The UK isn’t ready for a black Prime Minister

The re-election of Barack Obama as US President has again prompted debate on whether the UK could ever elect a black Prime Minister. As a country with a diverse population, a black British Prime Minister shouldn’t be any more far-fetched than a black US President. Nonetheless, the UK isn’t ready for a black Prime Minister.

With America’s history of poor race relations, racial segregation and institutionalised racism as the legacy of the aforementioned, the election of Barack Obama in 2008 had once been near unthinkable. Prior to the primaries, and even during the election campaign, many opined that the American electorate would not elect a black man as the US President. Those who pointed out that Obama was actually mixed race seemed to miss the point – a president of colour seemingly wasn’t compatible with American history and society. Following the election, anyone who didn’t believe it could happen was proved wrong and the election of President Obama marked a watershed in American politics, history and society.

Some British media and commentators soon mooted the idea of whether a black Prime Minister could ever be elected. Most notable was Jeremy Paxman’s cringeworthy Newsnight interview with Dizzee Rascal (and Baroness Amos) where Paxman referred to his interviewee as “Mr Rascal” and was somewhat condescending throughout. As an aside, it was an inappropriate interview that smacked of bad journalism in Newsnight’s decision to interview Dizzee Rascal, purely on the basis of him being black and involved in youth culture.

The likelihood of a black Prime Minister being elected has been met with mixed views but some have remained optimistic. That’s probably contributed to by the popularity of President Obama outside of America (where he’s arguably more favoured than within his own country) in encouraging the perception that a similar feat could be repeated in the UK.

British political parties too would publically like to claim it’s possible and would point towards black MPs, and MPs from other ethnic minority backgrounds, within their respective parties. Both Labour and the Conservative party boast black MPs who if they aren’t already, are being groomed as frontbench material to show how wonderfully ethnically diverse the respective parties are. But the fact is, for now, said MPs aren’t going any further than that.

The reasons why the UK isn’t ready for a black Prime Minister lie in its political system and contemporary British society. In contrast with the US, that might appear odd as both countries share apparent similarities that might suggest the election of President Obama as a black man could be repeated in the UK with a black Prime Minister. But despite the similarities, the differences are crucial in explaining why it won’t happen just yet.

Within the UK, it’s the party machinery that decides the leadership of a party and a potential Prime Minister. Unlike presidential primaries in the US, the wider electorate in the UK has no say in the leadership of a respective party. Instead, the main political parties’ nominations for a party leader are made by party MPs and elected by the wider party membership. Chosen party leaders are therefore going to reflect who the party feel is most electable while carrying their principles and appealing to their core supporters and the all important floating voters. Alas, within the UK, that isn’t going to be a black person.

The unlikelihood of a party leader being black, let alone from any ethnic minority background, is compounded by the fact that the party machinery of the main parties in the UK is very much still an old boys’ club. Therefore it manages to reinforce the glass ceiling for all minority groups, ethnic or otherwise, from progressing within their party. Indeed, I’m far from a fan of Margaret Thatcher’s policies, but as a woman, and a woman of her time, she deserves credit for not only becoming leader of the Conservative party but also in becoming Prime Minister.

Diane Abbott throwing her hat into the ring for leadership of the Labour party in 2010 failed to make ripples in the leadership race. She was eliminated in the first round of voting with less than 10% of votes and previously struggled to even get the required parliamentary party support for her nomination. Nonetheless, even within Labour, a party that has traditionally been more progressive and done more for minority groups than any other party, being black would have contributed to a perception of Abbott not being electable. Had say David Lammy, a black MP who is more favoured by the party than Abbott, decided to run for the party leadership, would he have made the final two candidates? I doubt it.

Unlike US presidential elections, the link between the Prime Minister and the electorate is absent in the UK. The party that wins the most seats forms the government of the day with the leader of said party becoming Prime Minister. Furthermore, electors largely vote for the party they have always voted for or the party with the leader they want to become Prime Minister. And for many people that’s not likely to be a black person. Given the pivotal change a black Prime Minister would represent in the UK, a party with a black leader couldn’t be guaranteed of the support and votes of its core supporters either.

Some sections of British society are unlikely to want a black Prime Minister. While the black diaspora in the UK is established and highly visible in the UK, this is largely within major cities. Whereas overall, the UK’s black population is relatively small, leaving little interaction between non-blacks and blacks in many areas of the country. Compounded by the often negative image portrayed by the media, much of the country has little or no reference point with black people, let alone a positive one to the extent they’d want a black Prime Minister. For some people their reluctance would come down to prejudice born of institutionalised racism. For others it would just be a big ask to support the unknown.

Even amongst other ethnic minority groups who might be inclined to support a party led by a black leader (just as many Hispanics voted for President Obama), many such communities in the UK are fairly insular. They might even feel less of a connection to a potential black Prime Minister than many white voters in largely ethnically homogenous areas would do.

Other ethnic minorities have become just as established as the black diaspora within the UK but it’s difficult to say if they could have more success in producing a non-white Prime Minister. Other ethnic minorities are probably perceived more favourably than black people but the arguments against the likelihood of a black Prime Minister are similarly applicable.

A black British Prime Minister isn’t forever impossible. As British society becomes more ethnically diverse, politics and Parliament will hopefully reflect it. However, the party machinery in British politics will have to succumb to such a possibility and for now it doesn’t appear to be willing to facilitate that. Attitudes in the UK too will need to change as institutionalised racism and a lack of connection to black people would still play a role in deterring electors from seeking a black Prime Minister.

Thatcher famously said she didn’t think there would be a woman Prime Minister in her lifetime and six years later had assumed the position of Prime Minister herself. I suspect the advent of the window of change where a black Prime Minister becomes possible won’t be too dissimilar but that moment certainly isn’t here yet.

Ofsted isn't helping to raise standards in schools, it's becoming a hindrance

As the body responsible for inspections and regulation in the English education system, it would be assumed by most that Ofsted would be on the side of educators, striving to improve standards in school. Most would imagine Ofsted, its findings, and subsequent recommendations, would be welcomed by all in recognising good teaching and positive learning environments while addressing poor standards that were to the detriment of a child’s education.

Actually, Ofsted is increasingly perceived as being an enemy of schools and the teaching profession. It’s seen as being aloof from the reality of modern schools with its formulaic approach to inspections. Furthermore, it’s questionable how much Ofsted is helping to improve standards in schools or if it’s merely pushing a political agenda on behalf of the government.

In theory, Ofsted’s expectations should provide the benchmark and the blueprint for excellence in education. By virtue of that, its approach should be embraced by teachers and would be expected to lead to best practice in schools. In practice, Ofsted has positioned itself against schools and alienated teachers and headteachers alike. This is a stance that has arguably been furthered under the leadership of Michael Wilshaw, Ofsted’s Chief Inspector. Can Ofsted therefore be seen as playing a wholly positive role in the English education system?

Like England, English schools are varied in standards, intake and the communities they lie within. Although that should not prefigure how successful a school can be. All schools should aim for standards of excellence and it’s appropriate that a body like Ofsted regulates and inspects those standards. In no way should there be a two-tier education system where failure or poor standards are accepted because a school’s intake may come from a less privileged or challenging background. Even so, it has to be acknowledged that on this basis, the best possible teaching cannot be achieved via a one-size-fits-all approach which is what Ofsted appear to subscribe to. For a regulatory body to not appreciate or have the ability to take a nuanced approach to school inspections is inexplicable. Yet with Ofsted, it happens.

Take a school in the suburbs with a largely middle class intake of conscientious and scholarly students. The school is more likely to be able to show how it clearly meets the standards Ofsted would rightly want to see from every school it inspects. Strong behaviour management from teachers would probably not be required; hence it would be easier to show students are meeting their lesson objectives in an environment that doesn’t distract from illustrating it. Conversely, in an inner city school with a diverse intake, and where strong behaviour management from teachers might be necessary in a more challenging (but often much more rewarding) environment, that lack of distraction may not be afforded. That doesn’t mean students aren’t meeting learning objectives or that it isn’t a good school; in fact the environment probably means the teachers in said school are better, well-rounded educators. But taking the same approach to teaching as the school in the first example probably isn’t going to work. Similarly, Ofsted need to understand that it’s good teaching and standards that matter and that won’t always be identified or achieved using an identical model.

A lack of empathy with teachers, parents and students is what underpins Ofsted’s shortcomings. Often Ofsted shows itself to not understand the organic nature of schools and that particularly in challenging environments, ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ schools aren’t created overnight. And that’s no matter how much headteachers, senior leadership teams and teachers seek to emulate the target-driven approach to educating that is encouraged by Ofsted.

Ofsted’s lack of empathy was recently seen when it announced that it was abolishing the grade of ‘satisfactory’ in its inspections and would be replacing it with ‘requires improvement’. This move was said to ensure schools were not allowed to coast with average standards. In principle, I would agree as there shouldn’t be any scope for complacency in the provision of good education. But for a school that is gradually improving, albeit not quite at the required standard, that improvement should be encouraged and assisted rather than condemned as essentially failing. The tag of ‘requires improvement’ certainly isn’t going to improve the morale of any teacher or student at a school judged as such either.

The perceived lack of empathy from Ofsted lies in how disconnected inspectors are from the classroom and teaching environments. It was reported on BBC Radio 4’s File on 4 programme that some inspectors haven’t previously even taught in a classroom with some inspectors including former school secretaries or school governors. It was also reported that some inspectors had been found to be headteachers that had been forced out of their previous schools because of failing standards.

Admittedly, these inspectors are probably in a minority. Nonetheless, it suggests that the focus on who Ofsted deem able to identify good teaching may not necessarily be someone who has been a good teacher or experienced the rigours of the classroom themselves. File on 4 also reported the number of schools complaining about their inspections, and even finding errors in their Ofsted reports, had risen. There is a perceptible and growing disdain for Ofsted amongst teachers and headteachers. And if they don’t have confidence in Ofsted, it suggests Ofsted are doing something amiss.

The most common criticism teachers have of Ofsted is its ‘tick box’ approach to inspections rather than actually observing the quality of learning within classrooms. For this reason, even the most talented and experienced teachers are less than receptive to Ofsted inspections. That lack of confidence in Ofsted amongst teachers is also likely to be shared with parents who know their child’s school is performing well yet they are being told otherwise by an Ofsted report.

The demonising and devaluing of teachers exuded by Michael Gove, the Secretary State for Education, is setting the stage for a collision course between the government and teachers’ unions. However, Gove’s stance and his vilifying of teachers is seemingly in sync with Michael Wilshaw. Unsurprisingly, teachers’ unions are increasingly equally opposed to the Chief Inspector.

Wilshaw claims to be a “genuine floating voter” but if he was voting in Michael Gove’s constituency, I think I know who would be getting his vote. And with the government’s current education policy, it’s a concern that Wilshaw and Gove are on the same page ideologically. What’s more worrying is that Wilshaw, in his position as Chief Inspector, is willing to further the sentiments of the Secretary of State.

Ofsted’s influence is making teaching less desirable as a rewarding occupation and eroding the morale of those already within the profession. That isn’t to suggest a culture of complacency amongst teachers, but the damaging impact Ofsted has on schools. The increasingly sterile teaching environments, where teaching is void of emotion, personality and genuine enthusiasm, is a result of Ofsted’s influence. Moreover, the rigid, bureaucratic approach it takes to inspections, and equally expects to see in schools, has shown itself to be detrimental in only raising standards superficially.

Ofsted needs to redefine its relationship with schools and teachers from one that is adversarial to one that is empathetic to teachers and without unwarranted contempt for schools. The ‘tick box’ approach to inspections can’t gauge real quality of learning and the competency of a teacher. In fact, this has arguably contributed to the erroneous perception that mechanically executed lessons equal good lessons and produced an unhealthy obsession within schools where targets and league tables supersede consideration of actual learning. Ofsted should be meaningfully boosting standards in schools but instead it has become an albatross to genuinely achieving just that.