You are here:   Charlie Caroll On The Edge > The Great Reformer
The Great Reformer
Monday 21st July 2014

Three months after Michael Gove became Secretary of State for Education I applied to become a teacher. Four years later, England's education landscape has been transformed, unreservedly for the better.
There was a sense of hopelessness in the schools I visited during my training. So many people I encountered seemed resigned to the idea that in England rubbish schools, like rubbish weather, were a depressing but inevitable feature of national life. This resignation had only been strengthened by the failure of New Labour's programme of reform.
To appreciate the reforms enacted by Michael Gove (who sits on Standpoint's advisory board), one must look back to the state of English schools before 2010. New Labour's failure was not through want of trying. Total public expenditure on education rose from £39 billion in 1998 to £89 billion in 2010. The money was spent on a bewildering array of initiatives and strategies, whose Panglossian slogans now mock their total lack of impact: "excellence in cities", "fresh start", "building brighter futures", "every child a reader", "excellence and enjoyment", "achievement for all" and so on. 
As Schools Minister, David Miliband promised that children of the Blair years would be "the best educated generation in our nation's history". Nine years later, an OECD survey found that England was the only country in the developed world where literacy and numeracy levels among 16-24 year-olds were no better than among 55-65 year-olds.
If you want a picture of English schools after thirteen years of Labour reforms, read Katharine Birbalsingh's To Miss with Love (2011), or Charlie Caroll's On The Edge (2010). In the latter account, Carroll travelled England for a year as a supply teacher in inner city schools. He witnessed school arsonists in Birmingham, a playground drug dealer in the Peak District, IT lessons used to browse pornography in Sheffield, and a 13 year old boy in rural Yorkshire who, with indemnity from the senior staff, bullied Carroll so badly that he dared not return to the school. 
At the end of his account, Carroll wrote: "The year I travelled England and its toughest schools, the year of this book, came at the tail-end of Labour's time in power. What I saw, and what you have read, is the consequence of Blair's drive for education, education, education."
In essence, New Labour's education reforms did not succeed because they were directed through the existing education establishment. No Labour minister was willing confront the possibility that it was the education establishment itself which was holding back England's schools. In addition, no Labour Education Secretary after David Blunkett had the time to become sufficiently knowledgeable or resilient to take such a stance. From 2001, there was a revolving door to the Department for Education, with five Labour Secretaries coming and going, averaging less than two years in the post.
View Full Article
Malcolm McLean
August 16th, 2014
4:08 AM
The mistake was not to go for the nuclear option on free schools. All schools should be free schools, that is, independent schools where parents choose the school they feel is best for their child, and do everything rich parents do except actually pay the fees, which are funded by the State. It's not acceptable to assign a pupil to a school based on where he lives, or even give a parent a limited list of choices. Free schools actually liberate teachers. Teachers are constantly complaining about SMT. In a free system, any group of teachers can set up on their own, making the decisions about pay, pupil discipline, management style, curriculum, and so on themselves. That message never got through to the average teacher. In free markets there are usually far more providers chasing customers than customers chasing providers, so plenty of choice. Where a school is over-subscribed, or fussy about whom it will accept, some difficult decisions have to be taken. Saying "the school decides" would quickly create a selective system, though a university-style one, with an informal pecking order, rather than a binary grammar/secondary modern system. The binary system was uniquely awful, because no-one likes to be told there are two groups, and he's in the lower one. Allocating places by lot would totally prevent the emergence of high status, middle class schools, but it would act as a disincentive to improve the school - as soon as you show the first signs of success, you get swamped by parents who don't buy into your philosophy, but just want the benefits of what you've achieved. In reality there would probably have to be complicated rules, as at present.

July 26th, 2014
7:07 AM
Silly comments above. This is a piece of journalism, not a scientific study. Anecdotal evidence and a restricted number of examples are entirely appropriate to the form - as either of the commenters would know if they were English teachers. They also confuse admiration and agreement with sycophancy - a weird redefinition of that word - while failing to acknowledge the broad political consensus in favour of the Gove reforms which Peal describes. And if naming the three most important living writers on education is lazy, then so is naming Paris as the capital of France - if something is so overwhelmingly right as the work of Hattie, Willingham and Hirsch, then it stays right, no matter how often it is named or how often its (much lazier) opponents try desperately to discredit it.

July 24th, 2014
9:07 PM
An excellent summary by Tait Coles. On his blog I think Tait makes a most incisive observation when he refers to "sycophantic blathering". This comical mutual admiration network really do need to get a grip on reality, as Mr Gove has himself recently.

Will Jackson
July 24th, 2014
7:07 AM
This article is sycophantic "twaddle"! Mr Gove is from the same mould as that man of intellectual integrity and moral probity, Mr Woodhead, and is as popular, which is why both were sacked. Piratization of everything, including education, is the goal of both Labour and Tory politicians, and it has been that way for decades. Pass the sickbag.

Tait Coles
July 23rd, 2014
2:07 PM
Looking past the grammatical errors (and there was I, believing the hype, that Teach First Ambassadors had advanced literacy levels compared to their inferior teaching colleagues!) I found this article almost comical in its own assertion that this was a valid critique of Gove’s tenure. “If you want a picture of English schools after thirteen years of Labour reforms…” apparently you should read just two books! Katharine Birbalsingh, Headmistress Designate at Michaela Community School, who has filled her ranks with Teach First Ambassadors, is the author of one. While the second book is written by a supply teacher called Charlie Carroll, who penned his opinions and experiences of inner city schools up and down the country during a year's supply work. Is Robert Peal (‘education research fellow’ at the right wing think-tank Civitas) really suggesting that we should evaluate “New Labour’s failure” based on the personal inadequacies of one supply teacher? This seems to be a recurring theme in Peal’s one-dimensional arsenal as he asked another to forward his book Progressively Worse (published by Civitas). As one reviewer on Amazon wrote: “The most impressive accomplishment of Robert Peal's book is its scope and how it enables the reader to interpret so much of what has happened in education, and what is still happening”, not bad for someone that has only taught for two years. The article, which the further you read sounds more like an obituary, suggests that Michael Gove’s: “speeches were informed by research at the forefront of the education debate”. It is not clear whose educational debate this is, or in fact, what the actual debate about education is. The lazy thinkers' go to names of Hattie, Hirsch and Willingham would indicate that this is a nod to the band of self-proclaimed educational research experts who promote teaching ‘truths’ and ‘rules’ supported by a very narrow selection of ‘evidence’. I have written about this previously here "He was a minister utterly on top of his brief” is supported by the claim that The Guardian’s Educational Editor Richard Adams once spotted the Secretary of State at 8am sitting at the back of a seminar making notes. Hardly rigorous evidence based research. Peel’s sycophantic blathering goes on to say that: “Gove's speeches showed a keen awareness of this work at the coalface” and then lists five ‘educators’; two of which, as far as I know, are not even currently teaching. All in all, a weak piece of persuasive writing filled with second hand anecdotes and riddled with nepotism. Still, it managed to be published in Standpoint, and as our popular and media hungry (he is already learning from his future boss, Toby Young) writer points out, one member of the magazine’s advisory board is a certain Mr. Michael Gove.

Post your comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.