General
Four challenges are cited in the green paper that the government believes need to be addressed. They are:
Overall, the paper comes across as confused and idealistic. DfES seems to regard "school" as synonymous with "education" and "qualifications" with "achievement." It confuses school attendance with social inclusion. There appears, on the surface, to be a contradiction in aims between the first and second challenges and the third and fourth challenges. It is implied that, should a young person not wish to take part in "wider activities", then they may be penalised.
The assumption is made that learning only happens in schools or in a regulated environment. It's also worth thinking about in terms of what the 'right to education' means. A plank of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is that children are people in the present, not simply adults of the future, and that their needs must be met now - including their educational needs. The function of education isn't simply to provide a work force, it's aimed at the 'full development' of the child.
In chapter one: "At least half our young adults should at some stage enter higher education if our economy is to have enough people with higher level skills" is difficult to reconcile with "meeting the needs and aspirations of individual pupils".
Two of the aims of the 14-19 phase of education and training appear to contradict eachother:
"meet the needs and aspirations of all young people, so that they are motivated to make a commitment to life long learning and to become socially responsible citizens and workers" (How on earth will this be measured? Is the government going to define what a socially responsible citizen is? How will they know at 19 whether someone is committed to lifelong learning?)
And...
"broaden the skills acquired by all young people to improve their employability, bridge the skills gap identified by employers and overcome social exclusion"
One of the aims of the 14-19 phase is stated as "a reduction in the numbers of those who truant from school and drop out of education and training after the age of 16, because we cannot afford to waste the lives of any of the nation's young people."
ARCH finds this highly offensive. This paragraph is laced with prejudice and reveals an attitude that is likely to lead to active discrimination. It does not acknowledge the rights of young people to consultation and choice.
It is hard to know what is meant by "social exclusion". This term carries the assumption that we all share a definition of "social exclusion", but ARCH is concerned that it is becoming a subtle means of making the political personal. One major factor, which prevents children participating fully in the life of society, is poverty. Another is the alienation which young people experience when their views are neither sought nor taken into consideration.
Following her visit to the UK in 1999, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education said: "The Special Rapporteur suggests that a review should be undertaken of the notion of social exclusion from the human rights perspective, inspired by the advantage that would ensue from a focus on governmental human rights obligations. The cumulation of different grounds of discrimination, reinforced by class, requires unravelling the causes and contributing factors at the structural rather than at only the individual level. The Special Rapporteur feels that concepts such as "ethnic minority" (which merges race, colour, ethnicity, provenance, religion, language and social origin) or "social exclusion" (which combines an unpredictable set of phenomena within an unclear conceptual framework) hide more than they reveal (1).
It should also be mentioned that many thousands of families choose to home educate. Unfortunately many home educating families encounter discrimination from LEAs that believe 'social inclusion' equates with school attendance.
Chapter 1:The vision for the 14-19 phase
Q1. Do you share our vision of the 14-19 phase?No.
ARCH would like to see the development of more detailed strategies to tackle the inequalities mentioned above. It is doubtful that reform of the curriculum in isolation will achieve the vision of the document, which is in itself rather confused and contradictory.
Q7 Are there any other measures that might be taken to encourage young people from groups under-represented in higher education to aim for higher education.
Poverty causes serious problems: young people from poorer families find it difficult to enter higher education, and are restricted in their choice of institution because of the cost of living away from home or using transport. The re-introduction of maintenance grants for students whose parents are on low incomes would alleviate this situation considerably.
Strenuous efforts are necessary to improve the education available to young people within the prison system if they are to stand any chance of entering higher education. The Howard League report 'Making the Grade' highlighted the serious deficiencies in the education which such young people receive (2). The 1996 Education Act (3) should apply to all young people, as should funding to meet statements of special needs.
Although some financial initiatives are in place (Paragraphs 6.15-6.18), we do have concerns about the learning contracts associated with the Education Maintenance Allowance (4). We would like to see pupils having more input into the contract. At present there is scope for the contract to be used as a tool of discrimination. Penalties currently imposed on students for failing to adhere to their learning agreements are harsh and demeaning.
Chapter 3: The content of the 14-19 curriculum
ARCH believes that this proposed curriculum does not offer sufficient choice and participation. The bulk of it is highly prescriptive and in fact leaves very limited options for the child whose interests and talents lie in languages, the arts or the humanities. If anything, it appears to be closing down options and the 'choices' offered are not meaningful.
The proposals seek to "...engage those young people who have traditionally been alienated and disaffected from school"; however, it is hard to see why a young person would wish to engage with a curriculum which does not involve him/her as an equal partner.
The 'Euridem Report' on pupil democracy in Europe (5) states that:
"It was apparent that the UK is out of line with the rest of Europe in the question of pupil democracy. It has no legislation on pupil involvement or grievance procedures, no pupil Ombudsman and no system for consulting pupils on education policy."
and research has demonstrated that a significant cause of disaffection is dissatisfaction with the school curriculum (6).
In 1995 the concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended that "...procedures be introduced to ensure that children are provided with the opportunity to express their views in the running of the schools in matters that concern them" (7).
We are disappointed at the lack of consultation with young people in the development of this Green Paper, and believe that any attempts to tackle 'disaffection' will prove fruitless until pupils are given a meaningful voice in the development of the curriculum and in the day-to-day running of their schools. We should like to see learning viewed as a partnership in which each child has the ability to express opinions and make real choices.
ARCH is, in any case, concerned at the use of emotive words such as "alienated" and "disaffected" to describe those whom the education system has failed - and also those who have simply chosen a different form of education. There are many measures of "achievement" and we should not confuse "qualifications" with "success".
For many young people, it is not appropriate to achieve a large number of school qualifications or to "stay on in education". Both of these things are choices about which young people have a right to be consulted. Many who are consulted merely choose to follow a different path; this does not mean that they are neither educated nor successful. The major issues are those of choice and access, not repression and compulsion.
The government should not forget that in this country parents can choose whether to educate their children "in school, or otherwise" (3). Many parents have chosen to home educate in order to ensure that proper respect is paid to their children's opinions and wishes.
Q21 Do you agree that all young people aged between 16-19 should be entitled to continue studying literacy, numeracy and ITC until they have reached Level 2 (paragraph 3.43)?
Young people should have this entitlement; it is for them to choose whether they wish to make use of it.
Q23 Do you agree that we should expect all young people to participate in active citizenship wider interests and work-related learning?
ARCH disagrees with citizenship becoming a compulsory part of the curriculum. We believe it is the role of citizens to teach the government what is required of government, not the other way around which would be leaning towards fascism. ["It is the State which educates its citizens in civic virtue, gives them a consciousness of their mission and welds them into unity."--Benito Mussolini, _The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism_ (1932)]
We are further concerned at the mis-match between 'teaching about' rights while compelling children to attend institutions which are far from democratic. People tend to learn from experience and example rather than rhetoric, and until schools are democratically accountable to those who are taught in them, discussion of 'rights' is largely meaningless.
Article 42 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires State Parties to make the principles and provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child known to children as well as adults. It is imperative therefore, that schools have a statutory requirement to teach children about their rights contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and domestic law. The Education Act 1996 should be included in this, including section 7. At present the government takes active steps to mislead parents and pupils on the content of this Act. (See for example the booklet entitled "Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage", produced by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and endorsed by the DfES, which is currently in circulation to Early Years childcare settings and which states that "school is compulsory".)
If all young people are expected to participate in active citizenship then it is crucial that there is a range of opportunities available to all children. Adequate resources will be required for supporting some young people's participation in such activities. Opportunities for active citizenship should be available within the school as well as in local communities.
Active citizenship is also possible within schools with a positive ethos that views pupils as partners to be involved in all aspects of decision-making within the school. All schools should have fully participative school councils. Despite proven success and their endorsement by Professor Bernard Crick, Chair of the Advisory Group on Citizenship, only a small number of schools have school councils that meet the School Councils UK recommended model.
Chapter four: recognising achievement- a new Diploma for Achievement
Q24 Do you agree that there should be a new overarching award to recognise achievement by age 19 years (paragraph 4.2)
Until there are in place adequate provisions for the education of all children, regardless of family background, and no matter what they have done, nor how they have behaved, such an initiative will merely polarise the 'employable' and the 'unemployable' and there will be no way back for those whom the system has failed.
Thus, ARCH does not agree with the introduction of the matriculation diploma. In chapter one the green paper states "All, not just some, young people need to continue their training beyond the compulsory years" which suggests that the compulsory years are effectively being increased. Children currently start school as young as 4 years old. Can most young people really cope with 15 years of "teach and test" without burnout and resentment of learning? If employability will be measured according to attainment at the matriculation diploma stage, what happens to those who choose not to go down this route? What about those who choose to take a year out between school and higher education?
How will those educated outside the school system - those excluded for whatever reason, Traveller children, young offenders, those who are electively home educated - qualify for this?
If a young person's leisure pursuits are now to be documented and graded in the interests of gaining their matriculation diploma, this is likely to de-motivate them (8). According to UNCRC Article 13 children have a right to adequate rest and leisure. By increasing the extent of the compulsory years and including leisure pursuits in the grading and testing procedure for the matriculation diploma, ARCH fears we may end up time-tabling and structuring just about the whole of a young person's time from the ages of 14-19 years.
Q34 How do you think the wider activities should be assessed?
The value of participating in wider activities and active citizenship is that it gives children the opportunity to engage in a different sphere of learning, thus formal assessment would undermine its value. Experiences gained in these arenas should not be for the purpose of formal assessment but should help the child develop transferable life skills, for example the value of social responsibility. Not only would formal assessment undermine the value of this experience, it is likely to demotivate pupils from participating in this area (8).
Chapter 5: Pace and progression
Q35 Do you support our proposals for ensuring that young people should be able to progress at a pace consistent with their potential and abilities?
It is imperative that young people can progress through the education system at a pace that is consistent with their potential and abilities. If the age link is removed from qualifications, this would allow pupils to be assessed when they are ready and they would therefore be more likely to achieve. The ideal course structure would enable a student to study at his or her own pace. [How many young people would manage to pass his or her driving test, for example, if everyone had to take it at age 17 years?] However, we are concerned about how this would sit with school league tables, when there is pressure to achieve measurable results.
Chapter 6: Advice, guidance and support for young people
Q38. Are there any other ways in which Connexions Personal Advisors should provide support to young people in the 14-19 phases (paragraphs 6.8-6.10)?
Again the emphasis should be on access and choice. On the face of it, Connexions would appear to be a welcome and perhaps long-overdue enhancement to the old careers offices, bringing a 'joined-up', multi-agency careers, education, health and welfare service to teenagers in a 'one-stop shop', combined with the benefits of up to date communication and IT provision. However, ARCH has serious concerns should a statutory service of this kind become compulsory. It would undermine the role of parents, extended family and friends in the upbringing, advice and care of adolescent people, and may ultimately pose a threat to the family, and to the rights of parents to bring up their own children. Even if some of the provisions are described as voluntary, the impetus towards compliance and the consequences of not complying are such as to exert considerable persuasive pressure to comply.
However welcome Connexions may seem, the way in which it has been decided to organise the delivery of the services concerned has fundamental implications for the rights of all children and young people.
More innovative methods of advising young people are required to ensure that all young people have the chance to engage in this process.
Advisors must also be trained in the breadth of SEN issues in order to be able to effectively advice children with special educational needs.
Paragraph 6.3 discusses the important role that parents must play in guiding and supporting their children. Since parents and carers are to play a role then it will also be necessary to ensure that there are resources available to raise awareness of the new range of options available.
Chapter 7: Drivers and support for change
Q39 Do you support our proposals for extending the qualifications included in the performance tables (paragraphs 7.10-7.15)?
Extending the qualifications included in the performance tables may help to encourage schools to enter their pupils in subjects that have previously not been included in performance tables. However, ARCH is strongly against a system of published performance tables that do not take into account the social background of a school's catchment area. The publication of the qualifications gained by pupils in annual league tables does little to boost the morale of either pupils or teachers, as they do not show the circumstances behind the grades gained.
By concentrating on benchmark testing teachers are forced to focus on content rather than skills or the learning process to ensure satisfactory results from their students. Most teaching revolves around written communication, which while important, practical, imaginative and observational skills are also needed for an individual to fully participate in society.
The proposals for ensuring that young people are able to progress at a pace consistent with their potential and abilities also appear to be irreconcilable with benchmark testing.
Other Thoughts:
Whilst a higher status for vocational studies seems laudable on the surface, is this attainable or is it merely part of a "cherry-picking" agenda? We are concerned that by involving private businesses, either directly or via Connexions, that the best students will be poached directly or via the modern apprenticeship schemes.
Arts, Humanities and Foreign Languages.
Skewing options away from these subject areas suggests that there is a bias towards a curriculum to produce workers for industry rather than an education system designed to meet the needs of its pupils. Article 29 1(a) UNCRC states that education shall be directed to "the development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential." It is quite impossible to see how this proposed curriculum meets the needs of a child with, for example, marked linguistic or artistic abilities.
Student Progress Files
We have concerns about the misuse of progress files. The government should be mindful of young people's right to privacy and especially in the context of data protection legislation. Information held in Student Progress Files should not be used to pressurise students or for surveillance.
The idea of each student having their programme of study managed for them, rather than managing their own we find intrinsically insulting.
Conclusion
Overall, ARCH would like to see far more consideration given to the rights of the child to consultation, in accordance with Article 12 UNCRC. We are concerned that 'compulsion' is taken as a given. According to the UNCRC, the child is the subject of a right to education; however, it is impossible to see how one can be simultaneously the subject of a right and the object of a compulsion. Compulsion, in any event, leads only to resentment and alienation. It is vital that we extend consultation and choice for children to the maximum.
Resources