Examination of Witness (Questions 980-999)
MONDAY 24 MARCH 2003
RT HON
ESTELLE MORRIS
MP
Chairman
980. I have to just remind you at this stage,
we are not the Education Select Committee. I do not want to go
too far down the question of teaching if we can possibly avoid
it.
(Estelle Morris) We did. I rarely suggested to the
profession that they do anything that I had not already seen the
best of them do. Literacy and numeracy was based on that. Your
criticism of the old rather informal methods was exactly what
concerned us. If you look at the literacy and numeracy teaching
strategy it is basically a professional development strategy to
train teachers in best practice. None of it is grasped out of
the air and made up. Although professional teachers will now say,
"I have adapted it", that is what they were always meant
to do with it. It is a long, long time since I met a teacher who
said: "The literacy and numeracy strategy has nothing to
offer me, it is a waste of time". When I used to go round
the schools in the first 18 months after 1997 they were saying
that all of the time. They were saying, "I know what I am
doing, I am the professional, why do you not trust me, this is
undermining me". I have not had that conversation with them
since 1999. It worked. Just to assure the Committee, it is an
education strategy, not a political strategy. That is what made
it so different. That is what was so special about it. It was
not a structural thing, which is what politicians usually do,
it was actually pedagogy and professional development, and that
is what makes it a first. It was very much based on what was going
wrong in classrooms and what might go right if you looked at our
best practitioners.
981. If I may say, in my own constituency I
have seen schools improving greatly, and tremendous credit must
be given to the teachers and the local education department; they
have done a great job. The league tables have however led to a
pecking order of schools. We have supposed parental choice but
the published league tables mean that the sharp-elbowed, middle-class
know which schools to target. The whole of the town is socially
segregating itself into these different schools, seven high schools,
and many more primary schools. Is that not one consequence of
published league tables, and how do you overcome that?
(Estelle Morris) I think that pecking order was there
anyway, it has become more evident. If I had a child I would have
made it my business to find out what that pecking order was, particularly
given I was teacher, I would have asked round. What the performance
tables have done is made it more obvious to more people. There
is a pecking order. Yes, there is a pecking order and the performance
tables show that. The real challenge for any government or education
system is what you do to help the schools that are struggling.
Hiding that pecking order away will not change. If we did not
have performance tables those schools that are struggling will
not miraculously get better, they will just have the pressure
taken off them. I do not think taking that pressure off them will
help to raise standards. There are a lot of complacent schools
lurking just above the halfway mark on the league table, round
about one third down, that should be doing a damn sight better
than they are. That is why we need more sophistication. If I was
being positive could we not say that the performance tables have
given this generation of education and some politicians a golden
opportunity, because it has given them the evidence that some
schools with some children find it more difficult to achieve at
higher levels. It has given us that golden opportunity and we
will be tested on how we react to it. If we react to it by merely
hiding the information again I do not think we deserve any praise,
but if we react to it by going in there and trying to change it
then we will have done great credit to it.
982. Is it not slightly unfair to put immense
pressure on some of the poorer schools when there are socially
disadvantaged children, and under the targets that are set—I
do not want to fall into the trap of low expectations—they
are doing a tremendous job but they still may not achieve the
targets?
(Estelle Morris) I do not have any evidence that it
is true that schools serving more challenging areas are less likely
to meet their targets than schools in middle-class areas. I will
be rash to say I do not think that is true. I certainly have no
evidence. Their results might be lower because the link between
social class and education attainment in this country is dire
and a disgrace but their targets would have been lower as well.
We do have school level targets. If you look at an LEA that is
not reaching its targets it might not be the schools in poorer
areas that are not reaching their targets. Does that make sense?
Chairman
983. They will be lower in the league tables.
(Estelle Morris) Yes, but that was not the question
I was just asked, I was asked is it right to give them targets
they cannot reach?
984. I agree there are two things going on here.
(Estelle Morris) Value added should solve that.
Mr Hopkins: I am afraid all my other questions
are really on education policy rather than targets.
Kevin Brennan
985. Do you think that it would be fair if someone
were to say, "Politicians and targets, this is just typical,
they want to take the credit when targets are reached in policy
they have set but as soon as they are not reached they run away".
Yourself excepted, of course.
(Estelle Morris) No. I can assure you they sometimes
do not get the credit for the targets that are met, it is not
quite as black and white as that. "Government meets targets"
is not a newspaper story, it is not a newspaper story at all.
The fact that we reached our five As to Cs targets was barely
covered in the newspapers. Had we not reached it it would have
had much greater coverage. It is mediated. I think it is quite
brave of politicians to set targets, it is risky but necessary
but I think it is brave. If politicians do only seek credit for
targets that are met and disown targets that are not met well
then that is wrong. I go back to this point. When targets are
not met what is needed is not to apportion blame but to find out
why they are not met. That is the question we should be asking.
We should be saying that it is too long a question for modern
day politics, media and the public, we spent billions of pounds,
we did this, this and this. This worked, the other did not work,
where do we go forward from here?
986. This is the question we have been wrestling
with but I do not think politicians and the Government can get
off the hook entirely because without questioning setting targets
and succeeding in targets because they are things that are featured
in manifestos, they are highlighted in policy briefings, and so
on, by political parties, by the Government and yet we know the
truth is that this is nonsense. Really what targets are all about,
as in business, is setting a goal, an ideal in the sense that
we should be working towards and seeing after a period of time
whether progress has been made. Then, as you say, deciding, if
we have not got as far as we thought we might have done, how we
can do that, but nevertheless honouring the achievement that has
been done. That is surely the purpose of targets. When that happens
in business people do not have to resign as a result of not reaching
a target but in politics it causes a lot of problems, not just
because the media are evil but because politicians themselves
go round bragging about all of these wonderful targets we have
hit, using them in that way when they are successful but then
when there is a failure finding excuses.
(Estelle Morris) Had the Government not met the class
size target, which was a pledge on the cards, as Labour members
of the Committee will recall for 1997, I do not know how I could
have justified that, but I think that is different in nature than
not having budged on the truancy target. The fact that one was
in the manifesto and one was not I think might explain that in
part, but they are rather different targets. Quite honestly, class
size is about money and organisation, that is all, it is not about
pedagogy and all the rest of it. You need to look at the nature
of the target that is set.
987. Can we discuss that? You are making the
interesting point about literacy and numeracy but really what
it was all about was re-training teachers, getting them re-trained
in best practice, modern thinking on literacy and numeracy because
we wanted to raise standards in that area. It was a problem that
had been identified. Do we really need targets to do that? What
role did the targets play in putting in the resources that up-skill
and re-train the teachers? That is what, if you like, produced
the results and you could have looked and seen that standards
were being raised, why did you need to put an arbitrary target?
(Estelle Morris) Because you need pressure and support
and the target was the pressure and the professional development
was the support. If you never had that top-line target they may
not have prioritised attending training courses, you needed the
pressure and the support, you needed the jolt to the system. Having
to achieve the target became the reason that some teachers took
on the literacy strategy in the first place. It is not just about
teachers, it was essentially pedagogy, but there is a whole support
structure round reaching those targets. You might remember the
National Year for Reading, you might remember the work that some
of the larger commercial and industrial organisations from the
private and voluntary and public sector in this country did to
back up literacy and numeracy, whether it is anything from coupons
for computers at Tesco or the fact that WH Smith now have parent
advice sessions and homework sessions in their major stores this
came out of the National Year of Reading, the maths year and the
literacy and numeracy targets. It was not just a priority for
the system, it was a priority for the nation. It managed to say,
"This is so important that we train the teachers, but even
that is not good enough, we need everyone to come in behind it."
The targets set the scene, they were the back-cloth and without
that I think it would have dribbled away like many other Government
initiatives.
988. What do you think about what Jane Davidson
is doing in Wales by abandoning some of these approaches, these
targets and league tables?
(Estelle Morris) I can say it now I am not a Government
minister, I think she is wrong. I would not do it. She is entitled
to do that. She has her own culture in Wales, which I am not familiar
with. I have never worked in there or been a politician in Wales.
Her judgment is, as is the judgment of many of my own Welsh colleagues,
that that is right for Wales. That has to be her judgment but
I would not want to see that happen in England.
Kevin Brennan: Okay.
Mr Prentice
989. I do meet teachers who tell me that targetry
is very demotivating because they think the targets are unfair.
How valid is that criticism?
(Estelle Morris) I think they are telling you the
truth because they do think it is unfair, too many of them think
we have hit the glass ceiling, we cannot get any better. Sometimes
when I go round schools and watch children doing some of the maths,
literacy and numeracy even I am amazed at the words they are using
or the mental arithmetic they are doing at seven or eight, I defy
it not to shock anybody, the standards that can be reached. However
teachers do sometimes think they are unfair. I think it sounds
like a burden because they have not looked at the research evidence,
they have not been through the policy-making process like we have.
We go through the policy-making process saying, "This looks
to be really good, where is the target?" The first they hear
is the Government wants them to reach a target that they do not
feel is attainable. What they tell you is right, what you then
have to do is to coax, nurture, pressurise, push and cajole them
and now you find they are reaching some of the targets they would
have told you five years ago were wrong and were demoralising.
990. There is a downside to targetry as well
because sometimes resources are withheld, it is kind of a carrot
and a stick approach.
(Estelle Morris) Can you give me an example of that?
991. I will indeed. This morning I was with
the principal of my sixth form college, the Nelson Coombe College
and she, Cath Belton, told me they have to agree a target with
the local learning and skills council. If they agree the target
they get an extra 2%, so there is an incentive for them to agree
the target.
(Estelle Morris) I thought you meant the money was
taken away if they did not reach the target.
992. Hang on, if they do not then agree the
target then they get 1% less resources the following year. There
is an incentive for them to agree a target set by the learning
and skills council and if despite all of their best efforts they
fail to reach it then they are penalised, the institution is penalised.
That is what I mean by the cynicism, that there are very serious
consequences for failing to meet targets. I am talking about FE
and I am talking about sixth form colleges, because those institutions
educate more young people than the schools.
(Estelle Morris) They are slightly different in the
way they are financed, they have a far more complex financial
structure because they are incorporated and they get commissioned
to do things. What you just described does not happen in schools.
If we are talking about FE, sixth form colleges. I think it is
reasonable to say, "If you set the target we will give you
2% more money". What is unreasonable to say is, "Reach
the target or we are not giving you any money". To tie money
to an enhanced target is what the Treasury do with us. That is
reasonable. I want to know about what the rules were about if
you do not use it we will take away the 1%. I would want to know
about that, I do not know how that works, I am not sure I am familiar
with that. If they tried their best and they had some things that
were working and they had that proper dialogue I would think that
would be unfair. I am not sure how that bit of the process works.
What tends to happen in schools is in those that are under-performing
as long as they have things like this in place they tend to get
even more money.
993. I am focusing on the unfairness of it.
If there is one thing that undermines the Government's approach
it is this feeling, and it is widespread, that it is all fixed,
it is all unfair. I was looking at Gordon Brown's speech to the
Social Market Foundation on 3 February and he trumpets, in the
way that he does, "soon 90% of the Learning and Skills budget",
that is £7 billion, "is going to be devolved to local
flexibility", that is local Learning and Skills Councils.
The people involved in this say the local LSCs are just dancing
to the tune played by the Treasury. If there are one or two key
targets that are insisted on by the centre then that influences
all of the targets that cascade down below that.
(Estelle Morris) That is a very interesting question
but I do not think there is anything wrong in that. I know from
my experience, because I was there for the last CSR, that money
for the LSC is ring-fenced for them. If I can put it the other
way round, I lost my flexibility as the Secretary of State to
take some out and put it in universities, which I may or may not
have wanted to do. As Secretary of State I felt very strongly
that that was the case, it was devolved to the LSC, I could not
touch it, it was ring-fenced. That is how my settlement came through
from the Treasury. I think you are back to saying, "What
is Government's role in this?" If as a politician we have
a manifesto commitment and we say, "If you elect us this
is going to be our priority" I think we have to say to ourselves
that it is right to say to the LSC, "Look folks, these are
our priorities, I devolved the money to you, get on with it. We
speak on behalf of the nation in this sense and these are going
to be our main priorities". I think that is legitimate. If
you go back to what I said to the Chairman before, if you devolve
target-setting to a local level what role is left for Government?
I think one of the roles that is left for Government on behalf
of the electorate, the nation, is to actually prioritise some
of things we want to be done, not all of them because there should
be room for some other things. I think they want the money and
total freedom. In a democracy I do not think it comes that way.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
994. What say do you have in targets? After
1997 you were a minister, what input did you have as a ministers
in the amount of targets?
(Estelle Morris) The number of targets. I had proper
dialogue. When David Blunkett was the Secretary of State, the
way a team works is you make comments. I always felt that it is
a tough thing to do, to set targets you have to get it right,
and we know the consequences. I always felt that I had the right,
the ability to express my view, but I never had the power to demand
what I said went.
995. Do you think your downfall was set in 1997
when you agreed, I am not saying you, but collectively agreed,
to targets which were pretty daunting? How many did you agree
to in 1997, can you remember?
(Estelle Morris) I was only doing schools at that
point and it was mainly Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 targets, Early
Years and class size targets, those were the main ones.
996. Did you feel were you a hostage to fortune
at the beginning or did you think, "We could hit this, we
can do this".
(Estelle Morris) I felt it gave me a focus to the
work I was doing. I felt I had a clear direction as to how I should
be spending my time as a minister. It gave me excitement and it
gave me a challenge. When I went to speak to practitioners, those
who deliver public services it gave me a focus for my dialogue
with them, that was the glue that held us together. I was perhaps
naive in 1997, a lot younger than I am now, I never thought about
it. We all just wanted to do a good job. I had my eye much more
on making progress than I did on reaching the target. Each year
when the performance data came back I wanted to know, "Is
it working? Are we making progress?" I did not say, "Are
we likely to meet the target until nearer 2002?".
997. You made an interesting comment in your
preamble about your relationship with the Treasury, which you
said, "I am sure somebody is going to ask me about."
When you took over did you feel the demands of the Treasury were
giving you cause for concern? Did you find they were too tough
on hitting the targets?
(Estelle Morris) No, I think that is their role.
998. Did it concern you?
(Estelle Morris) No. It is not to say I would not
have some robust arguments with them. What I did feel is I was
able to go to the Treasury and say, "Look, we are a successful
department, we deliver." The evidence of how we delivered
our targets between 1997 and 2001 was my ammunition, if you like,
to put it that way, my evidence base with the Treasury. I could
say to Treasury the same as they were telling me to say to Mr
Prentice's LSC, we are a department that delivers, trust us because
we have got the evidence that we are good. That is the way that
it needs to be. I know there is a temptation to look for something
that is quite Machiavellian here. From my point of view it did
not exist. I would sometimes leave Treasury saying, "They
do not half push you", but I think that is their legitimate
role. What I was more concerned about to be honest was whether
they gave me the money to fund what they were suggesting I might
do.
999. You hit an interesting point, Michael Barber
was the academic that came up with all the PSA targets, etc, his
team has been physically moved to the Treasury, do you feel that
perhaps the interface now between Treasury and the delivery is
so tight you are going to see Treasury interference in delivery—I
know you are not secretary of state—that PSA targets may
be led, because of the input of Michael Barber, much more by the
Treasury than by Number 10.
(Estelle Morris) I do not think it matters. I do not
care where Michael Barber and the PMDU is based, I do not have
the slightest bit of interest. However, what did need to be rationalised
is that the PSA targets, which are thought to emanate from Treasury,
and the delivery targets, which Michael Barber's unit was in charge
of monitoring, and it makes sense for them to come together. The
great thing about the PMDU is it spreads good practice across
Government departments. It is partly because we were used to working
with Michael, they are our advisers, they are not politicians,
they are people who know about the service that you are delivering
so they become an incredibly useful source of information and
help. If they are working closely with the Treasury so that the
PSA targets come together with delivery targets it is academic
to me, it does not effect what I am doing in my department.
|
