Opinion
Cartoon by Polly Donnison
Whatever Nick Gibb wants, Nick Gibb gets… Warwick Mansell
is a freelance education journalist and founder/writer of educationuncovered. co.uk
“TEACHERS… are the professionals best placed to decide how and what is taught in schools.” So wrote Nick Gibb – the relentlessly traditionalist-minded schools minister who has been at the helm of our education system throughout most of the past ten years – in a blog post in 2015. Yet there has been a constant tension between what ministers say is their preference for promoting autonomy within teaching and the reality. Politicians – seemingly led by Gibb, who has been a key ideological presence at the Department for Education (DfE) since Michael Gove was sacked in 2014 – appear happy to let professionals get on with it… so long as they follow ministerial preferences. The latest case of the DfE using its power to try to manoeuvre the profession in its favoured direction was the award of a contract
through which two groups of academy trusts will be funded to provide training to other school leaders, on what it calls an Exemplary Leadership Programme. In return for up to £250,000 a year, the trusts will deliver training which will be “grounded in a knowledge-rich curriculum, high expectations for all pupils, direct instruction and strong behaviour management”. While few would quibble with “high expectations”, all three other aspects quoted above are subject to intense professional debate – and promoted enthusiastically by Gibb. In that 2015 blog, for example, Gibb wrote that “for decades”, English education had been characterised by “student control over learning” – the opposite of “direct instruction” by the teacher – and this “had been disastrously partnered with a curriculum seemingly devoid of all knowledge and content”. Gibb also backs “no excuses” behaviour policies. Sceptics might ask what the problem is with ministers using public money to promote their own ideas, which may indeed be backed by parts of the profession, and which research may support. The counter-argument is that this influence over the detail of what happens in schools is being conducted away from scrutiny
– without the debate that follows, for example, when the national curriculum is changed. In this arena, claims can be made without transparency. A presentation to potential bidders for this “exemplary leadership” cash, for example, once again stated that programmes must include a “knowledge-rich curriculum”, “direct instruction” and “strong behaviour management”. This is simply because, the presentation stated, “schools with high behavioural and academic standards, supported by strong systems and a culture of support and challenge, are best for teachers and pupils”. No supporting evidence is provided. This just seems a case of “this is what the minister wants” – no official scrutiny, challenge or oversight. The word “exemplary” has also annoyed quite a few teachers, especially given that one of the chains favoured for this cash operates, my analysis of DfE data suggests, a school which in 2018-19 permanently excluded more children in a single year (eight) than any other on record. As ever with the DfE, the political preferences of those in charge are not exactly difficult to discern. If not quite a case of “direct instruction” to schools from Mr Gibb, this seems not far from it.
educate Your magazine from the National Education Union (NEU)
31
