ࡱ > ` bjbj iX ! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ H l! l! l! P ! `" L H W h " v& & & & g' g' g' V V V V V V V $ kX h Z | V $ Q- g' g' Q- Q- V $ $ & & V A A A Q- * $ & $ & Q A Q- V A A V ~J @ $ $ BK & " ^ l! {= J Q V 0 W J x O[ @ O[ BK BK O[ $ 4O x g' H ( A ) U* g' g' g' V V A ^ g' g' g' W Q- Q- Q- Q- H H H $ l! H H H l! H H H $ $ $ $ $ $
A pivotal moment? Education policy in England, 2005
Corresponding author:
Professor Alan Dyson
School of Education
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Tel: 0161 275 8290
Email: HYPERLINK "mailto:d.a.dyson@manchester.ac.uk" d.a.dyson@manchester.ac.uk
A pivotal moment? Education policy in England, 2005
Equity and excellence
At the 2005 Labour Party conference, Tony Blair famously declared that:
Every time Ive ever introduced a reform in Government, I wish in retrospect I had gone further.
ADDIN EN.CITE Blair20051825161825Blair, Tony2005We are the change-makersLondonThe Labour Party200525 Novemberhttp://www.labour.org.uk/index.php?id=news2005&ux_news[id]=ac05tb&cHash=d8353c3d74(Blair, 2005d)
Political commentators seem to have agreed that, in his third and final term, Blair wants to make the sorts of fundamental and irreversible changes that he believes Margaret Thatcher was able to make, and that the public services are his chosen arena for his reforming zeal. It is no surprise, therefore, that education has been a target for further reform, nor that, commenting on this autumns schools white paper, which embodies many of his radical ambitions, Blair described its introduction as a pivotal moment for education ADDIN EN.CITE Blair20051824161824Blair, Tony2005PM reflects on 'pivotal moment' for educationLondon10 Downing Street200525 Novemberhttp://www.numberten.gov.uk/output/Page8357.asp(Blair, 2005b).
The analogy with the Thatcher governments is illuminating. By common account, the Thatcher reform agenda took time to gather pace because of the Prime Ministers initially weak political position. It was, for instance, not until 1988 that any major reform of the education service took place. However, the first Blair government hit the ground running, in terms of education at least, with a major white paper appearing shortly after the 1997 election and a relentless succession of white and green papers, guidance documents and centrally-driven initiatives ever since.
By 2005, the direction of New Labour education policy was abundantly clear. Drawing on a human capital theory of economic development, the principal role of education was seen as being to develop the skill and knowledge levels of the workforce so that the country could compete in globalised economic markets ADDIN EN.CITE Wolf2002139911399Wolf, Alison2002Does Education Matter? Myths about Education and Economic GrowthLondonPenguin Books(Wolf, 2002). This demanded the highest possible levels of educational achievement, and these were to be obtained by pursuing policies previously associated with Conervative administrations the pursuit of standards, the reform of educational structures and practices in the interests of effectiveness, the continuing marketisation of the education system and the creation of a culture of performativity ADDIN ENRfu (Phillips & Harper-Jones, 2003: 126). At the same time and perhaps in distinction to previous administrations education was also expected to play its part in tackling social exclusion ADDIN EN.CITE Unit20011318101318Social Exclusion Unit2001Preventing Social ExclusionLondonSocial Exclusion UnitMarch 2001http://www.socialexclusionunit.gov.uk/publications/reports/html/pse/pse_html/index.htmBlair199796931969Blair, Tony1997Speech given by the Prime Minister on Monday 8 December 1997 at Stockwell Park School, Lambeth(Blair, 1997, Social Exclusion Unit, 2001) by ensuring, amongst other things, that everyone - and not just the highest attainers or those from the most advantaged backgrounds - was equipped to compete in an ever-more-demanding labour market. Crucially, neo-liberal policies for excellence and more socially-democratic policies for equity were not seen as standing in contradiction to one another, but as constituting two sides of the same coin ADDIN EN.CITE Brehony2003184771847Brehony, K.J.Deem, R.2003Education policyEllison, N.Pierson, C.developments in British Social Policy 2Basingstokepalgrave Macmillan177-193(Brehony & Deem, 2003). Rather than making fundamental choices between these two agendas, therefore, the trick for New Labour governments was to find specific policy initiatives which would enable these two agendas to be pursued simultaneously. What were needed, therefore, were specific policy initiatives which could pursue both of these agendas simultaneously.
Given the well-established nature of this approach and the length of time New Labour had already spent reforming the education system, it is tempting to ask what could be left to do in 2005. Why should this year more than any other constitute a pivotal moment and, if it did, why had previous reforms failed to achieve the desired results? Blairs answer to these questions seems to be that his governments previous reforms had simply been too timid in which case, 2005 constitutes a pivotal moment calling for rededicated purpose and renewed effort. However, we want to suggest that some more fundamental processes are at work here and that some more fundamental tensions in New Labour education policy have begun to make themselves felt. In this sense, 2005 may constitute a pivotal moment of quite a different kind.
Learning what works and finding what doesnt
Urging the benefits of the schools white paper, Tony Blair declared that:
successive reforms since the War have not always delivered all that they aimed to deliver.
What is different this time is that we have learned what works.
ADDIN EN.CITE Blair20051799161799Blair, Tony2005Speech on education at 10 Downing Street. 24 October 2005London10 Downing Street200524 Octoberhttp://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page8363.asp(Blair, 2005c)
The notion of what works is, of course, central to New Labour policy making, not least in education ADDIN EN.CITE Brehony2005184201842Brehony, Kevin J.2005Primary schooling under New Labour: the irresolvable contradiction of excellence and enjoymentOxford Review of Education31129-46(Brehony, 2005). It stems from the conviction that practical and politically-achievable policy solutions can be found to what have hitherto been regarded as intractable social problems. In education, one of the most fundamental of these problems is an association between social background and educational achievement that has proved stubbornly resistant to all previous policy interventions. It is, of course, vital both to the human capital model of economic development and to the attempt to overcome social exclusion that this link be broken. Education has to provide a means whereby people from disadvantaged backgrounds can achieve highly and make themselves competitive in the labour market, thus breaking the cycle of disadvantage whilst providing the economy with skilled labour. It is equally vital for the economic project that advances for people living in disadvantage should not be bought at the expense of their more advantaged peers and, indeed, that they should be part of an overall effort to raise educational achievement. As the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Ruth Kelly, speaking in July of this year, put it:
That is why I see my department as the department for life chances. And that is why I see it as my job to boost social mobilityOur task is to make sure that for everyone involved in learning excellence and equity become and remain reality.
ADDIN EN.CITE Kelly20051772161772Kelly, Ruth2005Education and social progress. 26 July 2005LondonDfES20054 Augusthttp://www.dfes.gov.uk/speeches/speech.cfm?SpeechID=242(Kelly, 2005)
However, the commitment to what works requires more than warm words about the principles on which policy should be based. It also demands evidence about what is and is not working evidence which new Labour governments have secured in education by setting up increasingly sophisticated monitoring systems at school, local authority and national level. Unfortunately, by 2005, the evidence from these systems was beginning to suggest that the task of squaring this equity-and-excellence circle was proving more difficult than the Government might previously have imagined. Kelly was speaking in response to evidence that social mobility in England might if anything be declining rather than increasing ADDIN EN.CITE Blanden20051722101722Blanden, Jo Gregg, Paul Machin, Stephen2005Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North AmericaLondonCentre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics for The Sutton TrustApril 2005(Blanden et al., 2005). Worse still, her own Departments review of performance data suggested that the link between social background and educational achievement was proving almost as stubbornly resistant to New Labour policy as to previous policy interventions ADDIN EN.CITE DfES20051829101829DfES2005Has the social class gap narrowed in primary schools? A background note to accompany the talk by the Rt Hon Ruth Kelly MP, Secretary of State for Education and Skills, 26 july 2005LondonDfES(DfES, 2005c). Specifically, although schools with the most disadvantaged intakes were making some progress, it was less evident that they were closing the gap on their more advantaged counterparts, nor that it was the most disadvantaged pupils in those schools who were producing the improved results.
Nor was this the only troubling evidence about the limited effects of Government policy to appear in 2005. One of the great achievements of the first New Labour Government was the apparently rapid rise in primary pupils attainments. However, this rise was treated with some scepticism by both researchers and secondary school teachers, who suspected that it was accounted for by a good deal of instrumental teaching to the test and/or by some more-or-less dubious features of the national testing system. In particular, a paper submitted the the Statistics Commission by Peter Tymms ADDIN EN.CITE Tymms2004156101561Tymms, Peter2004Are standards rising in English primary schools?British Educational Research Journal304477-494(2004) argued that the rise was largely illusory and called for the Commission to examine the facts of the matter. In the event, the Commission concluded that:
it has been established that (a) the improvement in KS2 test scores between 1995 and 2000 substantially overstates the improvement in standards in English primary schools over that period, but (b) there was nevertheless some rise in standards.
ADDIN EN.CITE Commission20051730101730Commission, Statistics2005Measuring Standards in English Primary Schools. Statistics Commission Report No.23LondonStatistics Commission(Statistics Commission, 2005: par. 9)
A similar issue arose in respect of secondary school performance. The gains at secondary level were always more modest than those in the primary phase, but by 2005 it was obvious that even these gains had been made at least in part by schools playing the examination game. In addition to the high levels of coaching and mentoring which had become commonplace for pupils on the borderline of target levels of achievement (typically, five A*-C grades at GCSE), many schools who felt that their performance levels made them vulnerable had apparently sought out what they believed to be easier ways for pupils to meet targets. In particular, they had directed their pupils towards GNVQ awards which tended to be more vocationally-oriented and applied than traditional GCSEs and which in any case counted as the equivalent of four GCSEs. It thus became possible for pupils to hit the five GCSE target by taking one GNVQ and one GCSE (perhaps in a non-academic subject), or, indeed, to amass a large number of GCSE equivalent passes by taking a much smaller number of GNVQs. These practices, of course, meant that pupils might be less likely to take GCSEs in the core subjects of English and Maths, with the implication that the progress (however dubious) made by the introduction of literacy and numeracy strategies in the primary phase was not being built on by secondary schools. Indeed, although 55.7% of pupils were gaining five A*-C grades at GCSE or equivalent, only 41% included English and Maths amongst their achievements. Likewise, although the five GCSE equivalent measure showed many schools to be improving since 2001, only 17% of these were still shown to have improved when performance was measured in terms of the five GCSE measure including English and Maths. (TES 21.10.05)
There were similar problems in other areas of performance. Despite successive initiatives, truancy figures showed a record rise of nearly 10% to their highest recorded level. (Garner, R, 22.09.05, Independent, A tough nut to crack Why Blair is failing at his main subject). There were similar issues in respect of admissions both to schools and to higher education. The choice and diversity agenda inherited from previous Conservative governments but accelerated by New Labour meant that families could, in principle, exercise some degree of choice over the schools to which they sent their children, and thereby could make school provision contestible as a means of driving up overall quality. However, it became clear during the year that many families some 70,0000 in all - simply did not get their first choice schools. Although the problem was particularly acute in London, even outside of the capital only 85% of families were offered their first choice. (Baker, M. 21.10.05, TES, Which is the fairest path of all?)
At the same time, it was also increasingly clear that choice processes were creating local hierarchies of schools and that the apparent success of some schools depended on having a place in the hierarchy which enabled them to fill their places with higher-attaining pupils from more resourceful families. The Sutton Trust, for example, reported that only 3% of pupils in the secondary schools with the highest levels of performance at GCSE were eligible for fress school meals ADDIN EN.CITE Trust20051798101798The Sutton Trust2005Rates of Eligibility for Free School Meals at the Top State SchoolsThe Sutton TrustOctober 2005http://www.suttontrust.com/reports/RatesOfEligibilityforFreeSchoolMealsattheTopStateSchools.pdf, accessed 21 October 2005(Sutton Trust, 2005). The further finding that the postcode neighbourhoods in which these schools were located had eligibility rates of around 12% confirmed the suspicions of many that forms of overt, covert or unwitting selection were being practised by schools that were in a position to do so. Likewise, there were indications that the apparent success of some academies was due not to their capacity to benefit the poorest families in the poorest parts of Britain, as the Prime Minister claimed, but to precisely the opposite of this. A report in The Guardian ADDIN EN.CITE Taylor2005182851828Taylor, Matthew2005Are city academies really helping the poorest children?The GuardianLondon8-931 October 2005(Taylor, 2005) confirmed Blairs claim that recruitment to city academies was buoyant. However, it suggested that two thirds of them were recruiting fewer - in some cases, far fewer - pupils who were entitled to free school meals than had the failing schools which they replaced. Given that city academies were proposed by Government as a way of revitalising schooling in the poorest areas of towns and cities, this finding raised the question of whether some of them at least were not simply drawing in pupils from other, less disadvantaged areas or retaining local families who mightotherwise have gone to nearby schools with more favourable reputations.
In terms of university admissions, the widening participation agenda advanced vigorously by New Labour governments was enjoying mixed fortunes. To be sure, there was evidence that more students from poor family backgrounds were gaining places at prestigious universities (Sutton Trust, State School Admissions to our Leading Universities. An update to the missing 3000, March 2005 ). At the same time, however, the percentage of state school recruits to universities fell for the first time and the drop out rate amongst first year students increased (Garner, R. 22.09.05, Independent, Education Education Education: a triple blow for the Government). There were similar mixed results for other key planks of the governments strategy simultaneously to deliver equity and excellence. The evaluation of Sure Start, the family support programme aimed amongst other things at ensuring young children from disadvantaged backgrounds would be best placed to take advantage of their schooling, was asked to report interim findings. As yet, however, it was unable to find any evidence that the 3bn investment was producing anything but the most modest improvements in outcomes, and that these tended to be associated with the less disadvantaged amongst itsintended beneficiaries ADDIN EN.CITE Start20051845101845National Evaluation of Sure Start2005National Evaluation Report: Early impacts of Sure Start Local Programmes on children and families. research report NESS/2005/FR/013LondonDfES(NESS, 2005).
The Government response
It is important not to over-state the negative nature of the feedback which Government received in 2005 on the impacts of its education policy. Much of that feedback like the primary attainment analysis cited above reported some progress for some parts of the education system on some indicators. To this extent, the evidence continued to suggest that incremental improvement was possible. Had the New Labour education project been less ambitious, then this incremental improvement might well have nbeen cause for quiet satisfaction. However, squaring the circle of equity and excellence requires something more. Whatever else the evidence indicated, it did not suggest that New Labour policy was bringing about the sort of profound transformation that would be needed to break the established link between background and achievement. Clearly, something significantly different was called for. As the Prime Minister himself put it:
That is why I am so restless for change, not because I do not recognise the huge progress that we have made as a country in the last 8 years - I do - not because I want to pick another fight for the sake of it, I have enough of them already, but because whilst there remain schools, not some, hundreds of them, where fewer than half of the children get the results they need at 16, when for all the progress there are still 17,000 children that leave school every year without any qualifications, whilst that remains I cannot rest, I will not, until we do all in our power to root out and change that failure.
ADDIN EN.CITE Blair20051821161821Blair, Tony2005Education and regeneration. 18 November 2005London10 Downing Street200521 November 2005http://www.numberten.gov.uk/output/Page8547.asp(Blair, 2005a)
Ruth Kelly, reviewing the evidence on social mobility and on the background-achievement link in primary schools, took a similar stance:
Weve made real progress since 1997. And we should be very very proud of it. But I am clear that we cannot stop here. Reform remains incomplete if we are to achieve the education system that our people deserve. So there is no better time than now to ask searching questions about the next steps towards a socially just society, a society where background is no barrier to success and social mobility is a reality. Over the next four or five years and beyond, we have to find the courage to keep on asking the difficult questions.
ADDIN EN.CITE Kelly20051772161772Kelly, Ruth2005Education and social progress. 26 July 2005LondonDfES20054 Augusthttp://www.dfes.gov.uk/speeches/speech.cfm?SpeechID=242(Kelly, 2005)
The rededication to reform by both Kelly and Blair was abundantly clear. What was much less clear, we suggest, was the direction that reform should take. On the one hand, policy-makers might interpret the negative feedback they were receiving as an indication of the necessary to go further in a direction of travel already mapped out the direction of standards and marketisation relentlessly pursued since 1997. On the other hand, they might decide that going further had to mean, in practice, travelling in a different direction. The former decision would imply that the what works agenda was still the right one to pursue and that it was still possible to find the right levers to pull in order to square the excellence-equity circle. The latter decision might imply something different that what was needed was not simply some practical strategies, but a more fundamental rethink of how the contradiction between equity and excellence aroise in the first place and about what sort of education system might be needed to bring about its reconciliation.
Our contention is that much of education policy-making in 2005 can be understood as a contenst between these positions. We do not wish to suggest that the contest was open, nor that its participants were necessarily fully aware what it was that they were engaged in. nonetheless, it is, we suggest, the reality of this contest and the uncertain nature of its outcome that makes 2005 a pivotal moment.
Steady as we go?
Many of the years policy developments can be read as an attempt to pursue the existing direction of travel. Many of them, for instance, had been outlined in the previous years Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners ADDIN EN.CITE DfES2004161811618DfES2004Five Year Strategy for Children and LearnersLondonThe Stationery Office(DfES, 2004), which ensured some continuity of policy-making between the second and third New Labour terms. Likewise, although a new Education Act was pased, its provisions were largely about tidying up the existing system and and making it function more efficiently. Hence, it paved the way for the shorter, sharper school inspections, more predictable and manageable three-year school budgets, and school profiles, shorter documents to replace the annual governors' report and parents' meeting.
Other reforms, too, simply intensified existing policy approaches. The continued scholarisation of the early years was a case in point. In November, the Government introduced a Childcare Bill ADDIN EN.CITE 200518301718302005Childcare Bill54/1802005-068 November 2005(2005) which, amongst other things, would require every registered nursery and childminder to follow a new Early Years Foundation Stage comprising guidance on learning and development from birth to five. The proposal to regulate early learning and development in this way produced a predictable outcry in the press and from early years specialists ADDIN EN.CITE Ward2005183151831Ward, Lucy2005Toddler curriculum criticised by European education expertThe GuardianLondon1315 November 2005(Ward, 2005), but in fact it represents an extension of two existing strands of policy. The Government had been making efforts for some time to create a more extensive, coherent and accessible pattern of childcare to release parents for paid work. It had also long sought to regulate and improve childrens early learning and developmental experiences for instance, through the Sure Start initiative and through the Foundation Stage in educational settings as a means of equipping children with the necessary tools for tackling the school curriculum proper. The curriculum for toddlers, therefore, constituted an attempt to find another lever to pull to achieve well-established ends in a context where existing policies were proving less than totally effective.
At the other end of the age range, a series of developments around 14-19 education, FE college provision and vocational training can be read as more of the same. The Tomlinson review of 14-19 curriculum in the previous year ADDIN EN.CITE Tomlinson20041657101657Tomlinson, Mike (chair)2004Report of the Working Group on 14-19 Reform(Tomlinson, 2004) invited the Government to undertake a radical overhaul of a phase of education which had become a rather ramshackle mixture of traditional academic qualifications and a plethora of more vocationally-oriented pathways, with provision divided between schools, sixth form colleges, FE colleges and others. Tomlinson advocated a single diploma to incorporate both vocational and academic pathways, a reduction in the amount of assessment required of students, and a reorientation toeards more imaginative and integrated modes of assessment.
It was clear as soon as Tomlinson was published that the Government was unhappy with radical proposals which might threaten the traditional pathways to academic excellence, even if retaining these meant perpetuating the academic-vocational divide which has bedevilled secondary and post-secondary education in England for generations and even if this in turn meant consigning large numbers of learners to pathways widely perceived to be second-rate. Nonetheless, in February, the Government launched its White Paper on 14-19 education and skills ADDIN EN.CITE Government20051656311656HM Government200514-19 Education and Skills. Cm 6476LondonHMSO(HM Government, 2005a), followed shortly by a Skills White Paper ADDIN EN.CITE DfES20051832311832DfES2005Skills: Getting on in business, getting on at work. Cm 6483-1LondonHMSO(DfES, 2005e) focused on learning in and around the workplace and later in the year by the publication of the Foster review of FE colleges ADDIN EN.CITE Foster20051833101833Foster, Sir Andrew2005Realising the PotentialLondonDfESNovember 2005(Foster, 2005) and the Learning and Skills Councils funding plan ADDIN EN.CITE LSC20051846101846LSC2005Priorities for Success: Funding for learning and skills 2006-2008CoventryLearning and Skills Council(LSC, 2005).
The rhetoric surrounding these developments was one of fundamental change. The 14-19 White Paper, for instance, articulated a radical ambition:
to transform secondary and postsecondary education so that all young people achieve and continue in learning until at least the age of 18.
ADDIN EN.CITE Government20051656311656HM Government200514-19 Education and Skills. Cm 6476LondonHMSO(HM Government, 2005a: 4
The avowed aim was to create a system of post-14 provision which is vocationally-oriented, where employers have a greater say in shaping provision to their needs (for instance, through National Skills Academies), which offers a coherent ladder of provision and awards up which learners can progress, and which offers incentives and support for learners who are in danger of becoming stuck at the bottom of that ladder. Insofar as this marks a vocationalisation of post-14 provision, it is, of course, entirely in line with the underlying economic orientation of Government education policy. The creation of coherent, vocationally-oriented pathways is likely to deliver all learners into the labour marketplace with more economically-useful and saleable skills not least those most at risk of social exclusion who may have given up on academic pathways and might otherwise disengage from education entirely.
At the same time, the 14-19 White Paper opted for the preservation of GCSEs and A levels in much their current form, as cornerstones of the new system ADDIN EN.CITE Government20051656311656HM Government200514-19 Education and Skills. Cm 6476LondonHMSO(HM Government, 2005a: 6), thus stopping some way short of the radical reforms proposed by Tomlinson. This can, of course, be read as an exercise in realpolitik a concern about media reaction if gold standard exams were abolished, covered by a rhetoric of transformation. However, it can also be read as a continuing commitment to the proposition that policies for excellence can be pursued in parallel with policies for equity, and that hard choices between fundamentally different agendas are unnecessary.
New directions?
However, not all policy developments in 2005 can be read as more of the same. As the inadequacies of current approaches became more apparent, alternative policy directions began to emerge, either through entirely new initiatives or through the accelaration of existing trends.
One policy area in which this was true was over the question of school autonomy. In 1997, New Labour inherited a school system in which the power of local education authorities had been considerably weakened and schools were encouraged to pursue their own institutional interests in an increasingly autonomous manner. This increase in autonomy was essential for the efficient working of a market in schooling and for holding individual schools to account for the standards of achievement they were able to generate. At first, therefore, New Labour seemed content for schools to act with a high degree of independence both of their LEAs and of each other, exercising control through national accountability frameworks and through centrally-devised programmes and strategies.
However, the model of autonomous, competitive schools creates a highly fragmented system which is inefficient in terms of sharing expertise and resource, engendering and disseminating local innovation, or creating units for the delivery of area-based services. Accordingly, in recent years, Government sponsored a range of initiatives aimed at promoting inter-institutional collaboration - for instance in Excellence in Cities partnerships and Excellence Clusters, in the Leadership Incentives Grants initiative, the requirement on specialist colleges to share their expertise with other schools and the invitation to special schools to develop collaborative relationships with their maisntream counterparts ADDIN EN.CITE DfES20031432101432DfES2003Report of the Special Schools Working GroupLondonDfES(DfES, 2003d) and the Networked Learning Communities sponsored by the National College for School Leadership. In 2005, this trend was given further impetus by the launch of Education Improvement Partnerships (EIPs). The EIP prospectus ADDIN EN.CITE DfES2005183411834DfES2005Education Improvement Partnerships: Local collaboration for school improvement
and better service deliveryLondonDfES(DfES, 2005a) articulated the rationale for partnership in the following terms:
The Government attaches great importance to learning from effective partnership working. High quality collaboration is a key complement to the working of strong autonomous institutions. Confident schools want to collaborate with others in their community to drive a shared agenda for improving standards, to share resources and good practice, to ensure high quality provision for all young people and to underpin community cohesion.
ADDIN EN.CITE DfES2005183411834DfES2005Education Improvement Partnerships: Local collaboration for school improvement
and better service deliveryLondonDfES(DfES, 2005a: Foreword)
Of course, all of this may have been no more than an attempt to ameliorate some of the perverse consequences of the 1997 system without embarking on any radically new policy direction. However, in the context of a new localism ADDIN EN.CITE Aspden20051813101813Jane Aspden Demelza Birch2005New Localism – Citizen Engagement, Neighbourhoods and Public Services:
Evidence from Local GovernmentLondonODPM(Aspden & Birch, 2005) across much government policy, the change may be more fundamental than this. The prospectus, for instance, outlined a model of the location of EIPs in the policy arena which places them at the centre of interactions between national priorities, local authority strategy, local community needs and schools leading reform ADDIN EN.CITE DfES2005183411834DfES2005Education Improvement Partnerships: Local collaboration for school improvement
and better service deliveryLondonDfES(DfES, 2005a): Foreword). This is significant in the shifting of partnerships to centre stage and in the introduction of local community needs as a factor shaping provision. Both are very different from the linear and hierarchical command structure which had been developed in education since 1988, and from the attempts by the first New Labour Government to standardise practice through the National Strategies.
It is no coincidence that part of the rationale for EIPs was that they would be better able than individual schools to respond to the Every Child Matters agenda ADDIN EN.CITE DfES2003143411434DfES2003Every Child Matters. Cm. 5860LondonThe Stationery Office(DfES, 2003a). Here too, we see a recently-emerged strategy given further impetus by a new development in 2005 this time, aspects of the Childcare Bill dealing with school provision, and the launch of an extended schools prospectus ADDIN EN.CITE DfES2005177611776DfES2005Extended schools: Access to opportunities and services for all. A prospectusLondonDfES(DfES, 2005b). Every Child Matters was, of course, concerned with the development of integrated child and family services, working to generate shared outcomes. In its original form, the emphasis was very much on the reconfiguration of services at local authority level, with a few exemplary full service extended schools ADDIN EN.CITE DfES2003169211692DfES2003Full-Service Extended Schools Planning DocumentsLondonDfESDfES2003178611786DfES2003Full Service Extended Schools: Requirements and specificationsLondonDfES(DfES, 2003b, 2003c) becoming heavily involved in areas of disadvantage. What is significant about the 2005 developments is that they envisaged the involvement of all schools to differing extents in delivering child, family and community services. This is very different from the deliberately narrow focus on driving up standards of attainment which was promoted as the sole concern of schools during the first New Labour term though, with typical ambiguity, DfES is ensuring that the National Remodelling Team, which is playing a latge part in the roll out of extended schooling, is busily reassuring teachers that the initiative is about removing barriers to learning and rasing pupil achievement, and that teachers will remain focused on their core areas of professional expertise ADDIN EN.CITE Team20051835161835National Remodelling Team2005What does it mean for teachers?LondonNRT20055decemberhttp://www.remodelling.org/programmes/es/wdimfm_teachers.php(NRT, 2005).
Ambiguities such as this are important to bear in mind. There has been no wholesale recantation in 2005 and new directions are emerging tentatively, if at all. Nonetheless, the models of collaboratively-minded schools (and colleges, post-16), working with each other and with a range of other providers to deliver a wide range of services to children, families and communities, is something that would have been inconceivable in 1997 or, for that matter, in 2001.
The Schools White Paper tipping point or impasse?
Of all the developments in 2005, the one that has attracted most political and public attention has been the publication of the Schools White Paper, Higher Standards, Better Schools for All ADDIN EN.CITE Government2005180011800HM Government2005Higher Standards, Better Schools For All:
More choice for parents and pupils. Cm6677LondonHMSO(HM Government, 2005b). Here, above all, we see the tensions in Government strategy between an intensification of existing policy directions and the tentative emerge of new directions.
The main proposals of the White Paper are by now well known: the creation of self-governing trust schools involving external partners; the establishment of parent councils to monitor parents interests in these schools and, if necessary, trigger the replacement of the schools leadership; the further extension of the academies programme alongside trust schools; the provision of better information for parents in choosing schools and of extended free transport for children from poorer families; support for parents to set up their own schools; an increased emphasis on one-to-one tuition and on setting and streaming; the requirement for a competition to determine the providers of new schools or replacements for failing schools; the easing of restrictions on the expansion of successful schools; and the reformulation of the local authoritys role as commissioner of provision and champion for parents.
Equally significant is the rationale for change offered by Tony Blair and Ruth Kelly in their respective foreords to the White Paper. For Blair, the history of education in England since the Second World War is one of parents not least, middle class parents driving successive reforms of the system so that it more nearly meets their needs. Just as comprehensive schools overcame some of the problems of the tripartite system, so further improvements have been brought about by the New Labour reforms that have re-energised the comprehensive system. In particular, he argues:
Parent choice can be a powerful driver of school standards.
ADDIN EN.CITE Government2005180011800HM Government2005Higher Standards, Better Schools For All:
More choice for parents and pupils. Cm6677LondonHMSO(HM Government, 2005b : 3)
However,
While parents can express a choice of school, there are not yet enough good schools in urban areas; such restrictions are greatest for poor and middle class families who cannot afford to opt for private education or to live next to a good school, if they are dissatisfied with what the state offers.
ADDIN EN.CITE Government2005180011800HM Government2005Higher Standards, Better Schools For All:
More choice for parents and pupils. Cm6677LondonHMSO(HM Government, 2005b: 4)
This is, of course, a very conservative (with both a large and a small c) rationale, insofar as it picks up the choice and diversity approach developed by the Conservative Government in the 1980s and 1990s ADDIN EN.CITE DfE199260160DfE1992<styles><style face='2'></style></styles>Choice and Diversity : a New Framework for SchoolsLondonHMSOlegislation(DfE, 1992), and pursued by New Labour governments since 1997. To this extent, the White Papers proposals for a diversification of school type, an increased role for parental choice and a reduction in the direct management responsibilities of local authorities is nothing new. The trust schools themselves are simply a further development in the long line of quasi-independent schools that began with the City Technology Colleges of the 1980s. Significantly, both opponents and proponents of the White Paper have presented it in these terms. Estelle Morris, former Secretary of State for Education, but nonetheless dubious about the White Papers approach, commented that:
Im not sure its as radical as it was trailedthe extra freedoms that will make schools self-governing, independent state schools are not that obvious on first reading. The remaining powers of LEAs have been exaggerated so their further demise is less significant than might be expectedI cant see much parent power, Im pleased to say.
ADDIN EN.CITE White2005183651836White, Michael2005Reactionthe GuardianLondon1326 October 2005(White, 2005)
Likewise, Will Hutton, an apologist for that approach, pointed out that:
The white paper goes nowehere near the idea of educational vouchers, which would have meant the permanent stratification of schools along class linesThe increased independence over selection is limitedIn reality the white paper democratises the choices that the middle classes already enjoy and the structures they prefer.
ADDIN EN.CITE Hutton2005183751837Hutton, Will2005At last our schools have been set freeThe ObserverLondon3030 0ctober 2005(Hutton, 2005)
On the other hand, both of these commentators pointed to the contradictory nature of the White Paper. For Hutton, the contradictions originate beyond the White Paper itself in a British social system which espouses equality but is predicated in fact upon privilege and inequality. For too long, he argued,
The best the ideal of universal, non-selective comprehensive education has been the enemy of the good, a state system that gets as near as possible to equality of opportunity in the world we live in. the white paper breaks the deadlock.
ADDIN EN.CITE Hutton2005183751837Hutton, Will2005At last our schools have been set freeThe ObserverLondon3030 0ctober 2005(Hutton, 2005)
For Morris, ADDIN EN.CITE Morris2005183851838Morris, Estelle2005A contradiction in termsThe GuardianLondon422 November 2005(2005), the White Paper was marked by contradictions between high-profile measures which, she argued, will make little difference, and more low-profile measures which might potentially make a considerable contribution to the development of the education system. The most interesting parts, she argued, were not the ones to do with choice and diversity, but a less-trumpeted series of proposals designed to encourage schools to collaborate with each other in line, of course, with the developments we have noted above.
Nor were these the only aspects of the White Paper which sterngthened the emerging new directions of policy. It was for instance, suffused with the spirit of localism aslbeit of a somewhat ambiguous kind. Although, therefore, the parents who become involved in parent councils or in setting up their own schools may well prove to be a self-selecting, middle-class group, it is not impossible that a more representative cross-section, supported by local authorities, will begin to play a role in governance that traditional school governing bodies have largely failed to undertake. Likewise, although trust schools may attract large corporate partners with few local roots, it is notable that the initial reaction from such organisations was cautious ADDIN EN.CITE Shaw2005183951839Shaw, MichaelSlater, JonMeghji, Shafik2005Firms say no to trust schoolsTESLondon125 November 2005(Shaw et al., 2005) and that other types of organisations with a more local focus - such as housing associations, universities or local businesses might be equally or more likely to become involved.
These contradictions and ambiguities are perhaps most obviuous in the most controversial aspect of the White Paper its proposals with regard to admissions. For many years, admissions to state schools were controlled by LEAs using a mixture of catchment areas and (to a decreasing extent) selection by ability. The 1988 Education Reform Act replaced that system with one notionally based on parental choice. However, since admissions continued to be managed by LEAs, since many schools continued to operate with local criteria for admission and since popular schools could not easily expand, the effects may have been less dramatic than has commonly been supposed ADDIN EN.CITE Gorard2002161701617Gorard, StephenTaylor, ChrisFitz, John2002Does school choice lead to "spirals of decline"?Journal of Education Policy173367-384Gorard2001161601616Gorard, StephenFitz, JohnTaylor, Chris2001School choice impacts: what do we know?Educational Researcher30718-23(Gorard et al., 2001, 2002). In many ways and certainly at the level of rhetoric - the White Paper simply reinforced the now-established principle of choice. However, the prospect of a wide diversity of schools, many responding carefully to local circumstances, able to expand and federate more easily and with greater practical support for families in the process of choosing, potentially, as Hutton argues, creates a very different context within which choice might be exercised. It certainly does not, as critics have pointed out, create a stock of equally good schools in every locality such that choice becomes irrelevant. Neither, however, is it simply a continuation of the situation which New Labour inherited in 1997. Then, most families were faced with a choice between schools which did a broadly similar job in broadly similar ways, but with outcomes which were sharply differentiated so that local hierarchies were entrenched and access to schools at the top of those hierarchies was strictly limited. The White Paper, however, may in time create a situation in which choice is exercised between schools perhaps, groups of schools - trying to achieve very different things in very different ways.
A pivotal moment?
Presenting her considered opinion on the White Paper, Morris drew attention to its contradictions in the following terms:
The schools white paper must be one of the most contradictory documents ever produced by government. Its advance publicity was all about choice, consumer power and freedom. But the content has a strong commitment to social justice and a powerful analysis of how education can help to deliver it. The big question, of course, is whether one can be used to achieve the other
ADDIN EN.CITE Morris2005183851838Morris, Estelle2005A contradiction in termsThe GuardianLondon422 November 2005(Morris, 2005)
In so doing, she brings us back to the theme of this paper the relationship between excellence and equity in New Labour policy and, specifically, the New Labour project of reconciling essentially Thatcherite policies with a concern for social justice.
We have argued that Government policy in 2005 has, regardless of any successes it might have claimed, also had to respond to the limitations and failures of this project as originally conceptualised. One response, we have suggested, has been to intensify its established approach. It has adhered unflinchingly to its relentless pursuit of the standards and of market-based reforms, whilst surrounding them with measures to ensure that the most vulnerable groups and individuals are not left behind. Indeed, taking the early years and post-14 reforms together with the Schools White Paper, it is arguable that 2005 has witnessed the finaal pieces in the jigsaw of cradle-to-grave educational provision, characterised throughout by high standards, high degrees of public accoiuntability, and contestability, together with multiple second chances and support mechanisms for those at most risk of social and educational exclusion. However, we have also argued that, at the same time, new policy formations have begun to emerge or to be clarified: there is an emerging reconfiguration of the relationship between national government, local government, local communities and educational institutions; the role of schools is, potentially at least, beginning to be redefined; and the meaning of choice might be quite different in the new landscape which is now beginning to emerge.
Our explanation for these twin developments is hinted at by both Morris and Hutton. The New Labour education project is inherently contradictory ADDIN EN.CITE Brehony2005184201842Brehony, Kevin J.2005Primary schooling under New Labour: the irresolvable contradiction of excellence and enjoymentOxford Review of Education31129-46(Brehony, 2005). It takes for granted the unequal distribution of personal, family and systemic educational resources and the need to enable those who start with most to achieve most. It is, in other words, predicated on a commitment to excellence of a very particular and socially-conservative kind. Yet, at the same time, it is predicated on a commitment to equity which seems to imply a redistribution of resources. Caught in the tension between these two imperatives, it is not surprising that policy is restless and dynamic, that it searches constantly for the next fix which will reconcile these opposites, nor that it is continually faced with evidence of its own inadequacies.
In his apology for the White Paper, Will Hutton issues an important challenge. The Governments proposals, he argues, are the best compromise that can be managed in the world we live in. But, he continues,
anybody with a better idea of how we can break out of where we actually are, please come forward.
ADDIN EN.CITE Hutton2005183751837Hutton, Will2005At last our schools have been set freeThe ObserverLondon3030 0ctober 2005(Hutton, 2005)
In some ways, we wish to suggest, it is Government policy itself which is already coming forward with alternative approaches. The vision of locally-rooted schools, locked into collaborative networks, and working with a range of providers to deliver services to children, families and communities is very fdifferent from the system of fragmented, competitive and narrowly-focused schools which New Labour inherited and promoted in 1997. If we add in the schools and 14-19 white papers renewed emphasis on personalisation, implying flexible and responsive provision from early childhood through to adulthood, the differences seem even greater.
It remains to be seen how this potential unfolds. It is far from clear whether the divergence between the old and new policy approaches can be equated with a difference between Blairite and Brownite ideologies if, indeed, these exist as such and therefore the effects of any change in leadership remain uncertain. In any case, we see differences in policy approaches as emerging from ongoing, deep-seated contradictions rather than from any smooth succession of one policy approach by another. As if to prove the point, at the time of writing (December 2005) the main item of educational news is the Secretary of States endorsement of synthetic phonics ADDIN EN.CITE DfES20051840161840DfES2005Kelly welcomes interim Rose Review to boost children's readingLondonDfES20055 December 2005Press release. 1 December 2005http://www.dfes.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2005_0147(DfES, 2005d) a piece of centralised curriculum-narrowing that would have been absolutely normal during the most vigorous phase of the first New Labout Governments standards-based reforms.
Neither do we wish to argue that, simply because new policy approaches emerge from the equity-excellence contradiction, they must necessarily be more equitable than their predecessors. It is not difficult to imagine, for instance, schools collaborating on approaches which marginalise vulnerable students, or trust schools being captured by particular local interest groups. What we do wish to suggest, however, is that the apparent certainties of New Labour education policy are much more fragile than they appear, and that Tony Blairs renewed reforming zeal may open up new and unexpected policy directions. When, therefore, the Prime Minister described the current phase of policy-making as a pivotal moment, he may have been thinking in terms of a further push along established directions. when we agree that the current time may indeed be pivotal, we have something else in mind a wholesale reconfiguration of the policy landscape. That reconfiguration may as yet be more potential than actual. It may be fraught with contradiction and uncertain of outcome. Nonetheless, it may indeed prove to be pivotal.
References
ADDIN EN.REFLIST Aspden, J. & Birch, D. (2005) New Localism Citizen Engagement, Neighbourhoods and Public Services: Evidence from Local Government(London, ODPM).
Blair, T. (1997) Speech given by the Prime Minister on Monday 8 December 1997 at Stockwell Park School, Lambeth
Blair, T. (2005a) Education and regeneration. 18 November 2005 (London, 10 Downing Street).
Blair, T. (2005b) PM reflects on 'pivotal moment' for education (London, 10 Downing Street).
Blair, T. (2005c) Speech on education at 10 Downing Street. 24 October 2005 (London, 10 Downing Street).
Blair, T. (2005d) We are the change-makers(London, The Labour Party).
Blanden, J., Gregg, P. & Machin, S. (2005) Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America(London, Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics for The Sutton Trust).
Brehony, K.J. (2005) Primary schooling under New Labour: the irresolvable contradiction of excellence and enjoyment, Oxford Review of Education, 31(1), pp. 29-46.
Brehony, K.J. & Deem, R. (2003) Education policy, in: N. Ellison & C. Pierson (Eds) developments in British Social Policy 2 (Basingstoke, palgrave Macmillan).
DfE (1992) Choice and Diversity : a New Framework for Schools (London, HMSO).
DfES (2003a) Every Child Matters. Cm. 5860 (London, The Stationery Office).
DfES (2003b) Full Service Extended Schools: Requirements and specifications (London, DfES).
DfES (2003c) Full-Service Extended Schools Planning Documents (London, DfES).
DfES (2003d) Report of the Special Schools Working Group(London, DfES).
DfES (2004) Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners (London, The Stationery Office).
DfES (2005a) Education Improvement Partnerships: Local collaboration for school improvement and better service delivery (London, DfES).
DfES (2005b) Extended schools: Access to opportunities and services for all. A prospectus (London, DfES).
DfES (2005c) Has the social class gap narrowed in primary schools? A background note to accompany the talk by the Rt Hon Ruth Kelly MP, Secretary of State for Education and Skills, 26 July 2005 (London, DfES).
DfES (2005d) Kelly welcomes interim Rose Review to boost children's reading(London, DfES).
DfES (2005e) Skills: Getting on in business, getting on at work. Cm 6483-1(London, HMSO).
Foster, S.A. (2005) Realising the Potential(London, DfES).
Gorard, S., Fitz, J. & Taylor, C. (2001) School choice impacts: what do we know?, Educational Researcher, 30(7), pp. 18-23.
Gorard, S., Taylor, C. & Fitz, J. (2002) Does school choice lead to "spirals of decline"?, Journal of Education Policy, 17(3), pp. 367-384.
HC Bill, 2005-6, 80 (Childcare Bill)
HM Government (2005a) 14-19 Education and Skills. Cm 6476(London, HMSO).
HM Government (2005b) Higher Standards, Better Schools For All:
More choice for parents and pupils. Cm6677 (London, HMSO).
Hutton, W. (2005) At last our schools have been set freeThe Observer (London)
Kelly, R. (2005) Education and social progress. 26 July 2005(London, DfES).
Learning and Skills Council LSC (2005) Priorities for Success: Funding for learning and skills 2006-2008 (Coventry, Learning and Skills Council).
Morris, E. (2005) A contradiction in termsThe Guardian (London,
National Evaluation of Sure Start (NESS) (2005) National Evaluation Report: Early impacts of Sure Start Local Programmes on children and families. Research report NESS/2005/FR/013(London, DfES).
Shaw, M., Slater, J. & Meghji, S. (2005) Firms say no to trust schoolsTES (London,
Social Exclusion Unit (2001) Preventing Social Exclusion(London, Social Exclusion Unit).
Statistics Commission, (2005) Measuring Standards in English Primary Schools. Statistics Commission Report No.23 (London, Statistics Commission).
Taylor, M. (2005) Are city academies really helping the poorest children?The Guardian (London,
National Remodelling Team (N.R.T.) (2005) What does it mean for teachers?(London, NRT).
Tomlinson, M.(chair). (2004) Report of the Working Group on 14-19 Reform
Trust, T.S. (2005) Rates of Eligibility for Free School Meals at the Top State SchoolsThe Sutton Trust).
Tymms, P. (2004) Are standards rising in English primary schools?, British Educational Research Journal, 30(4), pp. 477-494.
Ward, L. (2005) Toddler curriculum criticised by European education expertThe Guardian (London,
White, M. (2005) Reaction, The Guardian (London)
Wolf, A. (2002) Does Education Matter? Myths about Education and Economic Growth (London, Penguin Books).
DRAFT
PAGE 28
; < = B X ! " W Y n o
ynjfb^bSK hL mH sH hL hL mH sH h! h*= hA< h> h> h> mH sH hVWi hVWi h hVWi 0J nHtH #j h hVWi UnHtHhVWi nHtH j hVWi UnHtHh hVWi nHtH h hVWi 5\nHtH "hVWi hVWi 5\mH nHsH tH hVWi h> hVWi mH sH hVWi 5\nHtH hVWi mH sH < = > ? @ A B X m ! " X Y o d gdVWi d gdVWi d gdVWi
+ B C d e # # # $ z$ $ & }- n. o. c0 d0 h9 i9 > > @ @ d gdVWi d gdVWi d ^gdVWi
) * + l ~ #
$
? @ 0 1 ? @ A B ~ + 9 @ A M N
. / ͽŵŒhVWi hBT j h Uj h Uh mH sH h h hly hM\ h j h Uh! h! mH sH h h mH sH h mH sH j h UmH sH h mH sH 8/
c d x ! ! ! "! ! H" h" " # $ $ $ $ $ & & & & & ' )' *' ) ) ) ) - |- - - - l. n. o. v. w. S0 T0 źŮ͗͐͢͞ h\] h* h@ h* hQ^ h h mH sH j h UmH sH hA< h* mH sH h* mH sH h* hZ hF h~dJ hCz hly hD h
] h j h UhCz hBT 8T0 a0 b0 c0 d0 m0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 $3 %3 ?5 @5 V5 W5 j5 n5 z5 6 6 H6 I6 68 78 D8 E8 S8 ^8 8 g9 h9 9 9 9 Q: R: S: u; ; ; c= d= j= k= = = = > > > > ? ȸȰԠ hZ h' h' h' h{" hvy hDa) mH sH h8 mH sH h* mH sH h mH sH j h UmH sH h8 hQ^ hD h h* h* h* mH sH j h Uh 9 ? ? @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A A yA A A A A D E >E FE E F F G G G G G G G G H H H H H H I I I Ĺıģıܘznz hV hE5 6mH sH hV hZ8 mH sH h mH sH hV hE5 mH sH hV h mH sH hT hT 6]mH sH hV mH sH hV hT mH sH hT mH sH h8 mH sH hD mH sH hZ mH sH h' h' hZ h' h j h U )@ G G K K ZV [V B] C] D] \] a gc ie e h i i n n o o o
t d gdVWi d ^`gdVWi d ^gdVWi d gdVWi d gdVWi I I I K K K K 7M ?M M M M O O O O O O Q Q Q R R R S S S S |V jW wW yW W W W X X X X X X X Y TY UY Z ɭ儏ل|| hp mH sH hV hJ mH sH hJ mH sH hB 6]mH sH h
] 6]mH sH hB mH sH h mH sH j h UmH sH h V mH sH hE5 mH sH hV hE5 6mH sH hV hE5 mH sH hV mH sH hZ8 mH sH -Z Z Z V[ W[ 1] 2] >] ?] @] A] B] C] \] x] }] ] ] /^ 5^ @^ D^ R^ V^ x^ |^ ^ ^ ^ ^ v_ _ _ ` ` ` a fc mc nc Xe Ye ge he ie oe e e e h h ɹɹɹɫɫɫɹɹɠ䠘 hwV h. hwV hwV mH sH h mH sH h 0 h 0 mH sH h 0 h 0 6]mH sH h4 mH sH h{" mH sH h 0 mH sH h3 hp mH sH h mH sH j h UmH sH hp mH sH hc! mH sH 2h h i i i i i ?j Bj `j cj j l n n o o o o o o o ,p -p 3p sp p p p r r #r $r r r r r s s s +s .s @s Hs s s s s s s s t
t .t 1t Nt Ot Qt ϿǷ׳ hv h h h h hv mH sH h} 6] h} h mH sH hOO mH sH h=[ mH sH hVWi mH sH h} mH sH h mH sH hwV mH sH hwV h j h U 9
t t 2| 3| { | G ӊ ` ! ) * : d gdVWi d ^gdVWi d gdVWi Qt Rt \t t t t t t t t t t v v v v w 9w rw sw -y .y :y ;y y y y y z 'z (z .z 3z b{ { { 1| 2| | } } L~ M~ ^~ _~ Q b ؼؼش̜hp mH sH hr9 mH sH h9 mH sH h; mH sH h 0 mH sH hR mH sH h mH sH h mH sH h mH sH j h UmH sH hcp mH sH h} mH sH h mH sH heU mH sH hOO mH sH 4 & ' R S Ʌ ʅ ׅ V W ч ҇ 1 2 3 4 G H p q Ê Ċ Ҋ ي ڊ E F [ \ _ ` d k o r 5 ļĸ̝̝ hCz mH sH hp$ mH sH h j h U hp h' h' hW@ mH sH h' mH sH heU mH sH h9 mH sH hr9 mH sH h`L@ mH sH j h UmH sH h mH sH 9
} Ȓ ɒ M m W X Y Ɣ K P U d r % / : ˗ Ƚȵȵ}} hb mH sH hl mH sH h,U mH sH hG! mH sH h2n mH sH h mH sH h
] mH sH hCz mH sH h2k 6]mH sH h2k mH sH h mH sH j h UmH sH heU mH sH heU hil mH sH hb8 mH sH 1 ( ) L h S T a b A B 9 : U V Ϣ آ l m ҥ ե ͦ Φ t u ļĵԡࡩ hL
mH sH h U mH sH hKS\ hKS\ hKS\ h2n mH sH hKS\ mH sH h mH sH j h UmH sH h
] mH sH hb mH sH hl mH sH hLP mH sH = / 0 ` Q T _ d ! . / ۬
Ů
3 ֯ ׯ 8 ûûݳݳûûóûû hZ@6 6]mH sH hV% hV% mH sH hV% mH sH h mH sH hZ@6 mH sH h mH sH j h UmH sH hL
hL
6]mH sH hL
mH sH hZ mH sH h U mH sH h U h U mH sH 48 ; ? | ط q r s 6 < d e f ż ˼ . Q R | } њww h mH sH h% mH sH h _ mH sH h 6]mH sH h mH sH hQ^ mH sH hc mH sH hV% mH sH h# hZ h*G mH sH h mH sH j h UmH sH h# mH sH hZ@6 mH sH hZ mH sH hZ 6]mH sH - r s R S P F 7 hd ^hgdVWi d ^gdVWi d gdVWi d gdVWi R S t u L c d $ % 0 1 e g ~ % &
ƒƒƒƒhL%d hL%d mH sH hc mH sH hL%d mH sH h~8 mH sH h*G mH sH h mH sH j h UmH sH hK| mH sH h^# mH sH h j h Uh% h% h% h mH sH h% mH sH h% h% mH sH 2 > ? V W E G C D E F Z o = > - . J S F t ɦɦɦɦɦɹɹɹɹɹɞ h mH sH h8 mH sH h* h8 mH sH h@ mH sH h^# mH sH h*G mH sH hL%d hL%d mH sH h mH sH j h UmH sH h* mH sH hL%d mH sH > a b b c u e @ A B B C
&
d ^gdVWi d gdVWi d gdVWi ` a
? a b u k l / 0 > ? 5 z 5 6 7 > ԼԼĴԴ쬼으 h|2 mH sH h3 mH sH hK~ mH sH h8 mH sH h+ mH sH h/ mH sH h*G mH sH h\O& mH sH h@ mH sH h mH sH j h UmH sH h mH sH = 7 ' G A B z : > K N 4
&
'
9
:
Y K < h ̴̴̴ܨܨܨܨܨܨܨܨ h h 6mH sH h mH sH hQ^ mH sH hv4 mH sH h{ mH sH h9^ mH sH h mH sH j h UmH sH h+ mH sH hKr mH sH A&
= _ b
> 0 | N > F k 0d ^`0gdVWi k 0 F x g s " e l M q * j ƾ h) 0J mH nH u
hVWi 0J j hVWi 0J UhVWi hVWi hVWi 5\ hVWi 5\ hX j hX Uh mH sH j h UmH sH hD mH sH h mH sH h h 6mH sH h 6mH sH 6 / ~ \ a X
0d ^`0gdVWi d ^gdVWi 0d ^`0gdVWi $a$gdVWi $a$gdVWi h mH sH hX hVWi j hVWi 0J U , 1h . A!"#$% 9 01h P :pVWi . A!"#$% D y K d . a . d y s o n @ m a n c h e s t e r . a c . u k y K D m a i l t o : d . a . d y s o n @ m a n c h e s t e r . a c . u k d D @ @ @ N o r m a l CJ _HaJ mH sH tH Z @ Z G! H e a d i n g 1 $ < @& 5CJ KH OJ QJ \^J aJ \ @ \ A< H e a d i n g 2 $ < @& 56CJ OJ QJ \]^J aJ V @ V G! H e a d i n g 3 $ < @& 5CJ OJ QJ \^J aJ D A@ D D e f a u l t P a r a g r a p h F o n t R i R T a b l e N o r m a l 4
l 4 a ( k ( N o L i s t 4 ^@ 4 A< N o r m a l ( W e b ) B ' B l C o m m e n t R e f e r e n c e CJ aJ < < l C o m m e n t T e x t CJ aJ @ j @ l C o m m e n t S u b j e c t 5\H 2H l B a l l o o n T e x t CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ 4 @ B4 VWi H e a d e r
9r 4 @ R4 VWi F o o t e r
9r 6 U@ a6 VWi H y p e r l i n k >*B*ph . )@ q. VWi P a g e N u m b e r Z Y@ Z ) D o c u m e n t M a p -D M
CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ " X .X < = > ? @ A B X m ! " X Y o + B C
d e z }% n& o& c( d( h1 i1 6 6 8 8 ? ? C C ZN [N BU CU DU \U Y g[ i] ] ` a a f f g g g
l l 2t 3t {x |x G ӂ ` ! ) * : r s R S պ ν P F 7 a b b c u e @ A B B C & = _ b > 0 | N
> F k /
~
\ a X
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " 0 " 0 Y 0 Y 0 Y 0 Y 0 Y 0 Y 0 Y 0 Y 0 Y 0 Y 0 Y 0 " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " 0 DU 0 DU 0 DU 0 DU 0 DU 0 DU 0 DU 0 DU 0 DU 0 DU 0 DU ( 0 DU 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g 0 g ( 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 " 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y 0 0 @y 0 0 y 00 @y 0 0 y 00 @y 0 0 y 00 @y 0 0 @ 0 y 00 h@@ 0 y 0 0 g@y 0 0 H #
/ T0 ? I Z h Qt 8 @
t &
) ? 0 ? @
M
) ! ! v& S( a( $+ ?- V- H. 60 D0 3 c5 j5 7 8 8 E G G J K K VS 1U >U m[ X] g] ` a a h j #j l n n ro -q :q u Lv ^v z | &| R| } } V~ ق E [ S a A l ͞ t . ֧ e ܺ | Խ t c $ 0 % V = k / > 6 & 9 XQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ # ! 8 @ 0 (
B
S ? n $ o $ p $ q ԏ_ r 2$ s D2$ t ;$ u O v K w M x )
y E z J { #Y | @#
} <$ ~ T" Q 1$ $ \P \T . . m m w J J * * LC LC I I yO yO O
5 5 s Q Q * * RC RC I I ~O O O
: *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsStreet _ *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/Z *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/Z *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/; *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsaddress V *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/h
*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity0http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags x9f
) + l m ~
80 D0 G0 S0 U0 g1 i1 1 1 Q2 v3 3 e5 j5 l5 5 8 y9 z9 9 9 < < F= G= = = > > ? ? ? ? ? ? @ @ @ @ A A A A %C &C C C C C ?E @E E G G G J K K K K K ZN [N |N ~N N N jO kO wO yO O O O O P P P P P P Q
Q TQ UQ R R R R VS 3U 7U 9U >U DU }U ~U U U 5V 7V DV EV VV WV |V }V W W X X f[ Z] g] i] ] a Bb Cb cb db b b d d f f g g g g g g ,h .h 3h j j j j j @k l 1l 2l Ql Rl l l l l l l l n n n ro /q :q =q q q q q r r bs cs s s 1t 3t t t u Nv ^v `v x x {x |x z | | | &| )| R| } } } ~ ~ V~ 2 3 4 5 G ` r s 5 7 p q p q p q } ~ W Y ƌ Ȍ ! K L P Q ˏ ̏ ( * L M U a c A 9 ؚ ٚ n ՝ ֝ ͞ v / 0 T U d e " . 1 Ŧ Ʀ ֧ ; < ? B د گ q s d Q S պ ~ c & 0 3 g h
P G H = > D F Z [ 7 . 0 S T F G t v ` b p q ? A a c e 1 > @ A B 5 " > @ A C > ? % : { } ! " A C " # h j k m =
?
0 2 H I M O U W Y [ i k m n x z
.
/
s
u
|
~
2 4 $ & ~ $ e f k o q s j l " 5 ) # # 0 0 6 6 B B C C O O {Q Q X X e e ik mk 0y =y G ҂ L X ! ( s Q Y c t _ n = j 1 & ) ! r u _ { M
% / k
.
~
[ H J d f J L A 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 B X " 6 + 7 8 g g ق ` ܺ Խ k 2 _ X n 1AbF! ~ 2Gİh h h^h`OJ PJ QJ ^J o( - 8 8^8`OJ QJ ^J o( h H o ^`OJ QJ o( h H ^ `OJ QJ o( h H ^ `OJ QJ ^J o( h H o x x^x`OJ QJ o( h H H H^H`OJ QJ o( h H ^`OJ QJ ^J o( h H o ^`OJ QJ o( h H h h^h`OJ QJ o( h H ^`OJ QJ ^J o( h H o p p^p`OJ QJ o( h H @ @ ^@ `OJ QJ o( h H ^`OJ QJ ^J o( h H o ^`OJ QJ o( h H ^`OJ QJ o( h H ^`OJ QJ ^J o( h H o P P^P`OJ QJ o( h H ^`OJ PJ QJ ^J o( - ^`OJ QJ ^J o( h H o p p^p`OJ QJ o( h H @ @ ^@ `OJ QJ o( h H ^`OJ QJ ^J o( h H o ^`OJ QJ o( h H ^`OJ QJ o( h H ^`OJ QJ ^J o( h H o P P^P`OJ QJ o( h H 2G 1Ab R_D Z>2 , Ssa 3f 0 ;, @2Q4U 3f 0 gBv. LW1o
. 1o "sLs U xt: 3f 0 pk RKk, -wX7U
9 +Pe ]DQCm % x*% rF'-v21 Kk,.QU -v21~6H 0J5 % q)6]D t:S 3f 0 J;9 (OE QF@2Q 3f 0 ~6Hpk K(OE 3f 0 wX7UY, u U `2CU .QU 4U K 3f 0 -QX`2CU
c|Z sa G)dx 3f 0 +Pe Nj0J5 ^xj;,
XjgBv QCmx*% "sLs } 'Y, uc|Z 'xv Nj #r{Xj } ! 2k YQ g
L
F il OO } 3 p Z8 @ J p * 2n K~ N" {" # ^# w# x# p$ V% \O& ' Da) * + . E. 0 |2 v4 E5 Z@6 b8 ; *= @ `L@ W@
B (I ~dJ N LP R eU ,U wV
Y lZ =[ KS\ \] 9^ Q^ a (a L%d e ih VWi ' YU q G! / ,R b V D L *G cp BT U ^ n( } T E | ) 9 2 A< b c M\ R V l y l Z
] % T ~8 ! ly 4 /8 D Z v r9 Cz y 3 8 B _ f o + # X ' 8 * ^ < B Av E N . I n s t a n t F o r m a t f
E N . L a y o u t f
E N . L i b r a r i e s x f
w < E N I n s t a n t F o r m a t > < E n a b l e d > 1 < / E n a b l e d > < S c a n U n f o r m a t t e d > 1 < / S c a n U n f o r m a t t e d > < S c a n C h a n g e s > 1 < / S c a n C h a n g e s > < / E N I n s t a n t F o r m a t > a< E N L a y o u t > < S t y l e > C a m b r i d g e J E d u c a t i o n < / S t y l e > < L e f t D e l i m > { < / L e f t D e l i m > < R i g h t D e l i m > } < / R i g h t D e l i m > < F o n t N a m e > T i m e s N e w R o m a n < / F o n t N a m e > < F o n t S i z e > 1 2 < / F o n t S i z e > < R e f l i s t T i t l e > < / R e f l i s t T i t l e > < S t a r t i n g R e f n u m > 1 < / S t a r t i n g R e f n u m > < F i r s t L i n e I n d e n t > 0 < / F i r s t L i n e I n d e n t > < H a n g i n g I n d e n t > 7 2 0 < / H a n g i n g I n d e n t > < L i n e S p a c i n g > 0 < / L i n e S p a c i n g > < S p a c e A f t e r > 0 < / S p a c e A f t e r > < / E N L a y o u t > Q < E N L i b r a r i e s > < L i b r a r i e s > < i t e m > M a s t e r L i b r a r y . e n l < / i t e m > < / L i b r a r i e s > < / E N L i b r a r i e s > @ |% ` @ U n k n o w n G z T i m e s N e w R o m a n 5 S y m b o l 3& z A r i a l 5& z ! T a h o m a ?5 z C o u r i e r N e w ; W i n g d i n g s " 1 h bfbf ) g ) g 4 d 2q HX ? q 2 E q u i t y a n d e x c e l l e n c e m e w s s d a d S u s a n M i l l a r Oh +'0 $
D P
\ h p x Equity and excellence mewssdad Normal Susan Millar 2 Microsoft Office Word @ F# @ ^@ ^ ) g ՜. +,D ՜. +,P h p
Univ of Manchester Equity and excellence Title P _PID_HLINKS _AdHocReviewCycleID _EmailSubject
_AuthorEmail _AuthorEmailDisplayName _PreviousAdHocReviewCycleID _ReviewingToolsShownOnce A | 2 [ " m a i l t o : d . a . d y s o n @ m a n c h e s t e r . a c . u k |
yM# centre for equity website Kirstin.Kerr@manchester.ac.uk Kirstin Kerr t,{a
! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~ R o o t E n t r y F ^ D a t a
1 T a b l e g[ W o r d D o c u m e n t iX S u m m a r y I n f o r m a t i o n ( D o c u m e n t S u m m a r y I n f o r m a t i o n 8 C o m p O b j q
F Microsoft Office Word Document
MSWordDoc Word.Document.8 9q