my three tests for labour's plan

8/14/2019 My three tests for Labour's plan

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/my-three-tests-for-labours-plan 1/12

My three tests for Labour's plan

Estelle Morris joins Education Guardian today. In the first of her regular columns,the former education secretary fears that ministers' priorities have changed for the worse

Anyone remember that 1990s mantra, "standards not structures"? I do, mainly becausethose three words crept into almost every speech I made from about 1995 onwards. Theywere the headline for Labour's policy in the run-up to the 1997 general election and

became the guiding light through much of the next five years. As a political slogan, itused to be up there with the greats - "end to boom and bust", "tough on crime ..." and allthe rest. I doubt, though, if anyone will remember it five years from now.

It's not merely a phrase that's gone out of fashion. It's been ditched because it no longer fits with the government's thinking. Labour's secondary school reform programme centreson structural change: 200 city academies, new models of governance, a diminished rolefor the local education authority, and private sector sponsorship, all leading to a system of state independent schools that is intended to offer more choice and diversity. Ruth Kelly'sspeech last week, in which the education secretary said parents would be given the power to set up schools, is another step in this direction.

Maybe we shouldn't be too surprised. The record of politicians in education has alwaystended towards structural change in our secondary schools. In the post war era, we've

been through grammar schools, technical schools, secondary modern schools,

comprehensive schools, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges (CTCs),community schools and now academies. Selection has been introduced and partlyabolished; governance has been changed and changed again. We politicians are serialmeddlers in the structure of secondary education.

Standards not structures was meant to change all that. By the mid-1990s, we'd seen adecade or more of reform. Some of it was good, and much of it was contentious: thenational curriculum, performance tables, assisted places, grant-maintained schools andCTCs. But, when you talked to parents and the wider public, what bothered them was thatalmost half of our 11-year-olds were behind in reading, writing and number work, andthousands of 16-year-olds were leaving school with no qualifications at all. The talk among politicians may have been about structures, but the concern of parents was aboutstandards.

So standards became the banner under which New Labour marched. Hardlyrevolutionary, you might think. Have you ever met anyone who is against raisingstandards? But it was not just standards. It was standards not structures. The structuralissues that had to be dealt with - grammar schools, grant-maintained status - werehandled with the lightest of touches and the minimum of fuss. Teaching and learningreceived full attention: the literacy and numeracy strategies, smaller primary school



classes, Excellence in Cities and investment in the professional development of teachers.It was a whole new way of politicians taking responsibility for our children's education.As a minister at that time, I've a hefty degree of self-interest in saying so, butcommentators and parents agreed that primary schools - the focus of the government'sattention early on - improved, some quite dramatically. A victory, you might have

thought, for standards not structures. Well, apparently not.Like every generation of politicians before it, when it came to secondary school reform,

New Labour turned to structural change. The argument goes something like this. Parentswant a school that best meets the individual needs of their child. Changing the structureto create different types of school gives greater choice, one that will drive up standardsand sort out the good from the bad. The popular schools can then expand and the onesthat parents don't want to send their children to can be closed. So higher standards areachieved through structural change, diversity and choice.

Don't get me wrong. I'm for choice and diversity and against uniformity - unless it's auniformity of excellence. Celebrating the differences between our schools is just asimportant as valuing the common entitlement they are supposed to guarantee. No publicservice in the 21st century will flourish unless the customer is given power and influence.The question is whether choice and diversity are really the most powerful levers to dowhat needs to be done.

When you look at the history of state secondary education, it's difficult to conclude thatthere's been too little structural choice and diversity. It's been the diversity in standards,not the diversity in structures, that's been our problem. We've never hit on a way of raising the standards of all schools to those of the very best.

That is the challenge facing politicians. Unless there are universally high standards,choice isn't a matter of selecting the school that best suits your child. It becomes a racefor the best the state can offer. That contest can be pretty hard-fought. And, notsurprisingly, the same groups turn up on the losing side under any system that isn't basedon universally high standards. Poor families lost out under selective education and theylose out under "choice". Have you ever heard of a council who moved a family so theycould live closer to a popular school and have a better chance of getting a place at it? Andwhat choice is there in rural areas?

There's no getting away from the big question: what's the best way to raise standards inevery secondary school? Is the sort of structural change on which the government hasembarked likely to do so? I've no doubt it will give us more good schools, many inneighbourhoods that have suffered generations of underachievement. But will it realisethe holy grail of making every school a good school, so that choice can mean more thansimply distinguishing between good and bad? I remain to be convinced.

Education is a people business. That's why so many of us can recall the teacher whochanged our life. And that's why "Whose class are they in next year?" is just as importanta question as "Is the school a specialist technology or humanities school?" There's onlyone thing that raises standards and that's when more teachers teach more effectively -

because they're better led and better trained and work in an environment committed to



learning.

One of the greatest success stories in recent years has been the development of specialistschools. They don't achieve their success through structural change. It would be fancifulto imagine that merely designating an institution a specialist school makes it good. It's theambition for specialist status that gives the school the incentive to focus on teaching andlearning. That's why standards so often rise across the curriculum and not just in thespecialist subjects. Specialist schools have turned teachers into researchers as well asusers of research. They have delivered some of the finest professional development and,crucially, have the potential to touch every single secondary pupil.

Another round of structural change won't by itself achieve universally high standards.Worse than that, it could be a distraction. Spending £5bn on 200 academies in the nextfive years and recruiting some of our best heads to run them is almost certain to bringsuccess for the schools involved.

Bringing in business skills isn't wrong. It makes sense to use outside expertise to

complement the skills of teachers, though the white paper the government plans to publish soon will need to provide a framework for far greater accountability andopenness for business sponsors than exists at the moment. But the risk is that all of thisshifts the focus from what really will make the difference.

Ministers are at their best when they prioritise and, although every department has a policy on everything, it soon becomes clear where ministers' priorities lie. Those priorities attract the best civil servants, and the most resources, time and energy.Structural change is now the number one priority at the Department for Education andSkills.

Will it eclipse the battle for higher standards, as structural changes have done before? Ioffer three tests:

· In five years' time, whose children will be going to these new academies? Will choiceand market forces once again squeeze out the children of the disadvantaged whoseschools they replaced?

· With their independent status, will these schools contribute to the greater good of education in their locality? How will they work with other schools on issues such asexclusions?

· Third, will the government spend as much time, effort and resources on teaching andlearning in the rest of our secondary schools as it is investing in structural change in the200?

The success of academies depends on a positive response to these questions every bit asmuch as the improvement in their GCSE and A-level scores.

Almost every article that has appeared under my name in the past 10 years has beeneither an explanation or a defence of Labour's policies. That's a consequence of collectiveresponsibility and I loved it. But one reason I left the House of Commons was to free



myself to engage in political argument without always having to defend the party line. Iknow that comments of ex-ministers can be interpreted as justifications of their ownrecords or misinterpreted as attacks on political colleagues. That's a risk I'm prepared totake. For the record, I believe the government's investment in education, and the priorityit continues to give it, remains one of its greatest achievements. However, the way it

spends the money it has committed demands a continuing and robust debate, and I'm gladto be able to make a contribution.

The UK government has dulled the glamorous sheen of Web 2.0 by pledging guidelineson how civil servants should exploit use social media for developing policies and gettingtheir messages out to the public.

The Cabinet Office has published an > on its information strategy, carried out by Tom

Steinberg and Ed Mayo, which details Whitehall’s efforts to “get” social media in itsefforts to communicate with we the people.

The interim report’s appearance coincided with the setting up of a Power of InformationTaskforce – which will include Steinberg – to flesh out the strategy and which wasrevealed in a speech by Tom Watson, MP, Labour’s minister for transformationalgovernment.

In his speech, Watson argued that freeing up data “will allow us to unlock the talent of British entrepreneurs” while “engaging people – using the simple tools that bring themtogether – will allow the talents of all our people to be applied to the provision of publicservices”.

Watson promised the COI and the Cabinet Office would “produce a set of guidelines thatadheres to the letter of the law when it comes to the civil service code but lives within thespirit of the age”.

We think this means Civil Servants need an approved way to dip into sites like mumsnetto share their wisdom on, for example, how to claim maternity benefits. We presume itdoesn’t mean putting in place a bureaucratic procedure to ensure that all civil servantsWikipedia edits on Avril Lavigne have been signed off by the Cabinet Office and

Number 10.

Watson said draft proposals would be ready for the taskforce by the end of this week.

Government also needed to adopt social media, Watson argued. “Whitehall is arguablyBritain’s most important knowledge factory,” he said, “but we’re using out of date tools.”So, it would appear Sir Humphrey and pals will be forced to thrash out policy and career

paths over blogs, wikis, forums and shared workspaces instead of over the port andcheese board.

Watson also pledged to overhaul the way information produced by government bodies,



for example regulatory information or Ordnance Survey mapping data, is disseminatedand charged for. “There has been a lively debate about whether the overall benefits to theeconomy and society are better served by giving the data away at marginal cost.” He saidhe had asked the Treasury and BERR to help build arguments in this area.

More disturbingly, perhaps, Watson reminisced about how hard it used to be for “anycommunity organiser or activist to “get people together to do something”. He recalledhow he spent his formative years in “endless hours of turning the handle of a manualduplicating machine whilst my dad fermented [sic] revolution in the pub.”

He went on to claim that “social media has removed the requirement for my son to turnthe handle for his dad. It allows people to organise a demonstration or a lobby at a singleclick, with global effect.”

Which is funny, as we’d never thought organising spontaneous demonstrations was partof the government’s remit.Suppliers would sell a package of measures that would saveenergy or enable their customers to produce it more efficiently, using, for example, heat

pumps or micro-combined heat and power plants. It would extend the practice of subsidising energy-saving equipment for some, at the expense of all consumers.

Suppliers of energy already have an energy efficiency commitment under rules laid down by Ofgem - which means they spend about nine per cent of fuel bills subsidising thingssuch as low-energy lightbulbs and A-rated fridges - but this new obligation would gomuch further.

The proposed new "cap and trade" arrangements would impose a cap on overallhousehold emissions and allow companies to trade any amount of ''undershot'' below thattarget with other companies by selling them permits to emit carbon, or purchase more

permits to pollute if they overshot.

In other words, it would be like the European Union carbon trading scheme now in placefor big companies, except that it would be the responsibility of the supply companies, notthe domestic user, to reduce household emissions overall.

The relevant Energy Review states: "The Government wishes to incentivise energysuppliers to engage more actively with customers in order to deliver greater energyefficiency in the home … We want to provide the right stimulus for them to develop newmarket opportunities to sell energy services, rather than just energy per se, so what theconsumer buys are services for heating, lighting and powering their homes, in the mostenergy-efficient way practicable.

"Our energy companies are willing to go in this direction - to change their whole businessmodel - if we support them through the



HealthAnalysis of the studies reviewed showed that single or dual component incentive schemesare effective in encouraging positive health behaviours where a simple or single action isrequired, rather than a sustained health behaviour change. The Child Health Programme

as described in the White Paper Choosing Health covers screening and immunisationswhich are single event health behaviours shown in our review as likely to benefit fromthe use of incentives to encourage uptake.

The government target to reduce health inequalities as measured by infant mortality by2010 focuses on interventions to improve services and support for pregnant women, newmothers and their babies. The highest rate of infant mortality is in children born toteenage mothers. We found non-financial incentives to be effective in encouragingteenage mothers to attend an early post-natal health clinic.

The interventions were also shown to be effective in reducing smoking behaviours in thecontext of school-based competitions. These findings are based on a small number of studies, none of which were conducted in the UK, but they are consistent with other systematic review evidence.

The incentives were mostly financial or gifts/tokens.

EducationThe review found no evidence that single or dual component incentive schemes areeffective in improving either the levels of effort applied to educational tests or attendance

levels in school.

Behaviour changeOverall single or dual component incentive schemes do not appear to offer policy-makersor practitioners a simple route to ensuring general positive behaviour changes in young

people. However, they may be useful in particular settings and for particular groups.

Ongoing activities

An earlier study [1] describes 37 schemes using incentives aimed at promoting a range of positive behaviours in young people. The schemes were mostly based in the UK, withsome from the USA, Australia and New Zealand. Two were international in scope.Fifteen of the schemes targeted young people at risk; eleven provided direct cashincentives; and the others used a variety of different material incentives.

'Mechanism design' theorist Eric Maskin says policymakers can bridge gaps betweencompany and public interests in areas such as greenhouse gases.



By staff reporter Li Xin

When drafting environmental policies, governments should develop incentive schemesthat encourage companies to make choices that are in the best interests of the public, saidEric S. Maskin, who won the 2007 Nobel Prize in economics.

Referring to companies that balk at environmental rules, Maskin acknowledged “youcan't force them to do things they don't want to do.”

In an interview with Caijing on April 14, the soft-spoken economist explained in detailhow environmental policymaking can be improved through “mechanism design theory,”a branch of economics he helped pioneer that involves shaping institutions or mechanisms to achieve social goals when the market fails to bring results.

Maskin, 58, sees companies and the general public as major players in efforts to reducegreenhouse gas emissions. But while the goal – cutting emissions – is widely agreedupon, the interests of the two players are often at odds.

“Companies want to maximize their profit,” said Maskin. “What we don't know is howmuch it would cost a company to move one technology to another. That's one of thethings that a mechanism should be designed to discover.”

On the other hand, Maskin said, policymakers need to find out to what extent the general public is willing to cut personal consumption to reduce emissions. He suggested aconsumption tax as a useful tool.

In 2002 Maskin, together with two other economists, designed an emissions tradingauction for the British government that involved 38 companies bidding for cashincentives totaling US 500 million. The bidder with the largest amount of reductions

would win the government subsidies. As a result, 34 companies won the auction anddelivered 4 million metric tons of CO2 emission reductions.

“Our mission was to get as much emissions reduction as possible with the US 500million,” recalled Maskin. “The British government considered the scheme a success.”

Similar designs were used for a radio spectrum auction in the United States and sales of state assets in Eastern Europe. Maskin prefers auctions as an effective way to allocateresources, but admitted governments should not intervene in all circumstances.

“Some agricultural markets work well left their own devices. Other markets need amoderate amount of government intervention, such as financial markets which need

government intervention to make sure you don’t get stuck in a credit crunch,” saidMaskin.

“In some cases, markets are not going to work very well at all. Examples of that are public goods, like clean air and the global environment, which can't be provided throughmarket forces alone. ”

The Princeton University professor is optimistic that a global scheme can be achieved toaddress climate change, but emphasized that the scheme must meet the interests of all



participants. To get developing countries on board, Maskin thinks tools such as tradeconcessions and technology transfers can be used.

“The agreement must be self-enforcing,” Maskin said. “If any country breaks its terms of agreement, it would lose all the benefits it is receiving.”

Maskin was in China to attend the Boao Asia Forum on April 13 and 14. Addressing theforum, he called for government intervention to prevent a credit crunch in financialmarkets.

Maskin and his family live in the United States in a house once occupied by AlbertEinstein. The house is

Labour's plan to abandon renewableenergy targetsLeaked documents detail strategy for climate change U-turn

A wind farm in Northamptonshire. Photograph: David Sillitoe

Ministers are planning a U-turn on Britain's pledges to combat climate change that"effectively abolishes" its targets to rapidly expand the use of renewable energy sourcessuch as wind and solar power.

Leaked documents seen by the Guardian show that Gordon Brown will be advised todaythat the target Tony Blair signed up to this year for 20% of all European energy to comefrom renewable sources by 2020 is expensive and faces "severe practical difficulties".

According to the papers, John Hutton, the secretary of state for business, will tell Mr Brown that Britain should work with Poland and other governments sceptical aboutclimate change to "help persuade" German chancellor Angela Merkel and others to setlower renewable targets, before binding commitments are framed in December.

It admits that allowing member states to fall short of their renewable targets will be "veryhard to negotiate ... and will be very controversial". "The commission, some member states and the European parliament will not want the target to be diluted, though othersmay be allies for a change," says a draft copy of Mr Hutton's Energy Policy Presentationto the Prime Minister, marked "restricted - policy".

The revelations came as scientists announced that carbon emissions were accumulating inthe atmosphere far more quickly than predicted. The sharp increase found by the GlobalCarbon Project is attributed mainly to Chinese coal-burning and a weakening of theability of oceans and forests to soak up carbon dioxide.

The leaked papers admit to "a potentially significant cost in terms of reduced climatechange leadership" if Mr Brown is seen to be driving a plan to let European member states fall short of their renewables targets.



They also reveal different priorities across government departments about how to getrenewables to 20% of the electricity mix. Although Germany has increased its renewableenergy share to 9% in six years, Britain's share is only 2%, with its greenhouse gasemissions rising.

Last night campaigners expressed alarm at the new direction of government policy."Gordon Brown is now in danger of surrendering any claim to international leadership onclimate change and would rather support nuclear power and scupper the Europeanrenewable energy target," said John Sauven, director of Greenpeace.

Mr Hutton will tell Mr Brown that there are severe practical difficulties about meeting the20% target. These include persuading the Ministry of Defence and the shipping industryto accept more offshore wind power, as well as increased research and development costsfor marine and tidal power.

One of the main objections of government to meeting the renewables target set by Mr Blair is that it will undermine the role of the European emission trading scheme. This

scheme was devised by the Treasury under Mr Brown and allows wealthy governmentsto pay others to reduce emissions. "[Meeting the 20% renewables target] cruciallyundermines the scheme's credibility ... and reduces the incentives to invest in other carbon technologies like nuclear power", say the papers.

The government is clearly worried about its ambition to introduce more nuclear power assoon as possible. Mr Hutton will tell Mr Brown that he expects a second legal challenge

by Greenpeace. "[It is] most likely to be on the basis of pre-judgement, concerns aboutwaste, a flawed consultation process or inaccuracies."

Analysis by Mr Hutton's department suggests it could cost the UK £4bn a year to achievea 9% share of renewable energy by 2020.

The shift in stance is due to be discussed at full cabinet next week. Last night aspokesman for the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said: "Wedon't comment on ministerial meetings with the PM."

About the GPII SchemeThe General Practice Immunisation Incentives (GPII) scheme commenced in August1997 with the introduction of quarterly coverage feedback statements to general

practitioners and Divisions of General Practice.

GPII provides financial incentives to general practitioners (GPs) that monitor, promoteand provide age appropriate immunisation services to children under the age of sevenyears. The overall aim of the GPII scheme is to encourage at least 90 per cent of practicesto achieve 90 per cent proportions of full immunisation.

The General Practice Immunisation Incentives (GPII) scheme provides financialincentives to general practitioners (GPs) who monitor, promote and provideimmunisation services to children under the age of seven years.



The GPII scheme is made up of three components:

• A Service Incentive Payment (SIP) - an $18.50 (not GST inclusive) payment toGPs and Other Medical Practitioners (OMPs), who notify the AustralianChildhood Immunisation Register (ACIR) of a vaccination that completes an

immunisation schedule;• An Outcomes Payment - practices that achieve 90% or greater proportions of full

immunisation providing the practice attains 10 WPEs (Whole PatientEquivalents); and

• Immunisation infrastructure funding - which provides funds to Divisions of General Practice, State-Based Organisations and funding for a National GPImmunisation Coordinator to improve the proportion of children who areimmunised at local, State and national levels.

The overall aim of the GPII scheme is to encourage at least 90 per cent of practices to

achieve 90 per cent proportions of full immunisation. This milestone was accomplishedin the May 2003 quarter.

Why was the GPII scheme developedReducing the incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases is one of the significant publichealth achievements of the past 100 years. Comprehensive levels of vaccination have ledto dramatic decreases in childhood diseases such as poliomyelitis and diphtheria.

When the GPII scheme was implemented in 1998, it was considered that the number of children in Australia who were fully immunised was too low to prevent transmission of some vaccine-preventable diseases. For many children this resulted in sickness,hospitalisation, and sometimes death. Those who are not immunised, or not fullyimmunised, have a much higher chance of infection, which can lead to disease outbreaksand epidemics.

The Federal Government has been committed to improving the nation’s childhoodimmunisation levels, and, in 1997, established the Immunise Australia: the Seven Point

Plan . The GPII scheme was one of a wide range of initiatives introduced under the Plan.

The importance of general practiceGPs are one of the key groups able to improve the nation’s childhood immunisation level.They have significant levels of contact with the target group - children under the age of seven.

Each consultation is an opportunity for monitoring a child’s immunisation status and for providing immunisation services if required. It is for this reason that GPs have beenspecifically targeted in this immunisation strategy.

The GPII scheme is not simply payment for direct immunisation services. The incentives



are aimed at helping to improve the national immunisation level. This can be achieved byGPs actively encouraging and promoting immunisation generally, as well as providingimmunisations themselves.

This initiative is intended to augment the services provided by local governments andPublic Health Units in order to help improve Australia’s immunisation level.

The role of the Australian Childhood ImmunisationRegister (ACIR)The ACIR is central to the effectiveness of the GPII scheme. It began recording details of all immunisations provided to children under seven years of age from 1 January 1996.

The ACIR enables more effective management of the National Immunisation Program at National, State and Territory levels. It allows measurement of immunisation coveragerates in children as well as providing parents with an immunisation history statementwhen their children turn 1, 2, and 4 years of age and also on completion of 4 -5 year vaccination schedule. Parents can also request a statement at any other time. GPs andother immunisation providers receive payment for each notification of immunisationencounters forwarded to the ACIR, which completes one of the five immunisationschedules.

The ACIR information is used to determine the immunisation status of children andaccordingly amounts paid under the GPII scheme. GPs will appreciate the importance of

providing timely and accurate information to the ACIR. Not only does it generate a payment for notification but, through this scheme, will directly affect the amount of payment GPs will be eligible to receive.

Management, review and consultationThe GPII scheme is administered by the Department of Health and Ageing, with day-to-day management by Medicare Australia.

Development and implementation of the GPII scheme followed a consultative process,with the participation of the profession. A General Practice Immunisation IncentivesAdvisory Group provides ongoing input and advice to the Department of Health andAgeing on the scheme’s management. This committee includes representatives from the

profession, State governments, consumers, Medicare Australia and the Department.

Applying for the GPIIThe same application form is used for both the GPII scheme and the Practice IncentiveProgram (PIP). However applicants can use the form to apply for the GPII scheme only.Completed application forms should be sent to:

Practice Incentives ProgramGPO Box 2572



ADELAIDE SA 5001Fax: (08) 8274 9352Ph: 1800 222 032

To obtain an application form please call the PIP enquiry line on 1800 222 032 (freecall). Completed application forms cannot be lodged over the internet and must be mailedor faxed to Medicare Australia.

Practices are able to submit changes to practice profile details via fax - (08) 8274 9352.Faxes advising of changes to practice profile or bank account details must be sent on

practice letterhead, be signed by the nominated authorised contact person and witnessed by another member of the practice.

Practices electing to utilise the fax option are not required to send the original documentto Medicare Australia but should retain it for their own records and Medicare Australiaaudit purposes.

In the event that the original copy of the document cannot be produced, the faxed copy byMedicare Australia will be recognised as the original document.

More informationFor more information about the GPII scheme, call the GPII enquiry line on 1800 246 101(free call).

my three tests for labour's plan

Documents