A few years ago, I had a conversation with a former Secretary of State for Education  who commented that it was remarkable how much agreement there was amongst the major political parties regarding what the education policy priority should be. It has to be equity, the politician argued, variously referred to by policy makers as ‘closing the gap’, ‘narrowing the gap’ or, more recently, ‘levelling up’.

The last twenty years have seen efforts to address this issue in England, Scotland and Wales through a series of improvement initiatives, in some of which I have been involved. What have I learned from these experiences? In particular, what are the barriers and how might they be addressed?

Competition and choice

The first thing to note in relation to these questions is the importance of context. That is to say, attempts to promote equity have to take account of specific factors that shape thinking and practices in particular places.

Starting with England, recent policies that have increasingly emphasised school autonomy, competition and choice are limiting the forms of collaboration that research suggests are essential to the development of more inclusive schools. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that these changes have had perverse effects for the most economically disadvantaged children and the schools they attend.

For example, attainment gaps between the most and least advantaged have begun to grow noticeably, despite having previously been relatively stable. There is evidence, too, that some school leaders have responded to growing challenges by becoming expert at ‘protecting’ their own schools. Often this has been by intentionally recruiting more advantaged student cohorts.

Another concern is the emergence of ‘off-rolling’, defined as when a pupil is removed from a school roll for the school’s benefit, rather than in the child’s best interests.

Solidarity

The situation regarding education policy in Wales could not be more different. There, almost all schools are part of a local authority and most children attend a school near to their home.

In these senses the Welsh context seems to offer promising opportunities for the sorts of collaboration that seems so important for promoting educational equity. However, this is more complicated than it might seem.

I was told a story by a Government Minister about a tourist looking at a newly landed bucket of lobsters on the quayside. As the lobsters writhed around, she asked a fisherman: “Don’t you need to put a lid on the bucket? One of them could easily climb out.” “Don’t you worry about that,” came the reply. “These are Welsh lobsters, the others will pull it back down.”

The Minister used this story to explain how the country’s tightly knit educational community is both supportive and, at the same time, restrictive. It is restrictive in the sense that there is a reluctance amongst practitioners to put themselves or their innovatory practices forward for fear that they will be seen as ‘getting above themselves’.

The solidarity of this tightly knit community can make it difficult for those within it to break with traditions without their actions being seen as a criticism or rejection of that community. This may explain, in part at least, why recent efforts to change Welsh education have had such limited impact.

Centralisation

The situation in Scotland indicates positive features in regard to equity that are somewhat similar to Wales. Here again, most pupils attend local schools that are part of a local authority. However, policies are relatively centralised, with local authorities acting as the delivery arms of nationally determined policies.

This means that those in schools have limited space to make strategic decisions regarding actions that are needed to address local factors that are limiting the progress of some of their learners.

This tradition of local authority ‘line management’ constrains decision-making amongst school leaders, particularly those who feel under pressure to adhere to local policy. This means that, in some instances, ‘guidance’ is interpreted by practitioners as ‘prescription’.

As a result, despite the undoubted commitment of the Scottish government to foster equity, local administrative structures can limit the freedom of practitioners to innovate.

Some implications

Looking to the future, then, this analysis has implications for the various key stakeholders within the three national education systems, despite their striking  differences. In particular, my arguments require teachers, especially those in senior positions, to see themselves as having a wider responsibility for all children and young people, not just those that attend their own schools.

For schools, this means aligning what they do with the efforts of other local players – employers, community groups, universities, public services and so on – so that there is a coherent area strategy focused on improving the lives of young people.

And for those who administer local school systems, it means adjusting their priorities and ways of working in response to improvement efforts that are led from within schools. In so doing, local authorities can act as the conscience of the system, ensuring that all children get a fair deal.

Finally, all of this has significant implications for national policy makers. In order to create the conditions within which this form of collaborative change can occur, they need to foster greater flexibility at the local level so that practitioners and community partners have the space to work together in addressing the barriers faced by some children and young people.

 

Mel Ainscow CBE is Emeritus Professor, University of Manchester, Professor of Education, University of Glasgow, and Adjunct Professor at Queensland University of Technology.

Mel_Ainscow@yahoo.co.uk

 

Note: a longer version of this article will appear in the Spring 2023 edition of the journal Forum: for promoting 3 to 19 comprehensive education