Preamble

In 1997 the Stevenson Report was a key policy blueprint for an incoming Blair government. It comprised a detail set of policies which were, largely, immediately acted on by the new government. Education, education, education needed substance and our report delivered that.

This brief note explores the potential for an incoming Labour administration to once again hit the ground running, carrying broad support for the changes outlined, through the first 100 days.

What did we do?, how did we do it?, what didn’t we do?, what would be different this time around?

Prof Stephen Heppell. January 2023

 

 What did we do?

• The report was independently produced although we were all sympathetic to the incoming government. We were a small team but representative of the sector (local authority, headteacher, industry, ex civil 3 from private sector, 4 from public service. Very senior, highly respected folk.)
• It took around a year to complete from first steps to publication
• In parallel we had a team from McKinsey for 6 months gathering detailed data in constant consultation with, and direction from, us. Having helped President Clinton’s NII Commission they had an appetite for the insights gained and did their work pro bono. They didn’t hold back: “the state of ICT in our schools is primitive and not improving. Much of the hardware in schools is technologically behind the times”
• We didn’t produce a detailed menu of actions, rather:

“Making it plain to the main national agencies and organisations in the education service (including the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority [SCAA], the Teacher Training Agency [TTA], the Office for Standards in Education [OFSTED], examination bodies, the National Council for Educational Technology [NCET], the Scottish Council for Educational Technology [SCET], etc and also the teacher associations, governors’ organisations and the local authorities) that they need to co-operate in realising a strategy…” which we spelt out to all parties in a coherent way. We effectively asked “this is where we are going; how can you play your part and help” so that everyone had some agency in the changes. But their leadership and indeed future existence would depend on them playing their part. Many felt that a post ’97 mistake was not to close OFSTED when they failed to join in and “play their part”.

• We invoked some new vocabulary. For example we introduced ICT, talking of Information and Communication.  New and precisely used vocabulary mattered in signalling a fresh approach, but a coherent one.
• We emphasised that this was less about fresh money and more about fresh approaches. A  phrase we used often was that “central government cannot afford not to do it” (forgive the double negative).
• We were very clear that this was a ten year plan; we would begin immediately, but the ripples of change would roll into the distance with profound and enduring change resulting. An aggregation of marginal gains, as we would say today. The point was to keep everyone on track with doing their bit to move forwards.
• We produced a pdf document, much downloaded, a properly printed booklet, an interactive website, a website attracting “post it note” style annotations and other online versions (bear in mind this was 1997, these were very, very cutting edge); it gave a powerful lift to the document. Demonstrably, we walked the talk.

How did we do it?

• We met often. Probably only two or three of us were the principal architects of various sections of the document, but each step needed initial group discussion and then validation of the final draft.
• After each event a black cab took us directly home to our front doors (100+ miles in my case), meter paid, and we felt valued.
• The document took each insight that we had commissioned from McKinseys and suggested an action or portfolio of actions. Reading the document, each policy area was highlighted but each one was preceded with the facts of the current situation. To paraphrase: “This is what we are intending, but first, this is why it is imperative”
• We maintained a high level of secrecy. The total document was only revealed when it was finished and although there were many voices guiding it, very little “leaked” – because of the “agency” involved and the ownership that that evoked.
• The finished document had various levels of summary for the hurried reader, and detail for the scholarly ones.

 

What didn’t we do?

We did well. The report gave education a real global lead, it garnered widespread support, it redirected much of the effort of commercial players which had a multiplier effect, and within the civil service much new activity resulted – not just in education but initiatives like the museum-wide Culture onLine. And we did all that very affordably.

 

However, one or two of the biggest ideas didn’t get followed through fully. In particular the proposal that every child would be issued with their own email identity (and think of the 2023 problems which that would have eliminated!) was not implemented although we did a huge amount of work actually specifying and building the “millennium mail” identity (MillieMail) with Oracle’s support. As I recall, Microsoft lobbied to say that kind of thing was their role and Tony capitulated. Then, it didn’t happen at all. We should have been more brutal on insisting. I think that one or two of these “big item” changes are absolutely needed to carry momentum through into second and third Labour terms. An aggregation of marginal gains but with one or two headline items.

 

Also, where organisations were reluctant to respond to our challenge we should have shut or reconfigured them rapidly. For example, OFSTED was led aggressively by Chris Woodhead and arguably his approach was less than helpful. His model seemed to be one of “a right way to do things” rather than “an agreed vision but with multiple pathways to achieve it”. In retrospect, we should have shut them down and reconfigured inspection in line with the vision (probably back to the model of Her Majesty’s Inspectors pollinating effective and varied ideas throughout the system) very quickly.

 

What would be different this time around?

The primary focus back then was to move technology forwards in education – not quite Wilson’s “White Heat of Technology” speech, but a clear view of a new and changing world that education had fallen out of step with.

 

Personally, I think today that the focus needs to be Lifelong Learning – giving absolutely everyone the opportunity to be their very best selves. Regardless of age, at the point of need, free. That would require some “joining up” of delivery sectors; acknowledging once again a changing world, but this time the portfolio careers, practice based qualifications, WFH, the widening attainment gap, supporting emerging new skills, rescuing lost old capabilities, the number of people that education has failed, the need for “all hands on deck” as we battle our way back from BREXIT, and more. Just looking at the huge gap in nurse training vs vacancies for example – it is a Learning problem not a Health problem.

Lifelong learning for all tackles this.

 

Given that subtle change in focus it would be easy to do it all over again (count me in!) but it will take a full year. So, to be ready and fully embraced ahead of the next election… it all needs to start very soon!

 

Professor Stephen Heppell

 

Felipe Segovia Chair in Learning Innovation at Universidad Camilo José Cela, Madrid.

Chair in New Media Environments, Bournemouth University. Emeritus Chair in New Learning Environments, Anglia Ruskin University. Non exec director Essex Partnership University NHS Trust

 

January 2023