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

[Richard]

Sorry for third post, just thought of more to say!

Seeing as businesses have an intesrest in an educated workforce it is highly likely that under a purely private system they would contribute in areas where it might be difficult to raise money (plus it would look good for their corporate image). I suspect that businesses would be less wasteful with their money and more determined to see a decent return on their investment.

Obviously I wouldn't advocate putting this in a manifesto but I suspect that if the state does depart from education (in both control and funding) it will be due to the efforts of the little platoons on the ground creating their own alternatives, despite Mr Brown's attempt to stifle enterprise and initiative.

The problem with allowing the government to retain control over funding is that it still has a powerful hold over schools and can use the funding to justify administrative interference. True, nothing could stop a determined government renationalising a completely private system but it would be much much harder.

Lastly, I just think the government should get off our backs and let us decide how we want our children educated and how we intend to spend the money in doing so.

[Matt Davis]

It is a shame that no-one contributing to this thread has mentioned the key point which, as supposedly Conservatives, we ought to be looking for from any change to our present education systems. It is:

A proper action plan to remove the inbuilt left wing indoctrination that occurs within both our education and teacher training establishments.This matter remains the nettle that Thatcherism failed to grasp and unless addressed effectively will lead to another generation of young people already indoctrinated with the lefts various articles of faith as if they were facts.

[Yet Another Anon]

A proper action plan to remove the inbuilt left wing indoctrination that occurs within both our education and teacher training establishments.
Transfer all LEA's to private companies limited by guarantee with members of Industry, the churches, the police and the military on the boards.

Also requiring them to charge tuition fees to cover costs for which there could be low interest loans available repayable by parents in the same was Student Loans are repayable by University Students, where parents were failing to arrange the education of their children the state would arrange where the education was to take place and charge the parents the costs.

[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?
It would be the parents who would have to repay it and the money saved could be reduced from General Taxation or used to fund higher Defence Spending, higher National Security spending, higher police spending and higher spending on R&D.

[Alison Anne Smith]

This would serve no purpose. So No.

ps. "contribute to making kids" they are called children, you sound like Blair !

[Denis Cooper]

"Transfer all LEA's to private companies limited by guarantee with members of Industry, the churches, the police and the military on the boards."

I particularly like the idea of the police and the military controlling schools.

Any parental complaints about the way the school is run and the first visit is from the constabulary. Persistent complaints, and it's the SAS and a pile of bodies.

[Fred Baker]

Every year of Labour’s reign has seen schools pushed about by incentives and schemes of one sort or another. The latest is exams with multiple choice answers and “Can do” tests.

Schools need a rest from all this. We need to listen to the Headmasters Conferences and not make any changes that will give any extra work to staff.

There is one problem that could be tackled and that is for those students who had enough of education by year eleven. These kids take up more then enough of staff time.

There should be apprentice or early BTech schemes for them to take up.

[Patsy Sergeant]

I am afraid I have to disagree with this idea. If you don't teach a young mind that it is worthwhile learning at a young age, how on earth are they going to suddenly come to this conclusion when they are nearly into adolescence?

My mother started her own little school in the fifties, she started off with children as young as three, (shock horror by todays laz standards), at first - according to the individual childs abilities - they started to play - constructively. Then they learned - both sexes - to tie laces, to fasten hooks and eyes, and do up buttons, among other things, everything was awarded with stars, the best of course being a gold star. It was roughly the Montessori method of teaching, then when they reached about 4yrs, she started to teach them, writing, sums, reading etc. These children WITHOUT exception went on to become head of their schools, or other sorts of grading. Why, because she taught them that learning can be INTERESTING!! Nobody in the state system teaches that these days - it seems to me!!

By the way my mother is still alive and she will be 97yrs old this year!!!

[Kevin Davis]

Patsy,

the fact is that the most successful education systems in the world do not teach children from such an early age. It is left to parents to do it. As Conservatives we should be supporting the family and this policy would do it.

[tapestry]

Start teaching children young and they will be less creative and inventive, but more programmable and better servants to a system. Take your pick. Parents shouild choose. Society needs a good mix of risk-takers and system builders - but certainly not all the same.

[Richard]

"Parents shouild choose. Society needs a good mix of risk-takers and system builders - but certainly not all the same."

Indeed. The emphasis should be on encouraging diversity in education provision by giving parents as much say as possible and giving the state as little as possible. Will Cameron seriously consider vouchers though?

[Patsy Sergeant]

Kevin Davis in an ideal world of course parents could be relyed upon to start their off-springs education, but how many 'ideal families' do we have in this country these days of endless one parent families, some with an endless procession of 'step-fathers' or just plain 'boy-friends' invading their 'space'. And exactly HOW can any government even a conservative one turn things around quickly enough to prevent another and another generation of 'lost' and ill-directed children hanging around the streets????

And Tapestry @ 10.58pm yesterday, as I said in my post my mother taught her pupils from a young age, BUT SHE TAUGHT THEM TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES, they didn't become slaves just because they started to learn young. Some people these days seem to think that unless a child is being rebellious, or self-opionated, that it must be being smothered. It is POSSIBLE for a child to be reasonably behaved, to be 'socialised' as it is put nowadays, and yet to be at the same time incredibly original. Talent doesn't have to be gauged by how easily you manage to get faymous a la 'Peaches' etc:, that means absolutely nothing!

[Annabel Herriott]

How do people think that the system of Nursery/kindergarten, then primary, then

MIDDLE school, 9 to 13, THEN senior school, when it wont be a small fish suddenly cast into a huge pool. it is being done already, here and there. Dont agree with a late start though. there are not enough stable families any more. If a child is not "yours" do you have the same committment??
Its a pity "they" stopped the apprentice system. I bet dissaffected lads would come to pretty quick if it was the nut and bolts of a practical career they were going to school for, be it electrics, plumbing, b ricklaying joinery etc. etc. and IT to go with it. Kitchens are designed on a computer these days.

[Mike Christie]

"It would be the parents who would have to repay it and the money saved could be reduced from General Taxation or used to fund higher Defence Spending, higher National Security spending, higher police spending and higher spending on R&D"

This is where we disagree, educating children isn't just the responsibility of parents, it is a duty of a civillized society. The nation as a whole benefits if every child is educated and able to maximise the use of their abilities.

[modell munka lányoknak]

It's in fact very complicated in this busy life to listen news on TV, so I only use web for that reason, and get the hottest news.