ConservativeHome's 100policies

Russell King: Bringing the school year into the 21st century

Russell is a Councillor for Balham Ward, Wandsworth.

> Policy summary

Our current school year consisting of three school terms with a long summer holiday originates from the need to have the children working in the fields during harvest time. I believe that in the 21st century a school year that reflects the economic needs of a modern dynamic economy would brings benefits to parents, kids, teachers and the taxpayer.

Conceptually my proposal is very straight forward - I am simply aligning the school year with the business year. There will no longer be school holidays. However, children will not be in the classroom for any longer than they are now. The extra time available to schools will be used for extracurricular activities such as sports, music and community work (potentially children who are behind in their academic subjects could sacrifice extracurricular time in order to catch up).

> Policy explanation

There are several problems with the current school year:

Impacts on teachers – anybody who knows teachers will be able to tell you that by the end of a school term teachers are exhausted and close to burn out. This is due to the nature of the school year. In effect we ask teachers to cram a full years teaching into about forty weeks. The only way that teachers can do this is to burn themselves out during term time by working excessive hours and then spending the holidays recovering. This is not a healthy lifestyle and has significant impacts on the quality of our education system. First of all, the quality of teaching inevitably deteriorates as teachers get more tired towards the end of term. Secondly, it leads to a very high incidence of stress related absenteeism amongst teachers and thirdly, it results in many teachers leaving the profession prematurely either through early retirement (in order to prevent burn out) or leaving in order to change their lifestyle.

Impacts on Parents – the main impact on parents is a financial one. During the school holidays many working parents have to pay for expensive childcare in order to continue to work. Additionally, holidays for parents and their children are very expensive because everyone is going away at the same time. 

Impacts on Children – the impacts on children can be seen in two areas. First of all, their education suffers as their teachers are often tired and they have to cram in their learning into forty weeks. Secondly, during the school holidays many children (especially those in more deprived areas), participate in unstructured (and often destructive) activities. This increases social problems such as obesity, anti-social behaviour and outright criminality.

Impacts on Taxpayers – we continue to get poor value for money from our education system, which fails to turn out highly educated children well prepared for the economy of the 21st century.

> Political risks and opportunities

The biggest single risk is how teachers will respond to these proposals. Although, I believe that there are significant advantages for teachers we know that any change will be met with some level of resistance. 

The advantages to many parents of these proposals will provide us with significant political opportunities.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers 

• One of the major issues that need to be tackled is when the children and the teachers get holidays. Conceptually the answer to this should be simple – at any time during the school year (exam times may require a holiday embargo). Teachers can have up to 25 days a year (similar to other professions). The disadvantages of not having a teacher in school for a day (or even a couple of weeks) should not be an issue when compared to the benefits of having energised teachers who have had plenty of time to prepare for lessons. I do not believe that taking the children out of the class for holidays will cause a significant headache for teachers. All children by the end of the year should still have had the same amount of teaching. Am I downplaying the holiday issue?
• One of the (many) problems in our education system today is that many policies from Westminster assume a one size fits all approach is best. In reality every school is different and faces different circumstances. Therefore, would we want to roll this out to all schools or would we want to run pilot schemes? Alternatively we could ask schools to opt-in or force schools to hold referendums allowing parents to vote on whether the school year changes.

> Costs

When the total costs of looking after our children are taken into account, including education, youth services, extended schools, childcare, etc and given that our schools and wider services are currently awash with cash, I do not believe that the extension of the school year has to incur an increase in costs (although there are issues about how this money is reallocated). I do not expect teachers to do any more work (teaching in the classroom being only one element of what a teacher does in school) than they do now. In fact, we are improving their quality of life. Therefore, I would not expect to see an increase in teacher costs.

 

Gareth Knight: A modern "Finishing School" for all

Gareth Knight is the head of Projecting Politics, the country's leading provider of political resources for schools and producer of the Untangled Web series of publications. Gareth worked for 5 years as a Conservative Party Agent and is a school governor in Friern Barnet.

> Policy summary

A mandatory six week course for school leavers taking place between the end of the GCSE examination period in late June and GCSE result day in early August.

The course would be focused on preparing students for the ‘real world’ and would aim to increase the life and social skills of pupils at the key time between school and work or college.

> Policy explanation

I am shortly to turn 28 and have been told that you know when you’re no longer ‘young’ as you start complaining that today’s teenagers are lacking in social awareness and all the basic social skills that we had ‘in my day’. I therefore fully expect to be brought to book on that point!

The education system is incredibly over-crowded with demands on teachers’ and pupils’ time. Indeed, a recent policy decision by this website demands that yet another subject, history, be made a compulsory GCSE topic. This pressure on the schools has led to the decline of education as a people-enhancement issue as schools devote so much time to making sure pupils pass exams rather than prepare them for life.

The argument always comes up that teachers are educators not parents; that it is the responsibility of family life to build characters. This is entirely true. Character is formed by parents, friends and family. What is lacking is not character, but basic non-academic education.

If you regularly speak to 16 year olds, and by that I don’t mean Young Conservative types with a strong or even passing interest in politics, you have no doubt been surprised by the lack of basic knowledge they have about politics, the media, religion and etiquette.

Indeed, when I first met a 21-year-old close friend of mine, I couldn’t believe that a highly academic student who had spent a year working in the civil service and is expecting a first class degree could not know the difference between a councillor and an MP. She looked completely blank when I once mentioned the GLA and had no idea what an MEP was at all.

This is far from an exceptional case. There are dozens of people entering work, regardless of university, who have no idea about a basic part of the British political system.

This can also be said for the media, taking the word of a newspaper as fact and religion, not realising the theological closeness of Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

If a 16-year-old applies for a job the most knowledge they will have will be based on some vague idea of what a CV should look like. They certainly wouldn’t know how to work out their own taxes and benefits, then, come to think of it, many 50 year olds don’t either.

A key element of the ‘Finishing School’ would be etiquette. For example, I cannot be the only person that gets quietly infuriated at the way some people hold their knives and forks. Just sit in any pub during a Sunday lunch carvery and you’ll see what I mean. Take a look around you and look at the people. You will see people of all ages and all backgrounds. You will quickly realise that holding a knife and fork is a generational rather than a class issue. The grandparents and parents, be they suited up or dressed in a football top with tattoos will hold their knife in their right hand, the handle under the palm and they will use it to cut food. They will hold their fork in their left, again, the handle under the palm, the spokes curving downwards. Then look at the younger people. Invariably they will have their fork in their right hand in the scooping ‘soup spoon’ position and their knife will be used to tear up food, often on the table when not in use and when being held in the ‘pen’ position.

Sound familiar? This may sound incredibly petty but it is a damning indictment on the UK when our upbringing can’t even teach us to use a knife and fork – hardly rocket science.

A lack of basic etiquette – be that at the dinner table, at a drinks reception or in the pub is the slippery slope towards idleness, an idleness that can in turn become a lack of respect that can, for a small minority, lead to a lack of compassion and empathy. Hence, crime and a lack of opportunity and responsibility.

My proposal is that the six week ‘Finishing School’ would be a mandatory pre-requisite to getting your GCSE results – you have to sit the school to get the results. This would apply to those going on to do A-Levels, those doing vocational courses and those leaving education altogether (yes, a policy that recognises that the vast majority of young people are not either planning on going to university or planning to become criminals).

The six-week course would be an intensive back-up to the basic things taught in PSHE and citizenship lessons earlier on in secondary education. Four of those weeks would look at: political citizenship, the media, self-management (finances, taxes, credit, benefits, job applications), religious citizenship, first aid and culture. One week would be spent with a voluntary organisation.

The key week would be a residential, away from the student’s school and with no other pupils from that immediate area. Groups of students who have never met would be put together and taken through basic teamwork, etiquette and interpersonal skills training. Students would be taught basic etiquettes regarding conversation, drinking, eating, even the basics of dancing! By the end of the week, they will have been forced into meeting people from many different backgrounds, in most cases for the first time, and they will have a far greater understanding of the world outside their home town and school.

> Political risks and opportunities

Opportunities:

• this policy would be immensely popular with a ‘middle England’ increasingly frustrated at ‘young’uns today’ and their lack of social skills
• this policy actually recognises the need to support all post-16 people whereas there has been an obsession with young people meaning just criminals or university students – only around 4 in 10 young people are either of these!
• providing 16-year-olds with basic social skills will be a genuine move towards tackling ‘the causes of crime’ as everyone is made to work with others, even if they don’t know them
• it will give people the practical experience of supporting a voluntary organisation, thereby increasing the likelihood that more people will be active in voluntary work in the future
• it will fill a void for basic self-management teaching which may discourage debt
• it will make the workforce considerably more attractive for business
• it will encourage mobility

Risks:

• the accusation that this is a ‘nanny state’ approach, doing the job of parents for them
• objections from the teaching profession as they lose holiday in the summer
• objections from the metropolitan elite who believe that all children are destined to be litigation solicitors and civil servants
• the policy could be branded as elitism, particularly in terms of the etiquette part of the course
• the policy could be branded as old fashioned and dictatorial if we allow it to be labelled ‘boot camp’ or ‘national service’
• objections from parents of troublesome kids who think ‘they know best’ despite little Jonny being a convict-in-waiting – anyone who is a school governor will recognise this group!
• sadly, one unexpected incident at the residential could lead to the whole project being labelled such things as ‘paedophile’s paradise’ and so on
• with any political or religious element there will be some criticism that we are ‘brainwashing’ people
• there will be ‘outrage’ from some who will say “this has nothing to do with GCSEs and so why should they be withheld from students if they haven’t done this course?”
• the cost (see below!)

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• If this is not the answer then what is? Please bear in mind that some parents simply will not teach their kids much of this because they weren’t taught it themselves. So please don’t say ‘it’s the parents’ responsibility, it may be, but we are where we are!
• Should there be a language element in the course?
• Should this course, or a slight variation on it, be extended to include all immigrants into the UK as part of their introduction?
• Should this course, or a slight variation on it, be extended to include undetained criminals and prisoners on their release?
• Should the course be available to all people regardless of age on a voluntary basis?
• Should the course, or a part of it, be assessed? If so, bear in mind that employers would start asking for job applicants’ scores.
• Should this be paid for through general taxation or targeted taxation (see below)?

> Costs

The cost of doing these courses would be huge, particularly the residential element. I hope the benefits would considerably outweigh the costs but I propose that this be funded by a temporary direct tax, paid by the student themselves upon starting work.

There are circa 750,000 students in each school year. The cost of extending the school term for these students would be met with an instant demand for a pay increase by teachers. A 15% increase would be the equivalent of around £125 per pupil. Extra costs associated with the scheme (school utilities, resources) would probably come to around £25 per pupil.

The residential week would be highly expensive. Each week during the period in question, 125,000 16-year-olds will be in conference hotels and venues across the country. Having briefly spoken to conference organiser friends of mine, they estimate that the costs per pupil would be between £1,000 and £1,500 depending on the venue and the details of the schemes. According to the same friends, they believe around 1,000 venues in the UK could presently cope with this kind of scheme meaning that each venue would have on average 125 students present (university campuses and large hotels would obviously be able to cope with far more students without any loss of quality). Travel from the student’s home town to the venue would be a further £50. Insurance would add on another large cost.

On these figures, the cost would range from a minimum of £1,200 to £1,700 per student, or £900m to £1.275bn in total. Let’s assume for a moment that costs spiral (as they always tend to do whenever a government is involved) and round it up to £1.5bn. Let’s also therefore round up the cost per student to £2,000. That could be paid for through taxation but I would suggest that all students would pay a special ‘Finishing School levy’ of 1p in £1 on their income until it is paid off.

If for example a student starts work at 16 on a salary of £14k, it will be paid off when they are 30 if they never get a pay rise. At that point their income tax will essentially drop 1p. If the student starts work at 21 on a salary of £22k, it will also be paid off when they are 30 if they never get a pay rise. Using this system, a half-way house between a student loan and an ear-marked tax, no current taxpayers will have to pay for the scheme but the scheme will be funded.

 

Richard Robinson: Remedial year for eleven year-old pupils who aren't ready for secondary school

Richard Robinson is Chairman of Surrey Conservatives and Deputy Chairman for the SE Region. He was a candidate in 2004 European Elections.

> Policy summary

Children who fail to reach the required standard in English and Arithmetic at Key Stage 2 (11 years old) should undertake a year’s remedial teaching before progressing to secondary education.

> Policy explanation

I would like to propose a modest change to the organisation of primary education that I believe would have a significant impact on the literacy and numeracy of our children.

We currently test our children at age 11 (SATS Stage 2). Over a fifth of students fail to achieve the expected standard (level 4) in English and Arithmetic (or both). I propose that children failing to achieve level 4 should take a remedial year (6A) in primary school before “graduating” to secondary education.

Over 20% of adults in Britain are functionally illiterate: that is they would have difficulty completing a simple form or finding, for example, a plumber in the telephone directory. This figure seems to have remained fairly constant since at least the 1950s and has effectively been institutionalised by SATS tests, for which the government’s target is that 85% should achieve the required standard in English at age 11.

SATS are used to produce league tables of schools’ performance, but appear to be insufficiently used for what should be their primary purpose, as a diagnostic of student achievement. Students who have failed to master the basics of numeracy and literacy at eleven go on at the moment to study a secondary curriculum for which they are inadequately prepared.

It is unsurprising that such teenagers become disengaged from education, truant and become involved in drugs, petty crime, and worse. The costs to the State of our failure to provide basic education to all our youngsters is difficult to quantify but undoubtedly significant. The relationship between poor basic skills and a propensity to involvement in crime is fairly well documented. 35% of prisoners in our gaols have a reading age below seven.

> Political risks and opportunities

Much has been written about the merits of phonics as opposed to whole word teaching of reading to young children and experience both in UK and US suggests that reading skills would improve if teachers concentrate on phonics. The experience of the Texas Literary Program that George Bush instigated as Governor, however, suggests that state-mandated testing and the requirement that all students pass the state reading test before admission to fourth grade were responsible for improved standards. (91% of third grade students passed the test in 2004 compared with just 76% in 1994.)

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Would a remedial year significantly change the outcomes for failing pupils?
• Are there better ways of ensuring that all children are properly equipped with the skills to study the secondary curriculum?
• Would this be an effective use of scare resources?
• Should policies like this be made by central government, local government or by individual schools?

> Costs

The costs in terms of specialist remedial teachers and relatively small class size would be significant (of the order of £300 million net), but equate to just 0.5% of the total education budget. But by providing early intervention for children who would otherwise be unable to benefit from secondary education, we will raise the quality of the labour force, engage young adults who would otherwise be socially excluded and provide them with the skills to deal with the challenges of adult life.

 

David Belchamber: A radical rethink of current vocational training

David Belchamber runs a consultancy business in partnership with his wife, Helen. They advise independent schools on management matters, both of them having had experience of working in such schools. Helen was a Finance Bursar and David, after 11 years of teaching, has been a Bursar, management consultant and sales manager of a firm offering financial services to schools.

> Policy summary

To adapt the present educational system to meet the aspirations of pupils/students and the needs of the nation in the 21st century.

> Policy explanation

The basis of this policy is to be found in “As It Seemed To Me” by John Cole, the highly respected former Political Editor of the BBC:

“…politics is only important through the effect it has on the lives of ordinary people”.

Apart from health, few things in life can be more important than education: it can be the catalyst that transforms a person’s life for the better. For this reason, nobody can argue against the extra funding that Tony Blair has put into education over the last 9 years (the budget is now something like £73bn a year). Where one can argue with him – as with most other Nulab policies – is the way that it is spent.

The Tories must apply that funding to much better effect.

Despite the ever improving exam results, too many pupils are let down by the present system, while too many students may well wonder why they find themselves unemployable after graduating with a huge student loan to repay.

Able pupils, like rich or powerful people, will prosper despite Nulab’s policies but the Tories must start from the bottom to put things right for the less academic.

In education this requires coherent policies to boost vocational training, “vocational” being defined as:

“of or related to applied educational courses concerned with skills needed for an occupation, trade or profession”.

In the real world where people’s skills, experience and ability are marketable assets, those who possess none may become a social problem, whereas a good education, whether academic or vocational, should promote well-being and foster self-confidence. We do want what John Major sought:

“a nation at ease with itself”.

Despite the recent glowing exam results, a spate of damning articles from individuals and organisations such as the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the British Chambers of Commerce indicate that, as with so many Nulab policies, there is a wide gulf between appearance and reality.

Sir Digby Jones, defending immigration, wrote:

“You cannot blame a migrant for the fact that we don’t have sufficient numbers of skilled British-born people to do the jobs. One in five of the adult population in this country cannot read and write to the standard of an 11-year old”.

A report in the TES of 25 August 2006 highlighted some complaints from employers about youngsters entering the workforce:

(i) would-be airport firefighters are being rejected for the job because they lack the writing skills to fill in logbooks,

(ii) one in three companies had to introduce remedial training in literacy and/or numeracy and

(iii) one food retailer said that his young staff were totally thrown if offered £10.17 for an item costing £5.17.

Richard Lambert, the current Director of the CBI, set out what is required:

“The reforms will have to start from the bottom up. Our society cannot afford to let so many young people slip through the educational net: there are 220,000 between the ages of 16 and 18 who are not in education, employment or training. The education system must focus on giving them the skills they will need – practical as well as intellectual – to find work at a time of rapid economic change”.

Finally, from practical experience of working in UK companies and also from observing the workings of the great departments of state – the FCO, the Home Office, Defra, the NHS, the DfSS (or whatever its name is this week) – it is abundantly clear that incompetence is rife in British management. We no longer seem to know how to organise anything or to get anything done on time and on budget.

Clearly there are shining examples to the contrary but the nation needs an educational system that can deliver into the workforce – not graduates in Contemporary World Jazz or Watersports Studies (one C and two Es at A level required) or Football Studies or Hair Care Management (examples taken from Jeff Randall’s coruscating expose of the Mickey Mouse subjects currently on offer in our universities) – people who are fit for the purposes of employers.

What the Tories should do in my view is to take the question of vocational training very seriously and consider the following proposals:

i. ensure that all school leavers attain a competence in numeracy and literacy commensurate with their innate ability.

ii. engage with the CBI to design appropriate vocational courses for GCSE,  A levels and Vocational Colleges.

iii. also discuss with the CBI the expansion of the modern apprenticeships scheme.

iv. encourage local authorities and Chambers of Commerce to foster links between schools and businesses.

v. establish a number of Vocational Colleges that will provide a rigorous training in skilled occupations that this country needs for its continuing prosperity.

These colleges must be first-class institutions and their qualifications must be seen to be equivalent to degree standard.

vi. additionally, practically based courses in Management and Administration should be introduced into schools, while dynamic courses in Higher Management be offered in colleges.

> Political risks and opportunities

To do something that is so obviously right is seldom a political risk.

I believe that there would be enormous benefits ultimately for the nation, for any number of pupils and students and also for the Conservative party itself, if it committed itself enthusiastically to making a significant improvement in the provision of vocational education both for pupils and students.

Not to do so would in any event lead to a continuing skills shortage which would not be solved satisfactorily by the long-term use of immigrant labour.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

If they agree with the general thrust of this policy, CH readers could help greatly by fleshing out the detail and pointing out any factual errors or wrong assumptions.

> Costs

Unknown cost. Since the proposals merely suggest changes of emphasis within the existing system and also since significant cost savings should prove possible out of an annual budget of £73bn by more competent management, it is to be hoped that they could be implemented within the existing budget.

 

Alex Morton: Make headteachers and teachers free yet accountable

Alex Morton is a Research Assistant to Peter Lilley MP.  However, these thoughts are entirely his own and are not connected to the Public Services Improvement Policy Group.  His mother, aunt, uncle and grandmother are all teachers. 

> Policy summary

Teachers’ wages are to be set by the head teacher of each school from a block wage grant and should be easier to remove. Head teachers pay increase is to be subject to a vote at the end of each school year by parents or the Board of Governors (with their pay coming from the block wage grant) and they are also to become easier to remove. In return, the administrative burden on head teachers and teachers would be lessened.

> Policy Explanation

There is an increasing shortage of quality teachers in certain subjects - the sciences, economics, mathematics. In some subjects there is an increasing shortage of teachers full stop.  A degree in economics is estimated to raise the lucky recipient’s lifetime earnings by an average of 25% - unless, of course, they go into teaching.

And of course it would be simplistic to reduce any subject premium to a block mentality - the alternative earnings of a good economics teacher are much higher than a bad one, so the better the teacher, the more likely they are to leave the profession overall, and the least likely they are to be found in an inner London comprehensive. 

This is an issue of ‘social justice’ in that the shortage of decent teachers in key areas is particularly affecting inner city schools, where the non-financial stresses caused by poor discipline, family breakdown and children who don’t speak English as a first language are most acutely felt.  It is a typical example of the failure of the current state model to help those at the bottom of the pile.

The Government has responded to the problem by introducing a plethora of standards, which if the teacher is assessed as having come up to allows them to receive additional increments or separate pay allowances – the Advanced Skills Teacher standards, the Excellent Teacher Standards and the Fast Track Teacher Standards.  They have also produced various Blairite gimmicks such as the “golden hellos” now given to maths teachers (who often leave after a few years having pocketed the golden hello!) 

Yet the standards frameworks are often hidebound in regulation, and still largely require adherence to set guidelines from the DfES – freedom on a tight Whitehall leash.  More importantly, head teachers are often reluctant to use these schemes because of the dogmatic opposition of the unions, and because teachers are used to being paid the same.  Union leaders have said that such schemes divide staff – but this is because such schemes so obviously go against the grain of the way teachers’ salaries are normally awarded that they mark out those who are being paid more through them as ‘special’, implying equal average pay should be the norm.   

This unhelpful anti-meritocratic culture which pervades the teaching system needs to be removed.  The idea that a small or medium enterprise would pay its staff roughly similar wages based almost exclusively on seniority is laughable - yet this is expected in our education system.  Imagine a world where accountants received the same salary as marketing staff based on how long they had been around, and imagine what it would do to private enterprise.  Yet we put up with it in education, a critical public service.

So allow head teachers to set the wages of their staff from a block wage allowance and allow supply and demand to play their usual role - you would soon see certain subjects' wages (i.e. those with shortages) being bid up and others generally stagnating.  Allow head teachers to sack staff more easily.  You would see staff who are simply not up to scratch diminish in number, while those who are already doing well and are self motivated being rewarded for their efforts. If this system was implemented head teachers would be free to continue paying identical salaries to their staff - they wouldn't be forced to change - but I would be very surprised if, over time, they didn't move to a more variable system of wages

Head teachers must become directly accountable to parents, not the DfES.  Head teachers pay and conditions should be set by local parents, rather than a complicated system which few outside Whitehall know or understand.  They would be accountable to parents if results began to drop, year after year, and should be easier to sack.  This in turn would mean head teachers were more careful about their staffing policies, not just appointing staff on personal preference but on who gets results.

The whole idea you can have specialist schools, or even make a system of school choice work without this proposal (or something like it) I would argue is false.  Specialist schools need to pay the teachers who work in the subjects that they are specialising in substantially more than surrounding schools.

School choice, without pushing bad teachers out of the system by refusing to compensate them for their poor performance simply moves the bad teachers around (and those who live in the least well off areas who are most likely to end up with them).  Choice and accountability are empty words unless you erect a meaningful framework for them to be exercised in.  At present, we simply present people with a list of schools as ‘options’ and tell them they have choice.  But given that we know there are 100 children in area A and 100 school places in area A then can we really say we have much choice in our current school system?  When you cannot reward good teachers and head teachers nor penalise or remove bad ones can we really say you have accountability?

We reformed the ‘demand’ side of education by allowing parents to state which schools they wanted their children to go to, and by making funding follow the pupil.  But without reforming the ‘supply’ side of education we will not move forwards.  Schools cannot go ‘bust’, so we are currently faced with a system which is not responsive to parents needs.  In my view, is not desirable nor possible that schools go ‘bust’.  But given that it is bad teachers and head teachers who are often at least part of the problem of poor schools, bad teachers and bad head teachers need to be both financially penalised and face the threat of being removed if we are to drive up standards and improve the quality of education our children receive, and an individual teacher's pay needs to adequately reflect the alternate earnings that teacher could receive in the private sector.

As a positive side effect this reform will halt the spiral down in difficult yet valuable subjects by increasing the quality of teaching in them - which will have major knock on effects for university courses and our competitiveness.

In return for the two reforms above, a lot of the waffle sent from the DfES could be simply binned - parents and teachers know what is best for their children, not the man in Whitehall.  However, some examinations, (and hence the necessary minimum guidelines), for the purpose of benchmarks for parents to judge performance on, must be retained.

A final point – education debates in Tory circles often simply go round and round the issues of grammar schools and or school discipline.  I am in fact a traditionalist in both these areas, but we need to branch out in education – which is why I propose this policy.  There is much else that needs to be done in our school system to improve it, but those debates can wait...

> Political Risks and Opportunities

There are a lot of teachers who might lose from this proposal.  It is a big proposal, in the sense it would be a radical departure from what has gone before, and might scare voters.  The Guardian will be furious.  But I would question how many of these people, when push comes to shove, will actually vote for us.

It also will offend well heeled liberals who dislike the idea of paying arts teachers less than maths teachers.  Again I would question how many of these people would actually vote for us, and think this could be easily neutralised by pointing out that such liberals tend not to have to suffer the consequences of their mistakes.

Cameron has done a good job in making people listen to us with an open mind - for the first time in years. But if 'compassionate conservativism' is to mean anything we need to put some policy flesh on the words.  People will want to know how we will make public services better before they trust us on this issue.  This idea dovetails market incentives, democratic accountability and social justice.  This puts power in the hands of parents rather than strengthening local bureaucrats, as "localism" sometimes ends up doing.

It is simple, but effective.  People know that not all teachers are the same - why should they be treated as such?  It shows that we are modernising by applying traditional principles to new areas, not abandoning them.  By applying conservative values to education, an area that consistently comes in the top five issues of voter concern, we are broadening our appeal.   It is something which shows we are concerned about how all schools operate, that we are not in favour of simply providing ‘an escape route’ for a privileged few, and is something that is likely to go down well with swing medium income voters who cannot afford private schooling, as well as persuading voters that we are concerned with the less privileged. 

> Questions for ConservativeHome Readers

• How could we bring on board parts of the educational establishment?
• What should the mechanism to remove a head teacher be?
• How can we judge what is useful to retain in terms of examinations and guidelines while keeping such interference to a minimum?

> Policy Costs

There would be some minimal administrative costs in the short term to set this system up.  In the long term, none, because this is changing structures and incentives not increasing spending.  The annual ballot of parents might involve some negligible cost, but you should be able to cut back on some of the DfES bureaucracy to pay for it.

Mike Christie: All secondary schools to become directly state-funded but independent trust schools

Mike Christie lives in Lancashire and has spent the last two years working as the IT manager in a state secondary school in Greater Manchester. Prior to this he was an IT contractor working for organisations as diverse as the European Commission and Tommy Hilfiger. He was recently appointed Deputy Chairman of his local constituency association.

> Policy summary

“All Secondary schools to be made directly state-funded independent trusts able to select pupils and courses appropriate to the individual school."

> Policy Explanation

The policy involves the complete overhaul of the education system which would involve replacing LEA managed comprehensive schools with independent schools with the ability to focus on certain groups of children. Schools could choose where to strike the balance between traditional academic and more vocational studies depending on their catchment area and the needs and wishes of the community. Heads of schools would have the final say on admissions in the vast majority of cases. Parents, pupils and primary heads would all have input into the process for selecting the appropriate secondary school.

The schools would be run by independent trusts. Local community trusts, faith groups, charities and other suitable bodies would be encouraged to establish schools. With employment of staff, admissions and many other tasks handled directly by schools, LEAs would take on a much reduced role. Schools would be encouraged to form partnerships with other local schools to pool resources and provide joint services like HR/ payroll.

Schools could range from the most academic traditional Grammar schools through to technical schools where maybe the only academic subjects taught were Maths, English and Citizenship/life skills, taught by teachers who were specially trained to teach the most academically challenged pupils. The aim would be to ensure that almost all pupils leave school with worthwhile qualifications and skills, also functionally literate, and with an understanding of the country's history and traditions coupled with the skills to survive in the modern world (personal financial management for example).

> Political Risks and Opportunities

“Same old Tories, banging on about Grammar schools” – This is NOT a return to the do-or-die of the 11-plus and the two-tier Grammar school system. Children who do not meet the criteria of the most academic schools will not be doomed to a second-class education in neglected institutions. Many schools would remain much as they are in terms of the courses delivered, offering a range of qualifications suitable for the majority of children. The selection process for a school would be one of discussion and choice involving parents and teachers. Rather than having Grammar school 'successes' and Technical school 'failures', the attitude would be fostered that every child was being given an education most appropriate to their abilities and ambitions.

“The unions” – The teaching unions would likely oppose this all the way. In making schools independent and able to negotiate salaries locally, the power base of the teaching unions would be massively undermined. Despite the fact that the overall effect would be to improve pay and conditions for good teachers, I would expect strong union opposition.

“The relationship with private education” – There is a thorny issue regarding how the funds ‘given’ to parents to spend on schooling would tally with private education. In a truly fair system, parents would be able to use the standard ‘allowance’ to pay a portion of the fees of a private education. However, this will be portrayed by our opponents as ordinary tax-payers subsidising places at Eton for the rich. A mechanism whereby all schools that wanted to accept the state allowance as part-payment for places had to accept a certain proportion of pupils at the allowance amount might mitigate this issue somewhat. This mechanism would also be needed to ensure that there were places available for the standard allowance in all types of school in wealthier parts of the country. This latter issue could also be addressed via terms set down in the constitution of each school’s trust.

“Fair and equal funding” – Whilst the “allowance” or voucher given to fund each child’s education would have a set nominal value there would have to be unequal levels of funding given to different types of school and schools in different locations. A technical and vocational school in the middle of London offering a range of practical courses might have much higher running costs than an academic school in the North of England.

> Questions for ConservativeHome Readers

• What risks have been missed?
• How might the issue of balanced appropriate funding be addressed?
• Are there any further thoughts on how to manage the relationship between state-funded and private-funded education in a system like this?
• Would the de-regulation and de-centralisation of teachers’ pay cause a ‘brain-drain’ of good teachers from one part of the country to another, and if so, how would this be addressed?

> Policy Costs

Unknown. It would depend on the amount of funding provided to schools, the administrative costs of setting everything up would be offset to a degree by the reduced costs of much-smaller LEAs.

However, the many benefits to the economy of having a robust education system catering to the needs of the vast majority of children include : producing young adults with worthwhile skills, reducing truancy through providing meaningful and interesting education to a wider-range of children, the probability that crime and benefit dependency in young people would also be decreased.

 

Tony Emmerson: Biology, physics and chemistry - not single science

Tony Emmerson is a freelance writer, Conservative activist, and currently teaches Chemistry at Notting Hill & Ealing High School (GDST) where he is also the representative of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers.

> Policy Summary

Science education must be strengthened by focusing on the academic content of all three scientific disciplines, actively recruiting Chemists and Physicists, and abandoning any suggestion of the "Single Science" option in secondary schools.

> Policy Explanation

Science education is a mess at the moment and needs fixing. The sciences are the home of logic, reason, rational debate and intellectual meritocracy. As Conservatives we should like these things, for these are what separate us from the animals and socialists.

Currently most state secondary schools teach "Dual Award", where all three disciplines (Chemistry, Physics and Biology) are examined, in either separate or joint papers. The result is two joint GCSE grades. David Willetts currently wants pupils to be able to choose any combination of the three subjects - an intellectual pick and mix. He is right when he says "There are very distinctive scientific disciplines here and part of the excitement of studying science at school is that you shouldn’t just have a general introduction." He is so right that I want to hug him tight and polish his dome until my smile reflects off it into the stars. But Single Science is not the answer.

The question the Conservative Party must ask about education is this: Do we lower our aspirations to meet the needs of the nation's whims, or do we tell the nation to quit 'whimming' and learn stuff?

Going down the Single Science route, allowing pupils to study "any combination" of the sciences, will wipe poor grades from the books by abandoning important and demanding subjects. However this will not improve the dismal number of pupils who take Physics at A Level, or the sciences at university. For a start every schoolkid knows biology is the easiest science. If we go down this route Britain will become the nation of unemployed biologists.

To be a well balanced adult you need at least an understanding of how complex the world around you is, and this is what the three sciences bring when combined. You may not know how to build a nuclear reactor but you know you'd better not fool around with one. You show me someone who forks out a wad of cash for a homeopathic remedy and I'll show you someone who snoozed too much in their chemistry lessons. A little knowledge may be a dangerous thing but zero knowledge is lethal.

Is this the society that we are Building to Last? A world of lost opportunity and intellectual submission. So teach all three sciences. It isn't the Dual Award that makes science education "general", it’s the lack of specialist chemists and physicists. Many good schools teach a Dual Award course but teach the disciplines separately.

Offer the specialists a decent wedge of cash in recognition of their skills. We're a rare breed and we like to be appreciated, and nothing says "I love you" like a pile of booze vouchers with the Queen's head on them.

Move to enforce discipline in schools so us beardy test-tube jockeys want to work there. We love teaching our subject, but it's hard to talk when you're cowering behind your desk having firecrackers thrown at you.

Right now every decent independent school is defecting to the IGCSE because of its more rigorous academic content. So restore the domestic qualification to 'O Level' standard and make it something to be proud of.

But, for the sake of education, abandon Single Science. If this genie gets out of the bottle no amount of belting over the head will get the little sod back in again.

> Political Risks and Opportunities

By strengthening the academic content of GCSE courses there will be a drop in examination grades. Nobody is allowed to fail these days, and the result is similar to an election where everybody kind of gets in no matter how few votes they got. However after the extensive Days of Blair, we will have a mandate to make sweeping change and restore the credibility of our qualifications. This will win the support of many in academia and industry who are currently in public despair over the ineptitude of "well qualified" school leavers.

Restoring a more "traditional" approach to education will also appeal to a great percentage of voters, who really are starting to wonder what is going on in the classroom. It will also mean that they will no longer have to fork out huge fees just to give their child the opportunity of an academic education.

Teachers get irritated by change, but the recent domestic GCSE science syllabus was so badly received that many would support an overhaul, restoring rigour to their subject, providing that the change was decisive, well thought out, utilised the input of teaching staff, and wasn't too half-witted and silly.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• What would be the best way to cap "grade inflation"?
• While we work to make education fit for society, shouldn't we also focus on making society fit for education?
• Are "academic" and "rigour" dirty words in education?

> Costs

How would I know? We have mathematicians to deal with this sort of stuff. But consider this. Giving every properly qualified Chemistry and Physics teacher an extra couple of grand a year could be recouped from dropping nitwit schemes in PHSE and Citizenship. Increasing retention would also lower the extensive bills for supply teachers who have to be drafted in when the real ones run off with nervous breakdowns. Get some sponsorship from grateful industries. Auction David Willetts on ebay. In short, do what we have to in order to do what we must.

David Walsh: Compulsory British History at GCSE

David Walsh is a postgraduate law student soon to commence his vocational training to become a barrister.

> Policy summary

The introduction of a compulsory ‘British History’ GCSE.

> Policy explanation

The present system means that it is possible for a child to finish their history education aged 13 or 14. Of course, not all of their studies to this point will have been exclusively on British history and so their knowledge of the subject is likely to be scant. Moreover, those who do take history to GCSE level will find that a large proportion of the course is focused on the history of nations other than our own.

A compulsory GCSE focused solely on British history would provide all children with a basic understanding of our past. It is critical for young people to be able to make sense of the country around them and see where they fit into the story of our nation.

With unprecedented levels of migration and a constant search for things that bind together our diverse population, the need for knowledge of our heritage and history has never been greater or more important. It is our common inheritance.

The subject ought to be rigorous and assessment should include the critical analysis of source material rather than simply the rote learning of dates.

The periods of history that ought to be included should be a matter of debate and suggestions from ConservativeHome readers in the comments section are welcome.

The GCSE course spans two years and my suggestion would be that breadth of study should be the priority. Social, economic, political and military history should all be included. A starting-point for discussion might be the following themes / periods: (i) Monarchs from 1066; (ii) Civil War and Restoration; (iii) Empire and Industrialisation; (iv) 1914-1945; (v) Post-war Britain to 1990. However, the policy should not stand or fall on these suggestions!

> Political risks and opportunities

Opportunities:

• This would be a positive contribution to the debate on tackling the lack of social cohesion.
• It provides a serious policy on our national identity to counter Gordon Brown’s idea of flagpoles in our front gardens. 
• By compelling candidates to take another serious and rigorous GCSE, the scope for choosing ‘Mickey Mouse’ subjects diminishes.
• The pursuit of a similar policy by John Howard in Australia appears to have put the Left squarely on the back-foot.

Risks:

• The content of the syllabus might be hi-jacked by those with a leftist agenda. Obviously the good and the bad points of our past need to be examined but the worst result would be for children to be indoctrinated that this country is responsible for all the ills of the world for two years.
• The focus exclusively on British history is portrayed as failing to recognise the ‘diversity’ of the nation. In the current political climate though, one would hope that this risk is minimal.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

1. Which periods of British history ought to be covered or specifically emphasised?
2. Ought there to be an element of local history within the course to reflect the importance of local and regional history?
3. Should ancient British history to be included?
4. Ought the policy to be driven centrally so as to ensure control over the content of each course or should a large discretion be given to teachers?

> Costs

Start-up costs: There will be some initial cost in terms of devising a curriculum and providing extra teaching resources for schools. 

Running costs: It is unlikely that children will want to take this subject on as an extra subject and so it will probably be at the expense of one of their other ‘options’. Thus, the overall number of subjects being taught to each pupil is not likely to increase, rather resources will need to be reallocated. 

Julia Manning: More teaching and less testing in schools

Julia Manning is a healthcare professional and a first wave member of the Priority List.  Julia was PPC for Bristol East at the last General Election.

> Policy Summary

To change the primary school SATs [Standard Assessment Tasks] tests:

• Removing the Key Stage 1 test in year 2 [at age 7]
• Moving the Key Stage 2 test to year 5 [at age 9-10]
• Introducing a 4th, randomly selected subject into the Key Stage 2 test.

Primary Schools will be freed up to focus on more teaching and less testing, and encouraged to teach a broad range of subjects in addition to English, Maths and Science. This is to enable a broader and better educational start for children and a much fairer reflection of the standard of education offered by the primary school.

> Policy Explanation

School league tables, introduced by a Conservative Government, were initially introduced to help teachers establish the effectiveness of their teaching. It didn’t take long for them to become pressurised exams, undertaken three times formally during a child’s education, before they reach their GCSE year.

Many schools use the same criteria to assess their pupils on a yearly basis. End of year exams are helpful to both pupil and teacher in establishing what has been learned and understood. But because a primary school's position in a league table is based on the results of Key Stage 2 SATS, taken at the start of the summer term in year 6, it has become a real temptation for schools to only teach Maths, English and Science up to year 6. This has many deleterious effects. Children get bored with the monotony and misbehave. They miss out on years of a broad education, comprising geography, history, art, music, foreign language, IT, drama and DT. They arrive at secondary school with little sense of culture, identity and heritage. They also lack the social and reasoning skills that have been squeezed out of the curriculum by the culture of testing and ticking boxes.

In fact, some primary schools, by introducing more subjects after the SATs, can still look good to Ofsted, even though the broader range of subjects is only available in the last few weeks of term. Believe me, the timetable the school produces can bear no relevance to what happens during the week.

The reasoning behind the policy therefore is that:

• Children do not need to be tested at age 7.
• Moving the SATs to year 5 means that the curriculum in year 6 can be one that properly prepares pupils for secondary school.
• Extending the range of examined subjects to include a random 4th subject such as geography or a language, not notified to the school ahead of time, would mean that schools would be encouraged to provide a broader and better curriculum.
• The league tables would therefore reflect more accurately the education that a school provides.

> Political Risks and Opportunities

It would not be surprising for some schools to object to this policy. They’ve got their league table ranking through a solid, boring 'three-subjects-approach' and they don’t want that jeopardised.

However, the opportunities for children – less pressure at an early age, engaging their interest, a more stimulating environment, more variety, a broader education and time to prepare for secondary school - would be significant. It says that the Conservative Party cares about the majority of British children who attend state primary schools having a rounded primary education. What parent would object to that?

The risks are in schools demanding more money to be able to offer a broader curriculum. The issue of money is more crucial when it comes to having to deal with a class that is so diverse [in language, background, disability and culture] that just keeping it together is a huge challenge. This needs another policy altogether, along with a wholesale review of the content of the national curriculum.

However, a good teacher would appreciate that getting together new schemes of work would be interesting for both them and their pupils; children with a flair for a particular subject would be encouraged who otherwise could have gone unnoticed – or worse, given detention for poor behaviour as a response to monotony.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Should we only be concerned with English, Maths and Science for the 11’s and under, or should we ensure that they are offered a broader early education?
• If a random fourth subject is to be tested, what subjects should be included?
• How would we reassure teachers that this is for the benefit of all? What else do they need to be in place to help them to teach?

> Costs

• Schools: None. A teacher would take a year to put together schemes of work as they do for the standard three subjects, that they could perform with their classes. After this the plans would be in place for subsequent years.
• Examining Authorities: Overall reduction.  Another SAT test would have to be devised for each subject agreed. However, if we are abolishing testing at 7, the overall cost of administering SATs would reduce significantly.

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.