children, Schools and Families is some remarkably good news for colleges. In a study of local authorities looking at pilots for new schools, parents were more supportive of FE colleges getting involved in running schools than in any other category of partner – ahead of universities, well ahead of business and streets ahead of faith groups. And, since Walsall College is the leading proposal to open one of the first University Technical Colleges, a specialist 14–19 engineering academy, this weight of evidence must surely impress John Hayes, the new FE minister in the LiberalConservative coalition, as the Government continues to consider the future place of FE in the spectrum of education provision. Faith groups were roundly rejected, with only four in ten parents suggesting any liking for them in a survey for the DCSF (now rebranded Department for Education) study, Local Authority Commissioning Pathfinders Study. Whereas nine out of ten backed colleges to run new schools. Whether or not the evidence of popularity carries weight with ministers, colleges themselves are in a remarkably buoyant post-election mood, despite the prospect of annual reductions including capital spending cuts of 7.1 per cent in real terms and little prospect of the pledged bonfire of the quangos putting any compensatory cash their way.
Whether colleges thrive or die in the new age of austerity is up to them
The positive mood was captured by John Stone, chief executive of the Learning and Skills Network, when he addressed the annual seminar of the Association of Managers in Education (AMiE) in May. He believes it will be tempting for ministers to give colleges a hand in the Scandinavianstyle Free Schools movement since FE has proved itself so flexible.
Despite the uncertainties as to which educational winds would prevail for FE as Education Journal went to press, a number of things favoured by colleges were clear. The new Machinery of Government, creating the 2,500 strong Skills Funding Agency, will be dismantled. There will be more flexibility for pupils to start college at 14 rather than waiting until 16. The funding gap – that Labour repeatedly promised and failed to deal with – will be closed. However, this will be by a proportionate reduction in school budgets rather than increase for colleges. Colleges will also benefit from a big switch of funding from Train to Gain (Labour’s scheme to refund basic skills training costs to business) to 100,000 apprenticeships and work placement guarantees with some college time made available for 800,000 young people not in employment, education or training. It is not that the coalition is coming with gifts for colleges, according to John Stone. “It is that they are intent on reversing much that college leaders could have done without under Labour,” he said. “There’s £200m more for adult funding, some available on a non-qualifications basis. The Conservatives are more relaxed about qualifications and say colleges and providers under some circumstances should be able to run courses that do not lead to qualifications.” This may not exactly put in reverse the £1bn skills switch that cost colleges 1.5m adult education places in the final three years of the Labour government, but it takes them a long way back down the broader educational road. John Stone pointed to several “critical success factors for FE in our age of uncertainty” which would be essential as a basic survival tool kit. First was “agility and flexibility”, he said. “Any new policy reform or change should use that as its criteria. Are you becoming inflexible or building a system that can thrive on extreme change?”
Second, cost efficiency is a given. “Talk will be of adequacy and sufficiency rather than chasing quality up and up and up. Standards have proved costly but are they really necessary to the degree that we have pursued them? Third, commercial standards will be the new measure, he said. “The ability to run colleges as businesses has taken a back seat. This will come back to the fore, with more issues around competitiveness.” Of all the pressures on funding created under a Labour government and now to be abolished, John Stone reckons the sector will most welcome the end of the ever-spiralling demand for quality improvement. “Quality became focused on eliminating failure and more and more people bit the dust as they were seen as responsible for failure. The Ofsted system was used to drive things from the top down and big issues emerged such as safeguarding and equality. Risk and innovation was out as we were constantly asked things like: ‘What training has been done for governors in anti-bullying measures?’ “Also under Lord Mandelson, there emerged a great belief in Regional Development Agencies and Mandy’s view was the regions were more important than sectors. Big schemes were generated like Train to Gain and Individual Learning Accounts. A lot of that which doesn’t disappear will go on the back burner under the new regime. The trend is away from almost everything on that list.” Targets will be toned down and systems managed in a different way, he said. “There is talk of a demand-led market. You can say we’ve had that, but it tended to be the demand of the centre rather than the individual consumer. We are going back to putting money into the hands of individuals to spend as they will.
17
“There will be an assault on league tables and the way they have been used to make comparisons between providers. We can expect the things like comparisons between 5 GCSE grade A-C and NVQ 2s to be looked at very critically. Instead of having a sector skills council say these are qualifications that work and these don’t, there will be a lot more individual discretion and less direction from the centre.” Whether colleges thrive or die in the new age of austerity is up to them, he said. “A lot of this is close to our agenda if we can get our heads round the reforms. In terms of lobbying politicians, it’s open season. There are so many people to talk to and so many ways in.”
Hassle-free low-priced car, home & motorcycle insurance With 38 years’ experience with educators we’ll help
• FREE Business Use enables you to use your vehicle in connection with your occupation* • ZERO excess for malicious vehicle damage whilst in work car park
• FREE vehicle use abroad up to 180 days in any 12 month period
you get the best deal, leaving you relaxed and with a little extra to spend on the things you enjoy.
FREE home emergency assistance, 24 hours with a team of contractors, plumbers etc. available Subject to acceptance criteria and minimum premium applies. For car insurance all drivers must be aged 30 to 69 inclusive. *Class 1 use excludes commercial use or hire.
Contact us for a quote:
0845 603 7608 Calls may be recorded for our mutual protection. E-mail: amie@adelaideinsurance.com Web: www.adelaideinsurance.com/amie Adelaide Insurance Services, 1st Floor, Boucher Plaza, 4-6 Boucher Road, Belfast, BT12 6HR
Efficient, effective and dedicated to you
AMiE Insurance+ is a trading brand of Adelaide Insurance Services Ltd
Debate on primary schooling
18
Learning in the early Nansi Ellis, Head of Education Policy and Research, ATL
‘Primary schooling can only build on what has gone before. Children will have experienced 3-4 years of development and learning before entering primary school … It is a crucial time in children’s development, and their pre-school experience provides many of the building blocks for the rest of their lives.’ * The Early Childhood Forum, representing voices across the sector, captured the importance of the early years stage with this comment. ATL has long given voice to the profession on education through the prisms of curriculum, assessment, and the primary and 14–19 stages among others.
We are collecting together member views … around the appropriate age at which children should begin formal education
We also have a strong early years policy in place: our 2005 position statement outlines the principles for good early years education, and recognises the pressures on the sector from aspects of the wider education system. We know that quality of provision is still not right in many reception classes due, in part, to pressure from the school accountability regime; our previously commissioned research showed that reception classes in England were stuck in the middle between a play-based foundation stage and the downward pressures of the assessment and accountability systems. It is time to develop that position to reflect changing debate and practice. Following a resolution at ATL’s Conference in 2010, we are collecting together member views and experience, informed by research evidence, to start a discussion among our members from the early years sector around the appropriate age at which children should begin formal education. Each year, we are bombarded with political/ media debates on basics in schooling for our youngest children, on the impact of current starting-age arrangements on summer-born children, on the provision they receive. Within the UK alone, we have different patterns of early years education development with differing experiences of school starting age, pre-school education and curriculum. Furthermore, there is a lot of data internationally which can be used to make useful comparisons on school starting age, school and pre-school provision, ‘formality’ of curriculum and pedagogy, teacher qualifications, roles and pay, and transition from pre-school to school. There is also good research evidence in this field, perhaps the most prominent and recent of which is the Cambridge Primary Review (2009), which looked critically at the current early years arrangements. It proposes two distinct stages for primary education: ‘foundation’ up to 6 and ‘primary’ from 6 to 11. And now, the different UK nations are beginning to review the provision in place for the youngest children.
years We wish to add our reasoned influence to these debates, with a position which outlines a view of early years education at different ages. This will balance knowledge of child development, learning and pedagogy with a focus on appropriate curriculum and pedagogy for young children, on settings, and on the roles, responsibilities, training and qualifications of the adults involved in providing early years education. This position will come from conclusions reached by members through focused group work at national and local levels, informed by national and international research. There will be discussion opportunities for members at branch level, in a national survey, and in national focus groups (one face-to-face and one by email). We hope that AMiE members will take part. ATL’s curriculum and assessment policies have already addressed the issue that too many children are alienated from education, with feelings of failure, while others merely comply with the qualification requirements with little love of learning. Getting the early years ‘right’ would enable settings to work with our youngest children to establish positive attitudes to learning, both arousing and satisfying their curiosity about the world around them, building their confidence in themselves and others, and gaining the necessary language and learning skills which will enable them to achieve and become lifelong learners. ATL’s early years and primary members already work to that aim, and we hope that our policy proposals will remove many of the current barriers to its achievement. If you have experience and expertise in the early years or primary sectors and wish to be part of this work, please contact your local branch secretary or email the head of ATL’s Education Policy and Research team, Nansi Ellis: nellis@atl.org.uk *Alexander, R (ed.) (2010) Children, their world, their education: Final report and recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review. Oxford: Routledge (p159).
Union news
Election of AMiE members to ATL Executive 2011–12 In accordance with the agreed Instrument of Transfer of Engagements of ACM to ATL, AMiE members will shortly be invited to submit nominations to become members of ATL’s Executive Committee. There are three seats available to AMiE members. The term of office will commence on the effective date of the transfer, 1 January 2011, and terminate on 31 August 2012. A timetable for the election process is outlined below. Date
Task
September 2010 Notification regarding forthcoming elections to be newsletter placed in the newsletter to include the election timetable. 1/9/10
Electoral Reform (Ballot Services) Limited (ERBS) to be instructed as Independent Scrutineer to conduct the ballot on behalf of ACM (if required) and Electoral Reform (Mailing Services) Limited (ERMS) to be instructed as the Independent Person to distribute the ballot papers.
20/9/10
Letter from General Secretary to be sent to members advising of election timetable, seeking nominations and giving details of the Independent Scrutineer.
15/10/10 (5pm)
Closing date for nominations to be received at return address.
18/10/10
Nominations to be checked and approved by Council and sent to ERBS.
18/10/10
ERBS to compile and print ballot papers for the relevant categories requiring a ballot for council vacancies.
1/11/10
ERMS to distribute ballot papers, containing election addresses, to appropriate members.
26/11/10 (5pm)
Closing date for voting papers to be returned to ERBS.
29/11/10
ERBS to count voting papers.
3/12/10
ERBS to declare the results to the Association’s Chief Executive & General Secretary, and to inform him of receipt and resolution of any complaint alleging breach of the election procedures.
3/12/10
Scrutineer’s report to be posted at head office in a conspicuous place accessible to members and shall be kept posted there for at least one month.
6/12/10
General Secretary to announce AMiE representatives on ATL Executive.
December 2010 newsletter
New representatives to Council and contents of Scrutineer’s report to be published in newsletter. Members to be notified that the Association will, on request, supply any member with a copy of the report free of charge.
19
20
Union news
ASSOCIATION FOR COLLEGE MANAGEMENT – TRANSFER OF ENGAGEMENTS TO ATL Our report of voting for the above ballot, which closed at 5pm on Friday 2nd July 2010, is as follows:
Question
Do you approve the Instrument of Transfer of Engagement of ACM to ATL? Number of eligible voters:
3,446
Total number of votes cast:
890
Turnout:
25.8%
Number of votes found to be invalid:
0
Total number of valid votes to be counted:
890
Result 783
(88% of the valid vote)
Number voting NO
107
(12% of the valid vote)
TOTAL
890
(100% of the valid vote)
Number voting YES
As Scrutineers appointed in accordance with Section 49 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (as amended), we are satisfied as to each of the matters specified in subsection 52(2) with regard to the election. The following points should be noted: 1 The person appointed under section 51A to carry out the storage and counting of voting papers was Electoral Reform Services Limited. 2 The person appointed under section 51A to carry out the distribution of voting papers was Electoral Reform Services Limited. 3 A copy of the register of voters (as at the relevant date) was examined in accordance with section 49(3). The examination took place at our own instance and did not reveal any matter that should be brought to the attention of the trade union.
We would draw your attention to sections 52(4), 52(5), and 52(6). Section 52(4) requires that a copy of this report be published and made available to all members of the union within a three month period from today. This does not, however, mean that every member has to be notified individually.
5th July 2010
ACM members vote for merger Members have voted overwhelmingly to approve the transfer of engagements of ACM to ATL. With 88% voting in favour of the merger, from 1 January 2011, ACM will form the AMiE section of ATL. ry Peter Pendle, ACM General Secreta : said cer, and AMiE National Offi means ‘This is a ver y welcome result. It ers mb our professional ser vices to me mbers are now guaranteed and that me will continue to receive high-quality suppor t and representation.’ The substance of the scrutineer’s report is reproduced here. If you would like a hard copy free of charge, please call 01858 461110 and we will post one to you.
21
AMiE awards The 2010 AMiE awards were presented at our Annual Seminar and Annual General Meeting at the TUC in May. This year, the awards went to (from left to right): 1 Professor Robin Alexander (University of Cambridge Faculty of Education) for Services to Education (Schools) 1 David Watkins (Principal, Carshalton College; and ACM Honorary Treasurer until May 2010) for Services to the Association 1 John Graystone (Chief Executive, fforwm) for Services to Education (Learning and Skills Sector).
New to Council New members of AMiE Council at the Association’s 2010 Annual April Carrol, Director of Curriculum, South Thames College Denise Readdie, MIS Manager, Wirral Metropolitan College
Seminar:
Lesley Tipping, Faculty Director, Coleg Menai College. Beverley Wilson-Smith, Assistant Director of Faculty, Swansea Other members new to Council are: Lionel Barnes, Learning Support Manager, Coleg Glan Hafren e Ruth Braysher, Widening Participation Manager, Harlow Colleg Sarah Johnson, Independent Consultant.
L–R: April Carrol, Denise Readdie, Lesley Tipping, Beverley Wilson-Smith
22
Union news
New AMiE region A new AMiE Central region has been created, following the merger of the former Midlands region with the former Central and Southern England region. The new region ensures that members have the same number of officer hours as members in all the other AMiE regions (with the current exception of the South West). Geographically the new Central region stretches from Shropshire and Staffordshire in the north, to Wiltshire, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire in the south. It comprises: Shropshire, Staffordshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, the West Midlands, Warwickshire, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire, including all unitary authorities within these county boundaries. The new Central region will be covered by two officers, Dennis Cummings and Cheryl Cumbley (see page right for a profile of Cheryl). Members located in this region can contact either Dennis or Cheryl direct for help and advice. The creation of the new region has also meant some minor changes to neighbouring regions. The education authorities and colleges in Cheshire are now in our Northern region, while Derbyshire and Derby City have moved to our Eastern region. Hampshire and the Isle of Wight move to our South East region. Full details can be found on the AMiE website: www.amie.uk.com For a full list of all AMiE Regional Officers, please see page 23.
Queen’s birthday honours Many congratulations to those AMiE members in the college sector who were recognised in this year’s Queen’s birthday honours list: 1 Robin Landman, CEO, Network for Black Professionals (OBE) Martin Tolhurst, former Principal, Newham College of FE (CBE) al and CEO, 1 Pauline Waterhouse, Princip (OBE). e Colleg Fylde the & Blackpool
1
New Regional Officer We’d like to extend a warm welcome to our new Regional Officer, Cheryl Cumbley. Cheryl will join Dennis Cummings in covering our new Central region (see page left). Cheryl is an experienced trade union officer, having worked in three different roles at the Midlands regional office of the National Union of Teachers (NUT). She represented NUT members on employment tribunals, and regularly gave advice in respect of compromise agreements. Prior to working for the NUT, Cheryl worked in human resources, providing advice to headteachers, central service managers and governing bodies in Staffordshire. Commenting on her appointment, Cheryl said: ‘I am pleased to be working at AMiE and am looking forward to providing a quality service to our members’.
Invite a colleague to join AMiE Remember that if you recruit a colleague to AMiE via the ‘Member-get-member’ campaign, you will be entitled to a £20 M&S or Waterstone’s voucher and they will get one month’s membership free. For more information on this offer and an application form, go to the ‘Join ACM/AMiE’ section on our website (www.amie.uk.com) and follow the ‘Special offers’ link, or call us on 01858 461110. There is no limit to the number of colleagues you can recommend, but the campaign ends on 30 September 2010, so please pass on the information as soon as possible. Don’t forget to put your name and voucher choice in the box on the application form.
Head office ACM/AMiE 35 The Point Market Harborough Leicestershire LE16 7QU Tel 01858 461 110 Fax 01858 461 366 www.amie.uk.com National helpline Tel 01858 464 171 Email helpline@acm.uk.com or helpline@amie.uk.com membership desk Tel 01858 411 541 Peter Pendle General Secretary, ACM and National Officer, AMiE Tel 01992 571 823 or 01858 461 110 Mobile 07810 481 467 Nadine Cartner Director of Policy Tel 020 7254 1445 Mobile 07713 267 748 Sukhi Chana Finance and Office Team Leader Tel 01858 411 543 Neha D’Souza Finance Administrator Tel 01858 411 544 Yvonne Fleming National Officer for School Leadership Tel 0191 370 9939 Mobile 07595 280 408 David Green Director of Employment Services Tel 01858 411 540 Mobile 07711 929 043 Lisa Pavlou Office Administrator Tel 01858 411 545 Julia Pearson PA to Management Team Tel 01858 411 542 Sara Shaw Director of Corporate Services Tel 01858 411 546 Mobile 07545 438 061
Contact the editor Nadine Cartner nadinecartner@amie.uk.com Tel 020 7254 1445 If yo u would like to contribute an article, book review or letter, or if you would like to see pictures of your students on the cover of ELM, please send these to the editor.
AMiE Regional Officers Eastern Liz Salisbury Tel 01572 720 467 Mobile 07595 099 617 lizsalisbury@amie.uk.com South East Michael Gavan Tel 020 8471 1622 Mobile 07595 099 618 michaelgavan@amie.uk.com London Kalbinder Herr Tel 01865 765 454 Mobile 07711 929 038 kalbinderherr@amie.uk.com Central Cheryl Cumbley Tel 01543 274 821 Mobile 07834 321 928 cherylcumbley@amie.uk.com Dennis Cummings Tel 01332 835 134 Mobile 07711 929 056 denniscummings@amie.uk.com Northern Pauline Rodmell Tel 01204 660 440 Mobile 07711 929 037 paulinerodmell@amie.uk.com South West Rachel Jennings Tel 01752 839 643 Mobile 07738 641 689 racheljennings@amie.uk.com Wales Brian Thornton Tel 01639 897 317 Mobile 07595 099 619 brianthornton@amie.uk.com Scotland, Northern Ireland, Channel Islands, Isle of Man Contact the national helpline: Tel 01858 464 171 helpline@amie.uk.com Unsure of your area? Contact the national helpline: Tel 01858 464 171 helpline@amie.uk.com
24
The last word A good deal of ridicule and criticism has been heaped on the Prime Minister’s Big Society project.
Nadine Cartner, Director of Policy, AMiE
What is needed is the proper balance between civil society and the state
What do you think? Write to me at nadinecartner@acm. uk.com and we’ll publish your email in the next issue of ELM.
Edited and designed by thingswedo (www.thingswedo.com) Photographs by Nick Dawe (pages 8, 21) Illustrations by Keith Sparrow. Printed by Blackmore Ltd, Shaftesbury © ACM 2010. All rights reserved.
A way of dressing up public service cuts; a return to a nineteenth-century model of welfare; a strategy for deserting the poor without taking the blame; a way of distancing the Tories from Margaret Thatcher’s values and her claim that there is no such thing as society. There is probably a good deal of justice in these allegations. That said, I want to suggest that there is an important truth in Cameron’s idea. A society in which people get involved in their communities, in which people care and take responsibility beyond their own needs and family, will be a better and more decent society than one in which everyone looks towards the state to provide in every circumstance and where the idea of individual responsibility towards others has little currency. And the lives of the people who become involved – whether as school governors, or by volunteering at a homeless shelter, or through sports coaching with local kids in the park – are morally and socially enriched. Reader, you are probably very well aware of this, since people who gravitate towards jobs in education are often the kind of people who look for roles in their communities too. Community responsibility isn’t only about specific roles such as that of school governor; it’s also about everyday behaviour. If you don’t see your elderly neighbour for a couple of days, do you: (a) knock on their door to check all is well; (b) ring social services; (c) do nothing; or (d) not notice in the first place? A state that is so all-controlling that it leaves no room for individuals to exercise altruism – to ‘make a contribution’ – or that squeezes out the capacity of communities to become vibrant through their own activity seems to me to be an anti-progressive political model. That said, countries that come out well on measures of social justice and well-being are countries with well-organised, effective states with a high enough tax-take to create cost-effective and high-quality public services and to pursue measures to promote social fairness. What is needed is the proper balance between civil society and the state.
And there we have the flaw in David Cameron’s argument. He claims that there is an opposition, a contradiction between a strong civil society and a ‘big’ state. But while the state should not override individual responsibility and commitment, and should promote opportunities for community empowerment and activity, it must also be powerful enough to deliver high-quality services and promote social equity and a decent standard of living for everyone. Good government should be the partner – not the enemy or antithesis – of strong communities. An assumption at the heart of the Prime Minister’s model seems to be that whatever the social and economic context, the Big Society will see people coming forward who will address pressing social and community needs effectively. The falseness and naivety of that belief is the scariest bit of Cameron’s idea. For the most disadvantaged communities, self-help has to be fully underpinned and supported by substantial government investment, if social dilapidation and cross-generational disadvantage are to be addressed effectively. Without such investment, the Big Society will damage the lives and life chances of the most vulnerable in our society.