Tag: Speeches

  • Nick Gibb – 2012 Speech on School Improvement

    nickgibb

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Gibb, the then Schools Minister, at the North of England Education Conference on 6 January 2012.

    Thank you Mick for that kind introduction, I’m pleased to be here to talk about “Passion, Potential, Performance: Thinking differently”.

    I’m pleased to be back in Leeds where I spent the majority of my secondary school education – at Roundhay High School. My mother also spent a good proportion of her teaching career at Talbot Row Primary School, Roundhay and I’m looking forward to visiting Abbey Grange Church of England Academy later on today.

    A few months ago I came up to Batley to celebrate the conversion of the independent Batley Grammar School into one of the first 24 free schools.

    The NEEC has a long and distinguished history as a forum for education discussion for well over a century.

    The case for comprehensive schools, the first plans for the National Curriculum and the drive towards grant-maintained status are just some of the educational milestones announced at an NEEC.

    At last year’s conference, I promised that we would protect school budgets in cash terms at least and devolve as much autonomy as possible to schools and teachers. And, over the last year, that’s what we’ve done.

    All our actions have been guided by three overarching goals:

    – to close the attainment gap between those from poorer and wealthier backgrounds

    – to ensure our education system can compete with the best in the world

    – and to trust the professionalism of teachers and raise the quality of teaching.

    So that schools can take the lead in continuing professional development and leadership training, around 100 outstanding schools have been selected as Teaching Schools. These centres of excellence in teaching practice will give new and experienced teachers an opportunity to learn and develop their professional skills throughout their careers.

    We’re giving schools a stronger influence over the content of initial teacher training and the recruitment of trainees, and we’re continuing to ensure that ITT provision focuses on the quality of school placements. We’re prioritising the training of more primary specialist teachers and encouraging ITT providers to offer specialist courses.

    In light of research showing that nearly half of serious allegations against school teachers are unsubstantiated, malicious or unfounded, we’ve given teachers a legal right to anonymity from allegations made by pupils, until the point they are charged with a criminal offence. We have also revised guidance to local authorities and schools to speed up the investigation process when a teacher or a member of staff is accused of an offence by a pupil.

    And the Education Act, passed in November, further strengthened teachers’ powers to enforce school rules, removing the 24 hours’ notice rule for detentions and allowing Pupil Referral Units the same autonomy and freedoms as schools.

    One of the most visible signs that we’ve increased autonomy and put greater trust in the professionalism of teachers is our removal of excessive bureaucracy.

    In just one year, under the last Government, the Department produced over 6000 pages of guidance. In one year of this Government, we cut over 6000 pages of guidance.

    We’re continuing to shorten guidance in a wide range of areas: for example, slimming down guidance on tackling poor pupil behaviour from over 600 pages to just 50. In total, departmental guidance is being more than halved.

    We’ve also revised school admissions and appeals codes to 61 pages rather than 138. Retaining just half of the previous 650 mandatory requirements on admissions authorities, the new codes are fairer and simpler for schools and parents alike.

    We have ended the requirement for schools to set statutory performance targets, removed the expectation that every school will complete a self evaluation form, streamlined the inspection framework and clarified that neither the Department nor Ofsted expects to see written lesson plans for every lesson.

    And our National Curriculum review is slimming down the curriculum to concentrate on essential knowledge and skills. New programmes of study are being drafted for full public consultation and I hope that many here will participate in that consultation in due course.

    In all these areas and more, we are working to free schools and teachers from the burden of excessive and unnecessary bureaucracy.

    Over and over again, international research has shown that increased autonomy at school level is reflected in higher standards. As the OECD says: “in countries where schools have greater autonomy over what is taught and how students are assessed, students tend to perform better.”

    Of course, one of the most powerful examples of increased freedom for schools is the expansion of the academies programme.

    As we start 2012, there are 1529 academies. Over 1300 of these have opened since May 2010. More than a third of all secondary schools are now open or in the process of opening as academies, teaching over one and a quarter million children.

    September 2011 also saw the opening of 24 new Free Schools, 4 studio schools, and a University Technical College. 100 new schools are set to open in 2012 or 2013, and early indications show that they will be overwhelmingly located in areas of deprivation or where there is a desperate shortage of school places.

    We are delighted that so many schools are taking advantage of the freedoms of academy status; providing opportunities for more children to enjoy an excellent education.

    Last summer, an independent assessment of the academies programme by the London School of Economics confirmed that “academy conversion generates… a significant improvement in pupil performance”. Statistics show that academies in some of the most challenging areas of the country are improving their results at twice the speed of non-academy schools.

    And according to the LSE assessment, improvements in pupil performance were observed in academies and in their neighbouring schools. The academies programme doesn’t just bring improvements to an individual school, but to schools throughout the system.

    We’re currently working hard behind the scenes to tackle policy blockages at local level which are preventing some schools from converting to academy status.

    We’re creating an “Academies Work” area on the DfE website, gathering all the online resources on academies and conversion to make it easier for schools to find the information they need.

    And as the programme continues to expand, we want to focus even more closely on driving up standards in low-performing schools.

    We’ve already set out clear plans to turn round under-performing primary schools. We’re setting tougher floor standards, rising each year, to ensure that all schools continue to improve. The 200 weakest primaries will be converted into Academies, and robust action plans are being prepared in 500 more. If schools aren’t making the right progress, and local authorities don’t have a grip on the issue, we will be able to intervene to secure the best possible result for the children in those schools.

    So by expanding the Academies programme, increasing autonomy at school level and improving teacher training, we want to drive up standards in schools right across the country.

    We also want to make it clear that we are not prepared to give up on any child.

    Children in alternative provision are among the most vulnerable in our education system. Yet despite hard work by dedicated professionals, statistics published for the first time last year show that only 1.4% of children in alternative provision in 2009/10 achieved five or more GCSEs at A*-C including English and Maths, compared to 53.4% in all schools in England.

    To drive up standards in alternative provision, we need to increase autonomy, accountability and diversity. From September 2012, outstanding Pupil Referral Units will be able to convert to Academies; and we will invite new providers to establish alternative provision Free Schools, bringing voluntary or private sector expertise to help these vulnerable children.

    And we are piloting an approach to exclusions in which the school itself will commission alternative provision for the excluded child and be held to account for the achievement of that pupil. And Charlie Taylor, the Government’s Expert Adviser on Behaviour, is looking urgently into how we can improve alternative provision – and how we can ensure that another generation is not allowed to fail.

    I’d like to take this opportunity to mention two particular priorities for the coming year.

    First, reading. One of my greatest pleasures when visiting a good school is listening to children talk with real passion about their favourite books – the characters they love and the stories they tell.

    And we’re lucky that some of the most magical and exciting children’s books ever written have been written in the English language – the works of Roald Dahl, Michael Morpurgo and Jacqueline Wilson; Harry Potter and Narnia; the Wind in the Willows and Winnie the Pooh.

    By the end of primary school, all children should be able to read and enjoy books like Harry Potter. But too many children can’t enjoy these brilliant books because they haven’t learnt to read properly.

    One in six 11-year-olds is still struggling with reading when they leave primary school. One in ten 11-year-old boys has a reading age of seven or below. Secondary schools are forced to provide extra help and catch-up sessions when they should be introducing children to the breadth and depth of the secondary curriculum.

    And children who cannot read are more likely to become disengaged and disruptive. A recent report by the Centre for Social Justice showed that between half and three-quarters of children permanently excluded from school display significant literacy problems . As the author said, “many display challenging behaviour to hide the fact that they cannot read.”

    Over the last nine years, England has fallen in international reading league tables from seventh to 25th. English 15-year-olds are more than a year behind their peers in Shanghai, Korea and Finland in reading, and at least six months behind Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan.

    This Government is determined to help all children to read widely and well, and develop a lifelong love of reading.

    If children haven’t mastered the basic mechanics of reading they can’t develop their comprehension and understanding, or begin exploring and enjoying all sorts of books and poems.

    But with the life-changing skill of turning words on the page into images, information and ideas, we hope that all children can become fluent and enthusiastic readers.

    High quality research shows that systematic phonics is the most successful way to teach early reading. Synthetic phonics is equally effective for children of all abilities, from all backgrounds, and for boys and girls alike.

    Last summer, we piloted the phonics check for 6-year-olds in around 300 schools around the country. The level they were expected to reach was set by two groups of teachers from the pilot, who independently agreed it was appropriate and challenging.

    Only 32% reached the required level, which means that we all need to face up to an uncomfortable fact. Despite the hard work of teachers all over the country, too few children are able to read to a high enough standard.

    The levels we currently expect children to reach at Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 must not be the limits of our ambition – they should be considered the minimum. Rather than scraping a Level 2 at the end of Key Stage 1, more children can achieve a high Level 2 or even a Level 3.

    26 per cent of children already reached level 3 in reading in 2011 – including some schools in the most challenging areas. We want these high expectations to become the norm.

    From June, the Year 1 check will help all teachers to ensure that children grasp the basic mechanics of reading. The check will also identify any children who need extra help – and almost half of schools in the pilot said the check identified pupils with reading difficulties of which they were not previously aware.

    To support teachers in developing their phonics teaching and ensuring all pupils learn the basics of reading, we are offering match-funding of up to £3000 to help schools buy high quality systematic synthetic phonics resources and training.

    From September, a thorough understanding of the teaching of systematic synthetic phonics will be prioritised in teacher training and required for all teachers of early reading.

    And phonics and reading are becoming a key part of the new Ofsted inspection framework. For the first time, Ofsted inspectors will focus on the teaching of reading in primary schools and listen to pupils reading aloud, with a particular focus on weaker readers.

    But, of course, mastering the mechanics of reading is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a confident reader. We need to do more to encourage children to read for pleasure and to develop a life-long love of reading.

    I remember a few years ago coming back from Finland. In the departure lounge at Helsinki airport it was noticeable how many children and young people were passing the time glued to novels – something not so prevalent at Heathrow and Gatwick.

    And a 2009 PISA study shows that almost 40 per cent of pupils in England never read for pleasure – yet the difference in reading ability between these pupils and those who read for just half an hour a day is equivalent to a year’s schooling at age 15. A recent survey by the National Literacy Trust showed that a third of British children do not even own a book.

    We are currently developing a national competition to encourage 9-12 year-olds to read voraciously at school and for pleasure at home. Instilling the habit of regular reading at an early age I believe is key to developing a life-long love of reading for pleasure, and we’ll have more to say about that later this year.

    2012 is also, of course, the year of the London Olympic and Paralympic Games. I know that this conference has been considering the role of sport in education over the last few days – and the Government is also working hard to make the most of this opportunity.

    The advantages of competitive sport are well-known – particularly the benefits for pupils’ health and fitness, social skills and personal development.

    Sport teaches young people commitment, dedication, how to work well in a team and how to perform as an individual. Young sportsmen and women quickly learn the importance of fair play – to be magnanimous in victory and gracious in defeat.

    Yet only two in five young people currently play regular competitive sport within their own school. Only one in five plays regularly against other schools.

    As a result of close collaboration between the Departments for Education, Health and Culture, Media and Sport, and Sport England, the Youth Sport Trust and ParalympicsGB, this year will introduce a new national sporting competition – the School Games.

    Building on the excitement and enthusiasm around London 2012, we hope that the School Games will inspire a whole generation of young people to get involved in competitive sport.

    There will be opportunities for more competition within and between schools, and at county and district level.

    The School Games will culminate in national finals between the country’s best young athletes, and the first of these will take place in May at the Olympic Park. So far, almost 11,000 schools have signed up to take part in this competition.

    So by increasing autonomy and reducing bureaucracy at school level, allowing more schools to take advantage of academy freedoms and focusing particularly on reading and school sport, we hope to drive up standards for all children, from all backgrounds.

    A PISA study found that England has one of the largest gaps in the world between high and low performing pupils, and a strong relationship between social background and performance. 13.9 per cent of the variance in pupil performance in England can be explained by social background, compared to just 8.3 per cent in Finland and 8.2 per cent in Canada. Yet in countries like Finland, Canada, Japan and Korea, average standards are higher than ours, and achievement gaps are smaller.

    A recent report from the OECD also showed that deprived pupils in this country perform significantly less well than deprived pupils in most OECD countries – putting us 39th out of 65 countries. According to PISA, just a quarter of pupils from poor backgrounds are “resilient” in the UK, compared to three-quarters in Shanghai-China and Hong Kong.

    To put it another way, research published by the Department for Education last year showed that, if English children performed as well as their peers in Shanghai, 77 per cent would get five GCSEs at A*-C including English and Maths, rather than the 55 per cent that we achieve now. That’s a difference of a fifth of the whole cohort – 100,000 children failing to achieve the qualifications that most employers see as the bare minimum.

    And the gap in achievement between children from the wealthiest and poorest backgrounds is still too wide in English schools. As I just said, in 2010, 55 per cent of children achieved five GCSEs at A*-C including English and Maths – but only 31 per cent of pupils on free school meals managed to do the same. And that gap between children from privileged and disadvantaged backgrounds remains stubbornly wide.

    International evidence shows us that it is possible for many more young people to achieve more highly than they do now. It is possible to narrow the achievement gap between the richest and the poorest. And this is not an either/or: it is possible to achieve both at once.

    By learning from international and domestic evidence, helping the best schools to share excellent practice and supporting schools which are struggling, we want to give every child, from any background, the opportunity to make the most of their talents. Thank you.

  • Alistair Burt – 2012 Speech on the UK and Israel

    alistairburt

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alistair Burt, the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, at Bar Ilan University in Israel on 10 January 2012.

    As Foreign Office Minister for the Middle East and North Africa my duty requires me to see Israel in rounder terms, not solely for itself, but where it stands in the world and the region.

    I want to tell you that the UK believes that Israel has a vital role to play in its region and its world, and that Israel’s well-being matters deeply to us.

    We need Israel’s acumen and intelligence; its ability to work at the highest intellectual and technological level to help the world solve its problems, from the economy to climate and environmental change – and its readiness to use its gifts in higher education and intellectual property to help the world progress. Everyone knows that Israeli R&D is world-beating. Israeli inventions are helping to drive the global economy.

    Israel’s strength is a regional bulwark for good opposing the threats to itself and its neighbours. Iran does not just threaten Israel. It threatens those who would be Israel’s allies in the Gulf, and in the Arab world who need Israel as part of a common cause against a regime dangerously loose. So we need to be clear – Israel’s strength is not a regional threat, but an anchor of regional stability.

    And the world needs Israel’s values, of tolerance and justice, those values clear and strong and rejecting all challenges to them, and those who would corrode them. Because it is more than anything the strength of these values that is the best guarantee of Israel’s place in the world. And any corrosion of these values that would weaken Israel’s place in the world. Do not doubt that the flame and the values of Israel’s foundation lit up hearts and minds many thousands of miles away. It is essential that this land, these gifts, these contributions are used to full effect in the world.

    So be in no doubt, as we enter the turbulent waters of 2012 that your values are our values, your strength is our strength, your well-being is our well-being.

    And let me also say this Israel has lived with uncertainty and instability since the very beginning and suffered too much from terrorism. We’re dedicating this speech to the memory of the former Israeli ambassador to Britain, Shlomo Argov, who was victim to a heinous terrorist attack right in the heart of London.

    As Jonathan has mentioned, Argov has been described as ‘the perfect diplomat’ with an amazing ability to get on even with those who disagreed with him, always armed with a good sense of humour.

    Just a few hours ago, I met with the parents of Daniel Viflic, the Israeli-British teenager who died following a missile attack on a schoolbus in southern Israel in April.

    I am in no doubt what insecurity means to the people of Israel.

    We’re just 10 days into 2012. The big question on many of our minds is ‘what will this year bring, following the turmoil of 2011?’ An essential aspect of this must be the search for peace with the Palestinians. As Chaim Weizmann once said, miracles sometimes occur, but one has to work terribly hard for them.

    The talks that took place in Jordan last week finally ended a protracted impasse. By continuing the process that these talks started, Israel has the opportunity to show political leadership, courage and determination to make real progress towards a negotiated two-state solution with the Palestinians.

    Both sides need to look ahead and identify how we can best bring about the formation of a stable and viable Palestinian state, alongside a safe and secure Israel with internationally-recognised borders. As the Foreign Secretary has said, Israel’s security and the realisation of the Palestinians’ right to statehood are not opposing goals. On the contrary, Israel will be safer when a viable Palestinian state has been achieved. We continue to call for both sides to negotiate an agreement on borders, based on June 4, 1967 lines, with equivalent land swaps. This must include security arrangements that respect Palestinian sovereignty but protect Israeli security and prevent the resurgence of terrorism. There must be a just and fair solution for refugees; and agreement on Jerusalem as the future capital of both states. As a friend of Israel, we will continue to urge a return to meaningful negotiations on this basis.

    We know it will not be easy. But it is not just Israel that will pay the price if we do not make progress towards peace. The occupation has a daily human cost for the Palestinians of the West Bank. The continuing restrictions have a daily toll on the people of Gaza.

    In the West Bank, yesterday, I visited the Qalandiya checkpoint first thing in the morning to see the processes that Palestinians have to go through in order to cross into Israel for work, travel or medical care.

    I also made a return trip to Nabi Saleh where the effects of the barrier and the nearby settlement construction are having a detrimental effect on the lives of the villagers.

    It must be clear to the leaders on both sides that the current situation is unsustainable – that the status quo cannot continue, or else it will leave an indelible mark two great peoples with enormous potential.

    I know that some of you may think that Britain no longer has a right to get involved in this region, after all, the Mandate ended almost 64 years ago.

    But Israel-Palestine matters to us. It is the topic that consistently prompts the most heated debates in Parliament. My office is inundated on a daily basis with letters from concerned British citizens who criticise our policy for being too pro-Palestinian, and from just as many who think we’re far too pro-Israeli.

    Well, we’re neither. Yes, our interest in this region is partly linked to a sense of historic responsibility. But the reason why we watch everything that happens here so closely is because it matters so much. We care about Israel and Israel’s future too much not to take an interest.

    Jerusalem is at the heart of three great religions, and everything that goes on there, no matter how small, has the potential of making an enormous impact. We understand Israel’s bond with Jerusalem as its capital, it is the home of the holiest and most important structures in the Jewish religion.

    If a peaceful solution to this conflict that has gone on for too long and already claimed too many lives is to endure, an understanding on Jerusalem will have to be part of the solution.

    It is because of these sensitivities that we urge the sides not to take steps that could upset the status quo, and make agreeing a peace even harder. This is why we believe that building beyond the Green Line is not just illegal but counter-productive.

    The more settlements that would have to be moved if there was a peace deal, the more families that would have to be uprooted, the harder it becomes to agree that deal.

    And the harder it becomes even conduct negotiations with the other side in good faith, because building more and more houses across the Green Line does not show that Israel is absolutely committed to finding a just and lasting solution. It risks sending exactly the opposite signal.

    I have to tell you that the absence of progress towards peace, together with the almost weekly announcements of this tender or that planning permission for new building, has a real effect on how the world sees Israel.

    There’s a lot of talk of delegitimisation in Britain and elsewhere. And it’s true that there are some people who are implacably opposed to Israel – to Israel’s very existence. There have been since the first days of Zionism, and since Israel’s creation in 1948, and I fear there always will be. There are some of my Parliamentary colleagues who will stand up condemn Israel at any opportunity. But these are not the ones you need to worry about.

    The ones you need to worry about are the ones in the mainstream, the centre ground. The ones who used to stand up and support Israel, but now stay silent. Or the ones who used to be silent, but are now critical.

    Because opinion is shifting – among my colleagues in Parliament, among the British public, and more widely. It’s not yet catastrophic, and it’s not quick. But it is happening, and you should care, just as I care as someone who has for decades counted himself as an ardent friend of Israel.

    We can argue for hours about who is to blame for the failure to make peace. It won’t get us very far, and if you go back far enough some of you might say it’s the fault of the British anyway.

    But stepping aside from the blame game, some 25 years in the British Parliament have made me realise that for as long as there is no progress towards peace, and for as long as Israel continues to build across the Green Line, Israel risks losing friends.

    There are some areas of disagreement between Britain and Israel. There are also many of major agreement, and close cooperation. A major issue at the top of our shared agenda is of course Iran.

    In 2012, we will step up our efforts to stop the Iranian attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. The UK is a leading force in the international campaign to stop the Iranian regime acquiring a nuclear weapon – and arresting a progress which is clearly not intended for purely peaceful purposes. We work closely with Israel on this issue, and it is an extremely important aspect of our bilateral relationship.

    No option is being taken off the table, as we pursue our dual-track approach of increasingly tough economic sanctions while remaining open to dialogue with Tehran.

    A few weeks ago the British government imposed tough new financial restrictions against Iran. These new sanctions make it illegal for any financial institution in the UK to have any dealings with any institution in Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran. They are the toughest of their kind. And we will build on them, getting others to follow suit. We are working with the EU on sanctions against Iranian oil.

    These sanctions are having an impact. The Iranian economy is heavily dependent on oil income; yet production is going down. And Iran is having difficulty refining crude oil and is not getting technology it needs to maintain and develop production. As the pressure continues to rise, the Iranian regime will face the prospect of a choice between its nuclear programme and maintaining its oil income.

    There are no guarantees, and I can give no cast iron assurance of success. But I believe sanctions can work, and I know they are for now the best tool we have to achieve our shared goal.

    We share Israel’s determination to prevent Iranian proliferation. Israel is not facing the threat of a nuclear Iran alone, and so its efforts must support those of the international community. We will work together to ensure that 2012 is not the year in which Iran realises its nuclear ambitions.

    More so than anywhere else in the world in 2011, this region has seen sweeping changes and upheaval on an unprecedented level. Tunisia, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Syria. The demand to be heard, the demand for democratic rights and proper representation left the region reeling.

    The process that began a year ago in Tunisia, is far from over. It brings risk as well as great opportunity and hope for many people of the countries involved. Though few expected the path to democracy to be smooth, the ongoing struggle for democratic rights in Syria has been harsh and bloody. The demands of the Syrian people for democracy and freedom have been met by brutal reprisals and violent repression by the Assad regime.

    This ruthless aggression continued last week even when Arab League observers arrived in the country in an attempt to report independently on the situation. Peaceful and courageous demonstrators are being mowed down by a cruel and brutal regime that refuses to accept the legitimate aspirations of its own people.

    Bashar Assad long ago lost whatever remaining legitimacy he may have had. He should step down immediately in the best interest of Syria and the unity of its people.

    I know that people here are concerned about what all these changes mean for Israel, for this country’s place among neighbours all of whom have several times been at war with Israel, and tried to destroy Israel even from its earliest days.

    I know that as the world has praised the wave of change sweeping across the region, Israel has wondered if the world has succumbed to optimism.

    I know that Israelis have watched the Tunisian and Egyptian elections and been concerned that the old regimes would be replaced not by liberal democrats interested in peace, but by hard-line regimes interested in Israel’s destruction.

    Israelis have told me that they are asking themselves difficult questions. What will all this mean for borders that have been quiet for so many years? Were they better off having peace deals with leaders who did not represent their own peoples? Is peace even possible now that the new leaders of Israel’s neighbours must reflect the views of their people? Israel is right to ask itself these questions.

    Many will argue that because of these regional events, now is not the time to make bold gestures when it comes to making peace with the Palestinians. It is a natural reaction at times of change, particularly change that may be threatening, to take the minimum risks.

    But I believe that response would be the wrong one for Israel. If the new political order settles around it at a time of minimum hope in the peace process, then it may well lead to the political leadership of those countries being maximally hostile to Israel.

    My advice would be: if you want stability, if you want security, if you want peace with your neighbours, and the best relations with the rest of the world, then making a peace deal with the Palestinians is urgent.

    I want to turn now to the broader relationship between the UK and Israel. Last year was a key year for our bilateral relationship.

    Legislation was passed that ended the anomaly that allowed people to abuse our court system to get politically-motivated arrest warrants against Israeli officials and military officers for alleged war crimes. The amendment, which was signed into law by the Queen in September, ensures that people cannot be detained when there is no realistic chance of prosecution, while ensuring that we continue to honour our international obligations.

    We remain committed to ensuring that those guilty of war crimes are brought to justice. The Director of Public Prosecutions must now consent to the issuing of an arrest warrant for crimes of universal jurisdiction, putting an end to requests for warrants where there is no realistic chance of prosecution. This cloud that hung heavily over our bilateral relationship for too long has finally been lifted.

    2011 was also a key year for trade and business between our two countries. When the final figures for trade and services for the year come in, we expect them to show a 25% increase on last year, and should reach 7 billion US dollars. We’re breaking records every year, and I am sure that this will continue.

    One key development in 2011 was the start of a partnership between Britain and Israel in tech. We believe it is a partnership that could help both sides – the amazing quality of Israeli R&D can help British growth; the strengths of the British economy can help Israeli innovation go global, building using our skills in business development, capital, global reach, scientific prowess, and market access.

    Both governments are committed to this partnership, and we have established in the British Embassy a new Tech Hub, a dedicated team tasked with creating lasting partnerships between UK and Israel in areas such as cleantech, biomed and digital technologies.

    We have already had a stream of my Ministerial colleagues here leading delegations and demonstrating our support for this partnership. In 2012 there will be many more.

    As students, you may well have come across negative reports about the UK’s attitude towards Israel, where universities are portrayed as hotbeds for delegitimisation and boycotts and sanctions against Israel. I know there is an image out there of British universities being hostile to Israel.

    One of the reasons I wanted to come here today to talk to you, is to reassure you that this simply isn’t the case. There may be a small, marginal and yes very noisy group who attract a lot of attention every time they suggest boycotting Israeli academics, but in fact, there isn’t a single university in the UK with a policy of boycotting Israel.

    When we look behind the sensational headlines and take a look at what is actually going on between our academics – there are groundbreaking projects and collaborations between UK and Israeli researchers, and real warmth and friendship between our universities.

    This was evident in November when 60 British academics and researchers from over 20 universities came to Israel for the first UK-Israel conference on regenerative medicine. The conference brought together 250 leading lights from the UK and Israel to discuss this innovative area of medicine in which our countries are at the very cutting-edge of research, and to build connections for future collaborations.

    Under the BIRAX Regenerative Medicine Initiative, £10 million will be awarded over the next five years to joint research projects bringing together British and Israeli scientists. The scheme gives generous support to joint high quality and ground-breaking UK-Israel research projects, which will have a significant impact on global health, enhance joint research between British and Israeli academic institutions and invest in early stage collaboration between researchers.

    But yes, there are a handful of campuses where you have to be confident if you’re going to stand up and defend Israel – but this happens at a small fraction of our institutes of higher learning. The reality is that the vast majority of Jewish and Israeli students who study in the UK have an amazing time.

    And so my message to you today is that if you’re thinking of continuing your studies overseas, think UK. Get in touch with the British Council here in Ramat Gan who will help you find the right university, the right course and explain what funding options are open to you.

    I can guarantee you that you will have a fantastic experience. We have four of the top ten universities in the world and research facilities that have helped us win more than 80 Nobel prizes for science and technology alone. The UK, like Israel, has a disproportionate number of Nobel prize winners.

    We want to see a significant increase in the number of Israeli students studying in the UK over the next year.

    Now, before you have the chance to ask me some questions, I want to ask you some. How many of you have been to the UK before? How many of you would like to visit? Well, 2012 is the year to come to the UK. This year marks the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II – 60 years of extraordinary service. There will be celebrations throughout the UK this summer to celebrate the Queen’s reign, and the sense of strength and stability that she symbolises, particularly given all the changes that we have seen in this time.

    And of course, we’re getting ready to host the greatest show on earth as London becomes home to the Olympic Games for the third time. With just under 200 days to go, the stadiums are ready, the tickets are sold and we’re getting ready to welcome the world.

    We look forward to welcoming the Israeli teams to the London Olympic and Paralympic Games this summer and hope that they manage to at least match – but hopefully even improve – on their performance at the Beijing games four years ago.

    Whatever else, 2012 is guaranteed to be an historic year for us. Come and discover the many things that have made the UK a great place to live, work, study and visit.

  • Mark Hoban – 2012 Speech to the Insurance Institute

    markhoban

    Below is the text of the speech made by Mark Hoban, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to the Insurance Institute on 10 January 2012.

    Good afternoon, and thank you for inviting me to speak here today. It’s a pleasure to be speaking at this event, with so many leading figures in the Insurance sector… CEOs, Managers, and young executives who are forging their careers at places such as here at Lloyds.

    The Institute provides the ideal forum to analyse and debate the future of the Insurance sector. Not just over the coming year as we confront continued economic uncertainty, but also the coming decades as the industry rises to long term challenges.

    We all know how easy it is to become absorbed by short term challenges…and we know insurers had some tough circumstances to contend with in the last year…

    Rising levels of insurance fraud, especially in relation to personal injury claims…

    Large catastrophe and man-made losses exceeding $100bn…

    And of course the uncertainty across the Eurozone remains top of everyone’s list of concerns.

    The ongoing sovereign debt crisis continues to undermine confidence across all our economies, the UK included.

    But at the same time, it is equally important that we discuss the longer term vision…the challenges and the opportunities that face the UK Insurance industry over the next decade and beyond…

    To capitalise on a long and sustained period of growth in the emerging economies;

    The prospect of years of regulatory reform to correct the failures of the last decade;

    And changing consumer behaviour, as consumers reduce demand for insurance products in difficult times, or look for new ways to access those products.

    These are tough challenges for insurance companies, but they also represent opportunities for the UK insurance sector to build on its world leading strengths.

    The UK industry is already the largest in the EU, and third largest in the world after the US and Japan

    Within the UK economy the industry has a vital role as an investment intermediary, managing 26% of the UK’s total net worth and 13% of investments on the London Stock Market.

    It is also a major investor overseas…with around 30% of premium income coming from overseas business, from both life and general insurance business.

    And whilst the sector has withstood the recent crisis well, this is no time to be complacent. Consumers need to have confidence in financial services if they are to buy products and take advice, whether it is motor insurance or a sophisticated investment product. The banking crisis has affected consumer confidence and whilst insurers might take reassurance from the fact that it was a banking crisis, the reality is that for consumers it was a financial sector crisis and they don’t discriminate between them.

    Domestic regulation

    So regulatory reform is equally vital to restore the trust of consumers and taxpayers that had been so severely let down by financial institutions, politicians and regulators. As EIOPA President, Gabriel Bernardino, said in December last year, we need a “paradigm shift” to restore confidence in Europe’s financial services.

    Consumers and taxpayers have to be confident that financial services do not jeopardise the stability of the rest of the economy. But at the same time, regulation has to be proportionate, evidenced based, and has to reflect the unique risks and characteristics of the Insurance market.

    This is the approach we have taken in our reforms to abandon the failed tripartite regime of supervision in the UK.

    We are establishing a permanent Financial Policy Committee inside the Bank of England to monitor overall risks in the financial system, spot dangerous inter-connections and stop excessive levels of leverage before it’s too late.

    The interim FPC is also considering potential macro-prudential tools that the permanent body should have available for use in the banking sector. The FPC will note the particular characteristics of the insurance industry when they consider which, if any, macro-prudential tools should be applicable to the insurance industry.

    We are also abolishing the Financial Services Authority in its current form, and creating a new Prudential Regulation Authority with a focus on micro-prudential regulation. It will bring judgement to the vital task of regulating the soundness of individual firms that manage risk on their balance sheet, particularly banks and insurance companies.

    But we recognise, of course, that the business model of an insurance company is different to that of a bank. This is why we are proposing to provide the PRA with a specific statutory objective for its insurance responsibilities.

    Insurance regulation will not take a back seat to deposit-taker regulation in the PRA.

    Confidence is about more than financial soundness of firms, people need confidence when they buy products too.

    A new Financial Conduct Authority will oversee the conduct of financial services firms, the operation of markets and the protection of consumers. It will have new powers, including the power to ban or restrict the sale of toxic products, and the ability to make public the fact that disciplinary action is being taken against a firm. The FCA will also have a strong mandate to act on competition, a first for a UK financial services regulator.

    These are fundamental but necessary changes to how we regulate UK financial services, and the insurance industry. All these changes will be sat out in the Financial Services Bill, which will be introduced in to Parliament shortly, and I am grateful for the contributions from many firms represented here today to our consultation on reform.

    Action which includes abolishing “no win no fee” agreements to ensure that defendants, including insurers, are no longer liable for these additional costs. The ABI has already said that as a result motorists can look forward to cheaper insurance.

    We have also banned referral fees which should help towards curbing the “compensation culture”.

    And we are working with industry to ensure flood insurance remains widely available in the future, and that consumers are clear about what they can expect from their insurer, and from Government.

    As you know well, creating confidence is not the sole prerogative of regulation or governments. Industry has a role too.

    Common to these regulatory changes is the drive to improve the standards that underpin firms across the industry. This is particularly relevant to you at the Insurance Institute of London, and in your efforts to promote professionalism among practitioners. We are encouraged by how we are already starting to see evidence of industry-led initiatives to improve standards As you know, initiatives to improve standards are not the sole preserve of the insurance sector as there is a renewed interest in professionalism across financial services as a whole.

    Such work is consistent with just the sort of change discussed in the recent Parliamentary Joint Committee report on financial regulation reform. It also sends a clear message that firms that make up the insurance industry are taking an initiative to improve market trust and confidence in the public interest.

    Solvency II

    Whilst prudential supervision of insurance will be the responsibility of the PRA, it will be working within a framework created at a European level.

    The UK has been a strong supporter of Solvency II. I firmly believe that it will help support financial stability in the sector and across the financial system through better risk-based capital requirements and its focus on strong risk management in firms.

    And by providing a harmonised regime across Europe, Solvency II should increase cross border competition and create new opportunities for UK firms within the Single Market. This will in turn deliver increased efficiencies and reduced compliance costs to the benefit of both firms and consumers across Europe.

    As you are aware, the Commission recently issued a consolidated level 2 text, the contents of which reflect a huge amount of negotiation and work by the Treasury, the FSA and the industry on a very wide range of issues.

    Collectively, I believe that we have gone a long way to deliver on the key priorities that we agreed with the UK insurance industry at the outset of the level 2 negotiations. A key priority was to reach an acceptable agreement on the treatment of annuities, and I am confident the current long term guarantees package will work for the UK industry.

    The UK has also ensured that Solvency 2 protects insurers’ role as a stable, long term provider for infrastructure through the “matching premium”. Indeed, as the Chancellor announced at the end of last year, an Insurers’ Infrastructure Investment Forum has been set up to explore ways of attracting debt finance from the insurance sector in our country’s infrastructure needs.

    We have also achieved significant improvements in other priority areas, such as the treatment of capital and the calibration of the standard formula, in particular the inclusion of geographical diversification in non-life catastrophe risk.

    We believe the level 2 agreement is now largely stable for these issues. As well as heading off any amendments that could affect or alter the implementation of the level 2 agreement, our priority is to secure an acceptable agreement on transitional arrangements for third country equivalence.

    We have to take proper account of those third countries working towards equivalence so that UK or European firms are not put at a competitive disadvantage.

    That brings opportunities for UK firms to expand to new markets, to innovate and provide new products, and help lead a UK recover by exporting our insurance expertise and services.

    International competition and opportunities

    Many UK firms already have a global footprint, and importantly have a strong presence in some of the fastest growing world economies.

    With break neck growth in the likes of India, China and Brazil, it is absolutely right that we support our firms to capitalise on opportunities in emerging economies.

    At the same time, we also have to ensure that regulation is proportionate, and that European Insurers are not unfairly discriminated against compared to international competitors.

    The work of the International Association of Insurance Supervisors, and the contribution made by bodies such as the Geneva Association to questions of systemic risk, are vitally important in that respect.

    The conclusions of that analysis will have a profound impact on the regulatory landscape for Insurers in the years to come, as we already see with debates on recovery and resolution arrangements.

    Consistent implementation

    These are substantial challenges on the European regulatory front, and a substantial challenge for EIOPA as it grows into its role and builds its reputation.

    We are keen to work with EIOPA in that ambition, and critical to its success is ensuring that it delivers high and consistent standards of supervision across the EU.

    That means implementing Solvency 2 consistently across Europe to ensure a level playing field across Europe.

    By doing so, EIOPA can take a major step in completing a single market in insurance, creating new international opportunities for the UK sector.

    Tax

    Of course, in similar spirit, we have been working hard to level the playing field for UK firms when it comes to insurance tax, and in particular, our reforms to the taxation of foreign profits.

    In particular, we have listened to the industry’s concerns over the compliance burden and the tax barriers to restructuring for optimal capital efficiency under Solvency II.

    In December we announced details of major changes in our approach to the taxation of foreign profits which reduce those burdens, and provide flexibility to UK headquartered groups making Solvency II related cross-border restructuring easier.

    We are committed to creating the most competitive tax system in the G20 for our businesses and for our insurance companies.

    Together with branch exemption introduced in the Finance Act 2011, our reductions in the corporation tax rate, and our work to rewrite the life tax regime, we are ensuring that we continue to attract the most innovative, successful and ambitious businesses and insurers to the UK.

    New markets

    Because I firmly believe that there are great opportunities to seize on new markets, promote technological innovation, and capitalise on changing consumer behaviour to drive the industry forward here in the UK.

    For one, we know that increasing sophisticated technologies will increase the capacity of insurers to collect more granular data on risk, and help insurers improve risk modelling. It has the potential to allow better risk pricing and customer differentiation, leading to a better deal for low risk customers.

    That said, we are also right to be wary. There is a risk that it could cause more segmentation in the market, reduce the tolerance for risk sharing, and potentially cause a shift with some consumers being priced out of the market altogether, leaving them completely uninsured.

    Separately we are all familiar with how the internet is changing how consumers interact with the market place…and how Individuals are already more likely to buy general insurance products themselves, rather than with the advice and guidance of an intermediary.

    This presents a major challenge to how the insurance industry interacts with and promotes its products to consumers.

    It’s simply one part of a sweeping trend of consumer empowerment…. one that puts the consumer at the very centre of the financial system.

    And a trend that the Government is fully supportive of as demonstrated by the new Financial Conduct Authority, and by the action we have already taken to support consumers in the Insurance sector.

    Conclusion

    These are all long term challenges that require long term engagement with the Insurance industry.

    Of course, in the near term managing the risks from global economic uncertainty, and responding to regulatory reform will pre-occupy and consume much of all our time.

    But we must also keep an eye on the long term vision.

    It means ensuring that UK firms have the opportunity and build the ambition to engage and expand in the UK market, but also develop growth opportunities abroad.

    And it means catalysing the kind of innovation, service delivery and product development to restore consumer trust and deal with society wider challenges such as savings and social care.

    Industry engagement will be critical to delivering that vision, and I am sure the Institute here will play a vital role in encouraging the industry to think about the more strategic issues I have mentioned today.

    I look forward to working with you all in the years to come to work towards that vision.

    Thank you.

  • Michael Gove – 2012 Speech on Academies

    michaelgove

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Gove, the then Secretary of State for Education, at Haberdashers’ Aske’s Hatcham College, London on 4 January 2012.

    Last month, a headline appeared in the Hornsey Journal – a headline that would have been funny had its subtext not been so dispiriting. Stamped across the top of the page in stark, Nimrod Bold lettering were the words: ‘Campaigners: Hands off our failing school.’

    Just think about that for a moment…

    Futures are being blighted. Horizons are being limited. Generations of children are being let down. And yet the response of those ‘campaigners’ to an attempt to rescue the situation is ‘hands off.’

    ‘Hands off’ the unacceptable waste of talent.

    ‘Hands off’ the chronic, ingrained educational failure.

    ‘Hands off’ our failing school.

    We’ve faced a good deal of opposition in the last year and a half. And I am certain 2012 will be no different. Because one thing I’ve come to realise during my time as Education Secretary is that the opposition we face is of a very particular kind…

    It’s ironic, if you think about it. The popular critique of our reform programme has most often been of its underpinning motives. The talk was of an ‘ideologically-driven Academies programme’ and ‘ideologically-motivated school reforms.’ We’re supposed to be the ideologues. And yet…

    And yet the truth is rather different. The Academies programme is not about ideology. It’s an evidence-based, practical solution built on by successive governments – both Labour and Conservative. The new ideologues are the enemies of reform, the ones who put doctrine ahead of pupils’ interests. Every step of the way, they have sought to discredit our policies, calling them divisive, destructive, ineffective, unpopular, unworkable – even ‘a crime against humanity.’

    But the facts on the ground tell a very different story.

    They said the reforms were untested…

    A common attack is that our reforms – those that focus on school autonomy in particular – are experimental, untested and untried.

    But the seeds of our reforms go back decades. The first City Technology Colleges were set up in 1988 – and indeed we are standing in one of the very first. These all-ability comprehensives enjoyed much more autonomy than other schools, and headteachers exercised their new-found freedom to extraordinary effect. Despite being overwhelmingly located in poorer areas, the CTCs achieved – and continue to achieve – great results: the proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals in CTCs who earned five or more good GCSEs at grades A* to C is more than twice as high in CTCs as it is for all maintained mainstream schools.

    Some of the autonomy enjoyed by schools like the CTCs, and indeed grant-maintained schools, was eroded after 1997. But the best minds in the last Government knew that was a mistake. And when they were given the chance to shape policy we saw autonomy return and school leaders back in charge. Andrew Adonis knew it was headteachers, not councillors, not ombudsmen, not advisers or consultants, who made schools succeed. So he cut through the red tape and – as well as establishing the London Challenge, Black Country Challenge and Manchester Challenge – created the Academies programme.

    In his memoirs, Tony Blair describes why academies proved so effective:

    “An academy belongs not to some remote bureaucracy, not to the rulers of government, local or national, but to itself, for itself. The school is in charge of its own destiny. This gives it pride and purpose. And most of all, freed from the extraordinarily debilitating and often, in the worst sense, politically correct interference from state or municipality, academies have just one thing in mind, something shaped not by political prejudice but by common sense: what will make the school excellent”.

    Labour’s Academies programme proved genuinely transformative and provided a solid basis for our reforms. But we had more than just the evidence of history to lean on. The principle of autonomy-driven improvement is solidly backed by rigorous international evidence. The best academic studies clearly demonstrate the effect of empowering the frontline. Trust professionals and they will exceed your expectations.

    Research from the OECD and others has shown that more autonomy for individual schools helps raise standards. In its most recent international survey of education, the OECD found that ‘in countries where schools have greater autonomy over what is taught and how students are assessed, students tend to perform better.’ Two of the most successful countries in PISA international education league tables – Hong Kong and Singapore – are amongst those with the highest levels of school competition. And from autonomous schools in Alberta, to Sweden’s Free Schools, to the Charter Schools of New York and Chicago, freedom is proving an unstoppable driver of excellence.

    Last November, Eric Hanushek and Ludger Woessmann – of the universities of Stanford and Munich respectively – submitted a report to the European Commission under the auspices of the European Expert Network on Economics of Education . While the primary focus was on the relationship between educational attainment and economic growth, Hanushek and Woessmann’s research also highlighted the critical role of autonomy as a driver of high educational standards.

    They found that:

    Across countries, students tend to perform better in schools that have autonomy in personnel and day-to-day decisions, in particular when there is accountability.

    They say that:

    Critics of choice-based policies often argue that a greater reliance on choice and private competition can lead to greater segregation of students. On the other hand, in particular the additional choice created by public funding for privately operated schools may particularly benefit disadvantaged students whose choices are otherwise most constrained, and thus boost equity in the school system. In fact, the cross-country patterns suggest that a larger share of privately operated schools is not only related to a higher performance level, but also to a substantially lower dependence of student achievement on socioeconomic status – as long as all schools are publicly financed…In such a setting, allowing choice among schools can even lead to reduced segregation because access to good schools is no longer tied to being able to afford to live in an expensive neighbourhood.

    So we’ve been working hard to increase autonomy for all our schools. Part of this has been about reducing central and local government prescription for all schools to give heads and teachers the space to focus on what really matters.

    – The hundreds of pages of FMSIS forms: gone.

    – The mammoth Ofsted Self-Evaluation Form: gone.

    – The fortnightly departmental emails: gone.

    – The Performance Management guidance: slashed by three quarters.

    – The capability procedures: radically simplified.

    – The Ofsted framework: slimmed down and focused.

    – The behaviour and bullying guidance: cut from 600 pages to just 50.

    – There’s more to come. In total, departmental guidance will be more than halved.

    But beyond these changes – which we’ve implemented for the benefit of all schools – we’ve gone further: every school now has the opportunity to take complete control of its budget, curriculum and staffing by applying to be an academy.

    They said schools wouldn’t be interested in becoming academies…
    Now the critics said that schools wouldn’t be interested. They told us that there would be fierce opposition from teachers, heads and parents. That we wouldn’t see the kind of numbers we were anticipating.

    Well…

    As of today, there are 1529 academies open in England. 1194 are converters and 335 are sponsored.

    45 per cent of all maintained secondary schools are either open or in the pipeline to become academies.

    There are 37 local authority areas where over half of secondary schools are already academies, and 64 LAs where more than half of secondaries are either open academies or in the process of becoming academies. Over 90 per cent in North East Lincolnshire; over 88 per cent in Bromley; over 82 per cent in Swindon; over 80 per cent in Thurrock.

    Three in five outstanding secondaries – and nearly one in 10 outstanding primaries – has applied to convert to an academy.

    Over 1,250,000 pupils now attend academies. This means around one in seven pupils in state schools now attends an academy – one in three pupils in state secondaries.

    In an average week, the Department for Education processes 20 applications from schools to convert to academy status, brokers another five schools to become sponsored academies.

    One can hardly say there’s been a lack of interest…

    The last Government saw academies as a secondary-only programme. One of the first things we did was extend academy freedoms to primaries. This is a vitally important part of our reforms.

    If pupils leave primary school without the basics – if they fail to get a Level 4 at KS2 – then they start secondary school at an extreme disadvantage. Pupils can’t read to learn if they haven’t learned to read. They can’t begin to deal with more advanced mathematical concepts – or physics, or chemistry, or any number of other subjects – if they haven’t grasped the fundamentals of numeracy. And however good a secondary school is, there’s a limit to the extent to which they can pick up the pieces.

    There are more than 1000 primaries where fewer than 40 per cent of pupils reach Level 4 in reading, writing and mathematics. These schools are leaving children to face a life of drastically narrowed choices in this world.

    Insisting that schools educate their pupils to Level 4 standard isn’t that big an ask. Level 4 is just the basics. To achieve a Level 4 in reading pupils need to be able to interpret and understand the meaning behind a simple story. And in maths, all that is required is to be able to understand simple fractions and add, subtract, multiply and divide without the help of a calculator. It’s unacceptable that so many children are being let down.

    So we must act urgently to tackle underperformance in primary schools. Part of the strategy is encouraging more primary academies.

    More than 700 maintained primary schools are either open or in the pipeline to become academies. These range from small rural primaries – like Kings Caple in Herefordshire with 32 pupils – to large urban primaries like 843-pupil Durand.

    There are 16 local authorities, such as Darlington and Cornwall, where more than 10 per cent of primary schools have opened or are in the pipeline to become academies.

    We’re encouraged by the enthusiasm primary schools have shown so far. In the most recent months, there have even been more primary applications than secondary. But there’s more to be done.

    We have identified more than two hundred primaries with the worst records and we have identified ten local authorities with unacceptable high numbers of under-performing primaries. We are working now to transform them into academies.

    Most local authorities are being cooperative and constructive. They recognise the benefits academies bring.

    Some, however, are being obstructive. They are putting the ideology of central control ahead of the interests of children. They are more concerned with protecting old ways of working than helping the most disadvantaged children succeed in the future. Anyone who cares about social justice must want us to defeat these ideologues and liberate the next generation from a history of failure.

    They said academies would hurt other schools…
    And becoming an academy is a liberation. It gives heads real freedom to make a difference. Longer school days; better paid teachers; remedial classes; more personalised learning; improved discipline; innovative curricula – these are just a few of the things that academy heads are doing to give the children in their care the best possible education.

    Even more impressive than what individual academies are doing by themselves is what they’re achieving through cooperation. And this is a critical point. Because the critics warned these new schools would be soulless, selfish islands of elitism. Fragmented. Isolated. Even aggressive. In fact, this cynical prediction couldn’t be further from the truth. Heads, teachers, governing bodies, showed more commitment, more devotion, and a greater sense of moral purpose than the critics gave them credit for. Academies are not islands unto themselves; instead, what we’ve witnessed is an outpouring of desire to help others.

    The critics said we concentrated too much on extending autonomy to the powerful. Well, like Abraham Lincoln I don’t think you help the weak by punishing the strong. If you get it right, then by emancipating the strong you can support the weak. That is why I have been so delighted that so many outstanding schools have stepped forward to sponsor other schools. Like Sir Joseph Williamson’s Mathematical School, Altrincham Girls’ and Tollbar Academy in Grimsby. Already, 18 converter academies are sponsoring another academy.

    Schools are continually finding new ways to work together and support each other. There are 403 converter academies in approximately 138 chains. These chains range from multi-academy trusts with shared governance and leadership to looser collaborative partnerships.

    Like Kemnal Technology College – an ‘outstanding’ school in Kent – which became an academy in September 2010. It formed the Kemnal Academies Trust, a multi-academy trust that currently includes eight secondary schools and three primary schools, from Bromley, Bexley, Kent, Essex and West Sussex, with another school from Hampshire (Havant Academy) joining this month [January 2012]. A further five schools are expected to join by April. The academies in the Trust work collaboratively, sharing training and development of staff, working together on curriculum design, and using shared administrative and financial management services. And the schools are seeing the benefits, with results rising and vast improvements being made. Two of the schools in the Trust, Debden Park and Welling, were amongst the most improved in the country last year.

    And chains offer the answer to many small primary schools thinking about how best to benefit from academy status. Take the 11 rural Devon primary schools who came together in November as the Primary Academies Trust. Church schools and community schools joining to share expertise and resources to serve the villages of north Devon with the inspiring leadership of two executive principals.

    It’s clear that freedom need not be the enemy of cooperation.

    They said academies wouldn’t really raise standards…
    The critics also said academies wouldn’t deliver the promised academic improvements. They said our promises of rising standards were overblown, that effects would be, at best, negligible (if not – as some claimed – negative). Yet again, the facts on the ground tell a different story. In the 166 sponsored academies with results in both 2010 and 2011, the percentage point increase in pupils achieving five plus A*-C including English and maths was double that of maintained schools. Some chains are doing particularly well:

    ARK results show an average 11 percentage point increase across their academy network.

    The Harris Federation is recording an average improvement of 13 percentage points across its family of academies. Eight out of their 13 academies are outstanding.

    ULT report a 7.1 percentage point improvement across their 17 academies – with six academies showing improvements of more than 10 percentage points.

    The percentage of students at ULT’s Barnsley Academy achieving five or more A*-C grades including English and maths almost trebled in 2011. Fifty-one per cent achieved these results compared to 19 per cent in 2010. These are the academy’s best ever results and are a dramatic increase from the six per cent of students achieving these results in 2006 – the year before the academy opened.

    These are not isolated cases. The Academies programme as a whole is raising standards. Recently academics at the London School of Economics published a landmark assessment of the scheme so far.

    There we see three key findings. First, that ‘academy conversion generates… a significant improvement in pupil performance.’ Second, that – contrary to what the critics claimed was happening – this improvement is not the result of academies scooping up middle-class pupils from nearby schools. While it’s true that, increasingly, more middle-class parents want to send their children to the local academy, this phenomenon is a consequence of the school’s success, not the cause. And thirdly, beyond raising standards for their own pupils, academies also tend to raise pupil performance in neighbouring schools. Success is contagious.

    They said the Academies programme would put SEN pupils at risk…
    The critics also claimed academies would neglect their duty to some of those who need our attention most: pupils with special educational needs. They said academies would use their freedom to shirk their responsibilities.

    But they were wrong. Twenty-three per cent of pupils in secondary academies have non-statemented special needs compared to 19 per cent for all secondary schools. And the percentage of pupils with statements in secondary academies is in line with the national average.

    They said academies would neglect the disadvantaged…
    Another group that critics claimed would be left behind by academies is disadvantaged pupils. They said autonomous schools would cream-skim the least challenging pupils and leave the rest to languish. But again, they were wrong.

    The proportion of pupils on free school meals in academies – around 15 per cent – is comparable to the proportion for all state-funded schools. The crucial difference is that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds tend to perform better in academies. The attainment rate for FSM pupils in academies improved by 8.3 percentage points between 2009 and 2010. This was over double the improvement rate recorded in comparable schools (4.0 percentage points) and also much higher than the national improvement rate for FSM pupils (4.6 percentage points). What’s more, the gap in attainment between FSM and non FSM pupils narrowed in academies between 2009 and 2010 (by 0.2 points). In comparable maintained schools, the attainment gap widened by 2.1 points over the same period.

    They said we were creating Victorian-style exam factories…
    When they can’t attack the popularity of the programme, and when they can’t attack the what’s being achieved, the critics move on to something more subtle: they attack the culture.

    Some academies (so the argument runs) may get good results, but that’s only because they’re Gradgrindian exam factories. Creativity, child development, citizenship, well-being, and even fun are all being sacrificed to make way for merciless and unrelenting rote learning as part of an ideological push for retrograde Victorianism. It’s all about kings, dates, lunchtime detentions, and braid on blazers.

    Well I’ve nothing against tradition. But the truth is that with more than 1500 academies, they embrace many educational traditions. Success comes from concentrating on the essentials.

    Just last month, respected Harvard economist Roland Fryer published some very interesting research into the factors that drive pupil achievement. Together with his colleague Will Dobbie, Fryer identified certain startling correlations. He looked at the number of times teachers received feedback. The number of days pupils were tutored in small groups. The way data was used to drive instruction. The number of internal pupil assessments. What teachers expected of their pupils. The number of hours children actually spent at their desks. Fryer found that all these factors correlated with higher student scores:

    Frequent teacher feedback, the use of data to guide instruction, high-dosage tutoring, increased instructional time, and high expectations – explains approximately 50 percent of the variation in school effectiveness.

    These findings are fascinating in themselves. But there’s a particular nuance I want to highlight. Fryer and Dobbie introduced robust controls for three alternative theories of schooling: a model emphasising the provision of wrap-around services, a model focused on teacher selection and retention, and a ‘no excuses’ model of education. They concluded that, regardless of the particular education model of the school, the factors identified in their study – teacher development, data-driven instruction, a culture of achievement, and high academic expectations – produced similarly strong positive effects.

    Why is this particularly important? Because it flies in the face of those critics who say that what we are advocating is a narrow, one-size-fits-all, Gradgrindian model. Critics who seek to set up false binary divides between rigour and creativity; between excellence and well-being; between an outstanding academic education and one which concentrates on character. Fryer’s work shows us that certain characteristics are related to high achievement with a variety of educational approaches. Expect excellence; offer intensive support; spend time in the classroom; use accountability intelligently; champion achievement… These are the principles that underpin great schools.

    That’s why while academies come in different shapes and sizes, and while academy heads come from a variety of different educational traditions, and while the Academy programme is explicitly designed to let a thousand – or rather 1529 – flowers bloom, it’s nonetheless clear that the best academies share common characteristics. These are the characteristics clearly reflected in Fryer’s findings. These are the things we are advocating. And to say somehow this equates to demanding a return to the Victorian era is more than a lazy pastiche – it’s downright disingenuous.

    I’ve spoken a good deal today about the facts on the ground. I’ve tried to show that the proof is in the proverbial pudding, and that the example set by the hundreds of existing academies is more than enough evidence to put the criticisms to bed.

    But the sad truth is that, for some of these critics, the facts don’t matter much. And they’ll continue to view the spread of autonomy as an unwelcome onslaught. They’ll continue to talk about the Government ‘threatening’ schools with academy conversion.

    Academy conversion is an opportunity. It’s only a threat to the complacent, to those who have been complicit in failure. It’s certainly not a threat for the children concerned; for them, it’s a liberation.

    I have been asked not to challenge the leadership of the lowest performing schools in Haringey. But for years hundreds of children have grown up effectively illiterate and innumerate. In one of the most disadvantaged parts of our capital city poor children have been deprived of the skills they need to succeed.

    Defenders of the status quo say these schools shouldn’t be judged in this way because they have a different approach – they are creative or inclusive. But you can’t be creative if you can’t read properly and speak fluently – you can’t be included in the world of work if you aren’t numerate.

    The same ideologues who are happy with failure – the enemies of promise – also say you can’t get the same results in the inner cities as the leafy suburbs so it’s wrong to stigmatise these schools.

    Let’s be clear what these people mean. Let’s hold their prejudices up to the light. What are they saying?

    If you’re poor, if you’re Turkish, if you’re Somali, then we don’t expect you to succeed. You will always be second class and it’s no surprise your schools are second class.

    I utterly reject that attitude.

    It’s the bigoted backward bankrupt ideology of a left wing establishment that perpetuates division and denies opportunity. And it’s an ideology that’s been proven wrong time and time again.

    Look at what’s been achieved in Harlem’s Children’s Zone or in the KIPP schools in America. The poorest children going to the best colleges because their teachers expect the best of every child.

    And most importantly look what’s happened here. In the Harris Academies. In ARK schools like Burlington Danes or King Solomon or Walworth Academy. In Mossbourne Academy and Manchester Academy. Children from the poorest homes going to the best universities. Exam performances better than scores of schools in the leafiest suburbs. Ofsted ratings which are consistently outstanding.

    So my message to those in Haringey and to others is: stop saying ‘hands off.’ Stop saying that the arrival of the expertise that can help your schools is a threat. They called Phil Harris a threat 11 years ago; he’s transformed the lives of hundreds of thousands. They said it was a threat when people from the City became involved in sponsoring schools – tell that to the children at King Solomon. The arguments being made in Haringey are the same ones that were made about Hackney Downs in 1995. Back then 11 per cent of children got 5 A* to C with English and maths. Now at Mossbourne 82 per cent in 2010 get 5 A* to C including English and maths, and ten students got offers to study at Cambridge this year.

    And for those that say this approach is untested in primary schools you only have to look at what has happened right here at Haberdashers Aske Hatcham. In 2008 Monson Primary School was in notice to improve with falling rolls. Now 76 per cent of pupils are achieving Level 4 at Key Stage 2 and two more primaries have joined the federation.

    But the teachers, parents and pupils of Hatcham and Mossbourne wouldn’t wish for a return to the past. We’ve heard a lot of arguments, a lot of excuses from those who don’t believe in giving children a better education. It’s time we called them what they are: ideologues.

    It’s the same old ideologues pushing the same old ideology of failure and mediocrity. Who sought to cow anyone with a desire for change by accusing them of ‘talking down’ the achievement of pupils and teachers. The same old ideologues who strove mightily to make the world fit their theories – and damaged generations in the process.

    What’s new is that the evidential basis of their policies, always thin, has now disintegrated altogether. Schools like Haberdashers’ Aske’s Hatcham, which we have the privilege of being in today, and hundreds like it across the country, are proof of what can be achieved – not just for some children, but for all children.

    Change is coming. And to those who want to get in the way, I have just two words: hands off.

  • David Blunkett – 2002 Speech on Social Capital

    davidblunkett

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Blunkett, the then Home Secretary, on 26 March 2002.

    Introduction

    I am very pleased to be here today. Throughout my experience of central and local government I have consistently seen the importance of social capital – those social networks and forms of trust which enable people to work together to achieve common objectives. Social capital is that which bonds us together and builds bridges between communities.

    I am an optimist about social capital. Over the years, civic responsibility and collective working has put down deep roots in our society. During the industrial revolution, working people in conditions of dire poverty, formed friendly societies, trade unions, co-operative clubs, institutes and libraries. In the early nineteenth century there were 900,000 members of friendly societies. A powerful ethos of mutual improvement was established in this era.

    Since that time, the ethos of mutualism has been reflected in the best of the trade and union and labour movement, co-operative societies, and a huge range of voluntary and community sector organisations. The same ethos has underpinned our traditions of adult learning. And mutual ownership still thrives in leading edge businesses, such as Swann Morton, in my own constituency.

    Active citizenship is built on these principles of mutuality. It is about engagement with the community that you are a part of, for the benefit of yourself, your family and those around you.

    Today, there are 350,000 school governors. There are 160,000 local neighbourhood watch schemes registered with the National Neighbourhood Watch Association. Social entrepreneurs are building on social networks to bring communities together to turn around neighbourhoods. I think of the way, for example, that residents of Balsall Heath took radical action against prostitution and crime in the early 1990s – forming a picket to deter curb crawlers – and have gone on to form the Balsall Heath Forum which is working to regenerate the area. They built the capacity and confidence of local people to create and sustain associations and services that make their neighbourhood strong. In 1990 there was one residents group. Today there are 21. In 1970 there were three voluntary organisations. Today there are 56. The Forum has calculated that 4,000 people out of Balsall Heath’s population of 12,000 regularly participate in a caring activity designed to improve the quality of life of the neighbourhood. The Forum’s ambitious target is to involve 60% of the population in local associations by 2004.

    But we all know that there have also been great challenges to this civic tradition over the last thirty years. The core institutions of post-war civil society – the churches, trade unions and local government – have all undergone decline as mass institutions.

    Unfettered individualism is, for many, no longer a taboo. At worst, it is celebrated. For that, I hold Rightwing ideologues partly to blame. But there are also those on the Centre-Left who suggest that individuals don’t have responsibilities for their action; that individual freedom transcends the very community foundations upon which it ultimately depends.

    But strengthening communities does not mean turning the clock back. We are discovering new, modern forms of community and social interaction in this era of globalisation. We do not have to give up the gains in personal freedom and social equality we have made in the post war period if we want to strengthen our communities. Indeed, it is precisely to enable individuals to lead decent and fulfilling lives that we must achieve civil renewal.

    So it is right that we consider the question of how to help build social capital. Trust, mutual association and civic institutions have, and can, make a real difference to people’s lives. But they are not inevitable features of British life. If we do not tend them, progress is impossible.

    The role of Government

    How can the Government make a difference? How can it help build social capital?

    Those interested in social capital have sometimes been wary of the role of Government. It is true that the State has too often ignored the importance of informal community association. Too many post war regeneration schemes excluded communities and disrupted rather than supported local societies. Initiatives such as Development Corporations focused too much on building physical infrastructure, and failed to make long term improvements because they ignored the community.

    But most evidence shows that the best way to build social capital is to make it a joint endeavour between State and specific communities or individuals. Schools and GP surgeries, for example, can be real hubs of the community. Take West Walker primary school in the East End of Newcastle. As well as driving up exam results over the last few years, they have taken an increasing role in supporting the development of social capital. The school brings together residents through a thriving adult education centre, a lively café and projects such as building a nature garden. Some parents have now gone on to form a housing association. West Walker is, in turn, already repeating the benefits of local social renewal. Groups of parents are now helping the school, such as with a joint ICT learning initiative.

    Three specific roles for Government stand out:

    – Promoting social order and security;

    – Investing in individuals and communities, so that they can help themselves; and,

    – Working in partnership with people to change their own communities.

    Social Order & Security

    Social order is the first responsibility of government. Progressive Governments have rarely given sufficient weight to social order, with disastrous consequences for communities and democracy itself. If progressives cannot maintain order, far more reactionary groups will step in, as the histories of the Weimar and Spanish Second Republics show. And when we do not maintain security, it is those who can afford it least who tend to suffer. The chance of being burgled is typically three times as high for people living on council estates than those living in affluent suburban areas.

    Security and order are also the first building blocks of social capital. Order generates trust. In turn, those who trust others are more likely to participate in community organisations. Without a sense of security, people find it harder to work with others. They are scared to go out on the streets. They are fearful of talking to others.

    And without basic social order, communities don’t stand a chance of renewal and regeneration. That is why supporting the police is vital. A more effective police force, which cuts crime, does not simply reduce the direct problems caused by crime. It also provides the basis for renewed societies. That is why I am ensuring we have more police and more police on the streets, and that all police forces reach minimum standards. It is also why I have announced the first five police priority areas – communities that need significant intervention and support to tackle the endemic problems of crime and disorder they suffer.

    We are also developing new ways to improve security in collaboration with communities themselves. Street wardens are one example of that. They are employed for local communities, to help them maintain order. I am determined that they, other wardens and community safety officers, will have the powers to do this job effectively. As an aside, we always hear some concerns about how new wardens will work with the police and use their powers. Exactly the same debates accompanied the introduction of traffic wardens. In fact, wardens are an important new resource for creating secure and orderly neighbourhoods, not a substitute for or alternative to the police.

    And I am putting particular emphasis on tackling anti-social behaviour and drug misuse – both of which destroy communities. For example, we are proposing to stream line Anti-Social Behaviour Orders by establishing interim orders on application, by giving powers to housing associations and other registered social landlords to apply for orders and ensuring that, when necessary, orders will travel with people when they move house. And we are building a new approach to tackling anti-social behaviour with Crime and Disorder Partnerships, working closely with local communities, drawing down funds like the Community Champions Fund so as to build a preventive approach to tackling anti-social behaviour.

    To emphasise, these are civil renewal measures, not just crime cutting measures.

    On your side: investing in individuals and communities

    Millions of people across the country want to work together to make a difference to their communities. But the truth is that without resources, their achievements will be limited. Many give up. Mutual working withers. Social capital can collapse.

    The lack of resources is most acute in deprived areas, where those in poverty, those with disabilities and those struggling to bring up children on their own are concentrated. Compared to the rest of the country, deprived areas have twice as many people dependent on means tested benefits, three times more children in poverty and 30% higher mortality rates.

    We have been determined to ensure that, in these areas in particular, people have the resources they need to help themselves. I am now working closely with Steve Byers to ensure that we have a fully joined up approach to regeneration and neighbourhood renewal. Crime reduction is at the heart of our policies for civil renewal in these areas.

    And mobilising people for progress is crucial. As I said earlier, the example of Balshall Heath shows what can be done. People took control of the situation for themselves – tackling drug addiction, picketing on the streets to get rid of the pimps and the prostitution that flooded the area, and dealing with thuggery and intimidation. Over time, stronger partnerships with government have been built up. This shows what can be achieved when government supports people, so that they can make a difference to their lives and communities. Not simply providing for people, nor abandoning them to global forces outside their control.

    This investment approach has characterised our support for individuals – enabling more people to have a better education and giving more children a better start in life. The proposed new Child Trust Funds extend the investment approach to financial assets.

    The same philosophy – of helping people build up the assets needed to help themselves – applies to communities. It is when communities have the resources to help themselves that they can work together to create real change. In this process, social capital is built. Take the North End and North Lynn Community Trust in King’s Lynn. The Trust was set up with just £55,000 in 1992. From that, it has built a range of services, including childcare schemes and a healthy living centre. And as their assets have grown, more and more people have got involved. Social capital has developed, laying the foundations for further mutual working.

    Sure Start is one example of how we are already making a significant investment in the assets of communities – by providing new buildings, skills and organisational capacity and the long-term future of our children.

    But we need to do more. Where appropriate, central and local Government needs to transfer assets and control to communities. Parks, community centres and leisure centres are sometimes better controlled by community groups. With the right support, they can manage them more effectively and become local community institutions.

    Risky? Undoubtedly. But if we don’t take risks we will never give communities the control over their own futures which stimulates social action. So I welcome the intention of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to remove the need for ministerial consent before local authorities can transfer land at less than market price under the Local Government Act 1972 and believe that we need to do more to encourage and support appropriate asset transfers.

    We also need to invest in community institutions, like North End and North Lynn Community Trust – hubs of local communities. Through the Active Community Unit we are already providing grants to umbrella organisations, such as the Community Action Network, which support community groups. We should now consider how the Government and others can better directly invest in community organisations, so that they can make a real difference.

    We particularly need to invest in those community institutions which bring together people with different cultural backgrounds. The disturbances in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley last summer demonstrate the important of investing in social networks and organisations building community cohesion.

    Cheaper finance for community groups is part of the solution – the Phoenix Fund and other social investment initiatives are helping achieve that. There may also be scope for carefully managed grants which give organisations the flexible working capital needed to lever in loans and get projects started.

    Working in partnership to help people change their communities

    Thirdly, we need to recognise that people and communities need to work directly in partnership with the Government to build social capital and change their communities. By this, I do not mean lots of talking shops. I mean real collaboration. Getting things done.
    I mentioned West Walker primary school earlier. A good example of how local government services can be important parts of the fabric of local societies. Likewise, the police have worked closely with Balsall Heath Forum.

    The Government is learning much about working in partnership with small community groups. At the Home Office we are simplifying grant regimes, encouraging joint working between the police and local communities, and looking at new ways to involve communities and families in tackling drug misuse.

    But some local authorities are reducing their support for community groups. I hear of too many important community institutions, such as Volunteer Bureaux and Councils for Voluntary Service, at severe risk of collapse because their local funding is being withdrawn. I am pleased to announce today that we have set up a £500,000 emergency fund to support some of these groups over the next year. But these will be one off contributions. Local authorities should be supporting the community sector too, and Stephen Byers and I will be writing to relevant local authorities to emphasise this to them. We are determined to work together to support civil renewal in this area, as others.

    We also need to consider better ways for central and local government to work in partnership with community leaders – the people who make social networks work for the common good, by bringing people together to tackle crime, improve education and develop public spaces. Paid or voluntary, community leaders can galvanise local people around a vision of change and practical action. So we need to build on, and develop initiatives like the Community Champions Fund, and the new Neighbourhood Managers under the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme, investing in and trusting local leaders.

    Conclusion: Social Capital and Citizenship

    The roles I have outlined for Government – creating a safe and secure environment, investing in communities and working in partnership with people – are all areas where we are making progress. I would like to end by touching on the other side of partnership – the responsibility of individuals. Government has important roles, but individuals must play a role in renewing communities. People must make the effort to work together, to reach out across communities, to make a difference. There has to be a civil spark.

    That is why I believe that we must think about building social capital in the wider context of citizenship. The two weave together. Those who volunteer in their communities tend to be more likely to vote. Conversely, those who have a sense of citizenship tend to work with others to improve their communities.

    A final part of our approach must, therefore be to reinforce citizenship at a national level. That is why, as Secretary of State for Education, I introduced citizenship classes into the school week, including ensuring that young people learnt by doing – going out into their communities and helping others.

    It is also why our immigration, nationality and asylum policies are designed to reinforce citizenship, through new ways of welcoming people and ensuring that people can fully participate in British society by speaking English. Ultimately, these are policies for building social capital.

    So to end on a personal note, the opportunities to help build social capital and drive civil renewal are one of the reasons why I have so much pride in being Home Secretary. As I noted at the start, I am an optimist about social capital, but know that it has to be tended. The Home Office brings together security, investment in communities, partnership working with communities and citizenship. As we take action on all these fronts, I believe that we are seeing social capital, our neighbourhoods and democracy renewed.

  • William Waldegrave – 1979 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by William Waldegrave in the House of Commons on 24 October 1979.

    It seems to me to be bad luck for a maiden speaker to be followed by another maiden speaker, since in such circumstances he misses the opportunity of having paid to him those rounded tributes that years of experience in the House teach one to deploy. However, I am sure that other hon. Members will join with me in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland), who has provided the Labour Party with a formidable new voice to succeed the attractive voice which preceded him, and which I always thought would have been more in order coming from the Conservative Front Bench than from the Labour Benches.

    My ancestor, Richard, had to be dragged to your Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, being the first so to be dragged, according to family tradition. My delay in finding the courage to speak to the House might have led you to believe that those nerves were inherited. I am particularly nervous about speaking to the House on one of those days of fierce and formidable debate, when although perhaps each side does not terrify the other much, perhaps both terrify the outside world a good deal. I promise that the enforced truce of my maiden speech will be only a brief interruption of the dialectic, which can then continue between those who say the cuts are essential to the economy and that, what is more, there have not been any, and those who say that the cuts are quite unacceptable and, what is more, were never accepted by them when they were making them.

    Into this brief period of truce, I would like, first, to insert my tribute to my predecessor, now Sir Robert Cooke. Many of those whom he served in Bristol, West for so many years perhaps did not know of the work that he did here for the House, but I have been left in no doubt about the affection and gratitude in which he is held by many hon. Members, and by those who work in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, because of the work on the fabric of the House with which he had so much to do. The ghost of Sir Christopher Wren will, I am sure, forgive me if I borrow from the walls of St. Paul’s, and translate, his tribute to himself and apply it to Robin. Should any hon. Member be in the Library or the Committee Rooms, I suggest that he looks around him, and he will see Robin’s monument there.

    Bristol is too ancient and proud a city to need my tributes. It was once the second county borough in the land, until the march of time alleged that we had become a district council within Avon. We are a city with a tremendous history of contribution to the culture of the English-speaking world. We have a great radical tradition going back beyond Sir Stafford Cripps and Augustine Birrell to our key part in the history of Methodism and of the Society of Friends.

    We also have a fine Tory tradition. If the conflict has at times become a little heated—we burnt down most of the city and pursued the bishop over the rooftops in order to make a point or two about the 1831 Reform Bill—we have, none the less, normally managed to reconcile our differences and to demonstrate in a practical and sensible way a continuity of policy in the city’s administration. I am sure that the present exponent of our great radical tradition, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), has no intention of treating my friend the present bishop in a similar way.

    Our Tory tradition has at its head Burke. Burke is perhaps over-quoted by hon. Members from Bristol, since his famous letter on the proper definition of the relationship between himself and Bristol was followed rather rapidly by his becoming the Member for Malton—a pocket borough in the gift of Lord Rockingham. More recently, in Oliver Stanley, we had a fine example of House of Commons skills. And in Walter Monckton we had a patient practitioner of the skills of negotiation and reconciliation in dealings between the Government and trade unions. Both those examples deserve study.

    Bristol, with its long history, shows in two particular respects how we can live with the future. First, Bristol is a successful multi-racial city. It has been multiracial successfully for many years, and has largely solved—or thinks it knows how to solve—the problems of being so. In achieving this, quietly and without fuss—although some problems remain—it perhaps has something to offer to others.

    Secondly, we can show from our origins as a commercial city how science and technology can serve the interests of the community. Bristol has unrivalled traditions in science and technology. It has a university whose chancellor, Dorothy Hodgkin, is Britain’s greatest living woman scientist, a polytechnic of outstanding excellence and first-class colleges and schools.

    We know we can live with the future and we intend to play a decisive part in its shaping. Strangely enough, our tolerance of immigrants is not unconnected with our scientific and technical skills. We played patron to an immigrant French engineer called Brunel. We bred and educated Paul Dirac—probably Britain’s greatest living theoretical scientist, whose father came from Switzerland.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker, this House is not perhaps at its best when it comes to limiting the growth of public expenditure. Disraeli, I think, said that everyone was more or less in favour of public spending cuts in the generality and no one was in favour of them in the particular. That is perhaps particularly true of hon. Members. I am already guilty myself, as I welcome the hints in today’s edition of The Daily Telegraph that the threat hanging over the BBC’s external services may be lifted.

    There can seldom have been a time when—putting aside the protection of special interests and the promotion of admirable causes to which individual hon. Members are dedicated—there has been a wider agreement on the necessity of holding down the growth in public expenditure. The last Government knew that it had to be done and started the process with considerable courage and effect. This Government enjoy the advantage of having a mandate to do what the last Government found themselves compelled to do. Indeed, there can seldom have been a Government elected with a clearer mandate, or a mandate so unpleasant to carry out.

    The truth is inescapable. Government spending of £70 billion a year cannot be financed without taxes so heavy that they begin to destroy the economy that pays them, without interest rates so high that new investment is impossible, or without catastrophic inflation—or perhaps all three. The old Keynesian formula of public expenditure as a way out of recession is of little relevance to this situation. It derived from a time when prices were actually falling and when the money supply was decreasing.

    But our commitment to the unpleasant job for which we were elected should never be allowed to become tinged with fanaticism. There is an essential place for spending by the State in wide areas of modern national life. That area is wider than was necessary 100 or even 50 years ago. It is essential that the Government have a philosophy which includes solid justification for positive action by the State, as well as negative abstention from action.

    The allegiance of citizens to the State does not derive from mere proximity. It will grow only if the State effectively does the modern version of the primordial just ruler’s proper job of protecting the weak and pulling down the over-mighty. Government is possible in a free society only if that allegiance between citizen and State is maintained. If that means spending on poverty, or on the mitigation of industrial failure or on anything else where a sensible judgment might be that the State can helpfully act, we should not be frightened of exercising our common sense by economic theory grown too big for its boots.

    Nor should we fall into the equally-ridiculous error of increasing expenditure by the State for its own sake in order to satisfy an opposite economic theory of even less intellectual interest. It is possible to do things because they are the right things to do on a particular occasion without any grand theoretical structure of justification.

    The authority of Government in a free society depends on the success with which it makes respectable, and then voices, a concept of common national good. In terms of this debate and this subject, that means showing the many people who are genuinely upset by cuts and postponements that they should accept them—although they are not inclined to do so—for the benefit of the common good. That means winning and retaining people’s trust. And that means saying, where it is true, that the present austerity means the loss or postponement of some good and valuable things. Not every saving can come from the elimination of waste or the cutting down of administration.

    There will, of course, be some exaggerated lobbying, and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches would be inhuman if they did not join in the uproar—and we know that they are by no means inhuman. But there will be some real losses, and if we deny that we will undermine the authority that we need to explain why the cuts are necessary in the first place. And more important even than that is the fact that to get people to accept unpleasant things now, in order that there will be benefits in the future, means reminding them of their membership of a common community—the nation—as well as of their rights as individuals, or as members of competing groups. That in turn entails occasionally talking in the now rather unfashionable language of national unity, as well as in more fashionable jargons.

    Having listened to many maiden speeches, I concluded that the House was so tolerant that it would put up with a good deal of teaching of right honourable grandmothers how to suck right honourable eggs. I have continued that tradition and I am grateful to the patience of the House for allowing me to do so.

  • Edwin Wainwright – 1959 Maiden Speech to the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Edwin Wainwright in the House of Commons on 10 November 1959.

    I have waited a long time to speak, Mr. Speaker, but I am very grateful to you for selecting me, even though at such a late hour. As this is my maiden speech, I ask the House to grant me its forbearance. I am supposed to be non-controversial, and obliging, and I expect reciprocity on this occasion. If, inadvertently, I break that rule I trust that hon. Members will forgive me.

    I should be very remiss if, on this occasion, I did not say a few words about my predecessor. I refer to the Right Hon. Wilfred Paling, formerly Member of Parliament for Dearne Valley. He came into this House in 1922 and remained here until just recently, except for a period in 1931–33, when, unfortunately, an hon. Member opposite defeated him at Doncaster. Wilfred Paling is a man of very high integrity. He is sincere and has a great honesty of purpose. He also has a great ability. This House has rung many times with his voice on behalf of the working people. In fact, he, along with the Right Hon. Tom Williams and Tom Smith, were considered to be “the terrible three”.

    Mr. Wilfred Paling has recently had an attack of pneumonia, from which, I am glad to say, he is recovering. On behalf of every right hon. and hon. Member of the House, I think that I can say to him the next time I see him that we wish him and his good lady good health and a long retirement.

    During the last two days we have been discussing the Local Employment Bill. When we read new Bills, it is often hard to discover why they were necessary. The Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, and the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, give sufficient powers to the Government to carry out and maintain a policy of full employment. In view of the fact that the Bill has been introduced, and the Government have assured us that they will maintain full employment, we must accept what they say in good faith. I hope that that good faith will be with us in twelve months’ or two years’ time and that they do not treat the Bill, when it becomes an Act, as they have treated other Acts in the past.

    There are three things that I should like to say about the Bill. The first concerns Part I, where the words a high rate of unemployment exists or is imminent appear. What do the Government mean by “a high rate of unemployment”? Do they mean 7, 8 or 9 per cent., or 30 or 40 per cent., which we experienced during the depression period, or do they mean what the Board of Trade says is a reasonable percentage of 4 per cent.? The Government should tell the House what they mean by a “high rate of unemployment”.

    Secondly, what do the Government mean by the word “locality”? Do they mean that where there are high pockets of unemployment the term “locality” covers a wide expansive area, thus ensuring that the average rate of unemployment is low, or do they mean that they will consider each pocket of high unemployment on its own?

    Thirdly, in Part III the Government promise “to be responsible for the difference of 85 per cent. between the cost of the erection of a building and its market value after completion. In a Development Area, one appreciates that there would be a difference between those two values and this provision probably would encourage private enterprise to come along and erect a factory or plant. In an area where there is only a little unemployment, 400 or 500 unemployed could be absorbed if two or three factories were erected. If there is a stable economy, about which we have heard so much from the Government, the difference between the cost of erection and the market value may be insignificant. If it were so insignificant that it would not attract private industrialists, what would the Government do to encourage the erection of factories?

    In my division we have 3 to 4 per cent. unemployment. Sixty-five per cent. of the industry is coal mining, but the employment of mine workers has been restricted, with the result that at present 540 men are out of work. In addition, 81 boys, 348 women and 46 girls in the Dearne Valley, which is supposed to be an area of practically full employment, are unemployed. What perturbs me particularly is that we have boys and girls who are unemployed. In fact, 21 boys and 5 girls who are still unemployed left school in July. If we waste our youth like that, what is the good of our educational programme? What is the good of attempting to train technologists and scientists if we allow our youths to be unemployed?

    In my neighbouring constituency—and I mention this with the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley)—72 school-leavers have been unemployed since the end of July. The position, therefore, in that area is worse than the position in my own constituency.

    The West Riding County Council administrative area has had no help from the Government under the Distribution of Industry Act or the 1958 Act. Personnel are going out of the West Riding County Council administrative area into the large towns and cities for employment. Girls are travelling by bus from my own constituency at 5.15 in the morning to the Halifax and Bradford areas for employment and are returning late at night, between 7 and 8 o’clock. That is not a good thing.

    We say, therefore, that light industries should be allowed to come to my division to make certain that there is employment for our female workers, for our aged and sick miners and for persons not physically fit to work in heavy industries. We hope that the Bill will help us to obtain the light industries which are needed in the Dearne Valley area. The contraction of the mining industry, unless it is planned contraction, can have a grievous effect on the economy. I would remind hon. Members opposite that 80 per cent. of the oil that comes into this country comes from a politically unstable area, and in the event of anything untoward happening in that area the economy would immediately be in a very parlous state.

    I ask the Government to do a bit of rethinking about their present attitude towards the coal mining industry. Coal is our indigenous fuel, and we should make certain that it plays its full part in the fuel supplied to industry. If it is necessary that the coal mining industry is contracted, let us carry out the purposes of the Bill and ensure that employment is maintained in the mining areas before the pits are closed. Once a mine is closed it is too late to say that we will build a plant or factory there. It is essential to ensure that chaos, social upheaval and degradation do not occur in our small towns and villages.

    It has been said by an hon. Member that there is nothing worse than unemployment, except war. To a fit and able man unemployment is degrading. A man feels that it besmirches his character. It upsets his soul and warps his opinions. It is the duty of any Government to ensure full employment wherever labour happens to be at any given time.

    I may have been a little controversial. If so, I hope that hon. Members will forgive me. I will save any further comments, caustic or otherwise, for some future occasion. But I must impress upon the Government and upon hon. Members generally that we in the mining industry desire—I nearly used the word “demand”—the Government to consider fully a national fuel policy. I regret that the Minister of Power is not in the House today. It is essential that coal should play its part if we are to make full use of our indigenous fuel.

    I suggest that opencast mining should be stopped immediately. Compensation for loss of contracts, which would be the responsibility of the Coal Board, should be taken over by the Government. The situation could be eased by making certain that the personnel and machines at present used in opencast mining were transferred to building our roads, thus making certain that our roads were such that when factories were built the materials required in those factories could be delivered there. If the Government will consider that suggestion and will put it into effect, I am certain that we can build up our economy and maintain full employment.

    I hope also that the Government will bear in mind the question of residual oil. The Secretary of State referred to finance in connection with the stocking of coal, oil dumping and opencast mining. We are waiting to see what the Government intend to do on each of those three points.

    I am grateful to the House for having listened to me so patiently and I hope that hon. Members will take note of what I have said.

  • David Waddington – 1968 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by David Waddington in the House of Commons on 23 July 1968.

    If I may crave the indulgence of the House, I should like at the outset to pay a tribute to my predecessor at Nelson and Colne. One thing he certainly had was political courage. There were, perhaps, not many occasions when I agreed wholeheartedly with the political opinions which he expressed, but I always admired the completely fearless way in which he expressed them. I am sure that the House will long remember his relentless campaign to bring about the end of capital punishment.

    I trust that the House will also bear with me for a little time while I speak about my division. I do not think that there are many hon. Members—excluding, of course, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government—who know very well that part of the world. I find that many people in London imagine that it is a very bleak, drab and damp place in the centre of industrial Lancashire with very little to commend it. The recent by-election in Nelson and Colne may at least have educated many of the journalists who then visited our town.

    The division is, in fact, a very grand place in which to live and work. One has only to travel for a very few minutes from the centres of our towns and one is in the most beautiful unspoilt countryside. Beyond that, a very great deal has been done in recent years to improve the amenities of the towns. Thus they are no longer composed of serried ranks of “Coronation Streets”, and no longer do those towns lack all amenities. I understand that not long ago hon. Members received from the local paper a coloured supplement which set out in great detail how good a place it was in which to live and work.

    In recent years we have been confronted with very real and special problems, first of all because of the contraction of the cotton textile industry and, secondly, because of the very strong—and, as I believe, far too strong—inducements offered by the Government to industry to go to the development areas, which are not so very far from the boundaries of the Nelson and Colne division. This is a subject about which I hope I may have an opportunity to speak on another occasion.

    On this occasion I must direct my attention to housing, and it is right to say that even there our part of the world has its special problems. It is interesting to note that although over England as a whole about 48.5 per cent. of all dwellings are owner occupied, the figure in Colne is 62.1 per cent. and in Nelson it is no less than 72.3 per cent. There must therefore be many people in Nelson and Colne who are extremely disturbed at the high level of the mortgage interest rates, and I hope that I am not being too controversial in a maiden speech in saying that I am bitterly disappointed at the non-fulfilment of the election promise of 3 per cent. mortgages. I suppose that the non-fulfilment is partly responsible for my presence in this Chamber now.

    There are two or three specific points that I should like to make. What we all want, of course, is an end to the crisis conditions in which we have lived since 1964 so that we can move away from crisis rates of interest and thus allow the mortgage interest rates to fall. Obviously, however, the crisis will not end in the twinkling of an eye—indeed, I doubt very much whether it will end before the end of this Parliament.

    In those circumstances, therefore, it cannot be in anyone’s interest for the Government to try—and I hope that they will no: seek to do so—to prevent the building societies from charging such a rate of interest as will enable them to pay investors what is necessary to pay them in order to get the money needed in the movement. At the moment, I understand that at least twice as many people are wanting mortgages as the societies can provide for, and the Government are not providing a service to those people who are waiting in the queue— and it is often people with the more slender means who are waiting in the queue and who have not yet been provided for—when they carp at and try to prevent increases in the mortgage rate.

    Secondly, I consider—as does my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon)—the mortgage option scheme to have been a monumental flop. Only 10 per cent. of new borrowers have opted, and the reason is quite obvious. One needs a crystal ball to know whether or not it will be to one’s ultimate benefit to opt into the scheme. One has to bear in mind the possibility of the standard rate of Income Tax going up, in which case the benefit of mortgage option will diminish. One has also to bear in mind the unlikely eventuality of the standard rate of Income Tax coming down. One has to bear in mind that one’s earnings may increase, but one has also to bear in mind that one’s earnings may increase, but one has also to bear in mind the possibility that one may encounter trouble and one’s earnings decrease.

    One has to bear in mind that after one has opted for the scheme the Government may, as the Government have done this year, increase family allowances and draw more people into the tax net. Perhaps—one never knows—the day may arrive when the mortgage interest rate will drop below 6 per cent. when, again, the advantages of having opted into the scheme will diminish. One really has to bear in mind the innate optimism of the British working man which must in itself militate against the success of the scheme. It is a rare bird who does not hope that either through his own efforts or good fortune—by winning the pools, perhaps—his means will increase, yet he now has to make the best calculation he can of his ultimate prospects and earnings.

    One has to recognise also that the booklet advertising the scheme is very complicated as, indeed, it must be because of the complicated calculations that have to be made when a man is deciding whether or not the scheme will be to his benefit. There must be some better way of giving help to those with smaller means, and perhaps in the long run if not in the short run we should consider allowing everyone, whatever his means and whether he pays the standard rate of Income Tax or a lower rate, the right to withhold the equivalent of tax at standard rate in respect of mortgage interest payments.

    I finish with a positive suggestion for the encouragement of home ownership. I think that the best incentive and the best way of encouraging people to improve their own homes would be by the introduction of some sort of tax allowance for improvement. Not only would that be a positive encouragement to home ownership, but it would also have one very beneficial side effect. One would remove a lot of the built in antagonism to re-rating and make more sense of the rating system if people knew that they could spend up to the annual value of their houses on repairs and improvements and get tax relief on those sums.

    I hope that I have not trespassed for too long on the time of the House, and I am grateful for the patient way in which hon. Members have listened to me.

  • John Roper – 1970 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by John Roper in the House of Commons on 13 November 1970.

    The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) now has behind him the ordeal which I face. He had a much more distinguished career than I as a debater at university and, to judge by his speech this morning, I am sure that he will have a distinguished career here, too. I was surprised by how much of what he said found my agreement.

    I speak in the House for the first time mindful of the high standard set by my predecessors. Ernest Thornton, whom I follow, represented the constituency for 18 years and he was as widely liked in the division as, I am sure, he was in the House. His lifetime of experience in the cotton industry, including many years as a trade union official, and his experience in local government were a formidable background for his Parliamentary career. His integrity and kindness ensured that he was universally respected. I, personally, am most grateful to him for all the help and guidance which he has given me in recent years. I have learned greatly from him of the responsibilities and requirements for service in the House.

    The Farnworth division of Lancashire is made up of four Lancashire local authorities. Three of them, the borough of Farnworth itself and the urban districts of Kearsley and Little Lever border the River Irwell. That river had a reputation for pollution. Indeed, there was an anonymous couple: ‘I’ stands for Irwell, for Irk and for Ink But none of those liquids is wholesome to drink”. This summed up the position at one time, but I am glad to say that the most recent report of the river authority said: the reputation of the river which was nationally, if not internationally, known for its grossly polluted condition, is now unjustified. The state of the river is still not satisfactory, but it can no longer be described as notorious. The fourth authority in the division, the Urban District of Worsley, in the eighteenth and nineteenth century was the hub of the canal network which James Brindley built for the Duke of Bridgewater. Today, the division is the hub of a motorway network which serves industrial Lancashire and links us to Yorkshire. We are proud to have one of the most complicated motorway junctions in Europe under construction which has gained locally the name “Spaghetti Junction”. One loop of that spaghetti, the M63, stretches from Worsley to the borders of Altrincham and Sale, the constituency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Thus it is perhaps not inappropriate that I should make my maiden speech in this debate. I do so with some trepidation, knowing the pitfalls facing Members dabbling in matters of finance.

    In my constituency there will no doubt be some who will welcome the Bill, the wealthy, healthy bachelors who will gain substantial advantages from the tax reductions. There will be others who will welcome it in ignorance, ignoring the other part of the Chancellor’s package which will raise the charges for school meals, evening classes, council-house rents, drugs, spectacles and dental treatment. But I am sure the majority of my constituents, while welcoming the extra 4s. or 5s. a week it may bring them, will see that it does not go very far towards dealing with the extra expenditure their families will be involved in as a result of the package announced earlier.

    The Measure is openly and avowedly redistributive. The bigger the income then the fewer the responsibilities and the greater the benefits. It compares very unfavourably with the Budget brought in by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, on the last occasion the Conservative Party returned to power after a period in opposition. In the 1952 Budget, which was bitterly attacked from the Opposition benches for the cuts in food subsidies, at least when it came to income tax the then Chancellor used such relief as was available to increase personal allowances and to widen the scope of the reduced rate bands. On that occasion the Chancellor concentrated relief, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) suggested, at the bottom of the scale, and this had its effect throughout.

    Apart from the social objections to the Bill, I am sceptical as to whether taxpayers will eventually benefit from it. If the economic situation deteriorates over the next four months as it has over the last five months, it will be difficult for the Chancellor to permit the inflationary injection of £300 million into the economy in the year beginning next April. I cannot see how this Measure can be compatible with any Budget strategy he may be planning. There is no evidence that the rate of increase of wage-earnings will decelerate in the next 12 months. It is now running at a rate of 14 per cent. or 15 per cent. a year and there is unfortunately very little evidence of any industrialised country which has reached this sort of level of wage inflation being able to return to more normal rates of wage inflation without a serious economic crisis. Such evidence as one can find is that prices will rise faster over the next 12 months. An estimate of 8 per cent. price inflation does not appear to be exaggerated at present. In those circumstances the additional reflationary measure which the Bill provides could only be harmful. I suggest that either this Measure will never be implemented or that the Government will have to eat their words and introduce an incomes policy. It is most likely that they will have to do both.

    If the Chancellor had wanted to honour his election promise he would surely have done better to start with selective employment tax. I must declare that my association with the Co-operative Movement may colour my views in this regard, but the same sum as is being distributed through the reduction in the standard rate of tax could have been used to reduce selective employment tax by 50 per cent. I suggest this would have had a far less inflationary effect. I am certain that such a reduction would have had some effect in moderating the rise of retail prices and could have proved part of a strategy to deal with the problem of inflation.

    I should apologise to the House if I have strayed from the convention of non-controversial maiden speeches in what I have said so far. The two final points I should like to make are, I hope, more in keeping with that tradition.

    We have heard already a good deal about incentives and disincentives. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln has made considerable reference to them. As he said, the evidence is by no means clear. What is clear, however, is the extent to which people overestimate the rate of tax which they are paying. The pilot study by C. V. Brown reported in the Scottish Journal of Political Economy shows that this is largely due to a misunderstanding of the earned income allowances. Hon. Members on all sides of the House will have had the experience of being assured repeatedly by constituents that they are paying 8s. 3d. in the £ out of every extra £1 they earn.

    In spite of the propaganda of the Revenue, as long as people are earning less than £80 a week, the fact that they are paying 6s. 5d. in the pound at the most just has not got across. Now we have a Bill which will make the marginal rate for wage-earners 30.138 recurring new pence in the pound. It is very unfortunate that the Chancellor did not include in the Bill provision to establish an earned income rate of 30 per cent., 6s in the pound, and in place of earned income relief an unearned income surcharge of two-sevenths. I know this would have had consequential problems about allowances and the particular problem of the advantage given to those with incomes beyond the present earned income limits, but those could perhaps have been ignored up to the level of surtax and included in an adjustment to surtax rates above that level. If there is anything in the incentive arguments, such a clear statement as to the rate—6s. in the £—would surely have an effect of stimulating effort. Perhaps the Bill is not the place for such a change, but I hope that the Chancellor will bear it in mind for the future.

    The other omission from the Bill is that there is no Clause modifying the claw-back provision. There would have to be such a Clause if the Government had honoured their pledge to raise family allowances. We have heard in other debates a number of reasons why such action was not taken. I believe that one reason is that claw-back is unpopular, and that it has the reputation with the Revenue and Treasury for being unpopular. This is because of the administratively clumsy way it was handled when initially introduced in 1968. People suffered increased claw-back or deductions from tax in July of 1968 in anticipation of getting increased family allowances in September 1968. They had no explanation of what was happening at the time and therefore claw-back became undeservedly unpopular. It was not properly explained to taxpayers. I hope that in any future use of family allowances and claw-back from the better-off this administrative clumsiness will not be repeated.

    It is as easy to suggest modifications to income tax law and practice as it is for the Revenue to reply that they are too overworked at the moment to take them into account. I think that there is a vicious circle about tax reforms. There is never time to make a substantial reform to the system, and a succession of modifications is made which result in the situation becoming worse.

    The Bill does nothing about improving the structure of the tax system, and as I have suggested, it is socially and economically mistaken. I thank the House for its indulgence.

  • Michael Gove – 2012 Speech to Schools Network

    michaelgove

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Gove, the then Secretary of State for Education, in Birmingham on 11 January 2012.

    Introduction

    As this is the SSAT’s first conference under its new name – The Schools Network – I thought it might be apposite to say a bit about networks and learning.

    Life in the 21st century – and education in the 21st century – relies on us having systems that are flexible and adaptable. So I want to talk to you today about two of the flexible, adaptable networks we’re working on.

    First, a flexible, adaptable education system, where schools have the freedom to innovate and collaborate in order to drive improvement.

    And second, flexible, adaptable learning within schools, taking advantage of the way technology is transforming education.

    A Schools Network

    Underpinning our reforms is the principle – backed by the best international evidence – that autonomy drives improvement. In addition to having rigorous accountability mechanisms and a commitment to creating an outstanding teaching workforce, the highest-performing education systems are those where government knows when to take a step back. Rigorous research from the OECD and others has shown that more autonomy for individual schools helps raise standards. In its most recent international survey of education, the OECD found that ‘in countries where schools have greater autonomy over what is taught and how students are assessed, students tend to perform better.’ As the OECD points out, two of the most successful countries in PISA – Hong Kong and Singapore – are amongst those with the highest levels of school competition. And from autonomous schools in Alberta, Canada, to the Charter Schools of New York and Chicago, freedom is proving an unstoppable driver of success.

    So we’ve been working hard to increase freedom for all our schools.

    A big part of this has involved reducing central government prescription for all schools to make heads’ and teachers’ lives easier and give them the space to focus on what really matters.

    The reams of FMSIS forms: gone.

    The vast Ofsted Self-Evaluation Form: gone.

    Fortnightly departmental emails: gone.

    Performance Management guidance: cut by three quarters.

    Capability procedures: simplified.

    Ofsted framework: slimmed down.

    Behaviour and bullying guidance: cut from 600 pages to 50.

    There’s more to come. In total, departmental guidance will be more than halved. And our Curriculum Review will result in a clearer, slimmer core entitlement, which will free teachers up to get on with teaching.

    Beyond these changes – which we’ve implemented for the benefit of all schools – we’ve gone further: we’ve given every school the opportunity to take complete control of its budget, curriculum and staffing by applying to be an academy.

    There are now 1463 academies across England. More than 40 per cent of all secondary schools are now either academies already, or in the process of becoming academies. 1144 primary and secondary schools have converted since the general election. 319 are sponsored academies, of which 116 have opened since May 2010. 44 more sponsored academies are expected to open later this academic year.

    Over 1.2 million pupils now attend academies – this means around one in seven pupils in maintained state schools are now attending academies and one in three pupils in secondary schools.

    This million-strong group will benefit from the changes academy freedom can bring, like longer school days; better paid teachers; more personalised learning; improved discipline; and higher standards all round. Individual academies are using their new freedoms in a variety of different ways.

    Like Seaton Academy in Cumbria, which was one of the first to open as a converter academy and to take advantage of academy freedoms. The school has been better able to tailor the curriculum to pupils’ needs. Having previously been bound by the local authority to implement new central strategies – regardless of how suitable such strategies were for the school – Seaton is now able to be more innovative. Greater budget flexibility has allowed Seaton to run more efficiently, and these savings have been ploughed back into the school. For example, they have introduced discretionary award payments for great teaching, which has been hugely motivating for staff. The academy has also started to rebalance the school year – with shorter summer holidays and a lengthened half-term.

    Seaton is just one of many schools using their new freedom to do exciting things. The best scientific evidence proves that if you empower those at the frontline, they will exceed your expectations. A few months ago, academics at the London School of Economics published a landmark assessment of the academies programme.

    They found three things. First, that ‘Academy conversion generates… a significant improvement in pupil performance.’ Second, that this improvement is not the result of academies scooping up middle-class pupils from nearby schools: the fact that more middle-class parents want to send their children to their local academy is a consequence of the school’s success, not a cause. And thirdly, beyond raising standards for their own pupils, academies also tend to raise pupil performance in neighbouring schools. Like CTCs and the Challenge schemes before them, academies are showing us all what amazing things can be achieved when heads are put in the driving seat.

    But even more impressive than what individual academies are doing by themselves is what they’re achieving by working together. Under our plans, networks of schools are collaborating on a scale that has never been witnessed before. The facts on the ground are plain to see: increased autonomy and greater parental choice drive up standards and help tackle ‘the soft bigotry of low expectations’ – and freedom does not need to be the enemy of cooperation.

    Sponsors

    Some of these networks are small – often just two schools, with one sponsoring the other. Yet while small, they’re driving real change. Tudor Grange Academy, Solihull (a converter academy) has sponsored Tudor Grange Academy, Worcester. Since becoming the sponsor, the Solihull school has provided intensive support to its Worcester partner. Improvements have been made in discipline, behaviour, attendance and attainment, with Tudor Grange, Worcester being oversubscribed on first choice applications for the first time. The benefits haven’t all been one-way. Tudor Grange, Solihull has been able to increase staffing and improve the pupil-teacher ratio. School leaders have reported feeling a greater sense of responsibility and accountability to the communities that they serve.

    Partners

    Other networks are slightly larger, with one academy partnering with several other local schools. Altrincham Grammar School for Boys in Trafford became an academy in February 2011 and is now working with three underperforming schools in the area. The school has been working particularly closely with Broomwood Primary, with specialist French and Spanish teachers from the secondary school helping teach primary pupils. This has helped Broomwood set up its own provision for language lessons. Similarly, having achieved a science specialism, Altrincham Grammar shared its expertise by giving its partners access to its labs; assisting partner schools in rewriting the science schemes of work for Years 5 and 6; and supporting teachers in delivering these schemes. Gifted and Talented students from Broomwood and other local schools are also offered the opportunity to attend after-school science sessions at Altrincham Grammar.

    Chains

    Many academies are also forming chains – formal networks of schools federated together, usually as part of the same Trust. There are 111 chains of converter academies with a total of 337 schools. The Coopers’ Company, a good with outstanding features school, chose to convert in a chain with a local school at the other side of the borough, The Brittons Academy, rated satisfactory. Prior to conversion, the heads developed an action plan of how they would support each other in future. Both schools converted on 1st April 2011. Coopers are working closely with Brittons on combined CPD days and have arranged paired support of weaker departments. They have also set up a management link between the two senior leadership teams, and the head teacher from Coopers has become the School Improvement Partner for Brittons.

    All these changes have been possible because we have been resolute in our commitment to spreading autonomy – from the introduction of the Academies Bill within our first few days in office, to the way we’re continually reducing constraints and burdens on schools. We’re doing all this because we believe – and the evidence confirms – that the best way to create a school system capable of adapting and responding to the challenges of the 21st century is by giving great teachers and heads real power.

    That principle extends to the way we’re going about securing the next generation of teachers and school leaders. We’re putting our best schools in charge of training and professional development. We’re expanding programmes like Teach First and Future Leaders, so that the most promising are trained by the most inspirational. And we’re working with the National College on programmes like the SLE and NLE, to ensure that the school leaders of the future are mentored by the best leaders of today.

    Overall, our vision for the future is of a self-improving network of schools, innovating and engaging, competing and collaborating, teaching and training, for the benefit of all our children.

    Digital networks

    I want to turn now from networks between schools to an altogether different sort of network: networks of the digital kind.

    It’s an understatement to say our world has been transformed by technology. There was a particularly poignant and wonderful illustration of this in a recent New Scientist editorial, written to mark Steve Jobs’ death. “Nothing dates the 1987 movie Wall Street”, the piece argues, “like the $4000 cellphone clutched by financier Gordon Gekko. It was the size of a brick and he could only talk for 30 minutes before having to recharge it.” In the 1980s, the capabilities of today’s smartphones would have been unfathomable to consumers and engineers alike. They’d have thought it impossible that so much powerful technology could be packed into such a tiny case. If you were trying to build an iPhone using equivalent components from the 1980s, asks the author, just how big would that phone be? Running through all the parts – from the antennas to the batteries to the GPS to the gyroscope to the accelerometer to the cameras to the mobile computing capability and more – New Scientist concludes you would need a truck to haul around an iPhone built of 1985 parts. We’ve gone from an 18-wheeler to a pocket in just 26 years.

    It’s not just the hardware. Entire sectors employing millions of people didn’t even exist a quarter century ago. And many of those that were around in the ’80s operate today in ways that are unrecognisable to those of the past. Given the extent of the transformation – and the pace at which it’s happening – it is imperative we have a school system capable of adapting to and preparing for the challenges ahead. If we don’t, we will betray a generation.

    And yet there is a perception by some that my department isn’t especially concerned about such things. That we care more about Tennyson than technology. That our interest is in Ibsen, not iTunes. That we’re more Kubla Khan than Khan Academy.

    This couldn’t be further from the truth. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that our school system not only prepares pupils for this changing world, but also embraces the technological advances which are transforming education. My department is thinking hard about this and we’ll be saying more in the new year. But I’d like to talk briefly today about some of the critical developments that have been shaping our thinking.

    One of the greatest changes can be seen in the lives of children and young people, who are at ease with the world of technology and who communicate, socialise and participate online effortlessly. Two-thirds of five- to seven-year-olds use the internet at home, rising to 82 per cent for 8- to 11-year-olds and 90 per cent for 12- to 15-year-olds. Over a third of 12- to 15-year-olds own a smartphone, and typically use the internet for 15.6 hours every week. Children are increasingly embracing technology at a younger age: for example, 23 per cent of five- to seven-year-olds now use social networking sites.

    Yet the classrooms of today don’t reflect these changes. Indeed, many of our classrooms would be very recognisable to someone from a century ago. While there has been significant investment in technology in education, it has certainly not transformed the way that education is delivered.

    Part of the problem has been that investment has focused on hardware. My fear is that, in the past, too much emphasis has been placed on machines that quickly become obsolete, rather than on training individuals to be technologically as literate and adept as they need to be. What’s more, fixating on expensive, soon-to-be out-of-date kit represents a failure to understand the fundamental changes taking place.

    One major change concerns content. Technology is having a huge impact on the way educational material can be delivered. iTunesU now gives everybody access to the world’s best lectures. The Khan Academy provides 2700 high-quality micro tutorials on the web, so that anyone, anywhere can access them for free. Brilliant scientific publications like Science are building their own ecosystems of educational content. And by definition, as we move to a world where we expect every child will have a tablet, the nature and range and type of content that can be delivered will be all the greater.

    Educational gaming, for example, is a booming area – and ripe for even further development. Games developed by Marcus Du Sautoy, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford, are helping children engage with complex maths problems that would hitherto have been thought too advanced. And the Department for Education is currently working with the Li Ka Shing Foundation and the highly respected Stanford Research Institute on a pilot programme to use computer programmes to teach maths. We have not developed the programme – we are just helping them run a pilot. Stanford say it is one of the most successful educational projects they have seen.

    These exciting advances are the sort of thing that a central government department could never hope to produce and maintain. And nor should it seek to: Whitehall must enable these innovations but not attempt to micromanage them. Such content is being created daily, and the vast majority is free to anyone with an internet connection. Our role is to help bring schools and these developments together.

    To be absolutely clear: this isn’t about replacing teachers with YouTube videos – of course it isn’t. But it would be negligent of us not to look at how we can harness these developments for the benefit of all pupils. In Singapore, for example, I was lucky enough to witness how a superb lesson can be delivered through a mixture of online and teacher-led instruction. We can do it here too – and in the coming months we’ll be setting out how.

    Another way in which technology is changing education is through its potential to create sharper assessment systems. Computer lab management software is now so sophisticated that an individual teacher can monitor how each student is doing simultaneously and then – without singling out that child in front of others – provide them with the direct amount of support that they need, accelerating the rate at which some children can learn and providing additional help for others. Problems can be picked up earlier. Students can be stretched when they’re ready. It’s the next step towards truly personalised learning – and it will also enable parents to have a better understanding of the level at which their children are operating.

    Thirdly, technological advances can have a huge impact on teacher training. Teachers can more easily observe other teachers and learn more about the craft. Professional development content can be delivered in more accessible, engaging, and cost effective ways. Individual teachers can use the latest developments to refine their lessons to precision. As Michael Nielsen points out in his excellent new book, ‘Reinventing Discovery’, new developments allow teachers to get better feedback about how their lessons are being received. So not only does the spread of innovations like the Khan Academy mean there is more great teaching material on the web, but new tools like Google Analytics allow anyone to analyse video for attention, second-by-second, in a way that used to be very expensive and complex. All these are welcome developments.

    Of course, in stressing the importance of digital content, I’m not saying we should neglect hardware altogether – far from it. But hardware means more than just the latest desktop – especially when many pupils are increasingly likely to have access to superior technology at home – or even in their pockets – than in their school’s computer lab. That’s why we need to think about how to give more children the chance to engage with truly cutting edge hardware, like 3D printers, or learn the fundamentals of programming with their own single-board computers, like the Raspberry Pi.

    The challenge for us is this: how we can harness the many exciting technological leaps that are constantly being made? We will be saying much more early in the new year. Make no mistake: this is a priority for me. I believe we need to take a serious, intelligent approach to educational technology if our children are not to be left behind. As John Chubb and Terry Moe put it in their excellent book on the subject, a genuine engagement with the wondrous world of technological innovation will see children’s learning ‘liberated from the dead hand of the past.’ We owe it to pupils across the country to take this issue seriously.