Kevin Davis: Education should start later

Kevin Davis (blog) is the Chief Executive of a not-for-profit working in education.

> Policy summary

Education; there is too much of it, too early and with too little effect. Increasing the starting age of education and stopping the transfer, at age 11, would contribute to making kids have a more focused and socialised school education.  For the “iPod, skype and msn” kids of today “less is more”.

> Policy explanation

The Labour Government believes that children should be educated and appraised from the earliest possible age. Children of 2 or 3 are now being assessed by some crazy Government doctrine that governs how nurseries and play schemes should have a “curriculum”. Other countries take a different view. The most successful education systems tend to be in Scandinavia, yet here formal education, reading and writing, does not start until children are 7, or even 8. Till then parents or playgroups are expected to give children the space to be children and learn to play. More importantly children are the responsibility of their parents and not handed over to some state sponsored pre education system, whose sole purpose, at times, seems to be to drive the mother or father out to work. The greatest looming crisis in our education system is the expected mass retirement of senior teachers, due sometime in the next five years. A policy that full time education of children did not start until age 7 would militate against some of those problems.

In the UK, the child having spent up to 7 years in the education system, we then inflict another injustice on them; transfer to secondary school. Why? Many teachers will tell you that the most difficult period for a child in education is the transfer from primary to secondary. All certainty in their lives is upended and many spend the first years of secondary school recovering from the trauma of transfer. Parents also do not survive the transfer. Whereas parents are often very engaged in their child’s primary education they quickly drop out when their child transfers.  Once again the most successful systems have all-through schools that go from 7 or 8 through to 16 or 18, and we should adopt this system nationally.

The opportunity for all-through schools is here. The current programme to rebuild, or substantially refurbish, every secondary school in the country is in its early stages. A more radical approach to this programme could be used to fulfil the difficulty of all-through schools.

A key problem would be the limiting size of urban sites within London to take all-through schools. However, not all schools need to have 2,000 pupils. There have been a myriad of studies that have shown that small “schools”, not necessarily small “classes”, are far better at raising standards and behaviour than the increasing size of school this Government is currently set on building. (See Lindsay, Paul (1982). The Effect of High School Size on Student Participation, Satisfaction, and Attendance, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 4 (1), 57-65 and Barker, R. and Gump, P. (1964). Big School, Small School: High School Size and Student Behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press)

If we accept that small is best then many of the existing secondary and primary sites could be adapted to suite a range of schools. After all a typical 2 form of entry primary school would have 14 forms. A 1 form entry all-though school, starting at age 7, would need 10 or 11 forms. 

> Political risks and opportunities

Teaching unions would complain that this is more change after decades of change. Political opponents would paint this as a lessening in the learning opportunities for young children and an attempt to limit the opportunities for poorer families to have both parents’ working. Would the policy actually not be a positive benefit to a Conservative party looking to give families more time?  Currently GCSE study takes two years – a more focused approached to learning leading up to that might actually increase the ability, especially if you did not have to spend a whole year adjusting to a new school and a whole new method of learning.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Do you believe a school that took your child through from the start to the end of their education would benefit them?

• Do you believe there is any benefit in formerly assessing the progress of kids at the age of 3, 4 or 5?

• What ideas do we have as to how we can use the money, and the time, released by starting learning at age 7 to help families who want to work?

> Costs

There are pluses and minuses. The cost of not providing formal state education  for children between the years of 2 and 7 (£5,750 per pupil per annum by 2008) could be used to fund more generous child care allowances.

Comments

[Yet Another Anon]

The Japanese though start very early and academically are very successful, I'm doubtful that it's as simple as copying another country, a lot of it is down to cultural matters and the UK is not Japan and even has a fair number of differences with the Scandinavian countries as well.

I think perhaps from about 14 or so people should go to college with adults, after all many are working full time at 16 or hoping to do so and probably it is better to mix with what are mainly youngish adults before going out into the world of work, also they need prizing away from their childhood by the time they are 16 and dump a lot of baggage and get serious.

There is still going to be the problem of what to do with children whose parents need to be out at work, for many Single Parent families the alternative is latchkey children having to sneak around so that the neighbours don't notice they are in without anyone else in the house - my mother used to worry that someone would report that I was in the house when no one was there and I'd get taken into care but as a Single mother the only other alternative was her being on benefits.

[Gildas]

For the “iPod, skype and msn” kids of today “less is more”.

I really dislike that sentence. It reeks of the trendy froth that surrounds education these days. Almost made me not read what came after, but I persevered and am glad I did.

Now, we are going to homeschool our children so education policy is not something I really pay much attention to. However, I am concerned with Labour's Nationalisation of Childhood agenda and this would stop that in its tracks - so it got my attention.

On the merits it seems like a sensible idea. Children are dragged off into school at a very young age, for little obvious benefit and formal testing at those ages is madness.

Politically, one thing to watch for, is that it would be painted as 'Those Tories just want to save a load of money from the education budget'. (Though that would be a tangential benefit).

Also, you said:

Political opponents would paint this as a lessening in the learning opportunities for young children and an attempt to limit the opportunities for poorer families to have both parents’ working

This is actually a good opportunity for us to lead a change in society. Too many people see education as a babysitting service while the parents go out and work. This policy change would help refocus (ugh - I know) education on actually educating children.

[Mike Christie]

Personally I'm against this idea, whilst I would support making education up to the age of 6 or 7 much less formal and certainly do away with much of the regulatory and assessment burden in that sector, I feel that the all-through school would severely limit choice in education.

Before I go much further I should declare an interest of sorts, I have submitted a policy idea for much more diversity in secondary education, so this idea seems to conflict directly with my own in many ways.

I feel that what education in Britain needs is more flexibility and diversity in secondary education, with schools offering a range of educations from a very academic education (think Grammar school) to some schools offering an almost entirely vocational education, but with intensive lessons in english, maths and a range of life skills/citizenship/British history. I won't say too much more about my own submission as I'm hoping it will appear here in its turn.

One problem as I see it is that our schools have been constructed to fulfill a role. Primary schools have none of the facilities for secondary education and many primary schools would effectively be redundant or would need to be virtually rebuilt from scrath. Secondary schools tend to be very large and may be intimidating as an entry point into education. This plan would call for effectively rebuilding every school in the country, which is brave and ambitious to say the least.

Whilst Building Schools for the Future is in a fairly early stage, some schools have been built, others already have solid plans drawn up, such a fundamental change in the education system would put it back to the drawing board.

Primary schools offer a local, friendly, small entry into the education system. Secondary schools should offer a range of educational options and priorities for the whole range of talents and abilites from the academically brilliant to pupils who struggle with 'book learning' but have other talents and abilities to nurture.

Making schools smaller and more local may also have the unintended effect of making it harder for strivers from poor areas to get ahead in making it much more difficult for parents to get their children into a good school. Smaller schools would presumably have smaller catchment areas. Kids from estates may find they have no choice but to go to the school that serves their estate.

[Ed]

I agree with this proposal (the Japanese may start early, but Japanese friends of mine certainly didn't enjoy the experience, or the pressure-cooker of school and extra-curricular activities that came later).

The lurch from primary school to secondary was very difficult for me, because I went from being popular and confident to friendless (all my friends went to a different, supposedly lesser school) and therefore ill-at-ease and unhappy. This in turn led to a marked worsening of my grades. The difficulty and intensity of school work increases hugely at that point, and you go from having no homework to having a good hour or more every night, and the last thing you want at such times is a sense of dislocation, and social anxiety.

This system would also allow for the creation of a more organic, graduated hierarchy among children. One of the worst things about moving to secondary school is that you go from being the eldest (highest status) to the youngest (lowest status). If people stayed at the same school throughout, then this peak and trough pattern would not emerge.

[Denis Cooper]

I think we should ask Digby Jones what he thinks. Since the country is now being run entirely for the benefit of capital, he is in the best position to judge.

Maybe we should be identifying those children who are unlikely to develop into the docile hardworking and flexible employees required by a modern economy, and selling them off to less developed countries as slaves.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Very good idea, I would also like to see change at the upper end, giving a greater boost to vocational education, but this is a good place to start.

[Fred Baker]

Well I learnt reading and simple maths at a small nursery school. The young uncluttered mind can absorb knowledge like a sponge. At the Primary School I was about two years ahead of the rest.

Kids under 11 have brief attention spans unless they have a teacher who can hold their attention. Teaching in small groups, the younger the better is the key to success.

Too much time in Secondary Schools is spent trying to teach (entertain is the appropriate word) kids of 16 who are often over 6ft tall and sexually mature. Lower the school leaving age to 15 and start them earlier is a far better bet.

[Richard]

I wasn't harmed by the current system but then I can't speak for everyone. Personally I'd like to see the abolition of compulsory education and the withdrawal of the state from education completely with the introduction of a voucher scheme as an interim measure. However, that isn't politically possible and it's not what's on offer here. Based on my personal experience I'm inclined to vote against but I'm open minded on this particular issue.

[Londoner]

Bad idea. The private sector shows what people and the market want and that has always started early. This predates the relatively recent trend of a higher proportion of young privately educated children's mothers going back to work when they are small. One of the few good things recently about education has been nursery education for all (with education vouchers that can be used in the private sector - the Govt keeps very quiet about this but the system is going strong).

Bad idea also not to switch to senior school because less choice and you can't know what will suit the child as a teenager at 4 (or even at 7). Small secondary school year groups are also a bad idea as this reduces exam choices and means wider ability ranges in setting. Eton has 250 pupil year groups and is not regarded as a bad school.

The one thing we can all agree is that early education should not be too formal and there should not be a national curriculums etc at an early stage, maybe even the first tests should be a bit later than 7. But that is not enough of a grain of agreement to vote for this policy.

I fear that a lot of these 100 policies warrant opposition but I hope the proposers do not become disheartened as I think it is a good exercise and maybe even on the policies that fail there can be parts of them put again and incorporated in the final package.

[Denis Cooper]

Richard, the state only became involved in education because otherwise a fair chunk of the population could not or would not ensure that their children even learnt to read and write. As I recall the Tories/Conservatives in the 19th century were just as concerned about this as the Whigs/Liberals.

[Richard]

"I think we should ask Digby Jones what he thinks. Since the country is now being run entirely for the benefit of capital, he is in the best position to judge."

What exactly do you mean by "capital"? If you mean big business then you're clearly forgetting the key to the capitalist system - the consumer. Big business can only survive if it gives the consumer what he or she wants. Or if it receives government subsidy but that's a different issue.

"Maybe we should be identifying those children who are unlikely to develop into the docile hardworking and flexible employees required by a modern economy, and selling them off to less developed countries as slaves."

Or maybe we should allow them to choose what path they wish to take?

[Richard]

"Richard, the state only became involved in education because otherwise a fair chunk of the population could not or would not ensure that their children even learnt to read and write."

95% of the child population were being educated BEFORE compulsory state education. Check out James Bartholomew's The Welfare State We're In.

[Denis Cooper]

By "capital" I mean "capital", as in "free movement of capital", which according to theorists on the left had to be matched by the freedom of workers to follow the capital wherever it went. But now that the theory has been translated into reality and they're seeing some of the practical consequences of the free movement of labour, especially within the EU, they're having second thoughts about it. Hence their recent realisation that it's not "racist" to have a discussion on immigration policy, provided of course that it's a "mature" discussion.

[Mike Christie]

Denis, are you trying to suggest that the requirements of employers and their suggestions to the skills people coming into the workforce require should have no bearing on our education system?

Whilst I would be against an education system that was purely geared towards teaching children what was needed to hold down a job and no more, we can not ignore the needs of business and turn out children who can not meet the needs of the people looking ot employ them.

[Denis Cooper]

"Denis, are you trying to suggest that the requirements of employers and their suggestions to the skills people coming into the workforce require should have no bearing on our education system?"

No, of course not, every child should be given the opportunity of an education which enables him/her to make his/her own living afterwards, to the greatest extent of his/her talents, and become a valuable member of society.

Which is why governments in the 19th century, of both parties, moved towards school education which was both free and compulsory, and gradually raised the school leaving age. Pace James Bartholemew, if there had been no problem it's unlikely that governments would have chosen to get involved at that time.

However any discussion of the starting age for school, or what happens during pre-school years, is now intimately connected with the relentless drive to move mothers out of the home where their work is unpaid, and into some kind of paid work - even if that means that they are paid to look after other mothers' children.

And that in turn is connected with the shared project of government and business to generate opportunities for obtaining a return on invested capital, for increasing the GDP statistic, and boosting tax revenues.

What is in the best interests of the child, the mother, the rest of the family and in the longer term the "General Well Being" of society do not necessarily figure as prominent considerations in this project.

[Yet Another Anon]

I'd like to see the abolition of compulsory education and the withdrawal of the state from education completely
Financing of education could be switched to a low interest loans scheme repayable in the same way Student Loans are now, there needs to be regulation of Education to keep out charlatans, countries where there is little regulation of Education have bodies selling qualifications that actually are little more than a bit of paper with no actual testing or course as such.

Not only that but a lot of the little mites with nothing to do will just go out on shoplifting expeditions, and mugging little old ladies or vandalising (frequently with adults in their families and aquaintances) if they aren't organised into doing something.

[Opinicus]

This would be impossible to sell politically. early years schooling is not about education its about child minding.

[Mike Christie]

Denis, thanks for the clarification, I had taken your comment completely the wrong way. In fact I agree with you on the point that there is too much pressure being put on mothers to return to work, however, for many families, not having two wage earners is a non-starter due to the rampant house price inflation that has been allowed to go unchecked for 20 years or so. We have mentioned average house prices on two different threads already today... with average house prices in London running at (very approximately) ten times average salary it is little wonder that many mothers are simply unable to choose to stay at home.

Yet another anon, I'm afraid I have to disagree completely with your idea. Future generations will already have to pay future pensions, the re-payments on the PFI deals cooked up by Brown and many other liabilities piled on them by this government. Can we reasonably ask them to pay for their own education too?

One responsibility the state does have is to ensure that every child recieves a high quality, relevant education regardless of their background. It is simple self-preservation if nothing else.

Student loans were not originally intended to be for the cost of the actual education either, and so are a different kettle of fish altogether.

As Conservatives we should be in favour of personal responsibility AND protecting the vulnerable. Children need a guaranteed education regardless of any other factors and no-one should start life heavily in debt just for a basic education.

[Richard]

"Pace James Bartholemew, if there had been no problem it's unlikely that governments would have chosen to get involved at that time."

The government intervened to fill in the gaps in provision and certainly did not plan at the time to extend its control over the education system to the extent that it has. Just goes to show how a plan to make minor modifications can go horribly wrong.

Bartholomew's argument is that the gaps in provision would eventually have been filled in by the private sector. Seeing as the private sector had been massively expanding and filling in bigger gaps beforehand there was no reason why this process couldn't continue.

Besides, are you seriously telling me that whenever a government intervenes in the running of society, this intervention is actually necessary? Exchange controls, nationalisation, plans for ID cards? Were/are these really necessary?

Even if there is a problem, government isn't necessarily the best answer.

[Richard]

"One responsibility the state does have is to ensure that every child recieves a high quality, relevant education regardless of their background. It is simple self-preservation if nothing else."

95% (or possibly more) of children received 5-7 years of education before the state decided that educational provision was its duty. True, not 100% and only 5-7 years. But that was during a period of educational expansion that had yet to finish. Then the government gradually took it over so that we can now all enjoy the delights of a sub-standard state education paid for by our taxes, much of it wasted. Indeed, the amount of money spent per head on state school pupils is greater than that spent on private school pupils.

[Alan T]

I'm against this policy partly for the reason Mike flagged up above. It's anti-diversity and deprives everyone of the benefits choice and experimentation would bring to the education system.

I'm not opposed to 'all through schools'. It's an interesting idea and I think it would be beneficial for some. There are independent schools like this already; the Summerhill School springs to mind. It's the one-size-fits-all premise of the policy that I reject. I don't think this type of school would be suitable for every child.

I also have reservations about children starting at school later across the board. I'm for more flexibility in starting and leaving ages for pupils but I think a blankett raising of the school starting age is wrong headed. Fred rightly pointed out above that children are like sponges, before the age of 7, and this is the time wen they can most effortlessly learn things like reading and even foreign languages. I think it unfair to leave it to chance that all children will be able to take advantage of this early learning capacity. Like it or not people who have parents who just don't care or who don't know enough themselves to be able to expose their children to things which will be of use to them and be enjoyable.

I would advocate there being all sorts of educational opportunities available to children from birth, not necessarily provided by the traditional nursery or school. Every child could have an educaional allowance from birth which their parents could spend (with minimal state acrreditation, supervision and encouragement) as they please on piano lessons or a toddler language club or a social play group- the possibilities are endless- with the same principle applying as they get older with the child being able to assume more repsonsibility for spending their own ed-allowance to suit their own interests and aptitudes.

Some interesting thoughts Kevin which can perhaps be integrated into a policy where children, parents and society can reap the benefits of diversity of provision.

[Mike Christie]

Richard, that maybe the case, but the world has moved on from the 19th century. Schools now operate on multi-million pound budgets and are somewhat more complicated than a few rooms with blackboards. A wealthy local benefactor might be able to build a nice Victorian school house and employ two or three teachers, buy some chalk and a few slates. Its a little different today though. Who is going to raise the three million pounds a year it costs to run a secondary school?

The one I work in got just over £2.7 million in funding this year, and we are fairly small and quite poorly funded as secondary schools go.

That doesn't mean that government has to actually run the schools, but funding from taxes seems to be the only sensible way to fund education (although funding from local taxation would seem to make more sense to me)

Sorry if I sound patronising Richard, but it is 2006, not 1896, just because private and charitable funding provided a rudimentary education of sorts in the 19th century doesn't mean it could provide the sort of education needed today. What happens in a recession? Do the schools close when generosity of individual benefactors dries up?

[Gildas]

"Which is why governments in the 19th century, of both parties, moved towards school education which was both free and compulsory, and gradually raised the school leaving age."

Sorry to nitpick, but it is the education which is compulsory not the school part. Nowhere in English law does it require a child to attend school.

Getting back to this proposal, the state education model was put in place when children left school earlier than they do now, therefore we ought to question why we need stick with such an early age start to formal education.

[Richard]

"That doesn't mean that government has to actually run the schools, but funding from taxes seems to be the only sensible way to fund education (although funding from local taxation would seem to make more sense to me)"

The alternative is to cut taxes thus allowing people to afford fees. There's nothing to stop schools adopting a progressive fee system to compensate for those on low incomes. Then there's the excellent idea of no-frills private education being pioneeded by Civitas which is significantly cheaper than "normal" private schools. The fact is that at the moment tax-funded state education is leading to a lot of waste. Why is it that state schools spend more per head than private schools? What about home schooling as an alternative? The point about removing the state from education is that it alows for a plethora of alternatives to devlelop at a lower overall cost to the taxpayer. One interesting vision of such a system can be found here under "Education reclaimed": http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication265pdf?.pdf

[Richard]

"Schools now operate on multi-million pound budgets and are somewhat more complicated than a few rooms with blackboards"

Only because the top-down system we have requires that they are run like that. One of the New Model Schools set up by Civitas is based in a parish hall. Obviously this sort of approach won't work for all schools but it does show that there's an alternative to the monolithic system we have at the moment.