Michael Pain
The ‘first one hundred days’ has become a bit of a thing now. It originated with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s efforts to establish his New Deal in the 1930s, and – like so many things from the States – it has since translated into British media culture. It’s now a landmark moment for any new government and Prime Minister.
Indeed, as if like clockwork, last weekend’s media heralded the first one hundred days of Kier Starmer’s Labour government. It considered some of the big issues – the hospitality scandals (Taylor Swift tickets, anyone?), the response to the Summer riots, the vote on removing winter fuel payments for many pensioners, and much more. What didn’t feature so much was any meaningful reflection on education. So here goes!
I’m afraid, as with most commentaries on the government’s first one hundred days, this is less than glowing. Yes, there have been some good ‘quick wins’. The move away from ‘one word’ Ofsted judgements was a common sense decision, taken with conviction. The rise in teacher’s pay will go (a little way) towards stemming a recruitment and retention crisis that is also driven by numerous other factors. The new guidance on appraisal seemed sensible to many. These are positive developments, good tactical policies for addressing some urgent and very evident risks. I recognise that much of this has been met positively – quite rightly – by many in the education profession.
A half-baked plan for education?
However, let’s not get carried away. What we have seen so far is just that – good tactics. It is not a foundation for a three, five or ten year plan. What is hugely concerning is that this government appears to have come into office with a half-baked plan for education and little in the way of vision. It doesn’t actually seem to know or even acknowledge where it stands on the big issues that will define our sector and pupils’ lives in the years ahead. As someone who advises CEOs and boards on good strategy and implementation, it is essential to have a very clear and tangible idea of what you want to achieve – what education and schools will be for and how they will make the difference – before you embark on shaping the strategies and plans in order to get there. This government seems to be setting off down the path, before it’s really decided where it needs to go and who needs to be with it along the way.
Let’s take that overall vision to begin with. Where is it? Yes, there are some big words about pupils getting ‘the best education’, ‘the start that every parent wants for their children’, and ‘ensuring a rich and broad education.’ However, much of this language could have been written fifty or even three hundred years ago, by any government. The same could be said for the curriculum reviews terms of reference. There is nothing so far that directly takes on the trends and dynamics that are going to define pupils’ successful learning and healthy development – and the need for our organisations to adapt in response – in the coming years. These defining issues include the rise of AI and automation and the impact of technology on pupils’ learning and healthy development; the paramount importance of physical and mental wellbeing in era of austerity and big societal change; the dramatic shift in skills demanded by the changing labour market; fast evolving workforce dynamics; the rapid growth of green industries; and the huge importance of British values in so many communities facing real tensions. We can talk about inclusion and narrowing the gap, but if we’re not talking in our vision about the issues that could further open up the gap or undermine inclusion, it’s not going to help. There is no context to its ambitions, no view of how education will adapt and seize the opportunities and address the challenges of that rapidly changing context for pupils, no tangible sense of what a great education is going to look like in the next decade.
And this creates a problem, because the government is already embarking on things like the curriculum review and accountability reform without a clear or tangible enough sense of what it really wants for pupils, beyond ‘the best’ or ‘rich and broad’. Whilst noble, this is trite not tangible language, it does not set a framework of ambition. The curriculum review says very little about the dynamics in the previous paragraph, and its panel seems to be missing any – of what I would consider – essential representatives from employers, science, technology, or the arts. Accountability reform is being embarked upon, with plans to work towards a balanced scorecard focused on four areas, but without any firm or tangible sense of direction about what accountability is seeking to secure as its end goal – how it contributes towards and reinforces a broader vision for the system and its trusts and schools.
The national sense of mission and role for academy trusts feels like it is drifting
Then, the national sense of mission and role of academy trusts feels like it is drifting. Take what many consider to be the core work of an academy trust – school improvement at scale. In a TES interview back in September, the Secretary of State said that “Trusts have an important role to play in the system and I have had the opportunity to speak with many brilliant trust leaders who have done some pioneering innovative work… But what I am most interested in is a focus on the school itself regardless of the name above the door. And I think there has been insufficient focus on making sure that all schools are getting the support they need to improve, regardless of structure.” What does this actually mean? Where does it leave trusts and how on earth do they prepare to deliver on their missions and vision for securing improvement in more schools when the tone is so ambivalent? What exactly will they need to do to expand their efforts and make sure their capacity and expertise reaches more schools – efforts that wholeheartedly depend on structures to mobilise that capacity, expertise and, of course, quality assurance?
You cannot achieve improvement regardless of structure – structure is integral to achieving improvement, it mobilises it, it provides the platform for delivery of it. and it supports good quality assurance of it. This doesn’t feel like a Secretary of State who’s recognising or galvanising trusts’ purpose or potential, but instead says she’s as much interested in a range of ways of doing improvement – regardless of structures. If so, at least tell us what these ‘regardless of structure’ ways are and how she sees them as better or as a viable, impactful alternative? The ambivalence also risks overlooking the system leadership work – spreading improvement and innovation across regions – demonstrated by some trusts on big issues and that other models of education delivery would struggle to do.
And it would be remise of me not to mention how trusts will now have their freedom to depart from the national curriculum taken away from them. This is all well and good if we can have absolute faith that the new curriculum is going to be the right one to meet the opportunities and challenges of the decade ahead – the challenges many trusts are already taking on, such as AI and technology, financial education, and physical and mental wellbeing. And, even if it is an exceptional curriculum, it’s not going to emerge for at least twelve months and then will require implementation, that’s light years in a pupils’ education. They need the innovation in the sector to continue. I actually believe some of this is going to stifle the innovation and responsiveness of trusts – who are staffed by such expert and experienced people in curriculum development – to meet their pupils’ and communities’ needs alongside the standardised curriculum that everyone will follow.
The Secretary of State needs to be making the case – now – through a clear and compelling vision at the top of the government’s narrative – for the biggest, boldest, investment in education for a generation;
Finally, there is the emphasis on the budget. Much, we are told, is being held back until then. This isn’t helpful. As I write in my book, Being The CEO, the finance tail should not be wagging the strategy dog when it comes to education. Good strategy isn’t shaped by a finance manager, and education should be much more than a line on a treasury balance sheet. The Secretary of State needs to be making the case – now – through a clear and compelling vision at the top of the government’s narrative – for the biggest, boldest, investment in education for a generation; and the treasury should be persuaded to do everything it can to make that happen. Yet, Kier Starmer’s one hundred day address didn’t mention education or schools once. Education should be running the national narrative like the words in a stick of rock.
Agree or disagree with it, what the last Labour government of 1997 got so right, was that it knew exactly what it wanted from its first term. It had a clear plan for the system, clear and tangible ambitions for it, and a clear idea of who was going to be involved. It came ready and prepared, and it put education front and centre. Arguably, education should be front and centre in this government’s agenda – given the challenges we face as a country over the next decade or so, yet it seems undermined by the division we’re seeing created between the state and independent sector. Both sectors represent committed and dedicated educationalists, all with an important role to play in ensuring education makes the difference, often working together. The previous Labour government believed in collaboration and a sense of togetherness across sectors, even at one point (in 2009’s Children’s Plan) considering some shared governance arrangements. Its 1997 manifesto read: “We wish to build bridges wherever we can across education divides. The educational apartheid created by the public/private divide diminishes the whole education system.” This assessment was spot on, and that government’s vision and case for education as its top priority was reinforced accordingly.
My verdict so far
So, my verdict? Let’s not get carried away. This government doesn’t come close to having achieved or articulated what it wants to achieve yet. Its words are noble, and I must say its ambitions around child poverty are really very important. But addressing the causes of child poverty are not an education vision or strategy, they are a cross-government, cross society responsibility, that cannot be mixed up with being an education strategy. The sector needs a compelling vision, set in the context of the next decade, that provides a clear basis upon which to shape some compelling strategies – including around curriculum, accountability, school improvement strategy, and recruitment and retention – together.
This blog is meant to be helpful and constructive. The Secretary of State could miss a huge opportunity to set direction, to position education as central to the country’s progress, to build cohesion across the sector and realise its benefits, and to recognise the power and potential or trusts to achieve improvement and innovate at scale – not least because their structures and a sufficient degree of curriculum autonomy creates the platform for it. The government needs to take a bit of step back, to move forward.
Michael Pain is the Chair and Founder of Forum Strategy. Michael is the author of Being the CEO, an executive coach, and leads the Being The CEO programme. Forum Strategy runs national leadership development networks of CEOs, COOs and Education Executives.
