I am just returned from the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham - more on that later. The thinktank Policy Exchange held a meeting on whether school autonomy would improve school performance. The single point that struck me most forcefully was made by a Swedish 'free schools' expert, Anders Hultin, who argued that although politicians needed to leave the 'how' of education to teachers, pupils and parents, there is absolutely a need for political leadership in defining what education IS - the 'what' question.
Teachers, heads, parents and children need to know what they are striving for and aiming at - what is their mission? It has been discussed elsewhere that the previous Labour government widened the purpose of schools from educating children to reducing inequalities, improving health and other social purposes. Some argue that a focused remit on excellent education for children would yield better results. This thinking goes down well with Conservatives, particularly those of a traditional bent.
So far so good. However at another meeting sponsored by the RSA and this time on the topic of the Big Society, the point was made that if the government wishes to encourage people to be active in their communities, schools are essential points of interaction. This is particularly so in very deprived communities where structured charitable and social organisations are rare.
So - in pursuing the Department for Education's core mission, the role of schools as lightning rods of the Big Society might well be undermined. Those two strands of current Conservative thinking seem to clash in a way that highlights the contradictions between the traditional wing of the party and the leadership's more 'progressive' tendencies. Political leadership will be needed to address this and make a choice if schools are to understand what their mission is. After all, that is what leadership is for.
No comments:
Post a Comment