Do not give in to evil,
but proceed ever more boldly against it.

N.B. The author is Tim Hewish – my Parliamentary Researcher — Steve

Building on our visit to Durand Academy, I listened to Monday’s Today programme on Free Schools where the question posed was: How can the Government afford to hand out extra capital to Free Schools when the Department of Education has had cut backs?

During the debate, Toby Young, founder of West London Free School, said that an average maintained school cost £36m for a four form school using the old BSF money. However, an estimate of his own four form school is projected to be a third of that.

The assertion from Francis Gilbert, from the Local Schools Network, said other maintained schools have had their capital funding reduced, while the money has been ploughed into Academies. Although, surely contained within the Government’s policy is an incentive to apply for Academy status in order to help below par schools from slipping further into educational breakdown. As opposed to the same 30 year cycle of throwing money at State institutions and doing little to correct systemic failure. Read more

N.B. The author is Tim Hewish – my Parliamentary Researcher.

We have just returned this afternoon having visited the Durand Academy in South London.

Researchers spend much of their time reading and studying policy, some policies better than others, but we often do not get to see the practical implementations.Therefore, it was a privilege to see firsthand how the Academy system is flourishing under the stewardship of Director, Greg Martin.

I was struck initially by the neighbourhood. Let’s not try to get away from the fact that the kids who attend are from deprived black communities south of the river that have previously had low educational achievement. The State has failed them in providing these children with a decent education. Therefore, it was time for someone else to attempt to help alleviate some of the plight and hardship many young people face today.

Regarding the school layout, call me old fashioned, but it was the discipline that was clear to see. The word utilitarian sprang to mind. The classrooms were all laid out in the same formation and the blackboard had objectives that were given a set time in which to complete and these were then graded accordingly out of 10 to how the task was performed. This policy was not deviated from one iota. Each classroom mirrored the next.

The classroom sizes were small, all under 20, with the lowest achievers in class sizes less than double figures. The fixed school uniforms, along with the basic mantra of speak only when asked, helped keep the classroom environment ordered and structured.

However, it’s not just the approach the children take, more how the Academy directs the teacher which is unique. The Director is not an advocate of the current teacher training system; instead his alternative is to directly immerse the new teacher into the heart of the school. All new teachers are shadowed by more established teachers from the outset. Their lesson plans are submitted and then scrutinised the Monday before, and the children’s work is sampled to see if the teachers marking and feedback standards remain consistent.

Durand’s educational reforms aren’t just intended for pupils alone. They want to address the misconception that failure is solely the result of rebellious children. Poor teachers also fail children.

This even went as far as headteachers. Greg explained that in every other profession you wouldn’t place a weak and failing person in a position of full control. A poor pilot, for example, wouldn’t be allowed to fly on their own; a co-pilot would assist. The same goes for headship. His idea of weaker heads being paired with stronger ones isn’t an admission of failure; rather it is about raising the standards of teaching and leadership as the focal point of the school.

These ideas were very refreshing. Durand is traditional, yet at the same time radical. It taught the basics thoroughly with discipline and rigor, while also providing a framework that was liberated from national curriculum oversight and over bearing Educational Authorities, trade unions and rigid bureaucracy.
Although, despite all the resistance to change from the Left, Durand’s results have been transformative, not just in terms of examination, but in outlook and horizons.

This is due in part to the business angle provided from Durand’s other ventures. Their innovative use of playground space which is (when you think about it) under-utilised 22hrs of the day; the building of a gym, swimming pool and football pitch for local residents to use generates wealth that is ploughed back into the school. This wealth is not just financial, but social. All the pupils get to use the facilities and this helps to breed healthy competition and sporting co-operation.

This synergy between private business and schooling may ideologically ignite vitriolic consternation from the Left, but when seeing the unparalleled success it is difficult to hold onto those reactionary assumptions.
Education is all about outcomes, not in a financial sense, but a personal journey. The worn out way of teaching is dead. We now have almost three generations of deteriorating standards. The time for lasting change has come. Parents should not put up with State failure. Education shouldn’t be exempt from being reprimanded when failure occurs.

The aim isn’t to standardise like old ideology has dictated to us at present. We should seek to first instruct in the early school years, then to set free. Choices, be they the English Baccalaureate or Academy status, shouldn’t be denied just because they go up against vested educational interests.
Durand wants to naturally progress and expand so they can create a secondary school to provide a smooth continuation of their efforts and cultivate their pupils. I expect an uphill struggle against the unions et al, however I can say without hesitation that Steve will be championing the Academy’s cause.

As for my reflections on my experiences today, I am drawn to my school days, recalling this Shakespearean line:

These strong Egyptian fetters I must break,
Or lose myself in dotage

–Anthony in Anthony and Cleopatra.

Apt for the educational malaise in which this nation finds itself bound.

Reaction to the Government’s higher education reforms really got under the skin of my researcher, Tim Hewish, who launched into a passionate defence of the Government’s direction of travel. I asked him to write this post… — Steve

Much has been said about the Browne Report on Higher Education and the subsequent Government response. Most falls into the category of diatribe and the rest is often socialist, reactionary non-thinking.

The Government’s statement was sound. The reforms will actually help bright prospective students from poorer backgrounds attend university. What must be made clear is that the fee increase does not penalise any student when they first enter their undergrad degree. Sensible proposals that students do not start repaying the fees until they earn over £21k coupled with the option of an early repayment system means graduates can start to pay off their debts should be welcomed, not condemned.

Also it is, at bottom, a loan. These must always be repaid. But if one were to look at the table and chart below one can see that the grants and loans are even more favourable than my own university experience from 2005-2008.

I have read David Willetts’s statement to the House on the Government’s view of the Browne Report, where he said:

“Under our proposals a quarter of graduate – those on the lowest incomes – will pay less overall than they do at present.”

Behind the exclamations of pseudo-anger from students, they need to accept a few basic principles. Speaking as a recent graduate, a university education is not a right, but a privilege.  Under New Labour, the push to get 50% of people into university, on paper sounds laudable, but in practise has led to an imbalance in young people’s perceptions of work. Many are leaving with degrees that are not up to the academic rigor that is demanded from high end careers, while businesses have claimed that they have had to re-teach basic work skills.

What is frightening is this has led to a sense of entitlement in people of my generation. It is sadly the belief that everything should just be handed to them by the State. Watching the Sky News reaction this afternoon, the teenagers who they interviewed said that if they went to uni they ‘won’t get a job’ when they graduate.

What was striking was the view that a job would be ready and waiting for them as if their hard work was already completed. Why doesn’t someone think about creating their own job and start being entrepreneurial?  It is not the State’s role to provide Higher Education and then create a job for you. We have tried cradle to grave socialism and it is a failure. Young people do not want a planned life so why should they favour a planned economy?

Furthermore, another pupil said her friend went to university and then dropped out and was now in debt because of such action. But again, this was his decision. Why should this individual choice be another taxpayer’s concern and then in effect bail out his mistake? If anything, prospective students should be given the full details on the decision to attend university.

A final point on the student debt that hangs over my generation is that to be brutally honest many of us simply do not feel its weight on our backs. In a world where talk of billions has turned to trillions and the fact that we have our whole lives to pay off this student debt on a very low interest rate, this simply isn’t a priority.

The anger is misdirected. It should be turned towards the hectoring and micro-managing of the State.

Here is the second of my short videos promoting the Wycombe Business Expo which starts this Thursday.

N.B. The author is Tim Hewish - my Parliamentary Researcher.

David Cameron’s conference speech was statesmanlike and honest, but above all it was sophisticated. In just under an hour, he dismantled the idea that we needed the State to do everything for us.

As Michael Gove has just said while commenting on Mr. Cameron’s speech: We are not an ATM society.

Labour has for too long accused conservatives of only caring about money and self-interest, underpinned by old-Thatcherite neo-liberalism, however it is the Marxist who is obsessed with money. Labour only looks towards the State as a solution. As a result we have a failing education system and a NHS weighted down by bureaucracy. This socialist blindness always takes the form of pouring more money in regardless of outcome.

I will not go into a line by line analysis, as Mr. Cameron has already succinctly set out his vision for governance. All I have done is highlighted four areas that the BBC or the Guardian may miss.

I urge you to take the time to read them.

What Labour did:

We inherited public finances that can only be described as catastrophic. This year, we will borrow more money than we spend on the NHS. Just think about that.

Every doctor’s salary. Every operation. Every heating bill in every hospital. Every appointment. Every MRI scan. Every drug. Every new stethoscope, scalpel, hospital gown.

Everything in our hospitals and surgeries – paid for with borrowed money, much of it from abroad. And then think about the interest.

This year, we’re going to spend £43bn on debt interest payments alone. £43bn – not to pay off the debt – just to stand still.

Do you know what we could do with that sort of money? We could take 11 million people out of paying income tax. We could take every business in the country out of corporation tax.

Yes you, Labour. You want us to spend more money on ourselves, today, to keep racking up the bills, today and leave it to our children – the ones who had nothing to do with all this – to pay our debts tomorrow?

That is selfish and irresponsible.

We’ll never let them forget it.

I tell you what: these Labour politicians, who nearly bankrupted our country, who left a legacy of debts and cuts, who are still in denial about the disaster they created. They must not be allowed anywhere near our economy, ever, ever again.

A generation had been duped by the ideology of the State:

Labour centralised too much and told people they could fix every problem. But it was the rest of us who swallowed it, hoping that if the government took care of things, perhaps we wouldn’t have to.

Too many people thought: “I’ve paid my taxes, the state will look after everything.

But citizenship isn’t a transaction in which you put your taxes in and get your services out. It’s a relationship – you’re part of something bigger than you, and it matters what you think and feel and do.

A rejection of the State:

At this year’s election, the result may not have been clear-cut when it came to the political parties. But it was clear enough when it came to political ideas.

The old way of doing things: the high-spending, all-controlling, heavy-handed state, those ideas were defeated. Statism lost … society won. That’s what happened at the last election and that’s the change we’re leading.

From state power to people power. From unchecked individualism to national unity and purpose. From big government to the big society.

The big society is not about creating cover for cuts. I was going on about it years before the cuts.

It’s not government abdicating its role, it is government changing its role.

British fairness, not socialist fairness:

You can’t measure fairness just by how much money we spend on welfare, as though the poor are products with a price tag, the more we spend on them the more we value them.

Fairness means supporting people out of poverty, not trapping them in dependency. So we will make a bold choice.

For too long, we have measured success in tackling poverty by the size of the cheque we give people. We say: let’s measure our success by the chance we give. Let’s support real routes out of poverty – a strong family, a good education, a job

We are the radicals now, breaking apart the old system with a massive transfer for power, from the state to citizens, politicians to people, government to society. That is the power shift this country needs today.

And let me tell you why we desperately need this change. It’s because the old way, of just pouring money into public services from on high, didn’t make the difference it promised to.