The Sterling Engine Room

In this, the third and final article reviewing the educational policies of the major political parties, Chris Cherry considers the plans for the future of education under a fourth Labour term, if the Government is successful at the upcoming General Election.

It would be easy to sit in judgment over what will have been almost thirteen years of Labour control in Government. After all, of all the parties previously considered, this is the one with the nation’s mandate to invest our tax revenues and whose policies actually have consequences. Alternatively, it would be equally simplistic to consider only what happens next, without reference to the lessons that should have been learned from over a decade of putting thoughts into action. With a promised election banner of “Education, Education, Education”, have our young people, some of whom have only ever known Labour education policy, been well served or have a generation felt the door shut in their world and the light turned off.

In 1997, the education attainment of our young people, depending on which data you relied upon, placed us happily above Mexico and Turkey in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) rankings, but unhappily below all of the other twenty or so Countries. These rankings are viewed worldwide as a benchmark for national investment and are therefore used as a basis for UK investment and Policy. However, we sat at the top of the pile for degree graduates, although our output subjects were not aligned to where the intellectual shortages were greatest. It was at this time that the, “Medieval Archaeology versus Construction” debates emerged. By the time of the next General Election in June 2001, we had moved up a place on the OECD list (overtaking Brazil, a Country with the lowest per capita investment in people under 21). The new target for the Government was the Czech Republic, a dizzying tenth on the OECD list and a Country who spent at the time less than a quarter of the amount per capita than the UK. Unfortunately for the UK, the Czech Republic increased its effective investment in education and raced to second place on the list. Only South Korea bettered them. Poor performance in schools in South Korea would be a matter of social shame.

Our schools and colleges were dealing with the impact of the new Curriculum 2000, which sought to shake up the assessment of the GCSE to A Level boundary, including bringing in the new AS exam. Further down the age range, the impact of the revised national curriculum and the, “one hat fits all” were being debated. OfSTED picked up a wider inspection role that included colleges, and training providers became the focus for the Adult Learning Inspectorate. New autonomous non-departmental agencies appeared – the Quangos – and the bureaucracy of Governance swelled to unprecedented levels. Indeed, the NHS became Europe’s largest employer.

Investment in schools in all areas of operation increased in absolute and in real terms. Building Schools for the Future (BSF) and school Private Finance Initiative (PFI) projects mushroomed and some of the poorer attaining schools converted into specialist academies with the emergence of new Executive Head teachers and corporate management of schools.

There was, and has been, undeniably the largest investment in schools, colleges and education in general that there has ever been. Billions of UK tax pounds have been spent on new buildings, managing and accounting for learning, programmes to access hard to reach, truanting and poorly performing young people and support for schools and parents in helping young people achieve. Indeed, the amount spent per capita by Labour has risen from around £2,750 per pupil annually to around £5,500 today (1997 equivalent investment today would be around £4000).

It would be grossly unfair to give the impression that the welcome and significant investment in education has been unsuccessful, since there has been a significant improvement in so many areas. Setting aside the current economic issues which were of no fault of the education sector, but which have seriously impacted the college building programmes, school investment programmes and access to apprenticeship jobs for young people, there has been an improvement in educational attainment in all the areas that are important. What is debatable, however, is whether the distance travelled is sufficient when compared to the levels of investment made. We remain below the OECD averages in secondary education, and are no longer in the top echelons of graduates in higher education.

As with any long term strategy (and most school strategies are thirty years or more), it takes time to see real changes appear, they are difficult to quantify and are nearly impossible to attribute to any single action. Indeed, it remains unclear whether attainment is the result of late Conservative policy, or of the relatively recent Labour policies.

As a parting shot to the previous track record of Labour, who campaigned unashamedly on education, it is still the case that around half of all Year 11 leavers (at age 16) leave school without the expected five GCSE passes at Grade ‘C’ or above. Indeed if you include Maths and English in the equation, the numbers drop worryingly low. It remains the only real benchmark, as it is this “Level 2” comparator that can be used to compare the UK with Europe. Our gold standard “A Level” does not have a direct equivalent relative in Europe and the new(ish) Baccalaureate is gaining acceptance, particularly in fee-paying schools, although the higher education sector remains cool about the educational comparability of the early adopters.

So, how would Labour tackle the persistent educational issues if successful in the upcoming General Election? For a start, they have set out their policies, it would seem, as if the last thirteen years were governed by someone else. To illustrate this, they have initiated a major policy investment to offer one to one tuition to 300,000 secondary school children who are significantly behind their peers. One might say this is one last throw of the die and an acknowledgment of failure. Alternatively, this could be considered an attempt to fix a tricky problem that even schools acknowledge is a challenge – to provide individualised learning in a class size of thirty.

Labour’s policy on schools is surprisingly simple. This is a combination of timing (it is preferable to say little in an election year that might reduce your voting majority) and the fact that they are the sitting Government and their need is not to state what they would do, but just get on and do it. Their tone is a little on the vague side in most areas, “over the coming years” is a favourite with no start or end date. Again, this is to be expected as, just like cyclists in a pursuit race, you don’t really want to be the one making the first move and it’s better to be stationary on the track than ride off and be caught in the last bend.

Labour retains a focus on the basics, literacy and numeracy. In fact, this is strikingly similar to the election pledges of 1997 and 2001. The failure to achieve the literacy targets from both those campaigns has meant that this remains a persistent inclusion on the wish list.

By far, the largest inclusion and focus on school policy is in, “The National Challenge”. In an attempt to address the poor attainment of GCSE qualifications at age 16, including Maths and English of our young people, the Government have set a target that “no school has fewer than 30 per cent of its pupils achieving 5 GCSEs at A*-C grade including in English and Maths by 2011”. That still means it is acceptable for over two in three to miss out on GCSE Maths and English at Grade ‘C’. Along with this pledge, comes £400m of investment spread over three years. Given the population of Year 10 and 11 learners, and the numbers of Year 8 and 9 that would be in scope for this investment, this equates to around 450 schools who are failing to achieve even this modest 30% achievement benchmark. I wonder how many parents would think it acceptable that two out of their three children miss out on the minimum school attainment as a threshold.

Clearly, this area of education planning has always been a challenge – a national challenge – and it is with some sympathy and respect that this area of policy should be considered. The Conservatives routinely covered up their Fifth Year (Year 11) performance by reference to the numbers entering Sixth Form (interestingly the sixth form has remained even though now, the pupils and students are technically Year 12 and 13).

Of course a major problem for all the major parties is the persistent and massive hole in the national economy. This hole is unlikely to subside for many years to come. Whatever may be planned, the reality may be considerably different. At the moment, fewer employers are taking on apprentices. The Government (and realistically any Government) is underwriting places in further education without a prospect of a job at the end. Alongside this, the notion of employers partnering schools to become a Specialist school, a Trust school or an Academy is a worthy if unrealistic aim given the scaling back of our national investment.

Labour is mandating young people to remain within the learning and skills environment until the age of eighteen. A cynical view would be that this serves to reduce the unemployment of younger people – by far the worst unemployment statistic politically. Positively, it removes the choice at sixteen to leave the learning environment and make a complex and life determining decision with a number of possible outcomes. The Government, often accused of nanny state tactics is at least trying to streamline the decision making process. For many families, the traditional GCSE, A Level and degree route that most resembles the ambition of our education system is as far from reality as is possible to achieve. For these families, the Labour Government is offering a suite of shorter term, single issue interventions that can only be effective if allowed to mature, develop and learn from mistakes. At times, there is so much policy, initiative and funding change; it is hard for anything to become established. The Government is often likened to a gardener. Careful planting, tending and nurturing yields a mature and healthy garden. Keep rotavating and replanting and nothing will ever become established.

Clearly, the next three months or so will become more congested with the major parties counter-punching each other. The gap between the Conservative lead and Labour will be as hard fought numerical territory as any political contest in the last century. With most smart money on 6 May, the Spring will be a cauldron of policy manifesto and promises, real or imagined.

When all is said and done, the biggest hope is that whoever wins the Election will not close the door on such a great number of our nation’s young people. Preventing that, at least, is something worth voting for.

Labour Policy at a glance – Schools

• To ensure that every child leaves primary school confident in their literacy and numeracy skills, Labour will offer 30,000 pupils support in literacy and 30,000 support in numeracy every year over the coming years.

• Labour is committed to rebuilding or refurbishing every secondary school and half of all primary schools in the coming years.

• The National Challenge is the government’s scheme designed to ensure that no school has fewer than 30 per cent of its pupils achieving 5 GCSEs at A*-C grade including in English and Maths by 2011. The programme is backed up by £400 million of extra investment over the next three years.

• We want every secondary school to be a Specialist school, a Trust school or an Academy, with a business or university partner for every one of them. By 2010/11, over 310 Academies will be open or in the pipeline.

• Labour will guarantee every young person up to the age of 18 an apprenticeship, training or a place to study free of charge by 2015. We will continue to increase the number of apprenticeships available.

• In secondary schools, Labour will provide one to one tuition to 300,000 pupils in English and Maths who are falling behind their peers.

Labour Policy at a glance – Skills

• Labour has legislated to raise the education and training leaving age so that every young person will be guaranteed an apprenticeship, training or a place to study at school or college up to 18
• Labour has increased student grants so that over two thirds of students will get a grant of £2,835, in total two thirds of students will receive a partial grant.
• To raise the aspirations of all young people, Labour is offering 250,000 16 year olds, who qualify for the Education Maintenance Allowance, a clear guarantee of the minimum level of maintenance grant and loan they will receive if they go to university or college.
• Labour has pledged to open or commit funding to 20 new university campuses over the next 6 years.
• Within the next ten years we want one in five young people to be taking up apprenticeship places. In order to fulfil our ambition for young people, we will increase the number of 16-18 apprenticeships and are legislating to ensure every suitably qualified young person who wants to do an apprenticeship can do so.
• We will raise the minimum weekly pay for apprentices to £95 a week from September 2009

Chris Cherry

February 2010

Chris Cherry looks at the plans for education of the major political parties. In this first part he presents the contemporary landscape and analyses the Conservative Party plans for education and looks at what they may try to do if they win the upcoming election.

In almost every election of the last Century, one of the key issues generating the hottest debate between the parties has remained the improvement and reform of the education sector. Since the Education Act of 1870, the Government of the day has taken responsibility for juggling the need to educate and invest in our nation’s young people, satisfying the voting parents and controlling the costs of what can easily become a runaway train.

All the major parties have placed the whole education sector at centre stage for the next election as each one recognises the impact that schools, colleges, training providers (and latterly employers and business) can make on the life chances of our children. There is no doubt, of course, that it is easier to comment on education policy when in opposition, as you are not spending real taxpayers’ hard earned cash. It is always easier to go on the record with your opinions about what the Government is not doing, but there does come a time when you have to finally put pen to paper and commit policies to public scrutiny. However, it is clear that the Conservative Party no longer views the State education sector as untouchable.

The recent economic downturn has placed an enormous burden on the nation’s budgets for public investment, meaning each area of spending would need to undergo a significant review of priorities. The effects of this will realistically not be felt until even as late as 2013. Whatever investment plans any of the likely election winners had in place in 2007 or 2008 will now require significant revision with realistic objectives. This is indeed the case in education, a sector which has traditionally shared with Defence and the Health sector, an almost unquestioned guarantee of financial security simply because the consequences of the reverse are unimaginable for elected politicians.

The education sector is broadly divided into three main policy areas for the purposes of funding and planning. The primary sector focuses on education from Reception to Year 6. This does not include fee-paying primary education which is relatively free from education policy but still subject to the other areas of public care for very young people. Local Authorities have changed the traditional Local Education Authority (LEA) departments in broader Children’s Trusts or Children’s Services with much wider responsibilities for the well-being and welfare of our young people.

Secondary education focuses mainly on 11-16 in schools (Years 7 to 11), whether they are state comprehensive schools or funded Grammar schools. Some schools offer a selection policy where a Grammar and a comprehensive serve the same community (with some still offering 11+ type entrance tests). This differs from fee-paying schools that are able to offer a curriculum tailored to the academic traditions of the school.

Post-16 (Year 12 and 13) education is often neglected in political debate simply because all of the criticisms that can be levelled at political opponents can be better aimed using schools as the more emotive ammunition. School sixth forms, local Further Education (FE) colleges and the range of publicly funded training providers compete, for the young people who graduate, or otherwise, from their GCSE year.

In 2009, the first year of young adults who were truly educated as “Blair’s Children”, some 35% of our sons, daughters, brothers and sisters left the compulsory education sector without the national minimum achievements for Year 11. The figures are more worrying if you include achievement at Grade C in Maths and English. This does represent an increase in achievement year on year, but also highlights the persistent difficulties in maintaining school achievement whilst trying to keep school interesting for young people.

Many of those are convinced into staying on at school for sixth form, a decision often made not for sound educational reasons, but in order to maintain the quantum of funding each place attracts. Other routes which are often more suitable include moving to a local FE college for further classroom or vocationally based learning, or to a privately owned training provider which may offer vocational learning still within the publicly funded and inspected circle.

In 2007, the Conservatives published the first broadside on the Labour performance in schools. Raising the Bar, Closing the Gap, was a Green paper designed to launch the proposal that schools should return to more local control with less involvement from Central Government. The proposals suggest that parents and others are better able to decide how their children are educated. This includes giving back control of teaching to teachers – citing Labour’s erosion of classroom control – and setting some basic parameters for performance. Children should read by the age of six and schools should be more accountable for underperformance. There is a more social dimension than has ever appeared before in that there is a desire to focus on inequality and pull up talented young people from their bootstraps and narrow the attainment gap. This attacks squarely the traditional Labour social mobility theme and endeavours to capture the Blairite wing of the Labour Party.

This proposal, tagged “New Schools” was modelled on the Swedish Conservative reforms of the mid-1990s. There is some evidence to suggest this model is successful, although it does increase the number of schools and reduce the average size considerably. This increases the pupil-teacher ratio, but does cost (someone) a lot of money to create.

Recently, testing at Year 9, the dreaded SATS, were removed from the reporting framework for schools, although interestingly enough, most schools still put pupils through SATS – level tests in order to report on performance. The Conservatives favour a different approach in reducing the burden of assessment in favour of an individual attainment plan.

The major policy platform for schools is the desire to create new schools in the state sector which may be run by private, commercial or charity organisations.

These schools would be within the state system, but would have targets set in a range of areas from performance to achievement. Local Authorities would be required to facilitate such expansions even where they consider class sizes to be too small to be economically advantageous within the current system. Clearly, there is an extraordinary cost to this and it has yet to emerge where the funding would come from.

Other interesting proposals include diverting resources to pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. There are many robust measures for assessing educational disadvantage but it will still come as a shock to the traditional Conservative heartland voters if their local school budget is scrutinised, especially if that school has been successful and prudent.

Tackling underachievement is the central theme of proposals that have emerged since 2007. Indeed, the Shadow Ministerial team has maintained the line that education is the key to unlocking many of their stated current socio-economic problems. The reinforcement that synthetic phonics is the answer to our reading problems is interesting as often this single-issue evangelism can reveal a lack of understanding of the breadth in the range of issues that must be tackled by a Government.

There is a clear stance being taken over where money can immediately be saved. The Conservatives favour the dismantling of a wide range of “bloated” Quangos and other Non Governmental Departments (NGOs). There is no doubt that many of the functions performed by these organisations are necessary and vital, but they favour a reduction in number and by consequence the funding that goes with them.

There is a major focus on apprenticeships. Traditionally a Labour-driven entity, it is now a major battleground at the centre of politics. Clearly, investment by employers in training young people is a given, especially when training is paid for as an equal to other post-16 choices, but has often suffered because of recession, poor communication and a raft of rules and regulations that can stifle achievement to the point of confusion. Good providers of apprenticeships can shield their employer partners from the worst excesses of bureaucracy, but still many avoid apprenticeships because they feel it will become a paperwork trap.

The Conservatives want to take on this traditional Labour ground and are seeking to invest widely in apprenticeships. They most certainly are not the qualification of last resort and good apprenticeships should equally be reserved for the academically able. The nation’s economy does indeed rely heavily on the skills of young people and their willingness to invest in them for the whole of their lives. The Conservatives are proposing a shift from the 16-18 age group to a wider 16-24 age group. At present, it is quite difficult to start an apprenticeship over the age of 21. This could change under a Conservative Government.

In all cases, the wheels of change do take time to turn. It is usually the case that a new Government tampers little in the first year as the costs of change are often very high. It is likely that change will occur over time so that most policy changes will only really become effective in 2012 or 2013.

2012 ring a bell? It is ringing enormous alarm bells that deafen Big Ben. Skilled young people, apprenticeships and vocational qualifications for adults are needed now, right in the middle of a significant period of rationalisation. However, when a Party is leading the Polls by anywhere between 5% and 17%, depending on whom you ask, you don’t really need firm policies. You can wait in the wings for your opponents to fall down the 39 steps.

In this, the second in the series, Chris Cherry looks at the Liberal Democrat plans for educational reform in advance of the upcoming election.

As with the Conservative Party, and as will be the case with the current Government, all future policy planning for 2010 onwards must be put into perspective against the enormous hole in the Public purse, whose deficit numbers remain staggering. None of the parties can sustain increased spending in any of the vote-winning policy areas, and especially in the cash-hungry education sector.

Benjamin Disraeli once described effective Government as a balance between luck, timing and having one more sentence to say than your opponent. In each of these respects, the Liberal Democrats in recent years have profited from the ebbs and flows of public opinion of the two larger parties.

In 1997 spin and sleaze, bywords for nineties politics, forced the Conservative Party to succumb to the charms of Cool Britannia, and again in 2001, despite the Conservative lead in the polls at the beginning of the campaign, Labour triumphed. However, some electorate members voted to install the Liberal Democrats as their preferred Members of Parliament where in the past, these seats had been marked as safe for the bigger two.

Although so much is being written about size of the Conservative lead (anywhere from 5% to 17%), the amount of swing required to bring about a Conservative majority is considerable. In effect, the Conservatives would have to win Scotland, Wales and much of the North to bring about a change of colour in the Commons.

Labour may not win the election but that does not mean that the Conservatives will. There are still good reasons for suspecting that an overall majority may yet elude Cameron’s party in 2010.

With the way in which our voting system currently operates the Conservatives need a lead of about twelve percentage points over Labour for outright victory.

Assuming that the Conservatives can poll the 40% they currently enjoy, then Labour has to be held at 28%, which will prove a very difficult proposition.

And, even if that happens those figures only give the Conservatives the narrowest of overall majorities. There is a strong possibility, therefore, that a Coalition Government may need to be formed.

The Liberal Democrats have made no secret of the fact that they intend to capitalize on the uncertainty of the voters in their preferred choice of Government as well as the current electoral system of voting for your MP and not for the Party. They have been buoyed, in part, from the outcomes of the European elections, which clearly show a dissent away from centre left politics, even to the point of the electors seeming to vote for anyone other than Labour.

Realistically the election can have four outcomes. There could be a clear majority for either Labour or the Conservatives, or there could be a coalition for either Party with the Liberal Democrats. It is this latter scenario that almost certainly drives Liberal Democrats thinking around election and post election policy.

As with the Conservative Party, it is always easier to criticize the sitting Government because you don’t actually have to justify the Policy with spending or account for the outcomes. Although both Cameron and Brown have agreed to behave with sporting behaviour in the upcoming election, there is little doubt that the third voice can profit if either of these two take their eye from the ball.

In the North West, particularly in Greater Manchester, the Liberal Democrats enjoy a patch of Yellow in the sea of Red. Here, in the main, it is dissatisfaction with the Government as well as practical politics that is maintaining the Liberal Democrat MPs.

From now, however, more and more scrutiny will be placed on policy, manifesto drafts and leaked memos in the run up to the election. As with all elections, education provides a fertile territory to wage the battle of hustings.

What are the Liberal Democrats Proposing for Education?

In 2009, the Liberal Democrats Party published Policy Paper 89, “Equity and Excellence: Policies for 5-19 Education in England’s Schools and Colleges”, which is a set of policy papers for schools, colleges and higher education. In them, they put forward some alternative views of the education landscape in which the current levels of spending are unsustainable and must be put in the context of the wider economic climate.

For the Primary school sector, The Liberal Democrat Spring Conference backed plans to cut infant school class sizes to 15 (from the approximate 23-28 currently) and close the performance gap between children from rich and poor families. This will require some deft planning, as this policy area has already cost successive Governments the bulk of their spending headroom. The Liberal Democrats propose an additional £2.5bn to effect this change. Based on previous costed plans, this is a very optimistic figure and even this figure may yet prove unaffordable.

The plans include:

Cutting infant class sizes to 15

Using £2.5bn of additional funding to close the gap between children from rich and poor families

Scrapping the 600 page national curriculum and replacing it with a slimmed-down minimum curriculum entitlement

Setting up an independent Education Standards Authority to restore confidence in standards

The Liberal Democrat Shadow Schools Secretary, David Laws has often commented on the runaway spending of Labour, but their own plans will require their own fiscal stimulus if they are going to pull this off. He has said in the past, “After 12 years of Labour, there is still a yawning gap between state and private schools, and between the life chances of rich and poor pupils. Liberal Democrat policies aim to close these gaps to ensure that all children can rely on high quality state-funded education to enable all them to fulfil their potential…Our Pupil Premium would bring the funding of the most disadvantaged pupils up to private school levels.”

The Pupil Premium is an interesting idea. It is unclear how it differs from just spending money where it is needed, but it will at least put a focal point on the fundamental issue of getting it right early enough to make a difference. The fact that it can last up to the age of 18 is a sound philosophy, if it genuinely follows the learner. Such schemes in the past have proved impossible to administer. Additional to this, the Liberal Democrats would propose transfer of planning powers to Local Authorities. What goes around comes around.

For older pupils, the Liberal Democrats would retain the distinctions between 16-18 and 19-24, like the current Government. In many other respects they view the vocational offer a little differently. Whereas the current regime is endeavouring to sanction those that do not stay on at 16, the Liberal Democrats would not require young people to stay on up to the age of 18. For the younger apprentices, there would be an offer of vocational learning from the age of 14, but it has to be in synchronicity with other learning opportunities. For adult apprentices, there would likely be an end to Train to Gain (the National Vocational Qualification for over 19s), and an expansion in adult apprenticeships. The difference is the apprenticeship would contain an academic element, seen by employers as more useful in judging learner achievements. At the moment, this is likely to be centrally funded, rather than by the learner or employer, but when this is actually costed, it is more than likely that some contribution from somewhere other than the Public resource must be included.

For those fortunate enough to move into full-time Higher Education, the Liberal Democrats would see an end to the confusion surrounding the performance of the Student Loans Company. All parents should be rightly upset and annoyed in an age of Higher Education expansion, that the loans our sons and daughters are obliged to take out have still not appeared for thousands of them, often leading to them having to quit their course or defer entry into next year’s loans lottery. The Liberal Democrats have quantified their position in that they will provide fee-free first Level 4. This means that the first course taken at Level 4 – normally Higher Education – would not require students to pay fees to their University. This won’t solve the living costs element, but was not that always the case for students? Part-time study would not attract this fee-free offer, but the fees would be better regulated, whatever that may mean.

A significant issue is one which is often hidden from public view. The whole planning of Further and Higher Education is undertaken currently by two separate agencies, whose remits have evolved over the years that they have been in existence. Irrespective of whoever wins the next election, there will be a significant change to this arrangement. The current thinking is that regions need to be able to plan for local delivery based on need. This seems sensible until we discover that the majority of policy decisions are taken at a national level, and the local delivery of these has to fit to this, rather than the patently more effective method of the centre funding local common sense. On this issue, the Liberal Democrats are quiet. This may well be because they have nothing to say, but it might also reveal just how tricky and annoyingly expensive such a seemingly simple process can be.

If there were to be a Coalition Government, then the Liberal Democrat voice would need to be heard. Quite how loudly the voice is heard and with what social effect, will depend entirely on the metrics of the election.

The Liberal Democrats do have an opportunity to steal seats that fall through the fingers of Labour and the Conservatives as they slug out the election contest. Labour have more seats to drop, and might not notice some are missing. The Conservatives still need to gain every seat that they can to succeed. On that basis, it remains anyone’s election.

Liberal Democrat Education Policy At-A-Glance

The Liberal Democrats  would:

• • Introduce a Pupil Premium to close the performance gap between children from rich and poor families. £2.5bn extra would be used immediately

• • Within one Parliament extend the Pupil Premium to other disadvantaged pupils, to cover around 2.5 million children in total.

• • Allow schools to spend the Pupil Premium on cutting class sizes, boosting one to one tuition, financial incentives for teachers to work in the most challenging schools, extended school days or after school tuition and holiday support.

• • Provide funding to cut class sizes for children aged 5-7

• • Scrap the 600 page National Curriculum and replace it with a slimmed down Minimum Curriculum Entitlement.

• • Radically slim down the system of national testing, and re-invest the savings in diagnostic assessment and supporting early interventions to help improve pupils’ literacy and numeracy.

• • Introduce a General Diploma, to be taken by all pupils, incorporating within it GCSEs, A Levels, and existing proven vocational qualifications.

• • Ensure there are incentives to stretch all pupils by replacing the Government’s present GCSE target which places too much emphasis on C/D borderline pupils.

• • Require the General Teaching Council to develop a formal programme of continuous professional development (including a requirement for a Masters qualification) as part of a new system requiring teachers regularly to re-certify their fitness to practice, as in other professions.

• • Reform teacher training by increasing learning overseen by established teachers in the classroom.

• • Close the unfair funding gap between pupils in school sixth forms and colleges, by immediately raising college funding to school levels, paid for by ending the Education Maintenance Allowance bonus payments.

• • Take action to ensure that every neighbourhood is served by an excellent local school or college. We would give Local Authorities a clear strategic responsibility for oversight of school performance, along with appropriate powers of intervention. We would ensure that all pupils leaving primary and secondary education have the skills they need.

• • Pass an Education Freedom Act, to devolve power from central government to schools, local authorities and parents. The central department of Children, Schools and Families’ would lose powers to micro-manage education and be more than halved in size.

• • Establish an independent Educational Standards Authority (ESA) to restore confidence in standards.

• • Allow parents and pupils to choose schools, and not schools to choose pupils, by stopping the establishment of new schools which select by ability, aptitude or faith, and by introducing policies to reduce radically all existing forms of selection.

• • Introduce a new pupil right to move from school to college or work–related learning provider at age 14.

• • Scrap the Labour Government’s plan to criminalise young people who leave education before age 18, and replace it with a more flexible entitlement for young people to take the additional 2 years of post-16 education when they wish to do so.

Chris Cherry is the Director of Consulting for Consult Sterling, based in Manchester.

Chris has over 15 years experience in the Learning and Skills sector and has been a Director of a national consulting company, Managing Director of a very successful apprenticeship and commercial training provider, an Area Director for the Learning and Skills Council and a senior manager in a number of Further Education Colleges.

Chris has a research and analysis pedigree as well as experience planning and delivering large and high profile programmes on a national stage. An accomplished public speaker and author of a number of articles and commentaries in national newspapers and publications.

An international study will measure and compare learning outcomes at universities around the world – and could provide the “missing link” for university rankings.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) launched the Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO) initiative in Washington on 27 January.

AHELO’s first phase will measure students’ “generic” skills, such as problem solving and critical thinking, through online tests adapted from the US’ Collegiate Learning Assessment.

The questions are intended to be non-specialised and answerable by undergraduates of all disciplines.

Fourteen nations are expected to take part in the full project, including the US, Finland, Italy, Japan and Mexico.

The goal is for all 30 OECD countries to participate eventually.

Richard Yelland, head of the education management and infrastructure division of the OECD’s Education Directorate, who is leading the initiative, said: “AHELO is a pioneering international attempt to assess the quality of higher education by focusing on what students have learnt during their studies and what skills they have acquired. Success will provide higher education systems and institutions with diagnostic tools for improvement that go far beyond anything currently available.”

Mr Yelland told The Chronicle of Higher Education: “This isn’t going to be a ranking. It is so much more. If we manage to produce reliable data, some people may well turn them into rankings, but that is not what this is about.”

For the 14 nations taking part in the full project, an average of 10 institutions per country will be involved, with about 200 students per institution taking part.

In the US, institutions in four states – Connecticut, Massachusetts, Missouri and Pennsylvania – are participating.

Ben Wildavsky, author of a forthcoming book on the globalisation of higher education, The Great Brain Race, described AHELO as “a very promising initiative”.

He added: “It has the potential to provide the missing link in existing university assessments and rankings, which have often been faulted for overemphasising research, neglecting undergraduate education and focusing on input measures at the expense of rigorous measures of student-learning outcomes.”

Mr Wildavsky, senior fellow in research and policy at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation in Kansas City, a body that promotes entrepreneurship, added: “If the OECD can pull it off, it will have filled a major gap and moved us towards a world in which universities have much better incentives to improve an important part of their work – teaching students.”

Mr Wildavsky said the involvement of the US, with support from its Department of Education, was key.

However, there will be “technical barriers to coming up with truly valid, reliable and comparable tests across nations”, he added.

“I also feel that the best measures of university effectiveness would include not only student learning but also research prowess – but perhaps that will come later if and when AHELO proves its worth,” he said.

Phil Baty, editor of the Times Higher Education World University Rankings, said: “One of the biggest weaknesses in the current global rankings systems is that there is nothing that can fairly measure teaching quality across different countries and cultures, so the AHELO project is being watched very closely indeed. But inevitably it will be very difficult and will take a long time before there are any serious data for detailed comparisons between institutions.

“In the meantime, Times Higher Education is working closely with its new rankings partner, Thomson Reuters, to make sure that there are more sensible and rigorous measures of teaching quality for the World University Rankings in 2010 and beyond. We are working on a far more sophisticated reputational survey of world academics, where we expect teaching quality to be unpicked in a way that’s never been done before in world rankings.”