It’s been a busy week in the run-up to to the general election on the 4th of July – all major political parties have released their manifestos this week. I’ve decided to jump into the manifestos of the major political parties, discuss what I see – what gives me hope, what gives me dread, and some things I still hope to see down the line. I will stress that whilst opinions are being shared, these are merely relating to the education policies proposed, not wider issues or general views of those involved. It’s about the education policies proposed.

Over the last 14 years there have been a variety of educational reforms by the Conservative Party to mould the educational landscape to their liking. Some areas have arguably been a success – the drive for evidence informed teaching practice and launch of funded NPQs in the sector, phonics within the primary curriculum, adaptations to adult education through skills bootcamps etc. Others are as far from a success as you can imagine; post-16 reform (which is still years from conclusion, yet they have already announced another reform), removal of nursing bursaries (which was then returned a few years later, at much reduced terms), various recruitment and retention strategies for teachers, the reframing of curriculum importance and the affect on the ‘arts’. Others are arguably still up in the air: multi-academy trusts, free schools, Gatsby benchmarks, post-16 Maths and English approaches etc – where principles could be sound, but it is easy to argue many have drained far too much money without significant return, not fleshed out enough, or in the case of Maths and English – have been underfunded since implementation. This is even before probing student loans (which with hindsight was arguably the first attempt at reducing university numbers, given that the overall Government spend to HE has stayed relatively static since introduced, only more is now attached to individuals as debt).

Surveying the landscape, things have never really connected up with choices that have been made. We have a much bounded ‘knowledge rich’ curriculum within standard schooling – but this culminates with GCSE qualifications that are bloated to the point that mastery is impossible for the majority. So it is ‘knowledge rich’ in design, but not in outcome for the majority of individuals who go through the process. This is followed by post-16, which is framed such that ‘skills’ is the all important thing (at complete odds to prior schooling) to the point that Further Education has additional Ofsted inspection elements and judgement relating to ‘skills’. However, this is a ‘skills based’ Key Stage 5 curriculum that has been diverted to emphasise traditional paper based examination – essentially the opposite of the ‘real world skills’ they are claiming to build. Then the much lauded apprenticeships, particularly under the current education secretary – are not always as they are sold, intermediate apprenticeships and apprenticeships for school leavers look to be falling over time, and whilst there is the must lauded growth of L4/5/6/7 apprenticeships to meet skills demands, the average age of such apprentices has risen to essentially 30 years of age – these are not ‘school leaver’ options for the majority.

Due to limitations of knowledge I will avoid the country specific parties from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. So I will begin with the incumbent government.

The Conservative Party

As a whole as much as there is talk of ‘turning the corner’, it feels a manifesto devoid of hope. In some ways it’s almost ‘unfair’ to the Conservatives as we have much more we can critique relating to their policies based on current implementations, a number of which as stated don’t sit in their favour, particularly the ongoing scandals around RAAC and ‘crumbling buildings’. Setting that aside, here are key things that jumped out from their manifesto to me.

The mobile phone ban is something I support within schools – I am not 100% sure how it will be enforced – teachers and administrative staff are not ‘law enforcement’ and there is only essentially so much that can be done, but hopefully clear instructions are set out to go with this of procedure. I welcomed the guidance on this earlier in the year, but if a ‘ban’ is in place guidance needs go further to be clear and concise.

The expansion of early years childcare provision is something that all major parties are putting forward in some form, however the conservatives have been the most specific of who and what they propose it for. However, staffing is an issue (approximately 40,000 staff required on estimate), as is space. Whilst not in the manifesto the suggestions are they will have a similar approach to Labour with using primary school premises – an idea I think is good, given the fact we are over the peak of primary school entry numbers – there has also been some prior loosening of qualification expectations in the sector (which again questions quality of L3 reform) with L2 Childcare qualifications deemed an appropriate standard to address. This however questions some of the promises of rigour and high standards in education, as well as the quality of these post-16 reforms if they aren’t producing what is needed for the sector.

Speaking of reforms, I am open to the idea of an Advanced British Standard and a more diverse curriculum, however I don’t know how much I trust a well thought out and consistent implementation of whatever the programme would be. During last year‘s Conservative party conference, the joke was that it was an open admission of the failure of T levels as they are announcing a new reform structure whilst the previous is still ongoing. Whilst there are assurances that this is not a scrapping of T levels, the ability to mix and match these vocational technical areas with academic subjects does not coincide with the ethos of what the T levels are pitched to be as full-time large-scale disciplinary specific programs of A-level standard, with significant work placement. I don’t know how that logistically happens in conjunction with a regular academic timetable.

How the manifesto describes the ABS, it’s hard not to think of the meme from Tim Robinson’s “I Think I Should Leave”, the discussion of arbitrary divide between vocational and technical areas and academics is something that has entirely been done by the current Conservative government. Defunding of smaller scale level 3 qualifications in favour of solely robust T Levels has forced this divide (and prevented a number of non-specialist FE establishments from running vocational education), and even with forthcoming single A level equivalent replacements under the AAQ framework, a student is only allowed to have one in their study programme. The breadth of post-16 curriculum is also an effect of earlier reforms of replacement of the modular system of A levels, such that the majority of centres no longer sit AS examinations – forcing students to narrow their curriculum at an earlier stage to maximise performance (and top tier universities only looking at 3 A Level grades). If you want to read more about this, you can find information here – https://themarkscheme.co.uk/t-levels/

We then have notes on apprenticeships. I have written numerous times about the apprenticeship sector and the promises that the Conservative party have made. There has been a large growth in higher and degree level apprenticeships, and various members of the Conservative party, including the current minister for education are selling these are huge wins for young people and better opportunities than ‘low value’ university courses. Sidestepping how you define low value, there is an element of subterfuge here, as those who would benefit from these types of apprenticeships are not the same young people who will be affected by the decisions relating to higher education. Yes there are growing numbers of higher and degree level apprenticeships, but the average age of an apprentice is increasing all the time (almost 30), lower level apprentices are progressing through to higher levels in lower proportions there needs to be specific elements within the policy that target this towards young people which does not seem to be the priority within similar approaches thus far. If you want to read more about this, you can find information here – https://themarkscheme.co.uk/he-vs-apprenticeships/

It would seem amiss not to mention the National Service plans. I don’t understand why the burden of ‘societal cohesion’ seems to rest solely on young people. Young people who already missed out on so much during the pandemic lockdowns to protect more vulnerable members of their communities. I understand that other countries have similar systems in place, other countries also offer a lot more for their young people than we do – which goes back to an earlier point that this is a manifesto that just seems devoid of hope. Young people reading this are promised the ability to gain real world skills, but haven’t their courses been developed and moulded over the last few years to do this? Isn’t this what employment does? Is this policy a mere band-aid for the lack of employment opportunity that is there for young people? I am not against volunteering, in fact there is more that could be done to encourage volunteering and community, but this is not the way or group to specifically burden with this.

I think there is also a rather perverse aspect of this where it’s claiming young people are not ‘doing enough’, yet following on from the discussion of T levels, you have students on a childcare course doing 750 unpaid hours within the early years setting, and then you have the nerve to say these are the type of young people that aren’t doing enough for community? You have 45 days of unpaid work based experience within health qualifications that students will do between 16-19, similar numbers within other courses as well. You may argue that some of these are for private companies and therefore not community, but there are placements quite often in local authority, educational institutions, research labs, civil service, and the charitable sector – again all without remuneration for the young person.

Other things are a mixture of positive or unsure, or will be addressed within a various by alternative policies from other parties. For example, the comment about ‘backing Ofsted’ whilst not directly saying it does lend the suggestion that they are backing the continued use of single word judgements. There are also elements about the extension of shortage teacher payments being extended to further education shortage areas which have currently been put in place – however, there are some caveats that make this more difficult for those in the FE sector to claim if they have not got a traditional secondary based PGCE style qualification. 

Finally, I feel the biggest pinch point relating to education in the Conservative manifesto actually has nothing to do with education directly, but is instead related to the overhaul of the ‘fit note’ process. A new system moving these away from GPs towards ‘specialist work and health professionals’. The implication is to reduce the number of people deemed unfit to work due to stress, they actively say this. The pressure will be there, particular for education, where it is governmentally funded to reduce this number. Education as a sector is rife with stress, it is one of the much quoted reasons for people to leave, and a freedom of information request from the Liberal Democrat’s in 2018 showed that one out of every 83 teachers were on ‘long-term sickness’ due to what was classified as ‘work related stress’.

Whilst these are older figures, this is not something that following the effects of the pandemic has particularly improved. My biggest concern is the inevitable and horrific conclusion to when an overly stressed person in a position of responsibility is refused to be ‘signed off’…

The Labour Party

Labour have put together a larger list of ideas, a number of these are lacking substance within the manifesto, but are fleshed out more elsewhere, such as what on earth ‘Young Futures Hubs’ actually are (community outreach centres, to help tackle mental health issues and growing knife crime) . The ‘report card’ aspect of Ofsted is something that could be a positive – a similar approach to what is already in place across the NHS – it’s still simple information, but it affords a greater level of specifity. Interestingly the manifesto approach to this is quite nuanced, throwing their support behind Ofsted and the ‘positive strides’ that have happened in the sector, but basing on an argument that if now 90% of schools are Outstanding or Good – following the Conservative emphasis of ‘clear choice for parents/students’ etc, are the one word judgements providing enough clear and quick information to support that? There is also reference to bringing MAT’s as full entities into the Ofsted framework – an idea I support. If oversight and accountability for quality of education and use of public funds in important, then this is a logical step, with so much now being pooled at trust level it is only right to scrutinise at that level. I do feel that things such as the Excellence in Leadership Programme and Regional Improvement Teams are also responses to this – almost a knowledge that the horse is bolted in massive MAT’s – but could be ways to induce influence within the system. Reports into off-rolling are great to see – a growing issue in the sector – as well as attendance.

They have a variant on the early years strategy, the emphasis on the logistical aspect of it. Again, they have the issues of staffing which aren’t discussed. But like with the Conservatives, it is a policy I support. Both labour and the conservatives have claimed they have both neglected apprenticeships in their time. Interestingly I feel both are correct, for different reasons; Conservatives had set the landscape to introduce high value and high level apprenticeships – however they are generally not going towards school leavers, and those that do generally don’t progress into higher levels. Labour prioritised traditional HE, and as such there weren’t this level of high level apprenticeships – but there were significantly more options for school leavers, and better rate of progression between levels. I feel flexibility with the levy and autonomy at local level to meet the needs of a region could be of benefit – but run the risk of further levels of bureaucracy. The support for 18 to 21 year olds is fantastic – although I feel there is more to be done, incentivising business to offer these training opportunities to young workers – ring fencing particular money from the levy would be a way of doing this. UCAS looking to allocate UCAS points to apprenticeships from this coming September is something ethos wise, I see Labour doing more with than the incumbent Conservative party. 

Free breakfast clubs in every primary school is fantastic – although I would love to see a commitment to extend this to free school meals for all. It is such a vital time – there are so many challenges and difficulties, particularly due to the ‘cost of living crisis’ – education cannot even begin to permeate and make a difference to young people if they are worrying about where the next meal is going to come from. Policies like this are always interesting with regards public perception, in their May 2024 survey ‘Social Mobility and Opportunity: What the public thinks’ the Sutton Trust asked members of the public what they. High on the list was “Giving schools more money to support poorer pupils”, yet towards the bottom of the list was “Giving more children free school meals” – although ask most people involved in the day to day running of schools how they would do the first one, they would tell you the second! This is a weird juxtaposition that some people are able to hold, they hold the idea of being a ‘good person’, they will ‘support those in need’ – hypothetically – however actually identifying ‘that person who is worthy’ is a much more difficult task to them – but it allows the ‘good person’ position to be held – as they would help ‘the right person’. So I understand why they might not have went further with this policy, but I am very disappointed and wish more would be done, there is also a concerning lack of reference to school building improvement and RAAC.

The flagship Labour policies relating to education are obviously the removal of the VAT exemption of private school fees. I am 100% in agreement on this – and it will be the catalyst to fund the wide bevy of policies proposed by the Labour Party if they were in power. Whilst I appreciate not everyone benefitting from private education is wealthy, the economic arguments don’t make sense when viewed under the lens of the increase in costs that have been soaked up by customers of the sector recently – I recommend everyone read the Institute of Fiscal Studies report on this (https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-07/IFS-Report-R263-Tax-private-school-fees-and-state-school-spending.pdf). The other flagship policy relates to 6500 expert teachers. One does question how you recruit an ‘expert teacher’ – but I suppose it’s relating to discipline specific areas. It’s a strange figure – arguably highly achievable (so an easy win if they become government, hitting a key manifesto promise) – but it is not a large enough number to go ‘wow’, nor is it fleshed out enough to really say what tangible difference they expect this to make. I think this policy is indicative of the manifesto as a whole – it’s muted. There are the bones of ideas about how to tackle societal issues – but again, there is a lot of skirting around ‘disadvantage’ and not wanting to address the issues head on.

The Others

I will also briefly discuss policies put forth by the Liberal Democrats, Green Party and Reform UK. This is due to the (small) chance of a coalition government being formed – it is therefore important to view. The Lib Dems have the most accessible policy – logical titles – key info, refraining from too much ‘narrative’ – please take notice people, this is what you should do! Make things clear! The Green Party have a few selection of bullet points, and Reform are yet to release their manifesto, but do have a list of priorities and promises on their website – one thing I will say, I actually do like their priorities being set out as ‘First 100 days’ and then further priorities beyond that.

As well as travelling the country on a ‘perpetual stag-do’, Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey produces significantly broader promises here from the than the other main parties – probably as they know they’re not to end up in the position to have to deliver . Some such as ‘specialist teacher in their subject’ is one that on paper sounds absolutely ideal – but what is the definition of ‘specialist’? Funding for schools and colleges (happy to see colleges are referenced here) above the rate of inflation is a positive, education spending is an investment not merely a cost, it’s been far too long since this has been recognised. They are also the only party open to reviewing the concept of exempting Further Education from VAT – which would be a massive support for the sector which would flood approximately £200m a year back into the coffers of the chronically underfunded FE sector. There are variations to additional hours of childcare, but these don’t seem to be immediate priorities, they are also the only major party to directly reference RAAC pledging to divert free school funding (I wrote a bit about this here – https://themarkscheme.co.uk/free-isnt-freenothing-is-but-there-is-always-money/) to support with costs. I like references to maintenance grants returning at source through student finance and extension of the pupil premium to post 16 – lots of other things are throw away comments without particular substance. The register of attendance is also something the Conservative party mention, which in theory I believe would be a good idea.

The Green Party’s information is very limited – mostly as they present it not from the point of view of being a ruling party, but what their smaller cohort of potential MP’s would push towards whilst in parliament – it’s ideological but no semblance of practicality or implementation. Ultimately there is a lot here about ‘removal’ of things, ironically the education platform seems very much built on ‘burning down the world’ with no real plan of what will follow. Given how this is presented and put forward, from a personal point of view there isn’t particularly anything here I feel I can directly support (besides votes for 16 year olds) without further clarity (I don’t disagree with tackling misogyny for example, but that’s not a ‘policy’, there is no substance or plan). From a personal point of view, there is not a single reference to post-16 or adult skills curricula, which is a concern, and rather detached from the stressed importance of green skills and employment – where would the required expertise come from?

Finally we have Reform UK. I know there will be a number of people upset that I even bother to reference them – as despite surge in popularity polling they are still not guaranteed to win a single seat in the election. However, I think it’s important. They are a party that whether you like it or not are growing in popularity, even among peers within the education sector. They have a small number of large personalities in their ranks, who get more than their fair share of coverage for the current standing of the party within political system. When they are talking about areas you don’t know it can be easy to defer to ‘their expertise’. That’s why I want to directly lay out what they feel are the most important things within education – for those who do know, are these genuinely the most pressing things within the sector? Will this make things better? Does anything have any form of plan or influence of those with expertise? Think of these when expertise is doled within other areas. The top 5 are the main pledges that are deemed essential to be put in place within 100 days – it may have just well said “Prohibit schools from using ouija boards as cover supervisors”. I will however say, the 2 year undergraduate programmes are something under the right circumstance, in the right sector I may support.

What do I want to see for education and young people?

From an education point of view there are elements I like from a variety of places. The following are what I generally would like to see, some from proposals and others not referenced by any of the parties. There are significantly more I agree with (conversion therapy ban, voting age), but these are 10 specifically education related policies I would like to see in no particular order;

1) Funding for a dedicated mental health practitioner in every school and college.

2) Provide incentives for employers to ring fence a bevy of higher level apprenticeships to young people aged 18-24.

3) Pause the level 3 reforms. This is a zero cost policy that will buy huge goodwill in FE and HE, and is one which no party has floated – will also provide scope for school based sixth form to continue to blend vocational and academic provision.

4) Funded breakfast clubs and extension of free school meals to all primary aged children, extension of FSM to students with family in receipt of or entitled to Universal Credit.

5) Guarantee funding per pupil will at least match inflation across all parts of the sector whilst readdressing the funding formula to prioritise communities of higher social deprivation – we cannot just continue to turn a blind eye to the effects of disadvantage.

6) A review of FE funding (75% of college staff leave the sector with 10 years, there is also on average a £9,000 discrepancy between FE pay and school pay) – bringing pupil funding in line with secondary education, extending pupil premium until 18. Furthermore exempt FE colleges and stand alone sixth forms from VAT charges now they are back within the public sector, this would bring approximately £200m back into the institutions a year, and essentially provide funding for about a 7/8% pay rise.

7) Review of Key Stage 4 curriculum – as well as importance of arts , provide an increased focus on practical and technical education – re-emphasise and assess practical aspects of Science, provide incentives for schools to run Computer Science and technology subjects at GCSE etc. There is currently a disconnect between KS4 and KS5 – particularly in vocational and technical disciplines. There are areas required for regional and national growth such as scientists, as such programmes have been developed that accessible beyond A Levels in Biology/Chemistry/Physics/Maths – but students don’t want to do them. Gatsby Benchmarks and ‘talking’ only does so much, we have to craft a curriculum that motivates students beyond the 7/8/9 GCSE grade students towards those shortage disciplines long-term, viewing them as an exciting and viable option for themselves.

8) Remove one word judgements from Ofsted and bring MAT’s under Ofsted scrutiny and greater financial scrutiny from the DfE – there are huge swathes of public resources tied up beyond a mere school level, as pooling of funds becomes more commonplace – looking at the accounts of a number of large scale MAT’s shows reserves of tens of millions, when a number of schools are cash strapped, I feel effectiveness and appropriateness of how funds are used needs to be looked into.

9) Increased flexibility at post-16 and HE. Broader scope for conversion between courses and institutions – pooling of credits via short-form study (like the Open University) to support with flexibility of study with financial struggles as they are, look at validity of 2 year degrees (particularly for adult learners) etc.

10) Taskforce to address teacher recruitment and retention – I wish there was an easy way to fix this. Pay, prestige and playtime (can’t be all work and no play) is the magic balance. This could be a post in of its own. One thought (whether feasible or not is another thing) as numbers are moving on from primary and there is potential for surplus staff, I would be looking at channels of retraining and incentivising specialists in Maths and English to move to post-16 to support with Maths and English at lower levels based on their expertise.