Something must be done…

A new report finds that education policy has been driven more by media soundbites than what works in the classroom

By Karen Whitby

Many believe that education has been little more than a football for Westminster. But what has really gone into the formula for making our schools what they are? A new study to be published by the CfBT Education Trust and authored by LSN pulls apart the process over the past 25 years with insights from civil servants and ministers, including former education secretaries David Blunkett and Estelle Morris, as well as former shadow education secretary Tim Yeo.

The study suggests that one of the most powerful motive forces, particularly in recent years as the pace of political appointments has quickened, has been the sense of political urgency, a feeling that "something must be done". Ideology has played its part, of course, especially attitudes to the need for "marketisation" in education; more attention to what's happening internationally and what appears to have delivered results; cost; the likely popularity of an idea with the electorate; the influence of pressure groups, and the personal experiences of policymakers themselves.

The interviewees for the study pointed in particular to the increasing power of the Prime Minister and senior figures in making final decisions. Whereas in the past there might have been a reliance on experts, the nature of government meant that No 10 would want to appoint advisers around them who shared their beliefs and could help enforce them. Public opinion was not considered to be an important factor - but pressure from the media was, and its attention to the short term and particular was seen to create severe difficulties for policymaking. The potential reaction of the press was said to be assessed early, and regarded as having been a crucial factor in decisions, such as the rejection of Tomlinson’s post-16 proposals, written off as “foolhardy” because of press attitudes to the value of A-levels.

Although recognised as a factor in policymaking, reasoned research evidence has struggled to compete with other contingencies and demands. In particular, it's the post-16 sector that is believed to see the greatest gap between skills policies and the evidence. The distance between evidence and policy seems to grow the longer a government is in power and principles are subject to greater and more complex pressures. The influence of the advisers and think tanks that explored options as politicians prepared for power starts to fade. There are changes in ministerial positions and ministers are more likely to want to make a headline or avoid negative media coverage. They want to show through the media there are still new ideas on offer. A particular problem has been the apparent need to either ignore or make attacks upon research evidence that contradicts or criticises education policy, and a general belief that research serves more to undermine than to be the basis for developing policy.

Any kind of intervention in schools - raising levels of attainment, tactics for dealing with bullying, providing careers advice - needs to be based on research into what works. Easier to say than to implement, but a principle that needs to be championed and insisted upon more often.

To bring about a shift towards more education-based policy as a political tool, the research authors call for the creation of an education version of National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). The influence of this kind of advisory body might be strengthened by the appointment of a single person as a "chief education officer", similar to the existing chief medical officer, to provide an authoritative voice of reason when debate becomes overheated and truth gets caught up in the contests of ideology, and help re-dress the balance between experts and senior political advisers.

There is also a responsibility on all those involved in education research. As one contributor to the report put it: "the issue is not to improve policymakers’ use of research as much as researchers’ use of politics". Engagement with policy through research needs to be constructive and aware of the context, of what might be controversial, and the need to handle communications effectively rather than looking purely for attention and a voice through the media.

Perhaps this is the whole crux of the situation, the need for a "civilising" of the policy-research cycle: the more policymakers pay attention to solid evidence the less need education researchers will have to bang a drum for their work to be heard and, as a result, governments will be able to sleep a little easier and look on the latest research offerings with a greater sense of sympathy and purpose.

Copies of the report, Instinct or Reason: How education policy is made and how we might make it better, will be available from www.cfbt.com from 7 June

To find out more about this article, visit: http://www.cfbt.com

28 May 2010

Karen Whitby. Research Manager, CfBT Education Trust