I am genuinely at a loss over the government’s education policy. Increasingly I am of the view that Rishi Sunak, Gillian Keegan and Nick Gibb exist in an alternative universe where wishing makes it so.
Prime minister Rishi Sunak’s recently stated his ambition to have all students studying maths, in some form, up to age 18.
When first announced this policy was criticised by some commentators, and by students, who argued it was unreasonable and unfair to insist on the study of maths until 18.
I disagree. I hated maths and was a poor student in the subject. But I would have gained a great deal from following a maths course to 18 that was tailored to my future needs. Understanding compound interest would have been a great help in making important life decisions – including mortgage payments.
So, it is not the prime minister’s vaulting ambition that I dispute. England has one of the narrowest pre and post-16 curriculum offers in the OECD. Few high-performing countries allow the degree of specialisation that English students are allowed. And it is, I think, right to want all students to study core subjects until they leave school (so I would add English and digital skills to maths).
But the question, and this is where the prime minister’s grand vision crashes into hard, cold reality, is how? How are all students to study maths until 18 when there are not enough maths teachers in our schools to cover the compulsory school curriculum to age 16?
And how is his government going to reverse the impending crisis of teacher supply when it is predicted to miss its secondary recruitment targets this year by more than half?
Does Rishi Sunak know that his government has reacted to the dearth of maths graduates wishing to become maths teachers by reducing the initial teacher training (ITT) target for maths twice since 2020?
Reducing targets makes them more likely to be hit (although this has not happened for maths), but it is hardly a way to expand access to the subject. Indeed, the opposite is true.
The same pattern of ambitious aims undermined by inadequate delivery almost entirely undermines current education policy. Government ministers risk ridicule and derision when challenged in the media or indeed in Parliament.
It is now widely known that, in England, too many school buildings are unfit for purpose. It never fails to shock when we discover that the biggest risk on the Department for Education’s risk register is the loss of life and limb because of the dilapidated state of school buildings.
So, when ministers claim that schools are well funded, parents know, because they see it with their own eyes, that this is not true. If it were, their child’s classroom would have windows that opened and shut properly, roofs which did not leak, and heating that worked. These would not be luxuries – they would be necessities.
Teachers know that the quality of their working lives is deteriorating. Those who remain in schools find their workload increases as they take on the work of their colleagues who have departed to better paid jobs which give them some family time.
Leaders know that their schools are now islands in a desert of public services which have been decimated by a 40% cut to central government grant to local authorities. Left high and dry to deal with soaring rates of children’s mental ill-health, as well as child poverty and family breakdown.
Ministerial claims look plain silly when faced with these realities. Even more concerning is the absence of any action by government which will begin to put things right.
Where is the capital building programme for schools? Where is the funding to pay teachers decent salaries which, combined with better work quality, could keep them in the profession?
Words won’t do any more. Action is needed to save our schools.
- Dr Mary Bousted is the joint general secretary of the National Education Union. Read her previous articles for SecEd via http://bit.ly/seced-bousted