On the Edge

I have been noting some blog traffic asking about Edge, its independence and where it gets its money from.

Edge was formed out of Edexcel Foundation when the Edexcel awarding body business was sold to Pearson plc. To cut a long story short, the Edexcel Foundation trustees found themselves with £75m from the sale of the business and they decided to use this to establish what in essence is a new educational foundation dedicated to ‘raising the status of practical and vocational learning’. As such we are entirely independent.

I do not think we have any right to exist in perpetuity and my trustees decided at the outset that we should spend whatever is necessary to try and achieve our vision – we set ourselves an initial ten year time-frame (we are now about half-way through).

I value this independence very highly. History tells us that major change does not come from the establishment – it comes from the outside. Edge seeks to be just that; an organisation on the outside that understands the inside. Moreover given that we do not need to raise funds I believe we have a responsibility to try and do things that others might not risk – we seek to be 'Edgy'.

Edge is a campaign and a catalyst. We are seeking to help bring about major change - and if you are want to do that with a very small staff and limited funds, you have to work with and through a wide range of partners. Gaining the support of government, other political parties and Whitehall is of course necessary (though not sufficient) and therein is a difficult balancing act. At best we succeed in being critical friends. There are times, however, when government do not take kindly do what we are saying and doing (have you ever been in an externally-facilitated three hour ‘conflict resolution’ meeting with ministers/civil servants!) There are also times when people outside regard you as an agent of government. I guess as long as there are people expressing their disappointment from both sides, you are probably doing OK! The key thing for me is that we do not seek government funding and are never beholden to government or any political party.

We aim to: provoke thought based on facts, not antagonism; talk to people, not at them - building consensus; be progressive with a vision of a better future, not depressive by despairing at the present; inspire, with a focus on action, not just airy-fairy theorising.

And you can quote these back to me!

We must rise with the occasion

It has been a difficult week. I could not possibly blog anything without first mentioning Jonathan Bramsdon, our Partnership Director. He was a lovely, lovely man who did a great job for Edge, especially in relation to our work with young people through the Edge Learner Forums and with employers; campaigning to improve the quality and variety of young people’s ‘experience of work’. I say ‘was’ because at the end of last week, at the age of 40, he died tragically. None of us can think of anything else at the moment. Here’s to you Jonathan – and especially your beautiful young family.

Yesterday I had the privilege of attending Sir Ken Robinson’s lecture and launch of his new book, The Element, which is all about finding your passion. If you have not seen him, you should. He is a brilliant speaker who delivers a very simple and important message - one which is almost identical to that of Edge. I am delighted to say that he features prominently in the forthcoming Edge-funded film We are the People We’ve been Waiting For, produced by New Moon and with Lord Puttnam as Executive Producer. I am sure his speech will be on the web soon, so I won’t try and paraphrase it now. I will just repeat one quote he read out, because it is beautifully phrased and sums up the need for transformation in education along with our extraordinarily fast-changing global world:

“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.”
Abraham Lincoln

Finally, I noted this short piece in the papers today:

“Official figures show state schools and colleges in England spent more than £265 million enrolling pupils for tests last year, compared to £155 million in 2003. Fees for exams such as GCSEs, A-levels and GNVQs are now second only to staff salaries as the biggest expense in state schools. Headteachers claim the true cost could be nearer £700 million after paying for test invigilators and hiring exam secretaries.”

It is not as poetic as Abraham Lincoln’s remarks but it certainly sums up the need for educational transformation!

Do you want a revolution?

Today has been a day of radio interviews accompanying the second phase of Edge’s ‘revolution’ campaign. Our news story, linked to a survey of over 1000 parents of 11-16 year-olds attending secondary school, has also appeared in the Sun, Mirror and Metro. Essentially, the revolution campaign is saying that we need to transform education. And the transformation Edge is seeking? Simply that we need to make sure that we develop the very diverse interests, intelligences and talents of our young people.

This means we must ensure there are many high quality paths to success – not just a traditional, largely classroom-based, theoretical or academic route. QED. If we do not bring about this change then we will continue to find a young person’s educational success primarily dependent upon to whom and where they are born – this is morally unacceptable in a civilized advanced society. Also it will be economic suicide. The UK operates in a global economy, with a global talent pool, and limited natural resources – developing everyone’s talents and potential is critical to future economic success. QED.

So what do the parents say? 28% say the education system is not working for their child, and this rises to around 40% for those with 15 and 16 year-olds. And when we asked them whether they would be in favour of a ‘revolution in education’, 47% agreed with this powerful call to action (many more than disagreed). Other key findings were that 43% did not feel that the education system was adequately preparing their children for the world of work, and 42% had similarly negative feelings about preparation for life. 42% believed that only academically-minded children do well at school, and 48% replied that they would like more practical and vocational learning alongside academic studies.

All this may sound rather doom-laden but it is not meant to be – because I think the necessary changes are already happening. The signs of spring are around. However, in contrast to the real seasons, for educational summer to arrive we have to decide we want it – and what that summer would look like. I would be very interested to hear what it you think it would look like. We are inviting everyone to have their say and join the revolution at http://edge.co.uk/revolution

Slay the dragon not the knight

Chris Woodhead has been voicing his opinions in the Sunday Times and Guardian this week. For many people there is something about his comments that really rankles – I am one of them. Why?

He recently wrote of novelist and philosopher Iris Murdoch: “She thought education in art and ideas and knowledge was the road to freedom. She knew it from her own life, as I know it from mine. By freedom I mean an appreciation of what the greatest human beings achieved; a sense of what other people in other ages knew to be important and possible; a liberation from the tyranny of the majority view; a release from the monotony of the quotidian”.

I liked that bit. However he went on to say, in response to the common desire among those in education that every child should be able to walk as far as they can down that road to freedom: “I do not think that every child is capable of travelling far along this road”. Now I disagree with this strongly - but that is not what gets under my skin.

What really gets my goat is the mischievous (I assume) setting up of an Aunt Sally of views he ascribes to the education community so that he can knock them down: “We can abandon our responsibility to initiate the young into the best that has been thought and written. We can impose a skills-based, socially relevant, politicised curriculum on teachers and pupils. … [Both main political parties have] no conception of education beyond the utilitarian…” etc. Does any educationalist really hold this view?

Of course it feels good to be a defender of the faith, a St George if you like, even if the dragon is invented. And the more you are then attacked the more real the dragon becomes … and the better it feels to slay it! My concern is that I see this rhetorical gambit being used more often, and it takes the place of informed debate. You might say it is a bit of harmless fun, but it is not – a lot of people believe that this really is the view of educationalists, and this then damages the status of the teaching profession.

The teaching profession is the knight in shining armour, not the dragon.