Lying to Ourselves over PFI – Private Finance Initiative

Ashmole-Academy-817x389

PFI was Government outsourcing at its worst as the Independent has uncovered. There is a saying “There are no free lunches” but politicians like to pretend that there are.

PFI was a scheme to bring forward capital spending for hospitals, schools, care homes and others areas of under-funded public utilities without showing it in spending profiles – without being honest and transparent with the public about what it was doing.

Ally this to the cozy relationship between certain politicians and those in the building and construction industry and the inability of civil servants to really understand enough about the risks to dissuade politicians and the recipe was in place.

What we have is a burden on our public sector that will not impact the politicians that made the decisions but will have grave (in some cases literally) consequences for those who will be unable to be provided with the care they need as costs in our public sector rise over the next few decades as the bills are paid.

Back in 1998, when I was a Trustee / Governor at a local school in North London, I identified that the school needed to be rebuilt. It was crumbling, had asbestos, its electrical wiring was unsafe, roofs were collapsing and let in vast amounts of rain water and the school had to make use of temporary facilities that were installed 30 years before. There was a real danger that the school would be closed at some time in the future unless radical steps were taken and the only answer was to rebuild.

I made a presentation to the Board of Governors in 1998 where I proposed that, while PFI was an option being actively touted by Government as a panacea, we should not touch it. In Powerpoint slides, printed and shown on an overhead projector (we could not afford the computer equipment) I tried to persuade reluctant but well-meaning local people to reject the obvious answer because of “long-term high charge over 30 years” and loss of control over our own assets. The slide shown 17 years ago is below:

1998

The school, now Ashmole Academy in Barnet was built without PFI – although it took until 2004 to see it through. Eleven years’ later, the school (where I was Chair for 12 years from 2002 until 2014) remains in excellent condition and is an excellent school – one of the best in England.

When this Government began its enquiry into school buildings a few years’ ago, it commissioned Sebastian James and his team that produced the James Report.

This report, to which a few of us from the board at Ashmole made representations and met with members of the Report team prior to publication, did not condemn PFI but simply said:

Private Finance Initiative

A procurement route established in 1995, and more widely adopted since 1997. It is an important route for much Government spending on assets as it transfers significant risks to the private sector. PFI requires private sector consortia to raise private finance to fund a project, which must involve investment in assets, and the long-term delivery of services to the public sector.

As a result, PFI was allowed to continue on the basis that it meant to provide a “transfer of risks to the private sector”. For this transfer (which is really nonsense as the transfer was merely to get public sector spending off the books and into the books of the companies), the construction and service companies were handsomely compensated.

Not only that, but local and national public sectors were completely overwhelmed by the prospect of architectural excellence rather than practical building and this resulted in grandiose schemes that impress architects and win awards but ended up being hard to maintain, costly to build and a long-term drain on finances.

The lessor, now the School or the local authority is then stuck with a long-term agreement which it has to pay – at costs which are far greater than those which a Government could have loaned the money at – just to get costs off the books so no-one would notice that the financial burden was excessive while the new facilities were being built.

As to the risk being transferred, at Ashmole, we decided to take on such risk and then make sure that we had good contractors, good architects, good project management overseen by knowledgeable Board directors / trustees and good contracts in place. The risk was normal – it was on the suppliers not the school as we were the customers. The risk issue is nonsense.

The James Report is now forgotten but should have been a reminder that PFI was a major accident waiting to happen.

The Independent’s Report highlights not just the crippling costs of PFI but also the problems that are met when government (local and national) become swept away by those in the private sector who promise a free lunch and by their own lack of transparency and inability to understand business.

We entrust Government with much of our future but, while we condemn those that allowed PFI to take place in such a shambolic way, we should bear in mind that we may be expecting far too much in an area of greatest risk – the place where public and private sector meet. Knowledge and capability on either side are varied but neither really “gets” the other. This is why banking crises will always appear from time to time and why outsourcing of public sector often delivers much less than “expected”.

The place where public and private sector meet is a dangerous one and is less well understood than the specific sectors themselves. However, one way that such disasters as PFI could be reduced is through transparency – it was the desire to keep costs “off the books” that took us into PFI when extra expenditure on the public sector financed by low-costs Treasuries would have been a far better investment.

However, the pressure to falsely account was made by the pressure put on politicians by keeping government spending down even in the face of greatest need. It is why, even today, the NHS funding row is all about showing how the £8bn will be afforded in years to come when we all really know that we have very little idea what the UK’s finances will look like in three to five years. Good management of finances does not mean we can possibly be that accurate (no company really believes it knows how it will be doing beyond twelve months and beyond that, forecasts are but guides based on spreadsheets – the same is true of economies but with thousands more indeterminate variables).

So, PFI and similar comes from our desire to lie to ourselves and for politicians to lie to a public that is implicit in the lie.

We need to educate ourselves to reality by being more transparent.

Free Schools – Liberty or Libertarian?

Today (20th October), Nick Clegg stood aside from Michael Gove (and David Laws) in seeking to ensure that teachers in Free Schools are properly trained (to QTS standards), that there is an educational centre based on the national curriculum and that all students should have access to good meals at school.

The basic trend of this government is to free up schools from the central doctrines of Local authority rules and requirements whilst ensuring that they remain financed by the centre. This is one aspect of Michael Gove’s belief in free “choice” – which is commendable in principle but hits at least three snags: people in communities do not want to have a variety of bad choices; there are too many issues at stake for lay-people (no matter how capable and well-meaning) to adequately assess all the issues before making a choice;   choice requires a real sense of competition and access to that competitive environment and a real market.

There is in England a Brave New World of Education where the division is between the alpha model of private education, the beta model of good state schools and the epsilon model of all the rest. The advent of Free Schools is meant to blow away the model so that where problems exist in a location, excellence is developed through the ability of the market and hard-working people – untrammeled by centralist doctrine. Supporters of this market-notion state that the disasters of the Bradford Free School – Al-Madinah – show that the market works – that bad schools will be outed and forced to improve or close.

Choice in Education

The ability to choose rests upon an assumption that those with a choice will receive their preferred choice.  In a parliamentary report from 2010, it was estimated that 85% of those in the secondary school state system received their first choice, but this obscured the much lower rate in cities.

Of course, choice is only as good as what is offered and this is critical. Real choice would enable those choosing to be able to select the right school that will enable the student to gain real value and advantage in his / her education. That means the provision of a school of a good standard. Choice in many areas obscures the fact that those making the choice have to select the “best on offer” – all may be well below the required standard that they would “choose” if they had the chance.

This is why there are efforts to raise standards across the board in the hope that all will, eventually, have a choice that contains better schools – those of a sufficiently high standard to satisfy all the requirements.

In this feverish search for choice and raised standards (and we all welcome a considered drive to improve), choice has been thrust forward as a key reason behind Free Schools.

Freedom from Local Authorities

With the advent of Academies, schools (especially secondary state schools) are progressively moving out of the local authority sphere of influence. Cut-backs in the latter mean that their central education capabilities have been curtailed and the drive for a more centralized control by the Ministry of Education continues – while purporting to be a drive for more local control by each school.

For many schools, this freedom is positive. Local authorities are hugely variable in capability, ingenuity and innovation – as well as funding. This meant that, in many areas, schools were held back and can now progress untrammeled by local authority (often “political”) involvement.

However, this freedom also means that Academies, while having to adhere to national Admission rules, do not have to co-ordinate admissions with the local authority. The impact of this is yet to be determined.

Progressive Freedom

Academies have substantial powers over teacher pay and curriculum in many areas but Free Schools (based mainly on local demand requirements in a range of areas – including Faith) are not beholden to the national curriculum nor the requirement to select teachers based on existing training norms. In addition, the debate about local “need” may also strain credulity. Faith schools, for example, are the first in line on this basis but the desire of those to provide faith schools may not be in line with those locally who may oppose this. Unlike planning permission, the process is more about the desire of those in favour than reaching a local conclusion based on what makes sense for the local community as a whole. The school as a local community hub (so important with the demise of the Church) is now forgotten in the search for market results.

Nick Clegg’s intervention may not go far enough and seems to typify those who find fault with the Gove vision. That vision is about freedom and choice but is not sufficiently strong in its understanding of what is needed in the local community. Local authorities purported in the past to have this responsibility but failed in many cases to carry out that remit. So, just like Margaret Thatcher’s response in London (to abolish the GLC), where possible local remits are abolished and individual schools set up – with progressively more independence.

This disruption, between local authority or central government, between local (often bad) control and school independence, means that local areas may lose the chance to have a substantial uplift in education capability because individual schools are now encouraged to go it alone. Without some understanding of overall local need, the progressive freedoms of the market (in a confused market economy like education) will throw up abnormal results – often by chance. Economics is not strong on education.

The ability of individual schools (often under pressure from Boards) may not be high. The ability of many Free Schools to chose teachers not based on rigorous teacher training standards is also dubious.

Choice of what?

Michael Gove hopefully has learned a lot in the last ten years. When he was in opposition, I personally asked him for his views on whether there was scope for schools to benefit from better procurement and management of IT through some association or collaboration of state schools. Over 3,000 secondary schools typically pursued their own aims and ambitions in this area. Recruitment is tough in this sector as salaries are not competitive for strong IT staff. Imagine a company with 3,000 subsidiaries all being allowed to go their own way!

Gove’s written response to me was interesting. His view was that individual schools should stand on their own feet and that, if they had poor IT, parents would exercise choice and not send their children to such schools.

This outlined to me Gove’s prioritization and focus on choice. It puts too much weight on parent’s assumed knowledge of even backroom systems like IT – which almost no parents would investigate. It suggests that perfect information is not just available but understandable and assessable. This seemed to be a nonsensical response at the time but seems to underlie much of Conservative thinking about so-called “choice”. We should be ensuring that all schools have great IT – a fundamental requirement in the modern, high-tech working society – not allowing any to fall by the wayside. This should not be about allowing schools to fail – but, ensuring they all succeed: not sink or swim, but ensure they can swim.

Parental choice has to be reasoned choice that makes sense to parents. Each area may have different needs. In some, there may be great schools but a requirement to spend £500,000 on a house to get into one; in other areas, there may be one excellent school that attracts the best students and the rest are allowed to wallow in mediocrity at best; in other areas, grammar schools may dominate; in other areas, reduced capital investment may not attract good staff – the list goes on and no two areas are the same.

Choice is what is highlighted each time a Free School comes before local people. It is, in itself, meaningless because no-one really understands it. Choice of what is less a real choice than a funding decision as a Free School may be the only way to acquire the funds locally to do something of real value.

So, Nick Clegg is on the right lines in trying to firm up key elements of Free Schools but there is more to do. Liberals (or anyone that shares a desire to benefit local communities) need to bring in some form of assessment that enables local people to gauge their options. In addition to the assessment of individual schools and our focus on league tables, parents have to acquire information on the local area’s overall education capabilities (not the Borough itself) into which Free Schools, Academies, Private education and other schools exist.

This is not a call for local authorities to get back its old powers, but for educational assessment that enables citizens to acquire immediate information on their local areas (their catchment area) and for decision-makers (often central government) to actively show that they have not just taken these assessments into account but are actively pursuing change in areas of real priority.

This way, choice allied to progressive and continuous overall improvement can be parsed into the local framework and maybe enable real decisions to take place: localism that means something rather than a free-for-all.

They Yearn to Learn

The pen is mightier than the sword”, Bulwer-Lytton’s famous line from his 1839 play about Cardinal Richelieu, has never been spoken with more force and meaning than by a young girl on her 16th birthday at the United Nations.

Malala Yousafzai talked with a certainty that arose from a recovery from a coma caused by Taliban gunshots that were meant to kill her in Pakistan just last year. She spoke with a determination that transfixed all those that have seen her and, maybe, read her words.

174 years after the first performance of Bulwer-Lytton’s play, the pen has been overtaken by computers and mobile phones and, with the enormous advances that have been made in technology; it is now technically easier than ever to provide education wherever it is needed. In this way, learning can be used to help fight the ignorance that shot to kill a young girl who had dared to want to be educated.

Learning at a Distance

MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) or distance learning are becoming highly competitive to standard university teaching in the United States. In Creative Destructionism in World Education I discussed the phenomenon that threatens traditional courses at universities and which are being sold off at much lower prices to compete. Creative destructionism in education can exist where the laws of supply and demand are allowed to be employed and where excellent learning materials and worthy accreditation regimes exist and where the technology is affordable. In the USA, all of this exists.

Equality of Learning

Yet, 57 million young people in the world go without education and millions more young adults who already have missed out on education (and are being forgotten completely as we focus on children) seem to have nowhere to go to catch up.

Worse, in a number of countries, not only is technology a crime against religion but large sectors of the population (mainly women and girls) are made to fear education by their male counterparts – and risk being killed if they dare to want to be educated.

In October, 2012, Gayle Tzemach Lemmon (writer and author and a Senior Fellow on the Council of Foreign Relations in the USA) wrote on the positive response in Pakistan to Malala coming out of her coma just nine months ago: “I have spent years interviewing women who braved real personal danger to set up living room classrooms and girls who braved their familys’ security just to sit there. And a lot of times I’m asked, ‘Is this a Western import or a foreign import?’ The truth is, even when the world forgets these girls, they fight themselves for the right to go to school. And I think what Malala’s story has done is made it impossible to look away and impossible to forget about these girls’ struggle.”

But there has been progress, Lemmon says, at least in one nation in that part of the world.

“You know, in Afghanistan particularly, you really see a lot. In 2001, less than one per cent of the country’s girls were in school, and now close to 3 million are. And every day, they go out and battle all kinds of threats just to sit and learn. Their battle is really everyone’s fight because, if you look at the world, 40 million of the 70 million children who aren’t in school are in countries that are struggling against war, and there is no better correlation to predicting violence than education levels.”

This incredible struggle to learn enfranchises women and girls in countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan like nothing else. But, it can be even better. Learning can be there for everyone – as it is through improved access to education and the motivation to access it that nations can develop and thrive. That is vital for the male sections of society just as much as it is for the female. That is true for developed nations just as much as it is for developing.

Motivated to Learn

In the UK, governments of all hues have played games with the education system for decades – playing games with the curriculum and making life for teachers difficult and undermining the profession.

Yet, our problems are tiny when considered against those faced in developing countries where so little money is spent on education (like in Africa or even in rapidly developing countries like large sections of India – where education is prized). At least in many of those countries, learning is understood as the foundation stone of progress. There, technology can now being provided to reach all areas – broadband that carries the information, notepads that are cheaper every year, education materials that can be carried electronically on all subjects with potential for the best teaching from the best teachers.

Aid to Learning

Future Brilliance is one organization that is putting together all these pieces of the jigsaw. I am a Director of Future Brilliance in the UK, but there are now operations in the USA, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The challenge is to provide the technology and associated learning materials into the latter two countries – beginning with the Digital Learning Initiative (DLI) that is aimed at providing Internet knowledge to enable businesses to be started up taking full advantage of the technology. With computer tablets at $100, secure Internet (through satellite where no other form exists and as back-up to terrorists or corruption) and progressively greater learning materials, the opportunity must now be seized by the developed world to assist in this global marketplace.

This initiative was launched at the House of Lords in London on Monday, 8th July to an audience of 150 – including Ministers and Embassy officials from Afghanistan together with UK Ministers, journalists, technology companies and educationalists plus representatives from the US Government.

Future Brilliance already has a contract to provide Afghans with training in gem design  – which is being provided in Jaipur, India. The new project (for which funding is currently being sought) will provide teaching to wherever it is needed – with the added capability of highly secure systems to combat all forms of attack.

Searchers for Education

The aims are not technological but educational and transformational. It is also not a top-down Aid programme. The key aim is to assist Afghans and those from Pakistan to develop from the ground up utilizing the capabilities provided by the technology and learning materials. As troops leave in 2014, Afghanistan and Pakistan need a large core of educated citizens to provide the cement in the middle – not more politicians but increasingly capable business people, health workers and those involved in all forms of a civil society.

The Digital Literacy Initiative is highly innovative – but not just in the manner of the service offered. It is a bottom-up programme that enables citizens to make the most of their lives. It is a programme where developed countries do not centrally compel from the top. Learning cannot be compelled by rote (as Mr. Gove in the UK would like to do) but is enabled. Strong teachers, excellent materials, security of surroundings (the DLI is aimed to provide teaching in the home or wherever safety best exists) and secure systems are provided.

With the UK spending 0.7% of its GDP on international aid, outside of emergency funding of disaster recovery and health, the best way for this government and governments like it is to invest in developing nations by enabling them to foster their own salvation. This is the bottom up approach.

In the internet-ready world, the military aim has been to intervene to combat world-wide terrorism. Now that the soldiers and air power are leaving Afghanistan, it is timely to provide help and assistance where it is most needed: to prove that the pen is mightier than the sword – brought up to date by DLI and similar initiatives. More like William Easterly’s “searchers” from his “White Man’s Burden” than the traditional “planners”.

“Initiatives like this can play a part in sustaining the counter-insurgency campaign into the future, and will represent an enduring and meaningful extension of the British and ISAF coalition’s commitment to facilitate enduring stability, economic stimulation and distribution of knowledge and education to the Afghan people.”
– General Sir David Richards GCB CBE DSO ADC Gen (Chief of the Defence Staff, UK).

 

The Reality of Governance

Attended the ACEVO Governance Commission Consultation Session 4

today (30 May). Good group of highly motivate people – mainly CEO’s. I provided the following paper at the end to the Commission – sums up my views on Charity Governance and the problem the current governance framework employs with a two-tier system trying to fit into a unitary legal framework. My response is to put CEO’s into Boards (as is the case with ACEVO).

The Reality of Governance

Grant Thornton in its Charity Governance Review 2013 – the Science of Good Governance – does not mention Chief Executives once.

They fall into the trap that governance “experts” so often do when writing about the charity / not for profit sector and the trap that the designers of governance law and rules have done since the beginning. The trap is that those entrusted with legal responsibility for such organisations can supposedly carry out their role as non-executives and any executives are deemed unnecessary to the process (or subordinated within the process as the “governed”) – indeed, in the legalistic set-up and the advice proffered to boards, chief executives are deemed risky on the board because of conflicts of interest – as the governed they hinder governance.

This separation of executive from non-executive is a divisive separation that inhibits good governance in the real world. The separation is really a throw-back to the 19th Century when wealthy philanthropists required administrators to disburse their funds. It has no place in the 21st Century except in very small charities (which are probably too small to have a CEO anyway). Elsewhere, having the Chief Executive on the Board should be seen as a natural requirement for reasons as follows:

1.     The Board cannot escape the charge of not being aware of issues as the Chief Executive will be part of the Board

2.     This is, in reality, the only way that Boards can be sufficiently aware of activities that impact governance

3.     The Board becomes “collegiate” with the development of real common cause

4.     The “upstairs / downstairs” mentality of the 19th Century is swapped for adult and more up-to-date dialogue

5.     Chief Executives will have to rise to the occasion so that they better understand the requirements and responsibilities of the Board rather than make proposals to the Board (as a servant of the Board) – even if, in reality, a CEO is probably in law as responsible as anyone for those decisions.

Unitary or two-tier boards?

There is also a continuous debate between the desirability of unitary and two-tier boards and it is believed that most charities (almost all) have decided on the second – whereas in most corporate Anglo-Saxon organisations (and public sector) the unitary board is by far the most common.

There are a few major errors within this view.

For there to be a two-tier board structure, there needs to be a legal distinction between the legal responsibilities of the two boards. In the UK, there is none so  that Charities that decide to form themselves of completely non-executives maintain a unitary structure but then devolve executive or operational decision-making to a team of executives – who are not enshrined in any legal context.

This team of executives (usually known as a Senior Management Team or SMT) has no specific legal framework outside of individual terms and conditions of employment. The SMT rarely has a framework of organization outside of an organization chart and has very few legally acknowledged responsibilities.

In the majority of charities, the most that exists is a tacit agreement between the Board (made up of non-executives) and the Chief Executive for the latter to carry out operational or “day to day” functions while the Board does governance.

This is not the two-tier legal structure known in German corporates, for example, which have defined legal status for both boards.

In the UK Charity set-up, only the main Board has legal status and is one reason why Grant Thornton do not mention the second “board” (as there isn’t one) or the Chief Executive at all!

The Responsibility Split

As a result of the ill-defined make-up of the Unitary Board in the UK Charity Sector, the split between the Board of non-executives and the management is also very ill-defined.

The Charity Commission spends much time on the responsibilities of the Board and states that there is an inherent problem in having Chief Executives on the Board of reasons of conflict of interest. However, the Charities commission does not state that Chief Executives should not be on the Board – which they can as long as Articles of Association allow this or Charities Commission approval is obtained.

Conflicts over, for example, salaries of the CEO can easily be handled by the CEO leaving the room (as it does in the Education Sector where Academy Chief Execs / Principals or School Heads – who are ex-officio on the Board – manage perfectly adequately).

However, the message is that Chief Executives are not normally on a Board. This message is just allowed to resonate around the sector – that there are so many conflicts between governance and operational management that it is better for the CEO to not be on the Board – the 19th Century mantra. This is not realistic. The conflict of interest issue is important – but, that is true for any member of the Board. Being non-executive does not mean that conflicts of interest don’t arise. Newly formed boards in the health sector are finding that there is a great deal of conflict where board members may have other interests in suppliers, for example.

The second reason for a completely non-executive board is unstated by the Charity Commission but often raised – the potential for undue influence by the Chief Executive if he / she is a Board member.

It is held that this one person would yield great(er) influence if he / she did not just attend Board meetings but also had a vote (one vote out of ten plus on the Board).

This is also unrealistic as a vote in itself is not the essence of the board membership. Chief Executives will not become more or less overbearing if hey have a vote – as is explained below. Governance remains the Board’s duty and legal responsibility – whether one vote is held by an executive manager or not.

The Tenuous Link

In the current split of responsibilities, the supposed two-tier Board structure (which is really only one plus an SMT) is completely reliant on the Chair of Trustees / Directors forming an excellent relationship with the Chief Executive (who heads up the SMT).

This requires the Chair to be up-to-speed on all things relevant to the legal requirements of the Board – an impossible task – in both directions.

This usually results in the Chair requiring the Chief Executive to provide a range of facilities to the Board – including induction, information provision and the like – so that the Board can attempt to be well enough educated to be able to carry out its responsibilities.

This is a tenuous link.

Worse, the Board has, in many organisations, retained so-called strategic responsibilities so that only operational requirements can be passed on to the SMT. This split of responsibilities is, again, a throw-back to the 19th Century where wealthy philanthropists entrusted administrators with passing out money on their wishes.

With far more charity complexity, the thought that non-executives actually “do strategy” is of great concern. 20th Century management thinking moved on from this separation in the 1930’s. It is well understood that strategy and operations are two sides of the same organizational coin and cannot be separated.

A recognized alternative may make sense as in the Carver model. “In the Carver Model, the board is responsible for ‘ends’, the difference the charity is seeking to make, for whom and at what cost. The CEO and the staff team are responsible for ‘means’, the actions which are taken to deliver the ‘ends’. John Carver talks about governance as ‘moral ownership’ one step down rather than one step up from management. He sees board leadership as meeting the wishes of the moral owners in compliance with laws and regulations. The role of the paid staff is to make the wishes of trustees’ happen.”

Carver does not recommend that CEO’s be on the Board but the concept that Carver proposes is so far away from current models – he views the CEO as completely central and Boards having the essence of the charity and governance and then asking the CEO to do everything else – that it is not consistent.

Current Boards are uncertain in their remit, usually go overboard in micromanagement and wanting to “do strategy”, often wanting to bypass the CEO in finding out information (i.e. do not put sufficient trust in the office of CEO).

This means that the viability of the Charity rests upon the tenuous link between Chair and CEO. The former, part of a non-executive Board; the latter (who does not in most cases report to the Chair) head of an SMT. The only legal link is in the CEO’s contract – a reporting line to the Board (who then often give this to the Chair).

This is a tenuous link and CEO’s often find this very difficult.

The Work Split between Board and Management

There is no constancy at all in any Board. Many see (as do NCVO) that the Board does strategy and the CEO and his / her team does “day to day”. This is out of date and harmful.

From a vision of the organization (usually the cause developed by the Founders and then provided as a legacy to the Board), a strategy has to be developed. This is clear. However, modern management thinking is uniform in its agreement that strategy and implementation need to be done by the senior management. This may require confirmation from the Board but then is the essence of good management and the ability of management to implement this strategy with the rest of the workforce. There is no sense in any advice from Charities Commission or elsewhere that this is understood.

Any charity where the Board does the strategy and the CEO picks it up and hopes to implement it is going against all best practice. The CEO is central to developing strategy – as is the SMT.

This is why, in reality, the SMT does the strategy based on the vision guided to them by the Board / Founders. SMT then has a job to sell this into the Board.

The main functions of the Board are not disrupted in this way. However, the link between Board and Management may be.

CEO on the Board

Those involved in governance thinking (Carver is a good example) believe that CEO’s should not be on the board for reasons of conflict of interest (or self-interest). In addition, they believe that there are better ways to make CEO’s feel good about themselves – i.e. the provision of sufficient prestige.

This misses out the very positive aspects of Board membership that the legalistic aspects of governance misrepresent but are fairly clear-cut in the real world.

What are these positive aspects?

1.     The Board is responsible legally and morally for the Charity. Yet, it is supposed to devolve almost every requirement of the organization to the management team – which is not even noted in law (i.e. it is a unitary Board when it thinks it is a two-tier system). In the absence of a proper framework, having the CEO on the Board provides an opportunity to ensure that the Management Team is at least unified in its legal responsibilities with the Board.

2.     Strategically, the Board is ill-equipped to understand what strategy is played out. Ensuring the CEO is involved (and votes for the strategy) ensures that the Board is unified in terms of collective agreement in terms of direction and implementation.

3.     The separation of Board and SMT (i.e. no linkage) is weak and offers a subservience that having the CEO on the Board would lessen.

4.     The rationale for Boards is to do three things (Charity Commission): Compliance, Prudence and Care. These are things that the CEO has to be central to.

5.     The CEO probably (in law) acts as a Shadow Trustee anyway. This means that the CEO is as responsible as any Trustee for the actions of the Charity but has no vote at all in Board meetings. This is responsibility without any representation and often leads to conflict.

The negative issues brought up are:

1.     conflict of interest – the Remunerations and Nominations Committee of individual charities can be properly asked to rule on this. Beyond salaries,  there is rarely an issue that comes up where conflict arises as a result of the CEO being a Trustee. Whether on issues like the approval of budgets or strategy, appointment of new Trustees or whatever, the CEO is normally heavily involved and a vote solidifies the process.

2.     Over-bearing CEOs – an over-bearing CEO will be the same whether on the Board or not. It is for the Board to ensure that none of its members outlast their value and this is a key requirement for the Chair.

3.     Governance and the ability to take the CEO to task for performance issues will be reduced – the CEO is a key member of the organization whether on the Board or not. Being able to vote on an issue does not reduce the roles of the Board. Where there is a serious issue with the Chief Executive, then this would be initially an issue for the Chair and possibly the Remuneration and Nominations Committee to handle. Any issue on the future of the Chief Executive would rule that person out of voting.

Other information

Charity Commission / ACEVO viewpoint

The Charity Commission seems to want to defend the status quo (where, according to an ACEVO report from 2007, around 5.2% of CEO’s were Trustees of that organisation).

The CC points out the dangers of conflict of interest over salary and similar issues. This is overcome everywhere else where committees are set up independently of the CEO as required and where CEO’s are asked to leave the room if there is a conflict (as conflict would be dealt with for anyone in such a situation).

The CC has no real view on this issue but also points out bureaucratically to watch out that the Articles don’t prohibit the change – which ours don’t.

ACEVO

In a 2007 report:

There was support for the following initiatives:

1. A code of good practice on governance (98% chief executives, 95% chairs).

2. Regular review of governance practices by external experts (68% chief executives,58% chairs).

3. More flexibility with respect to board structures (50% chief executives and 33% chairs thought that chief executives should be voting trustees).

 

It goes on:

The role of the chief executive as a bridge – by Paddy Fitzgerald

In the third sector the general practice is for trustee boards where normally trustees are non-executive, chaired by an independent and with the chief executive, who is rarely a trustee, in attendance. Here the primary concerns of the trustees are the mission and future of the organisation, while shorter term issues are for the most part dealt with by a management committee chaired by the chief executive.

 

If this model is to work, the chief executive becomes the bridge between the future concerns of the trust and the short-term issues of the management committee. Most importantly, the chief executive will be responsible for overseeing the journey from short to long term and in deploying management resources to explore this and identify the issues along the way. In this way the chief executive brings to the attention of the trust shorter term questions requiring resolution, and engages the executive staff in the consideration of longer term matters.

 

This is a much more powerful vision than one of the chief executive as a non trustee

passively awaiting the instructions of his or her board. The bridge role requires positive engagement with the ability to exert powerful advocacy in both trust and management committee, and as leadership becomes less and less a matter of autocratic direction and more and more a matter of persuasion and shared endeavour, so it becomes vital that the chief executive is an inclusive member of both trust and management committee.

 

Trusts too should value the extra dimension provided by the sense of a unified team, and should welcome the chief executive as one of their own, for it is under these circumstances that the chief executive is most likely to engage other trustees most, chief executives cannot escape legal obligations placed on trustees since they will be judged as shadow directors with the same penalties in the event of any major problem, so it is in their interests to don the mantle of a Trustee and participate wholly.

 

The conclusion may be that the formal appointment as a trustee aids the chief executive in this bridge role and is one of the defining characteristics of the third sector. Recognition of this role for the chief executive is essential to staff appraisal and through this to the management and leadership programmes aimed at staff development and management succession.

 

 

On its FAQ’s – current – ACEVO lists the types of Board structure:

 

Q: What is the appropriate level of executive involvement in governance?

A: This relates to the structure of organisational boards. Board structures fall into four categories:

  1. The wholly executive board: found most often in small commercial companies. For obvious reasons, such boards usually struggle to offer any independent scrutiny of executive decisions. Such boards are rarely found in the non-profit sector, and it is unlikely that the Charity Commission would permit such a structure for registered charities.
  2. The two-tier board: found in parts of Europe, comprises a ‘supervisory board’ to represent stakeholder interests, and an ‘operational board’ to drive the organisation’s performance. Some charity boards may in practice resemble this structure, delegating operational decisions to a ‘senior management team’. However, a genuine operational board, unlike a senior management team, has a legally recognised governance role.
  3. The unitary board: classic model for business in the UK and Commonwealth countries, includes both executive and non-executive directors, with equal status. Despite the ambiguity concerning executive directors’ role, this model is recommended by many experts on corporate governance. The structure embodies the tension between conformance and performance. If working properly, it can combine executives’ detailed knowledge of the business with the more detached scrutiny of non-executives.
  4. The wholly non-executive board: found commonly in commercial companies based in the USA as well as in the British third sector. Third sector board member are usually, but not always, unpaid.
  5. Recognising that no one model will be perfect for every organisation, ACEVO recommends that its members conduct an audit of their governance arrangements, which should include an examination of governance structures as well as good practice.

ACEVO has not formally proposed a major change and has not acted on this serious issue – although it has a Reform Group which highlights the issue – http://www.acevo.org.uk/Policy+Advocacy/Activity/Governance . However, it is clear to me that the practice of CEO’s not being on the board is a serious deficiency and one that should be rectified across the board.

 

ACEVO – POLICY: UNITARY BOARDS

(From the ACEVO website)

Alongside paying trustees, the creation of unitary boards is one of the most controversial issues of governance debate within the third sector. Traditional third sector governance models have a two tier board system – an executive board (with employed directors) and a more strategic non-executive board of trustees. In comparison, the most common structure within private sector governance is the unitary board – where non-executives and executives combine to form a single structure.

The most commonly stated advantages of a two-tier system are the importance of an objective governance structure (the non-exec board) which can both examine issues at a strategic level whilst also remaining free of management influence.

However, many ACEVO members have reported that they do not believe a two-tier system is the most effective method of governance for their organisations and would like to combine all or part of the two boards to increase efficacy. This potentially offers great strength in combining the strategic views of the trustees with the organisational knowledge of the executives. This inter-action works because those involved are Directors and share a joint responsibility with full accountability in law.

In 2007, ACEVO invited Sir Rodney Brooke, Chair of the General Social Care Council, to chair a Commission of Inquiry into governance in the third sector. Improvement governance was found to be a major issue for the sector and often not focussed on enough by individual organisations. Other key findings included a general lack of board appraisal or training, poor trustee diversity and concern over the transparency and capacity of the sector’s governance. The Commission of Inquiry suggested that organisations should review their governance arrangements, the board structure being one of them, to ensure effectiveness and suitability. ACEVO strongly believes that each organisation should be able to adopt its optimal governance structure and is actively campaigning on this matter to reduce regulatory concerns around conflicts of interest.

Own comment: ACEVO should now actively promote CEO’s on to main Boards.

Creative Destructionism in World Education

Joseph Schumpeter called it “creative destruction” – the dramatic changes that occur when a new economic or business model completely destroys its predecessor.

From railways and motor cars in transport to the telegraph and the Internet in communications, each generation witnesses such creative destruction.

Now, a combination of factors is coming together, which may well alter the education system – at all levels and worldwide. These changes could not just impact the status quo education establishment but cause changes across the world – impacting many for who such education was previously in the preserve of the wealthy.

The whirlwind of Change – remote learning

 

In February 2011, the Socionomics Institute published a report, which contended that the economic cycle was reaching a position where high levels of spending on higher education were likely to tail off as society came around to overt criticism as a result of the economic climate.

They said at the time: “Traditional educational institutions may eventually lose control of the manufacture and distribution of education much as the music and publishing industries lost their grip on music and text. Bear markets topple dominant players and open the field to nimbler entrepreneurs, who will develop alternatives to institutional education.”

The trend was focused on the opportunity being taken by online courses, which were receiving accreditations and providing formal teaching anywhere that broadband is receivable and anywhere that a computer capability exists.

Scientific American published an article in March, 2013 highlighting the move to MOOC’s – Massive Open Online Courses.

In the UK, Thomas Telford School has pioneered online learning and sells these through its company TTS Online.

In the USA, The Khan Academy – www.khanacademy.com – has a mission, for example, which states:

 A free world-class education for anyone anywhere.

Khan Academy is an organization on a mission. We’re a not-for-profit with the goal of changing education for the better by providing a free world-class education for anyone anywhere.

All of the site’s resources are available to anyone. It doesn’t matter if you are a student, teacher, home-schooler, principal, adult returning to the classroom after 20 years, or a friendly alien just trying to get a leg up in earthly biology. Khan Academy’s materials and resources are available to you completely free of charge.

The Khan Academy (a 501 (c) (3) charity in the USA) is supported by a number of well-known Foundations including Bill and Melinda Gates and Google and claims over 3,000 videos produced to date. The offering is to all schools on a very wide range of subjects.

The key, of course, is the ability to develop education modules that can be used anywhere.

Others, like Sugata Mitra (winner of the 2013 TED Prize), have for some years promoted such remote learning He is well-known for the “Hole in the Wall” – remote learning placed in kiosks in Delhi that provided extraordinary learning opportunities for those without educational opportunities. It provided great evidence of the value of remote learning and the ability of the young to self-educate – given good material and the opportunity (low-cost or free).

Even more recently, wider usability has been provided by Datawind – a British based company but operating out of India – makers of the Aakash Tablet for the Indian Government at around $45 each. They state:

 “Our motto is ‘Bridging the Digital Divide’. We are committed to bringing the next billion people into the internet age by offering internet access devices with very affordable, anywhere, anytime internet connectivity.” (www.datawind.com).

Founded by Suneet Singh Tuli, products are now in service and this is beginning to create the hardware to complement the software that is now available.

The final piece is the communication system, which the internet (ever-growing) is supplying in quantities quite capable of providing access to almost all – worldwide. Where this is patchy (or vulnerable through security issues) satellite communications is feasible (such as offered by Inmarsat.

Global Education

The opportunity that has been witnessed on a small scale through YouTube and other, on-line video technology in the west is now opening up in two, main ways.

First, remote learning is beginning to be seen as an alternative to the high cost of a tertiary education. As the Socionomics Institute article puts forward – “Stanford professor Sebastian Thrun offers remote students the same lectures, assignments and exams that on-campus students pay $50,000 a year for.”

 This means that the standard model for education can change – remote education can offer all potential students at any time progressively higher standards of education wherever they are. Distance learning is now becoming a real alternative – although it is bound to take years to establish and years to wean us off the “establishment” consensus. Of course, education is more than just study  – it includes many of life’s social requirements, too. However, while we don’t get to go to Eton or Oxbridge – we can all aspire to inspirational teaching wherever it comes from.

More than this, though, remote learning opportunities are now opening up the potential for the world outside the land of Yale and Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge. This is the world where education is prized such as in India or China, but not obtainable to the mass of people there. It is also the world where education is not prized – such as in Afghanistan where girls are omitted from the education system.

Future Brilliance, a non-profit and where I am a Director, is opening up this area through its work (www.futurebrilliance.net) in Afghanistan and through the potential that distance learning provides is now working on a number of solutions that could drive education into areas that have not benefited in the past from technological change and the reach that educationalists and the internet now enable.

This is an example of creative destruction where education norms could be shattered worldwide but where education (the basis for any society) is now becoming attainable everywhere. Although massive hurdles need to be overcome in terms of technology and, in many areas, social norms and security, the potential for the world to entertain new educational horizons is enormous.

Embracing the Online

The opportunity is also a challenge – not just technological but social. In countries such as as the UK, there is an opportunity to provide the best in remote education to the most deprived areas and government should work not just to have federalism in schools but also ensure that the best schools (many of them independent – i.e. private, fee-paying schools and benefitting from charitable status) are required to provide such learning modules as part of their charitable status. Excellence can be shared in ways that teacher transfer agreements cannot be – from one to one to one to many. The same can be done throughout education.

The challenge is then to promote the ethos of the best – and that links to parental and community responsibility and access. However, the learning essentials can be made real.

Elsewhere, education opportunities can be established where none exist now. Here the challenges may be those of normal business (where bribery and corruption are the norm) or where real social attitudes need radical change – and may lead to threats against the educated for just taking advantage of the opportunity. In Afghanistan, there is a deep-seated social antipathy to girls taking advantage of education. In Pakistan, Malala Yousafzai is a shining example of the courage of a girl (and her father) determined to be educated as well as a dismal example of the threats against such progress.

Nevertheless, technology opens up the opportunities and the creative destructionism that is on offer is being backed by individuals and companies and by some governments. the opportunities are now endless.

“Farewell, fair cruelty” – The Age of anti-welfare

The “Safety Net”

Ian Duncan-Smith has introduced a new system of welfare payments in the UK that seeks to better link payments to the sick, disabled and those out of work to their ability to find work and get paid for work. His (and his government’s stance) is that since the introduction of welfare payments (brought in by the post-WWII Labour government following the Beveridge Report in 1942), the world has changed and welfare has become a “right”  that needs to be changed.

Churchill had previously voiced his view that a safety net be provided to all those in society who fell on hard times. In 2006, Greg Clark  (now Financial Secretary to the Treasury) urged the Tories not to be caught up in Churchillian rhetoric as: “The traditional Conservative vision of welfare as a safety net encompasses another outdated Tory nostrum – that poverty is absolute, not relative. Churchill’s safety net is at the bottom: holding people at subsistence level, just above the abyss of hunger and homelessness.”

Mr Duncan-Smith, according to Peter Oborn, writing in the Daily Telegraph “is animated by a profoundly Christian vision of free will, redemption, and what it means to be human in a fallen and imperfect world.” It is this vision that hearkens back to Churchill and pushes this coalition government in the direction of the 19th Century.

Individual vs. State

The balance in any modern, developed State is to balance the interests of individuals and State (and also at least think through the requirements and abilities of the third sector / civil society). While, as Oborn writes, Margaret Thatcher ignored the welfare system and the NHS by refusing to substantively alter them, and while Blair and most obviously Brown made them more a political football, Duncan-Smith has taken a view that individuals must be given the incentive to work and stand on their feet.

This fits well in a society still in a state of shock following the banking crisis of 2007/8 and where our sovereign debt position is a massive risk for our future.

It fits with Tory doctrine of the 19th Century (although not with the post-WWII consensus that MacMillan and succeeding Tories espoused).

It fits partially with the Liberals (although not necessarily the Social Democrat wing in the Liberal Democrats) in that the balance between individuals and the State should always veer toward the former – although Liberals will usually point to freedoms and open society issues rather than the “incentives” that Duncan-Smith talks about.

Welfare Stands Alone

The problem is that while it is possible that Duncan-Smith has a mission and feels genuinely that welfare needs to be changed, the world is not just about welfare. It is also about economics and opportunity. Attempting to change welfare benefits (which will naturally come down hardest on the weakest sections of society) without successfully managing up the fortunes of the wider economy and critical areas such as education (a crucial force for change and a massive “enabler” in ensuring people have the skills and capabilities that allow them to stand on their feet) cannot work.

Even Samuel Smiles (the 19th Century author of Self-Help) said: “I would not have any one here think that, because I have mentioned individuals who have raised themselves by self-education from poverty to social eminence, and even wealth, these are the chief marks to be aimed at. That would be a great fallacy. Knowledge is of itself one of the highest enjoyments. The ignorant man passes through the world dead to all pleasures, save those of the senses… Every human being has a great mission to perform, noble faculties to cultivate, a vast destiny to accomplish. He should have the means of education, and of exerting freely all the powers of his godlike nature.” (my underlining).

Government is split into different areas of control and it is a real dilemma. If David Cameron really wishes to go back to the 19th Century and bring in welfare reforms that attempt to force people to work or lose benefits, then the same Government has, at least, to generate the capabilities that will allow them to do so.

This means that George Osborne and his Ministers have to attack our substantial problems of growth (or the lack of it) while we seem to be entering a Japanese-style lost decade.

This means that Michael Gove (himself on a mission) has to ensure that those areas of greatest need in education (which are the areas most adversely impacted by Duncan-Smith’s welfare reforms) receive the resources (investment and brainpower) that they need. This could, for example, mean forcing top quality schools (from private and public sectors) to link up with worst performing schools in the country much as Lord Adonis tried to do voluntarily as he describes in his recent book “Education, Education, Education: Reforming England’s Schools”.

Of course, this means jointly pursuing policies as a Government rather than addressing individual issues one at a time because individual Ministers want to make a name for themselves.

Of course, this is the job of a Prime Minister (and in a Coalition, the Deputy Prime Minister) to see that the key decisions of each Ministry complement each other. They have failed to see how disjointed it all is and failed to understand the changes that have been put in place since the 19th Century that repels the drive to go back in time.

Back to the Poor Laws

There is a real danger that the failure to articulate a vision by our politicians, allied to an economic position that is perilous is leading the UK (or at least England) back to the Poor laws as articulated in 1834. This was the age of the workhouse as described so well by Charles Dickens. The 19th Century zeal, which Duncan-Smith is bringing to bear, is allied to monetarism and austerity together with an education philosophy which focuses on individual schools (Academies) without much understanding of how to best ensure the worst ones thrive.

This means that a “perfect storm” is likely to erupt: an economy of austerity, a goodbye to welfare and a lack of educational opportunity where it is needed. This may be seen in the future as a Government that forgot the riots of 2011 much like the riots against the Poor Laws in the 1830’s.

Modern times deserve modern remedies and better leadership

The challenge for any Government in a post-2007 world is to sufficiently understand the role it places in providing the underpinning for a thriving society. This is not the old Tory rule from the top – where the top 3% get the resources and everyone hopes for a trickle down effect. The class system in the UK – no longer just three – may have been dispersed but the political class may not have yet picked up on their duties.

Whether or not many welfare recipients have pro-actively taken themselves out of the work markets and work ethics, Government’s job is to enable them to come back into the market. This means motivating and educating at the same time as gradually changing the rewards structure.

Tell a workforce that they are pathetic and they will become so. Tell people that they are work-shy scroungers and they will not co-operate. Cameron and Osborne (and Gove) understand little about leadership. They want to show leadership by forcing issues not by motivation (or nudging – I understand they read that book – shame they never read any on good leadership) in the same way that the Upper Classes ruled in the 19th Century.

Modern times need a government that motivates and has a vision that is constant throughout – not a bunch of managers with no sense of leadership.

This should mean that rhetoric changes to encouragement not estrangement in a way that Miliband’s desire for “One Nation” (Disraeli) is meant to work. Within that rhetoric (maybe the start of some vision), the economic policies of sustainable growth have to be applied not just hope that austerity will somehow work and shift us to private economy growth; within that rhetoric, an education system that drives the worst schools to function along with the connectivity with local people (including parents); within that rhetoric, a welfare system that rewards such involvement in the community – not just salaried work.

The latter means that people should be able in a modern society to be able to work in a variety of areas – within civil society – rather than for a pittance in a salaried job. This also means spending time with kids where the worst performing schools are victims of poverty and estrangement of parents and local leadership.

This is joined up Government where each part of government takes fully into account what is happening in other sectors of society. It is not what we have now.

Farewell, fair cruelty was said by Viola in Twelfth Night – Viola was trying it on – a woman pretending to be a man.

Duncan-Smith is worried about welfare beneficiaries who shouldn’t be getting welfare – people who are not what they say they are.

This government is pretending to be showing leadership – it isn’t. It is merely repeating the mistakes of their forebears from 200 years ago.

Farewell welfare, indeed. We run the risk of becoming an anti-welfare society that alienates huge sections of it while the rest of government stands aside. Time for some vision and leadership and for this government to understand the impact one part has on another – Duncan-Smith needs Osborne and Gove to help him succeed.  Malvolio’s experiences in Twelfth Night may also be educational for Ian Duncan-Smith – he was also a man more sinned against than sinning.

Education and Equal Concern

I was at two contrasting events this week that provided strong connections.

The first was the Annual Prize Giving at Ashmole Academy, where I am Chair of Governors / Directors. Our guest of honour was Professor A C (Anthony) Grayling – one of this country’s best-known philosophers and writer on ethics through books such as “Liberty in the Age of Terror”. He has also recently opened the New College of the Humanities (NCH) in London – a new private university.

The second was the inaugural meeting of the Board of Directors of Future Brilliance Limited – a not-for-profit set up by Sophia Swire, a courageous and hugely talented woman who has spent much of her life working to improve the lives of Afghans. Future Brilliance – Afghanistan has already begun work to provide business skills training and business opportunities to young Afghans and has a focus on especially improving access to woman for education and business in Afghanistan.

Education

I introduced Anthony Grayling to parents and students and quoted from his book mentioned above – a quote he himself had taken from Ronald Dworkin’s “Sovereign Virtue”:  “Equality must be understood in terms of the equal concern for its citizens that any legitimate government must show  – equal concern is the sovereign virtue of political community: without it government is only tyranny” and equality of resources or opportunities, giving everyone a fair start in making something of their lives.”

The concept of “equal concern” for all is not about providing everyone with the same standard of living but a desire to provide everyone with the same opportunities. It is up to the individual how they exploit those opportunities.

Anthony Grayling gave an excellent talk to our students. He described how we only have around 1,000 months to live and 2/3rds are spent sleeping and shopping or similar. That leaves just 1/3rd of our lives to do something meaningful. He believes that we should use our time in education to broaden our knowledge, ask questions, to develop the enquiring mind.

This was brought home by Sir James Dyson’s comments about education – where he decried the reading of French lesbian poetry as his example of a liberal, humanities-based education rather than one focused on science and engineering. Michael Gove defended the former. Anthony Grayling provided a very good set of reasons for ensuring that the humanities gain equal concern.

At Ashmole Academy, we have developed the ability to help students pass the exams they need and at the right level to gain acceptance to Russell Group Universities (and a large percentage do this in science and maths) but also produce individuals ready and equipped to face the world. Ashmole is non-selective and provides equal concern for all students – providing that equality of opportunities that gives everyone a fair start in making something of their lives. If only that was true of the whole education system in this country – where there is a major disparity between independent (alpha schools) and maintained sectors (although we believe Ashmole now challenges that assertion) and between good maintained schools (beta) and those who struggle (epsilon) for any number of reasons – see https://jeffkaye.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/the-fight-over-education/  We do not have equal concern yet borne out by the equality of opportunity.

Equality of Opportunity

However, in the UK we are blessed when compared to the range of destructive problems that exist in countries like Afghanistan. The problems are well known but the solutions are tough to consider let alone implement. In 2014, US and UK troops are expected to leave and it is there will be a major exodus of the brightest and best as the Taliban threat grows.

Sophia Swire has been working in Afghanistan for some time to improve the lives of those working to make the most of their lives. I met her at Global Witness – an anti-corruption NGO – when she was working with the World Bank. The Future Brilliance task is to develop young Afghans to benefit from the huge potential that their natural resources offer them by building their skills and business base within a code of ethics and good governance.  The US and UK are now working to provide financing in the next two years to help this process before they pullout – to work to get traction amongst the people who have been traumatised by the Taliban and by war and, to an extent, by aid programmes.

What is clear is that the country is also beset by corruption and a weariness that people struggle to shake off. This weariness is because the various governing classes, whether politicians, tribal chiefs or Taliban, have a view of leadership that we find out of date. There is no equality of concern. Concern is primarily for those already in leadership positions and a country that develops this manner of leadership will not break out from its current trauma.

Beyond this, of course, Afghanistan has a view of women (in general) that we see as 16th Century. Religion-blamed customs keep women from education and business in most cases. Like Malala, the young girl shot by terrorists in Pakistan, young women struggle to be allowed any freedoms – whether for the right to be educated or to enter into business. Again, customs deny equal concern for its citizens.

As A C Grayling highlighted in his book “Liberty in the age of Terror”, in the West, we have fought hard for centuries to secure basic human freedoms such as those enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In this country, we have witnessed the strain that terrorism has wrought as freedoms have been whittled away for the cause of security. But, human rights have to be based on equal concern for all. In a world that is now so interlinked, it is impossible to close our eyes at the problems in other countries. To a large extent, their problems are ours. Terrorism affects us in the UK in heavier security that reduces our freedoms. It is better to also work towards improvements in those countries where terrorism is bred. Acknowledgement human rights and of economic improvement are crucial not via handouts and aid (except in emergencies) but through the use of focused assistance to bolster the ability to help themselves and to relentlessly work to rid the country of corruption.

To succeed, government has to show equal concern for all its citizens – to provide the fair start – and it has to start with education (both boys and girls) and lead into business and wider, governmental responsibilities.

In the UK, education for all must be an equal concern as we struggle to get our worst schools anywhere near the level of acceptability. The same struggle (but, with horrendous consequences of failure) exists in countries like Afghanistan. “Equal concern is the sovereign virtue of political community: without it government is only tyranny.”  Whether in education at home or in the fight against terrorism abroad, the same ethical principle is true. In the global economy, it is essential that everyone has “a fair start in making something of their lives.”

Education and Examinations – back to Plato

In the UK, a leaked document from the Department for Education proposes that we go back to the 1950’s and separate kids at 15 or 16 into two sections of society: those who can and those who can’t. I guess this may be better than the separation at 11 that took place then (the UK’s “11 plus” exams) but not much. Hearkening back to a “bygone age” of seeming perfection is often the norm for conservatives – there to preserve rather than illuminate – but, the mistake is that we have lost the meaning of education.

Education as a Feeder system for the Economy

To educate is to develop the faculties and powers (of a person) by teaching, instruction, or schooling.

Going back to definitions may be important. If the crucial objectives of education are to develop “faculties” and “powers” – which parents are doing from the time a baby is born – why has the education system decided not to do this? Why is it that the education system devised in the mid-20th Century has, through national curricula, worked to establish something different?

In all the discussions and discourse on education that reaches most of us through TV and newspapers, the focus of education is not about maximising the powers and faculties, but about developing certain skills in order to make pupils employable. How this has come about is debatable but is likely to be as a result of economics and the view of governments that it has to feed the economic system.

Now, this is not completely unreasonable and it is not as though citizens want everyone to be a Plato, a Socrates or even an A C Grayling. Economics applied to most citizens means that we want to develop ourselves sufficiently to have a decent job. University degrees in subjects that are not job-focused are decried because they dare to deviate from the GDP-focus that dominates all our lives.

We are continuously subjected to the competition between the newly developing nations and their own devotion to exams and economic prosperity as the new mantra. “Communist” China is now held up as the beacon – we are, in effect, at war with the soldiers now the pupils in our schools and universities who are in competition with their counterparts in China. It is not just league tables to compare your local schools; we are now homogenized into comparisons on a world basis against the maths and science students of China and Singapore and Thailand.

Across the world, education has made Huxley’s dystopian Brave New World a closer reality.  We now have schools / academies split into alpha, beta and epsilon (through the division of private sector, and maintained sector split by geography / location). We have exacerbated the problem (if we agree it is one) by the almost complete drive to make our children the feeder for gross domestic product (GDP) growth. This is leading (in the UK) to Michael Gove’s attempt to split our kids into two sectors – those who can and those who can’t – by type of exam taken at 15 or 16. But, citizens are not being given the exam question that he is attempting to answer in this way.

What is the question?????

Gove wants a division of society into those who can pass exams at 16 and those who cannot. Why? Because there is a view that young people need to be divided at some age into those who can be management and leaders within the private and public sector and those who will be providers of services to them and the organisations that they manage and lead.

The 19th and 20th Century devised organisations, which have led to societies, which are now run by government and private sector priorities. Government is supposed to be (in a democracy) at the will of the people but is now a mix of career civil servants and career politicians (especially the case in Europe but true in most developed societies).

The private sector (which has been the source of so much wealth creation and so much that is good) has through competition developed an amazing monopoly over our lives. Economics never envisaged a duopoly of forces that would dominate in this way. The accommodation of the private sector by government and vice versa is how our societies are now run and education is seen more and more as the provider into these monolithic power centres.

So, the question we should be asking of our education system is whether we wish to have our kids taught in order to supply the system in this way and in addition to suffer the effects of the Brave New World of demarcation into alpha, beta and epsilon schools AND even more between top tier pupils and service providers  OR whether we wish real education to take place? Huxley’s dystopian vision (or Plato’s world view that we should divide children at an early age to educate those who will rule early and divide the rest) was based on a top-down philosophy that is outdated and pretty totalitarian. In any emergent society (and human occupy the same emergent plateau as any other living creature), we should ensure that the best opportunities are provided wherever possible and at any age. This is possible in a developed society and where our gross domestic product should be directed.

If education is really to develop the faculties and powers of an individual through teaching, we should continuously ask what these faculties and powers should be and then whether we are providing them (and, if not, how we should be).

Faculties and Powers in the 21st Century

We have reached the stage in our economic development (we probably did many years ago – as Galbraith’s “The Affluent Society” so well testified) when rapid and continuous economic growth as measured by current measurement systems is no longer rational. We are wasteful of resources and wasteful of our freedoms in the pursuit of more goods. The challenge to society is how it remodels itself in the light of diminishing economic utilities and diminishing returns for this wealth as well as the potential calamities that divisive wealth distributions (between the top 1% and the rest) are creating.

Jobs are central to economic well being and naturally feature in our minds as one of the most important priorities in our lives. They aren’t the only ones, though.

Equipping our children for the difficulties that the 21st Century society has on offer as well as for the opportunities that it provides is the most important requirement for education.

I have been involved with Education and the system for over 20 years as a pro-bono School / academy Governor and as a Chair of Governors for the last eight of those years. I have seen successive governments in the UK pass the buck on education as different theories are tried and children used for experiments. What Michael Gove is now stating is that all the changes made over the last fifty years have not allowed us to progress and that we should go back to where we were.

The trouble is that the assessment is mistaken. There is little in the proposal about exams and divisions at 16 that would provide any confidence that our children will be better educated as a result. The imperative is to equip them with the faculties and powers to make decisions, be real and pro-active members of society and to make real contributions. Some of that is about the ability to work. We are leading much longer lives, though, and young people will go through a variety of careers and need to use many of their skills (inherited and learnt) as a result. There is little chance of having one job for life any more – change is too fast and we need to change to keep up.

Where is this faculty being learned if we are determined to divide up our kids at such an early age and send them off into the world without the faculties and powers that will best equip them for that world?

Employers bemoan the low level of maths and English taught in many schools and this needs to be improved; we have too few scientists and that needs to be changed. However, employers look to the short term and to their current needs. Economics is very poor at forecasting (as the banking disasters of 2008 to now show so clearly). Therefore, friends in Government must not only listen to employers groups and change our education philosophy as a result to their advantage only.

Education must be centred on providing the faculties and powers to enable young people to make the most of themselves in society – not just to gain immediate employment when 18 (the age when young people will soon be obliged to stay at school in the UK).

Civil Society as the Bridge Between Private and Public Sector Monoliths

Most of us work in the private or public sector. I don’t these days – I have worked in the so-called Third Sector for the last five years – for NGO’s and charities. But, the Third Sector is not just about charities and NGO’s. As a School / Academy Governor, I play a civil society role in a public sector school / academy. I don’t see myself as being in the public sector.

We all live in society – some of that in work and much outside. A good education is the crucial foundation for anyone to enable them to take best advantage of what life has to offer. Getting a good first job is important but not everything. Each individual’s contribution to society (whether local, regional, national or international) is important and a good education which stretches an individual’s faculties and powers at an age when our brains are most able to grow, develop and take on new ideas is essential. This is the fundamental notion that the best societies don’t work on a top-down basis (the essence of totalitarianism – a Brave New World) but provide the opportunities to those who can best use those them – and at whatever age.

Education is core to our well-being. We should have learned much since Plato opened the first Academy in 387BC in Athens. The essence of education has to be that it is a central provision of society and that it has to be there for all to take full advantage. Arbitrary divisions at any age from the top-down perpetuate societal divisions and hinder society’s ability to grow – its emergent properties are stymied by the imposition of extra rigidities.

Further, the division of our schools by location would drive us backwards not forwards as many schools in economically poorer areas will continue to be second-tier (compared to the better maintained sector schools and remote, third tier compared to the private sector) and will never have a chance to recover that position. Plato’s division of society (or Huxley’s) will be set.

Those of us who can stand aside from public or private sector top-down views of society don’t need to accept this position. Our children should retain access to the best throughout their lives. A two-tier exam system on top of a three-tier education system is out of date and condemns too many, too early.

The fight over education

19th or 20th Century dogmas are both wrong.

Michael Gove has a challenge and is enlisting 19th Century ideals to battle the 20th Century ideals that face him in our school system.

 

The Education “Challenge”

 

The challenge seems to be that forces that became dominant in the 20th Century – collectivism amongst school teachers, health and safety concerns, equality issues, access for all, centralised curriculum, centralised examinations, huge access to tertiary education (universities), building programmes, comprehensive education “norms” and belief systems – have, from Gove’s standpoint, gone too far.

 

While he believes that education should be always excellent, always accessible for those that strive, always providing a route to further and higher education, he feels stymied by what is seen as a Labour agenda from the 1960’s: public sector control over public assets and, worse, a public sector mindset.

 

That mindset means that equality risks being the bye-word for dumbing down – as expressed in views that exams are made easier so that everyone passes, that no-one is a failure, that competitive sport is old-fashioned and everyone should be a winner.

 

This simplistic notion of the maintained (government) school system is now rivaled by simplistic notions of what works better.

 

The Government Education Response

 

The Coalition response to the Challenge (or really the Conservative Gove response) is to throw 19th Century attitudes at it. The key to Gove’s rebuttal of mid-20th Century dogma is mid-19th Century dogma.

 

First, it is a market approach to the problem. The assumption is that the market knows best so bring in competition and all will be well. Some years ago, I wrote to Michael Gove when he was in opposition. As a Chair of Governors of a successful secondary school, I proposed, through my MP, that Government treats each of the 3,600 Secondary Schools as independent organisations in a way that business would not. Business would try to work out how such a range of “subsidiaries” would benefit from joint buying, better systems, better management and learning opportunities for critical IT staff and so on. Gove responded that he rejected this as each school should be seen to compete with each other and that it provided parents with “choice”. Only someone with no business sense whatsoever would say such a thing.

 

So, choice (like shelves of cornflakes that no-one can choose between) is the solution and we have old-style Academies, new-style Academies, grammar schools, independent schools, church and other faith schools, new free schools, chains of academies. The range is growing and is beginning to grow out of control.

 

When presented with a business-like way forward (such as above and also through the James Review on school buildings presented last year and which appears to have been dismissed), Government shuts up shop and develops ostrich tendencies.

 

Gove’s other 19th Century demand is to go back to reading our history and learning by rote; through progress via examination (no more modular teaching); through a private school regimen that comes from his background and his history. To this is added the rigour of school uniforms and standing when teacher enters the room. Sir Michael Wilshaw, now Head of Ofsted, is his main supporter in this area. Sir Michael’s approach (vindicated in several tough schools) is forthright and to the point – poor teachers should be expelled, poor schools turned around fast or taken over.

 

Gove is also pulled between business demands that pupils should be armed with the ability to be business fodder and the wider aims of education (which he understands well) and which provide our young people with the abilities to play a full part in the world they live in. Here, maybe there is a link between the 19th Century and the 21st, which Mr. Gove should consider deeply.

 

The Private vs. Public argument – the wrong argument

 

This is all typical of our outmoded politics and the strained linkage between the private sector and the public sector.  The private sector allows those who can pay to be separate from the rest. My previous notes on this: The Brave New World of Education (I and II)  – see https://jeffkaye.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=153&action=edit

 

discussed how education was splitting into 3 – the private sector (alphas), good parts of the maintained sector (betas) and the rest (epsilons).

 

The response has been to play off the private sector and private sector attitudes against the public sector responses of the mid-1960’s.

 

Of course, the reality is that there is really hardly any competition between the private and public sector. Private education is for sale, goes to those who can afford it and it is only at the margin that a competition with the maintained sector exists. The vast majority of private sector parents never consider the option of not paying except between different independent schools – i.e. the competition is between private schools. Those that do are part of the “squeezed middle” – often moving to areas with good secondary schools to obtain at least the “beta” education on offer.

 

In the maintained sector, it is similar. A new building for a comprehensive school will immediately increase the demand for that school – but the demand is mainly drawn from other maintained schools in the catchment area.

 

Overall, competition is irrelevant to the question that is central:

 

What do we want from education for all our people?

 

Education for What?

 

In the 19th Century, we had two systems: one for the wealthy and aristocracy which educated our leaders; one (minimal) for the rest.

 

We retain the systems today and it has been hard to break the duopoly. However, we now have three systems within the two stated: private (alpha, still educating our leaders) and public (split by postcode into beta and epsilon).

 

What is needed is to generate a school system based on what society needs – not what entrenched groups may want. We do need to break the status quo.

 

If we (or at least most of us) agree that education should provide (from nursery to primary and through secondary) an education that provides accessibility to all, opportunity to all, does not shy away from the fact that we are all different, understands that education and opportunity should not be down to where you are born or the wealth of your parents, and persistent excellence in teaching, motivation and discovery, then the varied types of schools we now have should be joined in working to achieve this.

 

Students should not be born to lead or born to stack shelves. We should be opening up the doors to those who may have talent and desire to succeed and that means that those doors must be kept open continuously (not just at 11 and 16).

 

What is the answer?

 

There should be just one type of school – let’s call it an Academy as the Greeks (despite current problems) were intelligent enough to have the first and for many years the most prestigious.

 

All private sector and public sector schools should be converted to Academy status.

 

For the time being, funding will be retained as now – private to independent and public to maintained sector.

 

A team of from the private sector, maintained sector, civil society and government (not a government committee) would work to establish what education is supposed to be for: maybe a two-year review which will, undoubtedly be full of disputes and arguments, but will lay the foundations for the UK’s (if Scotland and Northern Ireland are willing to be involved) future learning – a model for the 21st Century.

 

The move to a common Academy system with two main groups within it (private-funded and public-funded) should be a forum for mutual learning via the needs of civil society, private and the public sector.

 

From this, we need to learn were the private sector (business) can work best – for example, provisioning of facilities and services (where the public sector is normally worse and too bureaucratized).

 

We should be able to build more cross-fertilisation that is happening on occasion now within private sector groups that adopt maintained schools – the smaller accumulation of knowledge across the divide that Haberdashers (for example) is providing.

 

We should also be able to explore how systems work in different environments – how to change the postcode lottery where it isn’t necessarily the teachers or the students, but the low aspiration levels of the communities.

 

Private / Public sectors and Education

 

Coming together in this way – and meaning it – rather than all-out competition in an area which cannot be completely market dominated nor purely public sector would be fit for the 21st Century. More than that, it would begin to frame the dialogue about what education is really about without (a) depriving the private sector of its rights to be different and (b) depriving the maintained sector (the public sector) of its right to improve. Moving the sectors to work together nationally (rather than merely at the local level) and ensuring that it is not just Government that can dictate what education is there to provide is essential in the 21st Century. Politicians are no longer the ones who know what to do. They do not represent public opinion and rarely shape it. Civil society needs to be better represented in the areas that count for the most and education is one area that cries out for change of this type.

 

Additionally, what is likely to emerge from this but a framework for a national education system with the potential to have the best of private and public education – but, for the benefit of those in the middle (the people who are being educated and their families).  A framework where private sector and public plus representatives of those whose education we are discussing (the educatees and parents and guardians) can continuously evaluate the benefits of particular models and judge progress.

 

A new model for the 21st Century is one where all sectors of the population work together rather than compete. The nation’s education is important enough for something really radical to take shape. Education is broken – it needs fixing but not piecemeal and not school by school.

 

 

Brave New World of Education II – Aspiration, aspiration, aspiration

A couple of days ago, Dr Mary Bousted, The Association of Teachers and Lecturers head, voiced the view that schools were segregated along class lines. Back in January, I wrote in:

https://jeffkaye.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/the-complexity-of-education-politics-and-economics-brave-new-world/

how education, like politics and economics, is mired in the 19th Century. The picture is of a three-tier system of private education (independent schools), middle tiers (mainly converter academies in the secondary sector) and the rest. From my blog of 22 January, 2012:

Three sectors – remnants of 19th Century decision-making and 19th Century thinking.

Yet, we operate in the 21st Century. Education has to achieve many things yet does something different in each of the three areas.

In the first (the alpha sector), it provides a broad education and the ability to move into society at the highest-level possible. This is through networks (with universities, companies, politics) and through the provision of relevant education – through learning that equips pupils to reach for higher standards to learning that enables pupils to attain the next step (e.g. university).

In the second (the beta sector), network management is usually missing entirely and virtually dispensed with because it is deemed wrong. But, we live with 19th Century norms and this required networking. Education is primarily Government dictated through the curriculum, which is all about exams. The three aspects of learning above are ill considered by most schools even in this sector. However, some break through and many achieve better exam results – although most result in the attainment of tertiary education into the beta sector of universities.

In the Third (Epsilon), many schools (not all, this can be changed) keep kids off the streets (to greater or lesser effect) and provide an entry path into the wider world or working. Networks and networking are non-existent except in the local area. Chances of reaching out and attaining higher levels are poor even though funding is substantial (and higher per head than in the Beta sector).

I am fortunate enough to be Chair of Governors of a converter academy with aspirations to be alpha and pretty close to that aspiration. It is now quite likely that pupils educated at the school will be able to step into the right universities (Russell Group or other top level) and move through society’s obstacles. It is a school where parents have high aspirations for their kids and where the school reflects that and leads that aspiration. Motivation is high and there is now a virtuous circle of expectation. This is the Big Society in practice – we all (staff, students, governors, families, local community) share in the benefits and successes of the school.

But, the stratification of society is cemented into position by the school structure. This is not quite what it used to be – there is now an aspirational middle tier that is forcing the pace of education and aspiration. It is a constant problem, though, that schools get placed in locations that they have to serve. Schools can’t (in the main) relocate to improve their intake. They are literally stuck and location means that a school has to accept its intake (whether at primary or secondary level) and do its best.

Aspirations, aspirations, aspirations

What Government is doing is to shake the education bottle – so-called competition for schools, a variety of types of school, new Ofsted leadership and criteria, an end to modular exams at GCSE, more focus on English and maths and the baccalaureate subjects.

Some of this is good, some neutral, and some harmful – but it is all focused on the schools. It is the education, education, education mantra allied with the change, change, change reality that schools are hit with by every government of every complexion.

What is it apart from this that will change the whole nature of education and also deal with the issues that Dr Bousted raises (as I raised three months ago)?

It is all about aspiration.

The aspirations of the kids are directly the result of the aspirations for them of their parents / guardians. In areas where low aspiration parents can send their kids to a high aspiration  school, then the kids can (possibly) raise their targets to compete.

But, where the whole school is in an area of low aspiration (mainly those in inner cities and low income areas), then low aspirations of the parents will transfer to low aspirations of their kids. Staff may fight this but they are limited by the level of life expectation of their “raw material”.

Attempts to change this through investment in the earlier type of Academies have been well meant, expensive and occasionally successful. Education groups (companies and organisations taking over failing schools) can bring some sort of attainment to their students and raise the bar. These are too few to be meaningful and the high funding levels have been curtailed as we enter a prolonged period of austerity. If this is not to be a pervasive system (and it won’t be), are free schools or equivalent an answer?

The contract between state, education and families

No education system will produce 100% scientists, doctors, mathematicians or similar and nor should they. We are all different and society needs a mixture. What we don’t need is the mixture that Huxley’s Brave New World’s dystopian future predicted. We need to evolve our education to meet the needs of society and individuals now – no three tier society from birth but an aspirational society where success is based on capability and merit.

Continued development of the education of our children is crucial to this but it is not sufficient. Dr Bousted’s fears are justified unless we can provide an aspiration amongst our kids and their parents / wider families.

It is no longer sufficient to take pupils into a system and try to modify their minds when, for most of their time they are facing outside pressures from families and peer groups that ridicule the aspirational notions that a good school may try to employ.

It is no longer enough for schools to be expected on their own to persuade parents that they have to inspire as much as the schools try; that kids should, from whatever their background, raise their aspirations to maximize their opportunities – just as wave after wave of immigrant families have done in the UK for generation after generation.

There is a contract signed between parents / guardians and their schools. The contract fails in a key respect (apart of its complete lack of enforceability, of course) – it fails because the focus is only on the pupil. The contract needs to be one where the family provides the environment in which a child can use the opportunities that a good school can provide. The contract needs to be able to ensure that the wider community (which is mainly the family but may be the local community especially in areas of intense peer pressure and gang cultures) ensures that the child is provided with a culture of aspiration.

Changing family aspirations – alpha-oriented

Vast numbers of changes to our education system (to our schools especially) happen every year. At the same time, society seems to be going backwards. Movement between class structures has been stymied and income differences in the UK are growing as the economy shudders to a halt (factory production is still 9% below the all-time high from 5 years ago).

Schools have to continuously improve but it is not enough. The need for every school to be a very good one, offering the best for our children is crucial but an unreal expectation as the reality of society impedes it. Dr Bousted is right in that class infects schools through their location. However, bussing kids around will not work – what may work is a focus of the local community aided by government on the families.

Changing aspirations within family groups is the key to improving education within the toughest and most deprived areas. Kids can change on their own, but only in isolated pockets – where some incredible teacher exists, for example. Anecdotes that show that it can happen are not enough. We should not see the exceptions as the rule. The rule should be extended to where families and local communities demand and work hard for aspirations to be extended; where maybe a middle class tenacity to succeed and take advantage of the opportunities presented exist everywhere.

To do this, pilot schemes should be started alongside the school programmes in areas of greatest challenge. Here funds should be provided and contracts entered into to maximise parental involvement (and local community groups, too, where this is needed) and where research should be carried out where it works so success can be shared. Where needed, this should encourage education opportunities for parents and families so that education is seen as the norm – not something to be shunned as soon as possible. Local government and local companies should be more than one week a lifetime work studies – there should be a continuous involvement.

Where it works already, this must be copied and studied again and again.

Local communities often see the school as the community hub. But, this has been in the absence of anything else and the community uses the school as a place to hold events. Now, we should see the school as a real community hub – the focus of families and our children to address themselves to the real contract – raising the aspirational levels of all our kids so that families are educated together. Education should be seen as the huge opportunity is really is.

We talk about “joined-up thinking” but society needs to be joined up, too, in the way it works. The 21st Century has provided the opportunity for us to join on-line and it is a benefit. The real benefit would be a localism that is based on the school (nursery, primary and secondary) and links those schools with the families for joint education. Schooling should genuinely be life-long so that birth should not dictate your future and a real availability of opportunity should be our aspiration.