Some further thoughts on the National Audit Office report into the training of teachers

It was nice to be asked to record an interview for BBC Radio Manchester with Sam Walker this afternoon. She asked questions about the NAO report, part of which I wrote about in respect of Teach First earlier today.

The broader messages of the report are that the DfE has missed its recruitment targets for the last 4 years and that there are signs that teacher shortages are growing. Specifically, the DfE missed its overall targets by an increasing margin between 2012/13 (1%) and 2014/15 (9%). Continue reading

image_pdfimage_print

The NAO reveals the truth about the vast costs and minimal gains associated with Teach First

Thank goodness for the National Audit Office! Perhaps this is not something that you would normally expect to say, but the public body, whose vision is to help the nation spend wisely and help Parliament hold government to account through improving public services, has done sterling work today in publishing its report – Training New Teachers.

Apart from the top line messages (which are far from encouraging, e.g. it is 4 years since the Department for Education has met its target in training the right number of new teachers, and there are significant signs that the crisis is worsening (p.13)), the report provides clarity and a line in the sand in relation to the key problems associated with Teach First; namely, its cost and ineffectiveness in educating teachers who go onto enjoy a long teaching career. Regular readers of this blog will know that these are things I have pointed out on numerous occasions over the past few years.

Let’s start by looking a total costs (Fig. 17, p.38):

tf_total_costs

Teach First trained 1200 teachers at a total cost of £43 million (yes, million!) pounds during 2013/14. That’s £35,833 for each one! This compares to £18,991 for each student trained within an university-led programme. Incidentally, on these figures university-led programmes are easily the most cost effective. University-led provision also filled the highest proportion of their allocations (85%) – see p.39.

The NAO helpfully provide another figure that shows the true costs associated with Teach First (fig.19 on p.43). Here it is:

tf_costs_route

There are two additional points here. Firstly, although the subject of student loans is a contentious one, once loans have been repaid the bottom three routes into teaching become even cheaper (for the state at least, if not the individual concerned).

Secondly, the cost to schools of having a Teach First student within their institution is almost four times that of a traditional university PGCE student.

Advocates of Teach First argue that the benefits associated with the programme are worth the extra cost. They also try to reassure us that Teach First ‘ambassadors’ enjoy long careers, at least of similar length to those educated in other routes. However, this is also false. The NAO expose this myth in their retention chart which so, graphically and beyond any doubt, the huge exodus of teachers trained by Teach First after two years of teaching (fig.20, p.44):

tr_retention

To give you a sense of comparison, the NAO report that through other pathways around 28% of teachers leave the profession after five year (p.8). With Teach First it is around 40% after two years (and that’s a charitable reading of the above table)!

These figures and the detailed analysis done by the NAO show that Teach First has been a huge waste of money (at a time of austerity when we are meant to be watching every £) and is operating a completely ineffective system which trains teachers who only make a minimal contribution to schools and pupils’ lives before leaving the profession to enjoy other careers. As I have said repeatedly, the clue is in the name. Teach ‘first’, and then move on.

We have a brilliant mechanism for training teachers within universities across the UK. The overall quality is excellent and it is cost effective. The taxpayer’s money spent on this charade by this Government and the previous Labour one is disgraceful in my opinion. The sooner it is closed down or public money is withdrawn from this ‘charity’ the better.

image_pdfimage_print

Filming for the One Show!

It was fun to be asked to do some filming for the One Show today. This request came via my press officer at MMU (thanks Chris!) and the result should be broadcast this Thursday (subject to change).

The topic of the interview was free schools. The feature is about a group of parents in an area of Leeds who are setting up a free school as, apparently, there were no places in any local schools for their children. I’m not sure about the detail of all this as this was not shared with me.

As is the nature of media engagements, the BBC crew were after someone with an opinion on free schools and a willingness to share this to provide a contrary voice to what could be an overly positive piece. So, the challenge for me was to try and get some key pieces of information about free schools across in a few seconds with a positive attitude (not grumpy!).

For those of you who are interested, and read this far, these were the key points I had in my plan for the interview:

1. Free schools are not free. It costs around £3k more per pupil per year to educate them in a free school (£7,761 compared with £4767, DfE figures).

2. Free schools do enjoy some freedoms. They can employ who they want to teach in their schools, and they can ignore the National Curriculum. These are not good things in my opinion. Parents expect teachers to have a degree and a professional teaching qualification at least. This can’t be taken for granted. In fact, 15% of teachers in free schools do not have these qualifications (compared to 4.5% in other types of schools, including academies). Again, DfE figures as submitted to the Education Select Committee. Parents can also rightly expect schools to teach the legally constituted set of subjects, knowledge and skills as outlined in the National Curriculum as a minimum.

3. Free schools are free from Local Authority control. Again, I don’t think this is a good thing. Local Authorities can provide helpful structure, support and advice for schools. But, perhaps more importantly, free schools need to be locally accountable. The Local Authority provides that democratic framework for schools. Outside of this, free schools are not accountable to their communities in any meaningful way. In fact, huge amounts of publicly owned land, buildings and other resources are transferred on 125 year leases to the private companies without a second thought. I’m with Jeremy Corbyn on this one: “Why was it believed that the ability to run a business, to sell carpets or cars, might make you best placed to run a school?”

4. Free schools are not being builtin the right areas. 52% are built in areas where there is no shortage of pupil places, or not foreseeable or forecasted need for pupil places either. Surely a better way forward is to build capacity in existing schools rather than waste billions of taxpayer’s funds on new, experimental schools like this.

5. Free schools to not improve educational standards. Ofsted have reported this recently, saying that, in general, free schools succeed or fail for broadly the same reasons as any other type of school. Time will tell if free schools do perform better; I strongly suggest that they won’t.

However, free schools are a massive drain on the public purse. They take much needed funding (probably around £2billion in total so far) away from the broader educational provision at a time of apparent austerity. They should not be a priority and are, for the reasons outlined above, a risky experiment and, in my opinion, a waste of money.

Do watch the broadcast on Monday 14th December and see what you think?

 

image_pdfimage_print

Nick Gibb on the [non] impact of the EBacc on the arts in school

Nick Gibb’s speech at the Guildhall this week contained an interesting insight into his thinking about the EBacc and the lack of impact that this has made on the provision of arts education in our schools. Without any personal comment from me, at this point, have a read of the following excerpts:

The concern that the EBacc will drive pupils away from creative subjects at GCSE has been made vocally in the media, but proven to be unfounded. The EBacc covers a core set of 5 subject blocks – English, maths, science, humanities and languages – but this allows most pupils to choose a number of additional GCSE options. …

I do understand why some in the arts communities are concerned about accountability measures, such as the EBacc, but in my view they needn’t be. There is no reason why an academic core curriculum should in any way imperil a cultural education, or vice versa.

In fact, an academic curriculum and a cultural education can only complement each other, whether it is reading a wide range of literature; broadening your understanding of Shakespeare’s plays; giving you the historical knowledge to contextualise Picasso’s paintings; or allowing you to read Racine in the original language.

Both aspects of a child’s education can and should co-exist within every school in England. This point was explicitly made by Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State for Education in a speech to the Creative Industries Federation in July. We want to challenge every school to make this their aim.

It is my strong personal and professional contention that the exact opposite is the case. This is why both I, and my company UCan Play, support the ISM’s Protect Music Education campaign. Perhaps more importantly, Gibb should stop and think why these 137 organisations working within the education sector also think that his policies are harming the arts, irrevocably, in our schools.

I am genuinely interested to know what is going on in your school? Are the arts flourishing as Nick Gibb suggests? Has the EBacc impacted on your work in any way at all? Please do add your comments below and let’s hear your stories of arts education under Gibb’s and Morgan’s reign.

 

image_pdfimage_print

Life on Shuffle

This film shows some great work going on in Crewe through a collaboration between the fabulous Love Music Trust, Brighter Sound and Cheshire East. Life on Shuffle saw staff working with young people to help them produce a range of original music. Great stuff! Funding for the project came from Youth Music.

 

image_pdfimage_print

Next round of music education hub spending delayed to end of November at the very earliest

Last week, I made an enquiry to Arts Council England about the future of music education hub funding. As many will know, the existing round of funding comes to an end at the end of March 2016.

I received a reply today. It’s not that surprising but it does confirm that any decision about future spending on music education hubs will have to wait until after the announcements surrounding the spending review (that’s on the 25th November 2015).

The official response was as follows:

I can now confirm that information regarding the funding for music education hubs will not be available until after the spending review announcement on 25th November 2015. Following this however, unfortunately we are unable to guarantee a specific date when we can send out definitive funding information to music education hubs.

image_pdfimage_print

Welcome to another super group of MMU students!

banner_bf_01

Welcome to all the new MMU students beginning courses with us this year! I hope you have a brilliant time with us and that you find the PGCE course you have chosen a stimulating and rewarding experience.

For those of you beginning the PGCE in Music and PGCE in Music with Specialist Instrumental Teaching courses, an especially warm welcome. Teaching music to young people is one of the most amazing of jobs. There is a huge amount of enjoyment that you will gain from learning how to do this well, and the young people that you teach will benefit hugely too.

In a nutshell, the course will help you to ‘teach music musically‘. This isn’t our phrase, but it does sum up the aspiration of the course as a whole. Will Evans, and I, together with all our other Associate Lecturers and colleagues, will do our upmost to help you through what will be one of the most challenging years of your lives so far!

Welcome again, and have a great year!

image_pdfimage_print

Making music is good for you – forever!

It was great to see CNN produce this film on the significant benefits that music education can bring to young and old alike. Our fellow music education researcher from Northwestern University, Nina Kraus, is featured in the first part of the film. Her work on ‘neural timing’ is fascinating. The benefits of learning music in childhood extend throughout one’s entire life. Practical music making from the youngest age really is good for you – forever!

image_pdfimage_print

Images of music education in the 1960s

Whilst I was searching for images for my previous post on the BBC Radio 4 programme The School is Full of Noises, I came across a selection of lovely images of music education in the 1960s from John Paynter’s Hear and Now book (published in 1972). I though they might be of interest to readers of this blog, although they were originally shared here.

img002

This photo reminded me of music and movement classes which were definitely still part of primary education in the 1970s (I remember doing them!).

img003

However, I don’t remember my primary school teachers being as imaginative in their cross-curricular thinking as Paynter was. In hearing about his work again in the radio programme, and reviewing some of the photographs online, I was struck at how frequently music was linked to other subjects within the curriculum. This also included locations and sites outside of the classroom, such as the Pateley Bridge cavern described at the end of the programme. It made me chuckle. The book Will Evans and I wrote and had published this year by Routledge is really only rediscovering a well travelled path.

img004

This picture includes R. Murray Schafer, Paynter’s friend, working with a group of pupils.

img005

I love the concentration on this child’s face as he ‘prepares’ this grand piano for their improvisation. How many music teachers today would let their pupils do this to their acoustic piano? And if not, why not? Funnily enough, I remember doing exactly this kind of thing with some of my friends to the grand piano in the music department at Woking Sixth Form College in the mid 1980s. I’m not sure how our music teacher, Miss Parry, responded but I’m sure there would have been a wry smile on her face.

img006

I also love this photo of these children working together in a group improvisation/composition. Group work has been a feature of music education here in the UK for many years. It has its problems, but there are so many advantages too.

I hope you’ve enjoyed this selection of images from John Paynter’s work and publication. If you have any more, do feel free to share them in the comments or drop them over on an email to me. Thanks.

image_pdfimage_print