I know instinctively that education will get worse under Cameron – simply because that’s the kind of thing that happens when the Tories are in power. But on Sunday I had my first real glimpse of why this is inevitably the case – and it’s down to a fundamental idiocy at the heart of Cameron’s beliefs about the way education works.
On The Politics Show last weekend, Cameron came up against an eminently sensible and measured teacher voicing her opinion, and promptly rubbished all her many years of experience actually doing the job. The exchange makes interesting reading:
REMNEY MANN: The current research in England corroborates experience I’ve had in this country for the last eighteen years as an educator and it is that what really drives that quality in education, what really inspires creative and innovative teaching and fosters engaging learning experiences is not competition. It’s actually collaboration. You talk about choice. Mr Cameron, isn’t that just a euphemism for competition?
CAMERON: I’m afraid we fundamentally disagree and this happens sometimes and there’s no point trying to softsoap you. I absolutely believe that competition between schools and choice for parents is a thoroughly good thing, and of course schools in a locality can collaborate and work together and do things together. That’s great, but in the end I do want schools to feel they are competing with each other, they’re trying to put on the best education possible, they’re publishing all their results and parents have greater choices.
I’m afraid – I’m not afraid – that’s what I believe, I really think that choice and competition, they work in so many other parts of life, actually choice and competition drive up standards and I think they work for education.
I completely agree with Ms Mann, as do every one of the other teachers I’ve spoken to. Collaboration drives up standards, not competition. To me this seems obvious: if I want to find a better way of teaching a certain skill, I will ask a colleague. If they have taught this area successfully before, their ideas will help inform and improve my teaching. If we have a Government saying that teachers are meant to share best practice, this scenario will translate across departments, schools and local authorities, meaning that more students get better quality teaching. The result: collaboration will drive up standards and improve outcomes for pupils.
Compare this to Cameron’s competition model: I have developed a great way of teaching a topic; and, as a result, the kids I teach do really well in their exam. When colleagues ask me if I have any tips to help them teach that topic, however, I say no: after all, competition is the name of the game – I want the students I teach to perform better than any others. As a result, the kids my colleagues teach do poorly in their exam.
So I win, yes? Well, in a way, I do – but if I see this as a win I should probably not be a teacher. Ms Mann puts it well in her response:
What we really need is education professionals working together and being able to collaborate without the fear of the competition, because choices will then be made which are business-driven and not really with the best interests of the children.
Education is not a zero-sum game: if I ‘win’ (i.e. my kids get great results) this does not mean that everyone else must ‘lose’. The education system should always strive to get the best outcomes for the greatest number of children.
My point is this: competition in education inevitably means that one set of students, one school, one borough will lose out because another needs to win. Instead, the Government should create conditions where every child will have the opportunity to do as well as they possibly can.
0 Responses to “David Cameron knows diddly about education – shock!”