The programme of investment and reform in education during Tony Blair’s premiership has delivered some exceptional results. These include annual improvements in examination performance, a step change in the quality of teaching, a ten
fold increase in capital investment, widening participation in pre-school settings and universities. More recently, we have seen new thinking on the national curriculum, the
function of assessment and the role of further education.
These changes mark only the beginning of a longer revolution in our approach to education and skills. It will be the job of the next Prime
Minister to oversee the Building Schools for the Future programme, the introduction of the 14-19 Diplomas, the implementation of the Leitch Review on skills and the future funding of our
universities. Ten years on from ‘Education, Education, Education’, therefore, it’s
worth asking three questions:
· Could more have been
done?
· Could it have been done
differently?
· Could we have squeezed out
more value from the large investments made?
Could more have been done?
Of course, but given the intense competition for time and resources in the rebuilding of Britain’s public services since 1997, it’s hard to fault the early
priorities (pre-school, literacy/numeracy, standards, buildings and IT). Whilst the NHS received bigger annual spending increases during that time this was an accurate reflection
of the public’s priorities.
However, some problems could have been identified earlier. A reluctance to dismantle too much of the Conservative schools legacy left us for
too long with the destructive influence of crude league tables, dubious admissions policies, an overprescriptive national curriculum and a simplistic assessment
regime.
We put in place the building blocks to improve attainment for the future, whilst overlooking to some extent the factors that caused disaffection and lack of
confidence in some of our schools now. The rhetoric on standards overlooked the crucial importance of motivation and the relevance of curriculum. We should
have introduced the language of personalisation, and commissioned the Tomlinson Report, from Day One.
Could things have been done differently?
In some ways, yes. The New Labour language was too dogmatic and centralist, asserting rather than persuading.
Occasionally, evidence based policy making was replaced by policy based evidence making. The Government would have gained credit for making more teachers and
other professionals (not to mention Labour MPs), feel they had a voice in the process of change.
These factors probably led to the disastrous mishandling of two flagship policies; student tuition fees and trust schools. On both issues,
what should have been explained as radical improvements and extensions of opportunity were presented as quasi-Thatcherite attempts to turn the clock back. This confirmed the
suspicions of many who feared a secret agenda of selection, segregation, hierarchy and a blind faith in the capacity of private capital to deliver improve public
services.
Could more have been achieved from the investments made?
Impossible to say. It’s true that annual GCSE scores and university student numbers increased faster during some of the Thatcher/Major years
in an era of decaying infrastructure, higher class sizes and demoralised teachers. Strict calculations of public sector
productivity, however, do not fully reflect the long term value of professional self respect induced by higher salaries, or the long term effects of an increased motivation to learn encouraged by
brighter classrooms and IT suites and a wider choice of relevant studies.
However, the statistics for almost every conventional indicator of success are moving in the right direction. Thousands of schools and
colleges have improved beyond recognition. Millions of families have celebrated their children’s achievements knowing that they will lead to better jobs and better lives than their parents could
have ever dreamed of.
It’s hard to think of any other time in our history, other than the years following 1944 and 1964, in which a British Government has used the transforming
power of education to improve the prospects of so many children and young people.
This article first appeared in The House Magazine, May
2007
| 
