[Education For Tomorrow: No 95, 2008]The Primary Review: An interim report from the trenchesMost of what you need to know about the surface technicalities of The Primary Review is available to read on its comprehensive website at www.primaryreview.org.ukThe Q&A sections are very readable, refreshingly light on ‘eduspeak’, and stick to the point. Take this, for openers: ‘Why do we need the Review?’ ‘Many reasons, but here are some of them: * Despite social and economic changes, there has been no comprehensive investigation of English primary education since the Plowden enquiry of 1967. There has been a number of much smaller enquiries, reports and initiatives, but none of these has had the broad scope or visionary aspirations of Plowden, or its independence. * Primary schools have been subject to two decades of continuous yet piecemeal reform — national curriculum, national testing, a new national inspection system, national strategies for literacy, numeracy and the primary phase as a whole, workforce reform, targets, centralisation, delegation, inclusion, personalised learning, and much more. Big claims have been made for these initiatives by the reformers themselves, but these claims are not universally accepted, and objective evidence may tell another story. The relevance and impact of all this activity needs to be carefully assessed. * Primary schools are now part of a complex structure linking education with provision in health, welfare and childcare, and children’s primary schooling with what precedes and follows it. Or, at least, that’s the intention: but how coherent is the system really? * Primary education suffers more than its fair share of claim, counter claim and mythology. Standards are rising/standards are falling ... Today’s teachers are the best ever/teachers merely follow the latest gimmick ... The 3Rs are being neglected/schools are concentrating on the 3Rs to the neglect of everything else ... Children’s behaviour is deteriorating/today’s children are better motivated than ever... And so on. What is the truth? * Our system of primary education was created on the basis of a particular view of society and people’s place within it. But today’s Britain is diverse, divided and unsure of itself. Some commentators argue the virtues of a pluralist multi-culture. Others deplore the loss of shared identity and social cohesion. It’s time to revisit the vital debate about the relationship between education and society.’ The Director of the Primary Review is Robin Alexander, Fellow of Wolfson College, University of Cambridge and Emeritus Professor of Education at the University of Warwick. No stranger to controversy, he was one of the co-authors of the ‘Three Wise Men’ report on Curriculum Organisation and Classroom Practice in Primary schools in 1991-2, along with Jim Rose and Chris Woodhead. Being subject to much polarised coverage in the media at the time, Alexander is keen that the Primary Review is carried out, and reported on without ‘sensationalist discourse.’ Dream on, Robin! In what way is the current review different from Plowden? Alexander is clear. ‘Instead of a publicly-funded official commission of the great and the good, we have an independent review led by academics, guided by a diverse and talented Advisory Committee chaired by Dame Gillian Pugh and funded from a private source, the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation.’ Where will this independent group get their evidence from? * Written and electronic submissions, which are open to all * Face to face soundings with national organisations, teachers’ groups and regional gatherings of teachers, parents, children and community representatives * Searches of official data held by government and by national and international agencies, and * Surveys of published research Alexander makes much of the last ‘evidential strand,’ ‘It constitutes probably the biggest sweep of published research relating to English Primary education ever undertaken, and to achieve it the review has commissioned 30 thematic research literature surveys from some 70 researchers in 23 universities and university departments. Here, the Primary review has one big advantage over Plowden; the range and quality of the evidence available to it.’ It sounds pretty impressive. However, collecting evidence is only half the story. It’s how you interpret it, and what recommendations you make in the light of these interpretations, which lie at the heart of the matter. And, no small point this, it depends on the quality, integrity and reliability of the evidence itself, in scientific terms. Independent and unbiased? The Review is very keen that it be seen as being independent and unbiased. * ‘politically independent — we are consulting all the main political parties, the statutory national agencies and the education unions, and hope to establish a constructive dialogue with them; but we are beholden to none of these bodies, and none of them is in any way involved in the commissioning, funding or oversight of the Review; * financially independent — the Review is funded by a major independent charitable foundation rather than a research council or government department and is therefore independent of the public purse; * intellectually independent — the Review is based in one of the world’s leading universities, with a strong commitment to the defence of academic freedom, and is undertaken and supported by people who share that principle. * even-handed — it’s not enough to be independent; we also strive to be even-handed and objective in our consultations, evidence, analysis and conclusions, and to listen to the many different voices which — on a matter of this importance — have a right to be heard.’ Fine words indeed! But when you go and look at the make up of the diverse and talented Advisory Committee it all starts to look like the same old same old. Indeed, some of this lot would struggle to make it onto the parish council of Dibley, never mind being at the heart of the Primary Review. How, for example does Dr Kevan Collins, ex-national director of the National Primary Strategy qualify for a place on such a prestigious body? His evidence to the Parliamentary Select Skills Committee on the Teaching of Reading in 2004-5 suggests he misunderstands the research. His assertions about how huge and wonderful have been the gains made by thousands of children due to the Literacy Hour have been blown out of the water. www.rrf.org.uk/newsletter.php?n_ID=122 scroll down to Kevan Collins. So, why is he there? Who asked him? And, Diane Hofkins, ex-editor of the Times Educational Supplement, who trivialised, and suppressed debate about synthetic phonics and the teaching of reading during her time in charge of that highly esteemed rag? Yet here she is, sitting on this independent body. Let’s hope some of the others on the committee carry less baggage and more integrity. Then there’s the list of the 70 researchers. Some of them are very well-known and respected in their fields. But how independent are they, given that it could well be argued that a lot of what is wrong in education today can be laid at the door of education departments in universities firmly entrenched in constructivism and all that flows from it? Some are active advocates in educational politics and display a distinct lack of scientific objectivity in the way they go about their business. They are neither intellectually independent nor even-handed. The Primary Review should not therefore be offering such people house room. Some have considerable ideological baggage. Professor Kathy Hall’s links to the United Kingdom Literacy association, (UKLA) place her firmly in the Whole Language camp. Currently she is in the thick of the Open Eye Campaign, and has contributed to a recent book on the teaching of reading, (anti Rose and pro the so-called balanced approach) alongside anti phonics diehards such as Myra Barrs and Margaret Meek of the Centre for Language in Primary Education (CLPE). Lecturer in Early years and Primary Education at Cambridge University, Dominic Wyse’s attacks on the research from Clackmannanshire in particular, suggests he shares their point of view. See him in action on Teachers’ TV. www.teachers.tv/video/2999 Hopefully, the Review will overcome the influence of these die-hards and indeed look at the empirical evidence to make its recommendations. The sheer sweep of the remit and number of interim reports means there is far too much to cover here in one article. I am encouraged by some of what has been released so far. Peter Tymms and Christine Merrell from the University of Durham caused a bit of a stir when their research report Standards and Quality in English Primary Schools over time: the national evidence came out last autumn, and must have caused Kevan Collins to wince a bit. * Overall, standards of attainment in reading in English primary schools have been more or less static since the 1950s * There was a small improvement in primary reading standards after the immediate post-war period, a small drop immediately following the introduction of the National Curriculum and a slight rise after that * Standards of mathematics have slowly but gradually risen over the years, though with small regressions and accelerations here and there. The most substantial improvements have been since 1995 * Statutory test results at the end of KS2 rose dramatically between 1995 and 2000. These rises exaggerated the changes in pupils’ attainment levels and were seriously misleading Implications: massive efforts to bring about change have had a relatively small impact. These policies have cost many millions of pounds but they have generally not had a sound research base and have not been systematically evaluated. The messages are clear: policies need to be much more closely tied to the research evidence, and strategies should be trialled and scientifically evaluated before introduction on a national basis. Looking at the problems facing teachers and children in many schools, I hope the review will investigate the effects of poverty, the breakdown of the nuclear family, schools having to do the jobs of social workers and parents, the insanity of politically correct enforced inclusion, the appalling state of teacher training, the endless fads imposed by government, workload and so on and so on. Glimmers of hope ‘The gap in pupil attainment maps too exactly for coincidence onto other gaps: the gaps between rich and poor; the gap of social class; the gap in parental aspirations.’ ‘The solution to the notorious attainment gap seems clear in theory, though anything but simple in practice: reduce social inequality, and you will reduce educational inequality. But we also need to ask how far schooling itself may contribute to the attainment gap. After all, there are many high-performing schools situated in areas which rank high on indicators of inequality and deprivation yet whose pupils do well against the odds of circumstance, so the quality of teaching and school leadership are crucial variables too. Do some policies actually exacerbate inequality?’ These are issues that are not really being addressed by either teacher unions or the General Teaching Council. As Robin Alexander says, it’s still ongoing, with lots more evidence to come in, and many more questions asked than answers given as yet. His speech to the Worshipful Company of Weavers in November 2007 entitled Towards a new vision for Primary education? Midway through the Primary Review is well worth reading and reveals that at least the director of this massive undertaking is well-intentioned www.primaryreview.org.uk/Downloads/RJA_Weavers_Company_lecture_071120.pdf This quote gives you a flavour: ‘Though we did indeed report that there was a pervasive anxiety about the current educational and social contexts, including significant areas of recent policy, and a deeper pessimism about the world in which today’s children are growing up, we also reported that of all the groups we spoke to, children were the least likely to share the pessimism not just about the wider world but also about tests and testing. This is not to say that they were immune to these anxieties: they weren’t and we should heed what they said. But what many media did was to attribute to children anxieties which were mostly expressed about them by adults. Why? Presumably because “UK youngsters stressed and depressed” makes a better story than “Adults worried about children.” The first is news; the second is a fact of parental life.’ Maybe, despite all the rotten apples, the sum of the parts will produce a whole worth having. Maybe the government will act on it. Maybe the much-needed revolution in primary education will spark into life. Maybe it’s not just moving the deckchairs on the Titanic. Or, as they say in Dibley, “No… n-no… no… no… no…YES!!! Jo Shadwell |