You Rang, Sir?

The Secretary of State for Education has today announced that it will become illegal for schools to allow mobile phones in classrooms. 

This in itself is not a huge issue for us, as we routinely collect phones from pupils at the start of the day, allow access at lunchtime for students who go off-site and hand them back at 3pm.  One newspaper today cites the famous Michaela Academy - the so-called strictest school in the country, and also one of the best-performing - which apparently does exactly as we do.  “This one act will transform classrooms across the country” says the headmistress, Ms Burbalsingh on X.  Not true in our case, or hers, but I know what she means. 

I have thought for years that children who make their own way to and from school should have a mobile phone for safety reasons. I know many parents and grandparents will fondly recall the days when they could walk to school (in my case, three miles each way, which explains my current high level of fitness and trim physique) at a time when mobiles weren’t even dreamt of - “and it didn’t do us any harm”.  And when we could ride off on our bikes in the morning and turn up for tea several hours later without anyone (in my case thankfully) knowing where we’d been or what we’d been doing. Etc.  Not very helpful really: the world was different then and despite the enormous amounts of money spent on safeguarding, education, health and safety and policing it was much, much safer.  Not a golden age, certainly, but a lot safer.  I find that in my lifetime (i.e., at least the last 30 years) the murder rate in the UK has increased by 500%, well ahead of the population increase over the same time. That despite the period in question being seen by many as a time of human progress, enlightened attitudes and so on. 

It seems to me that one of the more enlightened things parents can do now is to use all the technology available to keep their children safe.  

But they don’t need phones in the classroom. 

Nick Gibb, who has been Schools Minister since the time of Disraeli (or so it seems)*, has suggested that if parents wish to keep their children safe before and after school they should buy them a non-Smart phone - a “brick” as he calls it. There might be something in that …

 * Some might say I have been slightly rude about Mr Gibb in a couple of recent blogs.  Not at all - I am really complimenting him: his very longevity amid the short-termism of politics is testament to his great qualities.  He is very good and his lengthy tenure in the same Department probably means he knows what he is talking about.  He has been around an awful long time, though.

Would you be okay with that?

It’s important to say that being a government minister is a difficult existence: probably impossible.  Lord Salisbury who spent 13 years as prime minister around the turn of the 20th century, said:  “Whatever happens will be for the worse, and it is therefore in our interest that as little should happen as possible”.  

Difficult though it is, even if you don’t share Salisbury’s brand of world-weary cynicism, the job of government minister remains, in a democracy, accountable to you and me. Not directly, of course, but - as democratic idealists would say - ultimately. 

Tell me this: if your child came home from school and used the word “f … ing”, would you be okay with that?  To those of a certain generation (not that ancient) it is still a shocking word to hear.  Listen to “fly on the wall” football documentaries and everyone seems to use the word in every other sentence; even foreign coaches - which always sounds faintly ridiculous.  Mr (Matt not Tony) Hancock’s WhatsApp friends seemed to be using the word in every message when all that unedifying stuff came out a few months ago. A word which has obviously been used for centuries but never publicly is now very much in the public domain. A word which if used in films requires a warning to be issued about “foul language”.  So: figures many might look up to, or feel they should, are happy to use “foul” language quite openly. What does that say about us?  I’m not sure, but I do know that when the Education Secretary - yes, it really was the holder of that role, believe it or not - is recorded saying what she said the other day I wince and do wonder what we have become.  I’m not up to judging her - she’s no doubt a splendid lady and a good minister - but … what sort of example is that?

School Fees ...

I have just discovered that the fees at one of our local private schools is £16,800 per year. That is more than I thought – clearly, I’m out date.  

I try not to exaggerate fee levels when speaking to parents and usually quote what a few years ago was the UK average: £15,191 a year. Clearly that is now far too low.  It seems from reputable sources that the up-to-date figure is £20,480.  Amazing.  I just cannot see how a class of 20 pupils (for example) needs £400,000 a year to operate. None of my business, of course, and I wish them well - but … how can that be?  Where on earth is that money going?

Out of interest, that means that our fees this year  at IGS are 17.5% of the current national average. Not far off one sixth.  You could have 6 children at IGS for the price of one at another typical independent school. And so on …

As I say, it’s none of our business – these are all no doubt great schools and if they choose that fee level, and parents are willing to pay, good luck to everyone involved.

But it’s an awful lot of money …   

Changes to Ofsted ...

The suicide of a serving headteacher, apparently as a result of her school being downgraded to “inadequate”, inevitably made headlines and brought Ofsted and its methodology into sharp focus.  Ms Spielman, His Majesty’s Chief Inspector, has announced a few changes this morning and it seems to me has gone about as far as she could reasonably go.

I like Amanda Spielman (she will be so pleased to hear that).  She is a bit better than some of her predecessors in my opinion and has brought a touch of reason and humanity to an organisation that could have descended – and arguably had begun to do so – into cold cynicism.  A senior HMI lamented to me a few years ago that in Ofsted trust had long gone – no-one trusted anyone - and I suspect that was about right.

Few people, least of all headteachers, would claim that Ofsted was perfect.  No organisation responsible for inspecting and reporting on others is ever likely to be popular.  Ms Spielman’s announcements today will not make much practical difference, but will maybe soften the “feel” of an Ofsted inspection to some degree and that is probably a good thing.  Even I, at my great age and with many years of experience (and in general a fairly thick skin), am not immune from feeling that shiver up the spine when an Ofsted inspection is mentioned.  I’m not sure that’s inappropriate – we should all expose ourselves to scrutiny from time to time and something not far short of fear is arguably healthy in such situations.  But one of the perceptions of Ofsted which has grown up over the years is that they mark their own homework and are more or less unaccountable.  Ms Spielman has responded – some would say she had no choice politically, but she has responded – and we should be pleased. 

G K Chesterton, who is always a source of great quotes, said “if a thing is to be improved, it first must be loved”.  That seems to me to be brilliantly profound.  Let’s hope that the soon-to-be-appointed HMCI (Ms Spielman retires soon) will be someone who really loves schools, teaching and children.  Then we might see some further improvement, not just to Ofsted, but to schools across the country.

And by the way, we have an Ofsted inspection coming up.  Help me, someone ...

Study, Recall, Recall, Recall ... and well done Lily Middler!

It wasn’t very many years ago that a (very) senior person within the Department for Education criticised me for proposing to teach knowledge to children. I won’t go into the details but it was depressing - the view seemed to be that “imposing” a body of knowledge on young people was in some way oppressive. Ms Spielman, the head of Ofsted, has over the last few years brought a degree of sanity to the world and Ofsted is now actively encouraging a knowledge-based approach to the curriculum.

It was encouraging the other day when I and a member of the governing body attended an Ofsted conference during which we were all encouraged to develop a knowledge-rich curriculum. What has become of that (very) senior DfE official I do not know, but I expect she is now also advocating this radical approach! Never mind - that is the nature of government and none of us would be any different. Interesting, too, that Nick Gibb - that extremely tenacious education minister who seems to have been in his job for about a hundred years and is really quite good, it seems to me - interesting that just this week he has been championing knowledge and phonics and some of those more traditional things. And has been able to back up some of his assertions with hard data, showing the UK climbing the international league tables quite rapidly. No-one will give Michael Gove credit for this, of course - no-one ever gives him credit for anything and everyone hates him - but he is the man who boldly took on the “progressive” approach to education and is without question the best education secretary in living memory.

Anyway - we at IGS: Durham have always pursued a knowledge-based curriculum. The clue is in the name: our curriculum is called the Core Knowledge sequence. An enlightened Senior HMI (Ofsted inspector) called it a while ago “ahead of the game”. Whether it still is might be debatable but at least we are in line with latest Ofsted thinking (never a bad thing to be).

Which brings me back to the Ofsted conference. It was great to hear the emphasis on real knowledge acquisition - the helpful mantra we were given was “STUDY, RECALL, RECALL, RECALL”. In other words, focus on the transfer of knowledge to long-term memory. Knowledge, we were told, is at the heart of the curriculum. We have always believed that, so it is good to have our convictions, for the moment at least, confirmed by those in authority!

And as for the great Lily Middler (Year 3) - once again she has performed a feat of prodigious recall. Some might remember that some months ago she learned by heart the counties and county towns of England in alphabetical order as well as the famous “Sea Fever” by Masefield. Now she has responded to my latest memory challenge and committed to memory all the FA Cup winners from 1950 to 2022, omitting 1973, which as everyone knows doesn’t count. Last week, she recited the list, perfectly, to Mr Morse and me and thereby won a range of lavish prizes.

Clearly, knowing who won the FA Cup in 1955 won’t help Lily very much in her future education. (It was Newcastle, by the way). But being able to commit facts to long-term memory will help hugely. It’s a vital skill and might have become slightly neglected. Lily is helping us at IGS: Durham to revive it!

VAT on school fees… ?

The Labour Party is, we gather, more than 20 points ahead in the polls. Most commentators believe that a Starmer-led Labour Government will be running the country with a substantial majority after the 2024 Election. 

 IGS: Durham does not have a political opinion (obviously, we do: my point is that we do not express it publicly) so I am not saying Labour’s policy of putting VAT on school fees is good or bad.  I would simply say that it’s almost certainly coming, and quite soon. 

What will that mean?  The legislation, it seems, will remove VAT exemption from school fees, so they will go up by 20% straightaway.  The UK average of £15,500 a year would increase by £3,100 to £18,600. £15,000 is a huge enough commitment - £18,000 seems somehow to take that to quite another level. 

In our case, the increase would not be quite so daunting - our current fee, for example, would increase to £4,320.  That is still a significant hike but at £60 a month is more manageable than £260 a month, which would be the average increase. 

 The political, economic or moral case for implementing this policy is not something we will be arguing for or against here. We will have to face up to it - in all probability - so might as well get used to it.  There are those (recently Toby Young) who have argued persuasively that the policy would be self-defeating and actually cost money rather than raise it.  The trouble is that sadly we live in a culture in which rational argument rarely works when confronted by virtue signalling - feelings tend to trump facts, and there are many for whom the feel-good factor of taking cash from the more wealthy in order to fund better public services etc. is the important thing, whether it actually does raise any extra money or not.  Persuasive, reasoned argument - although some rather nostalgically think it still works … simply doesn’t any more, no matter which side of politics it comes from.  So I suspect we’re stuck with this one. 

 IGS: Durham may be in a better position than many to cope.  I would expect to see - regretfully - many private schools close or merge but our lasting commitment to affordable fees will hopefully help us to continue to thrive. 

Triumph for our gymnasts!

This weekend saw another great triumph for our gymnasts.  Many will know that, under the legendary expertise of Mrs Henderson, they have competed at national level as North of England Champions and now have the opportunity to try again later in the year.  Well done to Sophie and Ava, Jonty, Daniel, Molly, Harry and James.  I hope their excellence and achievement will be a source of inspiration to many others.

There is a very good German word which many of you will know – schadenfreude – which refers to the pleasure derived at another’s misfortune.  There is no equivalent word in English because, obviously, no-one in this country would ever be guilty of such a thing.  We are, after all, practically perfect in every way.

I don’t know if the Germans have a word for “having ever so slightly mixed feelings about one’s own success and another’s failure”.  If they do – and I’d be fairly confident – then I am experiencing it quite vividly.  The regional gymnastics competition yesterday was held at RGS Newcastle, my old school, and nowadays they seem to have the very best facilities imaginable.  IGS: Durham beat them on their own patch yesterday.  We are delighted to have the use of the University gymnasium and to have a largish space within school in which to practise.  But our facilities are limited and compared to other large schools are … very limited. 

I repeat: we beat them. 

Should I be pleased and proud that our school did that?  Absolutely.  Should I be slightly disappointed that my old school couldn’t quite manage it?  In the circumstances, not really.  The Victorian era was a great one for RGS Newcastle and I enjoyed being part of it.  But we move on – and we really do need a word to capture that sentiment I described.  Schadenfreude mit gemischte Gefühle?  No idea, but I’ll settle for it.  Just saying it seems to help …

What was really important about yesterday – along with all the medals – was the way in which it encapsulates what our school is “about”.  We aim to be as good as we can be whilst remaining affordable and accessible to as many as possible.  We believe success comes through commitment, high expectations, people and enthusiasm.  Money is rarely the solution to any problem.  We are able to run a successful school for a fraction (around 24%)* of the fees of typical private schools and significantly less than the level paid by the government for a state school education.  We think we can continue to do that – because we have great people who love what they’re doing and are ambitious for your children. 

Mrs Henderson and her gymnasts are simply a microcosm of that.

*Yes, I know that’s a percentage, not a fraction.  Please try not to be pedantic.