Letter of the week: Pay as you learn

Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk to have your thoughts voiced in the New Statesman magazine.

Photo by Mike Kipling Photography / Alamy

Pippa Bailey’s excellent cover story (4 April) beautifully outlines the history of English education and the conflicting political forces trying to shape it today. A key conclusion was that, from Alfred the Great’s “kingdom-building” to Victorian technical education, schooling was historically used to respond to threats confronting the state. That the challenges facing contemporary Britain are exponentially more complex than in the past mean I am unsure as to the answer to the article’s question of what school is for. What was clear, however, is that education has been, for better and worse, an instrument of social stability – preparing children for a role at a particular social level – and that efforts to modernise have failed. Education has increasingly become a transactional competition in the minds of politicians and parents. The cost has been the destruction of community and an ever-widening wealth gap.Perhaps there is an answer for education that would also address Andrew Marr’s entreaties to Keir Starmer to find a compelling narrative for Britain. Making it the government’s mission to spark “that bit of flint” in every child would be a forward-looking, society-building narrative that could also fulfil its economic aspirations.
Graham Johnston, Wymondham, Norfolk

Reform school

Pippa Bailey’s impressively erudite schools feature felt like a cacophony of differing voices. In my view (I taught secondary English for 30 years), Sam Freedman’s was the most balanced and thus the wisest on offer. I dream of the House of Lords being replaced by a House of Wise Elders who have the perspective to cut through the rhetoric and those almighty but useless “optics”, and of a curriculum to be delivered by valued, trusted teaching staff in support of a principled culture that both affirms past glories and acknowledges past crimes. The problem with all that is we need a principled culture to start with.
Ric Cheyney, Talsarnau, Gwynedd, Wales

Pippa Bailey’s article touched on two important truths: that curriculum reform is beloved of politicians because it’s cheap, and that successful reform requires funding. Until we treat educational expenditure as an investment rather than a burden, schools will continue to struggle to deliver the truly radical reforms needed.
Martin Post, West Sussex

Pippa Bailey’s excellent article recognises that major change is needed in schools to meet the demands of industry. The Francis Review’s interim report is disappointing. It prefers evolution to revolution and the word “skills” is barely mentioned. There seems little recognition that education should contribute to economic growth. We have nearly a million young people not in education, employment or training. Many have disengaged from education after being force-fed a purely academic curriculum. There is a mismatch between what industry wants from school leavers and what our schools produce. Employers look for a range of skills – above all digital ones. They want student leavers who can work in teams, engage in collaborative decision-making, communicate well, and are innovative, creative and entrepreneurial. Students at university technical colleges leave equipped with the knowledge, skills and experiences required for success in an evolving world of work. This is what our schools should be for.
Kenneth Baker, House of Lords

Pippa Bailey asks: “What is school for?” As a teacher who began her career in 1988, I thought school was for children. I organised my classroom with them in mind. I planned lessons through topics, trying to make learning fun and creative, and above all ensuring it met their developmental needs. Roll forward 38 years, and I now know what school is really for: it’s for school league tables, it’s for academy trusts and local education authorities, and ultimately it’s for politicians and government ministers to make announcements about what a jolly good job they’re all doing.
Sara Kenyon, Firbank, Sedbergh, Cumbria

I wish to congratulate Pippa Bailey for an excellent article. Of most importance is that it states curriculum reform happens “irregularly and at ministerial whim”. This, together with frequent changes of education ministers, means education reform has never been driven by research. At least teachers and children are being listened to by the Francis Review. What was missing is the effect of university requirements for those who might aspire to higher education. University entry requirements dominated the postwar curriculum in secondary schools. As Bailey points out, this will not spark the flint in all children.
Moira Sykes, Manchester

Happy as Larry

Andrew Marr is scathing about Larry the cat (Politics, 4 April), despite him being by far the longest-serving politician in 10 Downing Street. But he should take more notice of Larry when writing in despair about the problems facing Keir Starmer and his human team. Like all self-respecting cats, Larry is an observer, not a participant. As an observer, he sees life in the round and does not rush. His message to Andrew, and Starmer, is simple: chill out and all will be well.
Peter Tyrer, Cotham, Nottinghamshire

Further debate

I watched every session of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill committee debates and disagree with Naz Shah’s conclusions (Encounter, 4 April). Several of the amendments she alludes to were unworkable, unnecessary, or would have unintended consequences. Her “28-day cooling-off period”, for example, was poorly drafted as it would apply even if a patient had only one month left to live. Changes ruling out those with anorexia were rejected because the committee agreed that the bill is very clear that mental illness is excluded. Having accompanied my wife to Dignitas for an assisted death, I’m in favour of the bill in principle, and having seen the committee in practice, I am reassured by the safeguards it provides.
Dave Sowry, London W4

Navel gazing

It was kind of Nicholas Royle to put me forward for the title of “national novelist” (Correspondence, 4 April). I can’t accept the compliment, but it did get me thinking that we need a similar term for a different kind of writer: one who focuses not on public themes woven around events in our recent history, but on abstract ideas and introversion. Might I suggest “notional navelist”?
Jonathan Coe, London

Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk
We reserve the right to edit letters