The changing landscape of the English education system

The 2011/12 academic year sees the first free schools opening in England. Free schools, as described by the Department for Education are ‘all-ability state-funded schools set up in response to what local people say they want and need in order to improve education for children in their community’.

Free schools, essentially academies, are funded directly by central government rather than local authorities and cannot be run for profit. Free schools also have greater autonomy than state schools and can decide on their curriculum and teachers’ pay, terms and conditions. Free schools are run as academies with communities playing a bigger role in their support and creation.

Prior to the 2010 general election, free schools were a flagship education policy for the Conservative party – clearly signalling their appetite for a diminished role of local authorities in the running of schools. Subsequently, the provision for free schools was included in the Academies Act 2010. The Act also gave existing state schools the opportunity to apply for academy status.

Prior to the Act, the coalition government invited proposals for free schools. According to the Department for Education, as of 11 February 2011 (the deadline for proposals to be received) it had received 323 proposals for the creation of free schools in England.

In principle, free schools appear to be a great idea. The number of proposals received by the Department for Education also suggests many people share that notion. In recognising the need for a school that offers the structure, teaching, values and curriculum that is right for the children of a respective community, charities, community groups, parents, teachers, faith groups and others are now empowered to seek just that. However, what impact will this have on communities and the education landscape in England?

In proposing and establishing a free school, it undoubtedly requires organisation, resources and community support – attributes typically, but by no means exclusively, found in middle class and upwardly mobile communities. Conversely, while the same desire to improve education for children undeniably exists in working class and less affluent communities, often the resources simply aren’t available to pursue such an aim with the same effectiveness as found amongst the middle classes.

Consequently, given there are communities that may find the pursuance of free schools less attainable, there is a risk that free schools will further ghettoise education in a social context. Nevertheless, this is seemingly a consequence ignored, if not realised, by the coalition government.

There’s seemingly a pattern emerging here. Upon coming to power in 2010, the coalition government invited state schools rated ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted to become academies. This was later extended to state schools deemed to be “performing well” by the Department for Education. Again, in examining the communities where such schools and their intake are likely to be derived, such policy prefigures an education system that broadly speaking is drawn on social lines even more so than the status quo.

The coalition government and supporters of free schools would seek to refute this by arguing that free schools are prohibited from maintaining an academically selective admissions policy. In middle class neighbourhoods, this arguably mitigates the risk of free schools being exclusive to children of the respective community. In theory, there is validity in this. Yet in practice, a school’s intake is typically derived from and therefore reflective of the local community. Children of backgrounds that differ from the wider community are therefore likely to be in a minority.

There is also the argument that free schools can be proposed by groups such as charities, businesses and faith groups and not simply parents and well-organised communities. These groups already have structures and expertise that can assist communities seeking to propose a free school. In communities that would otherwise find this a challenge, such groups can and should assist in achieving this where desired.

Hopefully such instances will be the success stories of free schools that truly do contribute to improving education within communities. Nonetheless, it is likely that the expansion of free schools and academies will largely reflect the social character of the communities they lie within. It is therefore questionable if such scenarios will occur to the extent that they can buck the trend.

The apparent demand for free schools and academies, and the coalition government’s fervour in promoting them, clearly leaves local authorities with a reduced remit in the provision of education. While some may argue this is simply a consequence of the desires of parents, schools and communities, there are more tangible consequences for those schools that remain within the remit of local authorities.

Academies and free schools receive their share of funding for certain services, such as special educational needs, that would otherwise be provided by the respective local authority. This is reflected in the funding directly provided to academies and free schools by central government. Consequently, in areas where state schools have become academies, it is also reflected in a reduction in grants for local authorities from central government.

In May 2011, the BBC reported that a number of local authorities have contested the government’s method of calculating the reduced grants and have sought a judicial review against ministers on this basis. There is clearly a debate to be had regarding the establishment of free schools and academies and the impact on schools that remain within local authority control.

The number of free schools and academies in England is likely to increase as parents, teachers and community groups seek further autonomy in how schools are run. In such instances, it can be argued that the government is simply responding to the wishes of local communities. Conversely, where such demand does not exist, it is likely that academy status will be foisted upon more challenging schools, particularly against a backdrop of the coalition government’s zeal in promoting its flagship education policy.

Diminishing what should be an altruistic role of the state with regard to the provision of education and replacing it with autonomy raises several concerns. It also takes the provision of education a step closer to privatisation – a move that would pit the provision of quality education against profit.

Speculation aside, the initial risk with free schools and academies is the creation and acceptance of a further ghettoised education system. If this does occur, any egalitarianism achieved in post-war education policy will slowly but surely be eroded.

The England riots - rebels without a cause?

The scenes of unrest that swept London and other English cities were met by widespread condemnation. However, in seeking the cause of the riots, opinion was certainly polarised. Politicians, the public, communities and commentators all offered views on what had led to the destruction and violence that occurred yet none could agree on a single cause of the riots.

The events that preceded the initial riots in Tottenham were the death of Mark Duggan and a subsequent peaceful protest on the Saturday afternoon before the rioting commenced. Several commentators attempted to make hurried and tenuous links between the peaceful protest and the rioting. However, there was no correlation between the aims of the initial protesters who sought answers over the death of Mark Duggan and the rioters who sought opportunistic destruction.

The media and other commentators also attempted to draw parallels with the Broadwater Farm riots that occurred in Tottenham in 1985. Again, this was a flawed and uninformed conclusion.

Akin to other race riots of the era, the Broadwater Farm riots were against a backdrop of great tensions between the police and the black community. Such tensions were fuelled by institutionalised racism within the police, well-documented brutality and deaths of black people held in custody and an apathetic approach of British governments towards non-white Britons, many of whom were born in the UK following post-war emigration of their parents.

The Broadwater Farm riots were sparked by the death of Cynthia Jarrett, a black woman who died having collapsed and experienced a stroke during a police search of her home. However, the indignation of the black community had been burgeoning long before this. While many condemned the rioting, most notably the death of PC Keith Blakelock who was killed during the riots, there were genuine frustrations that led to the unrest.

In contrast, any indignation of the rioters in Tottenham, and the locations of subsequent rioting, was not apparent. Nonetheless, a number of rioters and commentators claimed the death of Mark Duggan served as a tipping point for frustrations of disaffected youth, particularly within the black community, and anger over racial profiling.

Given the history of tension between the black community and the police, many may have considered this to underpin the cause of events that lead to Mark Duggan’s death and indeed the subsequent riots. Furthermore, the statistics of black people being 26 more times likely than white people to be stopped and searched by police in England and Wales, certainly gives credence to any accusations of racial profiling by the police. However, albeit far from perfect, the relationship between the black community and the police has undoubtedly improved from that of yesteryear.

As the unrest spread beyond Tottenham to other areas of London and a number of English cities, the link between Mark Duggan’s death and the riots became increasingly tenuous. Indeed, it’s doubtful Mark Duggan’s death was even remotely in the consciousness of very few, if any, of the rioters.

In the aftermath of the unrest, socio-economic, racial and generational tensions have all been opined as the cause of the riots along with wider community tensions with the police. Finding a neat social group by which the rioters can be identified appears to be much desired.

Many politicians, acutely aware that making the respective group into a pariah will appeal to a public angered by the scenes of rioting, have bandied about tough-talking rhetoric of firm justice for the perpetrators. Conversely, a number of politicians from the opposition have used the unrest to argue that the coalition government’s austerity measures have caused cuts so deep in public spending, that they have exacerbated an already disaffected youth.

I beg to differ that the loss of EMA and closure of youth services would prompt otherwise law-abiding citizens to adopt such lawlessness and opportunistic violence as was witnessed during the unrest. Similarly, while a tough stance on the perpetrators is undoubtedly required, a short-sighted approach will merely lead to the cause of these events being suppressed rather than addressed.

The extent of British multiculturalism has been apparent in the varied ethnic groups of the rioters. To suggest a link between race relations and the unrest is therefore a flawed assumption. Nonetheless, some commentators, both within and outside of the black community, have attempted to argue this case. However, historian David Starkey, in what were career-ending utterances on the BBC’s Newsnight, went one step further.

Referencing Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech that criticised commonwealth immigration to Britain, David Starkey asserted “black culture” had been assumed by non-black rioters, effectively equating black culture with the nihilistic behaviour that was witnessed in several English cities. Conversely, claiming black Labour MP David Lammy’s well-educated diction as that of a white person, he intimated white culture was the antithesis of all that had occurred with the unrest.

Needless to say, David Starkey’s comments were unfounded and utterly racist, totally rejecting the many positive contributions the black diaspora, and those of other ethnic minority communities, has made to British society.

There was not a ‘black’ issue behind the riots. The issue of race relations, let alone one exclusive to the black community, was very much secondary, if at all applicable, to the cause of the riots.

Indeed, there is a measure of apathy and disaffection within some sections of the black community, particularly amongst the youth, that has consequently diminished the aspirations and voice of the black community. The aforementioned social failures are therefore likely to have underpinned the attitudes of many that took part in the riots – and happened to be black. However, while the apathy, lack of values and nihilism that was witnessed is far from representative of the black community, let alone any ethnic group, it is a common theme to the rioters.

The role of class has been suggested as another cause of the unrest. Perhaps as a product of British multiculturalism, class has seemingly overtaken race as the prevalent theme in drawing divisions within British society. Arguably, there has been a growing apathetic and disaffected class within British society. Initially, and unfairly, considered an extension of the working class, this social group has commonly been labelled by the media as ‘chavs’ or the underclass.

The demographic of this group has been characterised as having little aspiration and low levels of educational attainment, while having little work ethic and no perceptible stake in society. Certainly, these traits are common to those that took part in the rioting. However, of the many rioters already arrested and charged, some have been discovered to be professional middle-class individuals. This refutes the notion that this destructive behaviour is exclusive to the socially marginalised in Britain.

While most were in awe of the scenes of rioting, looting and burning buildings, this awe was increased for many politicians and public that remained ignorant or nonchalant towards this burgeoning apathetic section of British society. While I found the destruction both shocking and surreal, the capacity for the nihilistic attitudes of the rioters was not as surprising. British society has long shown glimpses of these attitudes and the consequent shift in the social equilibrium.

Despite most of the rioters being identified as youths, it is presumptuous and unfair to attribute these attitudes exclusively to youth culture. Indeed, those youths that exhibit such attitudes have done so by mirroring the attitudes of so-called authority figures around them. However, these attitudes represent what is an aberration in contrast to a ‘normal’ set of values. Scenes of youths nonchalantly looting businesses and attacking the police, visibly with glee rather than the indignation that usually accompanies such unrest, represents a significant problem in such sections of British society.

The boundaries, expectations and hierarchy of authority figures for youths have become increasingly blurred. The status quo has diminished the role of discipline and ethics within a generation. Many parents perceive teachers, youth leaders and wider society to be responsible for the parenting of their children, effectively opting to relinquish the nurturing role of being a parent. However, relatively speaking, it is important to acknowledge that such individuals, parents and youths alike, are in a minority.

While such failed parenting is inexcusable and undoubtedly an underlying cause of much of the unrest, there are questions to be asked of how this attitude came to exist in British society without opposition.

How did rampant materialism (without an accompanying work ethic), a lack of value for education and nonchalance for authority creep into British society? It is a far cry from the Thatcherite rhetoric of ‘Victorian values’ that until recently was the utopian, yet flawed, perception of Britain for many abroad. Surely even David Cameron would agree that the problem is beyond his ‘hug a hoodie’ sentiments as a viable solution.

In the aftermath of the riots, there will undoubtedly be much debate by Parliament, communities and beyond in attempting to ascertain what caused this and how it can be avoided. There are certainly social issues of apathy and disengagement, particularly amongst the youth, in sections of British society. However, unlike previous social unrest, there is no tangible frustration that governments and communities can work to address. Instead, the challenge will be addressing a set of attitudes which have long existed but to date have failed to manifest themselves so perceptibly.