If we are to effect transformative change towards a more sustainable future, then the policies which underpin such change must embrace and place human value at the centre of the economic life of society. Yet the adversarial character of democratic politics tends to focus more on the expectations of change than on a cogent reality. In the 2010 general election, in which I stood for the Liberal Democrats( in North Warwickshire) the party wanted “every child to receive an excellent education, to unlock the children’s potential and to ensure they can succeed in life.” Labour’s goal was ”educational excellence for every child, whatever their background or circumstances.” Conservatives pledged to “improve standards for all pupils and close the attainment gap between the richest and poorest.”
The overriding subtext was clearly the objective of addressing the educational systems inability to correct the deep inequalities in British society. The desire for change was palpable and as an educationalist I fully supported it and still do. This should be a policy objective for all political persuasions and is a key principle of the UN Sustainable Development Goals-“leave no one behind”. However, no party was able, with any sense of clarity to clearly articulate what education is for.
An effective and progressive education policy is hard to define without a clear answer. And the reason is because each party is deeply conflicted on the question. In the absence of a clear rationale then policy making becomes an exercise and a diatribe on untested nostrums- at best bright ideas based on a political ideology of change, rather than based on seeking specific human outcomes. This is particularly exemplified by the number of Education Acts passed by the UK parliament in over 50 years. There was an act in each of the following years: 1962,1964,1967,1968,1973,1975,1976,1979,1980,1981,1986(2),1988,1992,1993,1994,1996,1997,2002,2005,2006,2008,and 2011.
23 in total and many more acts with education in their title ! And over the same period there were 13 general elections and only 6 changes in government. A similar picture is possible for primary legislation on health. All of which exemplifies the increasing desire of governments to micromanage these key areas of social engagements. And a conflict of political aspiration to leave teaching to teachers and medicine to doctors.
All of these acts of parliament were clearly ineffectual substitutes for “intention and purpose” in relation to services that education and health professionals are naturally motivated to provide. A more transformative approach, left to them, might bring more benefits than those policies based on crude numerical targets.
transformativefuturelearning.home.blog 