inequality – Page 3 – The Equality Blog

The arts have the opportunity to lead the way in adopting more innovative measures of gender balance

Take a moment to read Cath Sleeman’s blog post here where she discusses why so many women still feel invisible in the arts – underpaid and under-represented. So how much has really changed? To properly answer this question, she explains, we need to adopt more innovative ways of tracking gender balance.

As an educational manager in the arts with responsibility for equality, diversity and inclusion its concerning to see an industry still dominated by outdated and old fashioned attitudes. However, whilst things are moving forward progress appears to be slow but innovation in how assess data may be more fruitful.

https://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/pressforprogress-evidencing-gender-inequality-arts

Why do schools have a massive pay gap?

Interesting article here by Branwen Jeffreys, Education Editor at the BBC.

As someone who worked in secondary school management for almost a decade I find it astonishing that a gender pay gap still exists. After all, pay scales are well published for teachers, managers and leaders across the education sector. However, in all reality, negotiation of your own personal pay scale is a private conversation between employer and employee. If you are headhunted then a better offer is likely to be on the table than if you fill out an application form. I agree that if two people start the same role, with equal skills and experience then they should be paid the same but what if one candidate has more experience? Should that count towards pay? Of course it should and unfortunately the reality is that staff, both male and female, need to be confident that that they are in demand and in that way some negotiation over pay can happen.

That said employers must become more transparent in how they pay their staff and better able to justify those differences in scales to ensure equality and fairness across the sector.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43484831

Conservative government will stop free hot lunches for all infant pupils causing further inequality

For the Conservative government to make a manifesto promise to rescind the policy where by all infants get free hot lunches is contributing to further inequality.

For some school children in this country the free hot meal they get at school is the only hot meal they get that day. Far too many children in this country dread the summer holidays because a hot meal is, at best, sporadic and in some cases none existent. That is the inequality in our country, that not all children get a hot meal each and every day. So for the Conservative government to make a manifesto promise to rescind the policy where by all infants get free hot lunches is contributing to further inequality. Yet again, the hardest hit will again be the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.

In his analysis of today’s Conservative manifesto release, Sean Coughlan, Education Correspondent for BBC News, highlights “Head teachers across England have been making increasingly strident protests about schools running out of cash.” But, to stave of this criticism the Conservatives have responded by reshuffling about £1bn a year extra into the day-to-day running budgets of schools. However, it would appear that “most of this would come from stopping free hot lunches for all infant pupils – a policy only launched a few years ago.”

In reality, will schools use this money to continue to offer free hot lunches for all infants?In that case there is no benefit for school whatsoever, so no investment and they will continue to struggle. On the other hand if they use it for other purposes then the children loose out. I don’t imagine head teachers will see this as an acceptable alternative to real, hard investment.

Unfortunately, show business and inequality seem to go hand in hand these days.

Currently, US television is blessed with a crop of fine British actors, a large number of whom went to public school. But why the disproportionate number of successful actors coming from the privately educated sector?

Currently, US television is blessed with a crop of fine British actors, a large number of whom went to public school. But it’s not just American television that loves a British actor, our own programming is awash with public school graduates. They include Eton alumni Tom Hiddleston (The Night Manager, Thor & Wallander) Dominic West (Appropriate Adult, The Wire & 300), Damian Lewis (Homeland, Billions & Wolf Hall) and Eddie Redmayne (The Dainish Girl, Theory of Everything & Fantastic Beasts), and Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock, The Imitation Game & The Hobbit), who won an art scholarship to Harrow.

These actors have certainly flown the flag for British performing arts. Dominic West won a BAFTA for his portrayal of the serial killer Fred West in Appropriate Adult (2011), while Damion Lewis has won a Golden Globe and an Emmy Award for Homeland (2011). Then it was the turn of Benedict Cumberbatch to win a Prime Time Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor for Sherlock (2010). Eddie Redmayne went on to win the Oscar for Best Performance by an Actor for The Theory of Everything (2014). Finally, Tom Hiddleston rounded off the Etonian connection when he won a Golden Globe for Best Performance by an Actor for The Night Manager (2016).

However, as Dame Helen Mirren DBE remarked “What has happened to our great working class actors?”

Some point to the state education system in the UK, which it is claimed are not producing the level of acting skill required for a world wide stage. However, I would argue that all of the actors listed above were able to access well regarded fee paying stage and drama schools, such as The Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts (RADA), due to privilege. Clearly, if they went to Eton then their parents could afford to pay for the very best drama schools. In fact, as well as Eton, these actors all went to elite universities, such as Cambridge, and then studied acting as a postgraduate course. Postgraduate education is hardly a pursuit of the economically challenged.

Let’s put it this way, acting is a profession that is well known for the audition process and how frustrating this can be. The profession is littered with sorties of famous actors who were penniless and on the last audition before they got that big role. Well, clearly the days of the penniless actor are long behind us. How many people from a working class background can afford to live in London whilst they audition for roles? In an industry were repeated failure in auditions (in an actor’s early career) are to be expected then only those with a family income, and so privilege, will be able to survive.

Unfortunately, the likes of Michael Canie are few and far between these days. Caine left school at 15 and took a series of working class jobs before joining the army and seeing action in the Korean War. He then took on a job as an assistant stage hand in a theatre.

Unfortunately, the acting profession has becoming one for those who come from privilege, yet another elitist organisation that our children can forget about joining. Why teach drama in state schools, further education colleges (and even the lower ranked universities) if you have to go to private school or an elite university to get into RADA? London is littered with drama and performance schools that cost anywhere between £12, 000 and £24, 000 per year to attend, only those from privilege can hope to make the grade. That said, privilege does not guarantee a place in anyway, entry is strictly by audition… and the fees being paid promptly of course.

Am I over reacting? I don’t think so, these actors all come from the 7% of our population that is privately educated. What about the 93% who are state educated. There is clearly a disproportionate number of successful actors coming from the privately educated sector.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not knocking these actors for their success or that British dramatic arts are so well respected internationally. However, I am knocking a system that is based in inequality. How many state educated students can realistically have dreams of acting if the shop is closed to those who do not come from privilege?

What is worse, we are not telling students who take up a school and college drama course that they are in for an unfair fight to get that acting job they dream about. Not unless extra and background work is their dream, which we know it won’t be.

Acting is about individual performance, a personal expression that should not be about being born into privilege. Unfortunately, show business and inequality seem to go hand in hand these days.

Privilege and inequality – a question for my Member of Parliament

I don’t think the governments perception of under privilege is necessarily the same as that of the under privileged themselves. Certainly, the majority of our Education Secretaries over the past three decades had a private education, so in the main they came from privilege.

How many students from really challenging backgrounds get into our elite institutions? In short, not many… but that’s nothing new. However, more often than not, these institutions will highlight their scholarship and bursary schemes, designed for the under privileged, as an answer to questions of inequality.

But, what is under privileged? Who is defining what is and what is not under privileged? I don’t think the governments perception of under privilege is necessarily the same as that of the under privileged themselves. Certainly, the majority of our Education Secretaries over the past three decades had a private education, so in the main they came from privilege.

Privilege is usually associated with extreme financial wealth and the range of opportunities exclusively available to privileged people. But privilege for some is what others would call the norm, the ‘nothing to write home about’. For some members of our community a stable upbringing, a loving and supportive family, friends, food on the table, schooling and a feeling of self-worth are privilege. Privilege is no longer just about mobile phones, money, cars, homes, holidays and clothes… it’s about opportunity or the lack of it. Too many of our children live in homes without this privilege. Some don’t call this privilege some call it basic needs, either way it impacts massively on their future opportunities.

How can a bright and capable student who comes from a background without these basic needs meet the entrance requirements for an elite institution when they are 18 years old? It’s hard enough to gain the entrance requirements for Cambridge, for example, when you come from a well-supported, loving family who are right behind you and provide you with every encouragement. What if your home life is not so ‘picture post card’ perfect? You can’t get a bursary or scholarship if you don’t get the grades. So again, the very people who truly need the support to reach the top… can’t get access to it.

To my mind, this says very clearly… if you want to get access to an elite institution in the UK then you need to come from a good home, if you don’t it’s not going to happen.

So, my question to government is, what are we doing for those young people who are bright and capable but don’t come from perfect homes? How can we help them over come being born into challenging circumstances and navigate our elitist culture?

I would urge you to contact your local MP, or as we approach a general election your prospective party candidates, and ask the question – what will you do for our young people, born into economic and social hardship, to ensure they have equal opportunity for success in a post Brexit Britain?

Do faith schools harm integration?

Writer and broadcaster Afua Hirsch argues faith schools lead to segregation.

Writer and broadcaster Afua Hirsch argues faith schools lead to segregation. Her compelling, if potentially polarizing, video can be viewed here. Her commentary on the subject is below but I am interested in what readers think about this. Certainly, on face value it feels like state sponsored segregation which leads to further to inequality in our communities.

“Britain has a problem with integration, all political parties agree. But, instead of serious long term policies the response has been confined to contrived and often patronising measures. Ethnic minority and immigrant communities are lectured about British values and we might all have to start swearing an oath of allegiance.

The glaring hypocrisy of our integration agenda is that our most important public institutions actively encourage segregation. Faith schools make up one third of all schools in Britain. Our government is proposing that they have even more power to discriminate by selecting more of their places based on religious belief. Public funds are being used to separate children by faith.

What could be more damaging to integration?

Faith schools are also segregating children by class. A quarter of faith primary schools have fewer disadvantaged students than those of no faith. Faith schools are the antithesis of a secular society but have never been so popular. Some parents are strategically using religious identities as a proxy for ethnicity, deliberately educating their children with others from a similar background. But the main reason for the popularity of faith schools is that many outperform other state schools in academic results.

We would never accept this kind of segregation in any other public service. Why is it acceptable in schools? We need to be honest about the role of faith and education in an integrated society and keep the two separate.”

Afua Hirsh

How much you achieve in life should not be determined by how much your parents earn – Teach First.

When battling inequality in the classroom any offer of support is greatly received. However, as an experienced secondary teacher I must take umbrage with Teach First. Whilst the concept is a great idea, it is basically flawed because of ambition.

Teach First claim ‘Each year, a new group of participants joins us and our university partners for six weeks of intensive training before teaching in one of our partner schools for at least two years while completing our Leadership Development Programme. Their training and their passion for educational equality means that they are dedicated to raising the aspirations of the young people in their classrooms.’

That is a great sentiment… really it is and I say it with out a hint of sarcasm. However, when Teach First trainees are delivered to a school with a first class degree and six week training under their belt they are full of enthusiaum. Yet, the real problem lies in that ‘Leadership Development Programme’ where Teach First trainees are told how they are going to revolutionise the teaching profession, they will be the future leaders of the profession. Subsequently, there lay the fundamental problem – leadership deveopment.

From my own experience, Teach First trainees arrive in a school, normally in a deprived part of the country, and have, again in my experience, been a mix of excellent teachers with a great future and those who are not so sure the profession is for them. However, the staff who are very capable teachers are encouraged, as part of the ‘Leadership Development Programme’, to be heads of department, then on to senior leadership as soon as possible.

So, ultimately, what happens, again in my experience, is that if you are lucky you get a great teacher for a year or two at best, beyond that they have moved on to be a head of department at different school with a 50% teaching timetable. Beyond that they señor leadership roles have less and less teaching commitment these days so a great teacher is no longer teaching. Then we are back to needing teaching staff again…

Some may say, if they are good enough… However, it takes away from the fact that Teach First claim to be offering excellent classroom teachers and what they really offer is ambitious teachers who want to move up the ladder as quickly as possible. Really, they offer the heads of the future, in fact, Teach First seem rather proud of their record of developing those in senior leadership. But, what about the learner… I thought it was about them and equality.

Really, what is Teach First’s true purpose? Is it to provide classroom practitioners or future leaders? I only ask as the laster already has its own process known as Future Leaders.

However, despite me complaining about the longevity of Teach First candidates their enthusiasm and commitment to equality is always welcome.

Children do better at school in more equal societies.

Below is an interesting article from the The Equality Trust which argues that ‘People with more education earn more, pay more taxes, are more productive, and happier.’ However, I would argue that to gain a good education you need a social support system that both encourages education and supports the time it takes, if you take into account college and university.

Children do better at school in more equal societies.

Controversially, the article goes on to suggest that ‘Well educated people contribute more to society; they’re also more likely to volunteer and to vote.’ Again, we can challenge this by asking how do they define a contribute to society? If they mean a financial contribution then perhaps they are correct but what about other forms of contribution?

Finally, the article highlights that ‘Although good school systems make a difference, the biggest influence on educational attainment is family background’. Unfortunately, this leads to the conclusion that ‘…disadvantaged children do less well at school and miss out on the benefits of education.’

This is where equality, or the lack of it, is easily highlighted. For disadvantaged children do less well at school is a national discrace and there are many articles that highlight this but less that actually offer solid solutions.

I understand that the government need to make electoral promises about improving educational opportunities for the disadvantaged but we have had very little impact from successive governments to make any real difference.

Teacher recruitment a ‘significant challenge’, say MPs

According to MP’s ‘Encouraging teachers in England to stay in the profession will “remain a significant challenge” for the coming years, a committee of MPs stresses.’

Wow, does it really take. a select committee to highlight that issue? The article goes on to highlight that ‘The Education Select Committee says the next government will have to ensure recruitment targets are improved.’ Really!? To anyone who has worked in the primary or secondary sector in recent years then this is not really news, the crisis in teacher recruitment has been an issue for a considerable period of time. The previous government failed to improve teacher numbers and still a large number of those who join leave the professsion due to work load.

The article goes on to state ‘The government says it is committed to addressing the challenges schools face.’ Again, really!? We have had successive Conservative governments and they have utterly failed to address this problem.

In reality, this is an example of government stating the obvious and having no history of addressing this problem. In education, we would have an action plan to address the problem and then highlight its impact in 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks… etc. Yet, the government just get to reinvent themselves with every election, despite failure to evidence what impact they have made.

The article can be found here – Teacher recruitment a ‘significant challenge’, say MPs

School comparisons are unjust and based on inequality

Often a good education depends upon where you live.

Inequality in education is not just about the opportunities afforded to learners but starts before they have even started school . How a school is measured by the government is equality important as we need fair comparisons. Interestingly, the new Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) which is being introduced for higher education does compare like for like institutions, as such further education colleges that offer some higher education provision are measured against others and will not be compared with traditional red brick universities such as those in the Russell group, which would be grossly unfair.

When you talk about inequality in education you can’t help but discuss the postcode lottery that is the modern comprehensive education system. Often a good education depends upon where you live and this leads to unfair comparisons.

I often hear people say how a private education is better than a comprehensive education, which as a teacher frustrates me greatly. Should a good education come from income? Of course a good education can not be guaranteed but if you live a certain part of a town or city then your children may be restricted to poorer performing schools.

If you examine local demographics then most successful primary and secondary schools tend to be where parents live who own their own homes and are subsequently employed, not always – I don’t want to generalise – but statistically it is more often than not, particularly in the North of England. Frustratingly, you start to see that a good education does in fact come in areas of less deprivation and subsequently a poor education comes in areas of greater deprivation.

If you take North East Lincolnshire, for example, and in particular the town of Grimsby, where I am from and have taught for many years, you have a typical east coast town where the major industry, in this case fishing, was eroded beyond recognition during the nineteen nineties so called Cod Wars and the town is now an area of economic deprivation, as is much of the east coast.

The successful secondary schools in the town, based on Ofsted inspection reports, are those on the periphery of the town, in this case Waltham Toll Bar, Healing and Humberstone – all academies. In fact, you are hard pressed to find a council run school in North East Lincolnshire as all have converted to become an academy. That said, the success of the academies programme is still open to much debate and the jury is definitely out as to whether they are a success or not (currently, as many are failing as are successful). However, in Grimsby, these three secondary schools, whose catchment areas are all villages on the outskirts of the main town, are the more successful with league table achievement in 5 GCSE’s including English and Maths, and now the new Progress 8 measure (basically, progress in a learners best 8 subjects rather that final outcomes). These academies are in areas that are the most affluent in the town and it does beg the question whether a good education is really down to pupils attending a school in an affluent area? The remaining secondary schools in Grimsby, again all academies, are, in the main, in the requires improvement category of Ofsted reporting. As such, if you live in central Grimsby you are more likely, statistically, to get a worse education.

That said, what do we mean by a worse education? In reality, we are talking only about achievement of GCSE qualifications in year 11, not any holistic education pupils might get over their time at the school. As such, in Grimsby, according to Ofsted reporting, you will only get a good or better education if you attend a school in a more affluent part of the town.

But, surely, if schools in more affluent areas achieve better results, and you will find this across the country, then why are schools from less affluent areas compared in league tables to schools from more affluent areas? Why is a school in a deprived city centre part of Grimsby, or Bradford, or Barnsley compared to a school in the Tower Hamlets, for example. Of course the learner demographics will be wildly different. Subsequently, staff in schools from deprived areas are being asked to work harder, in more challenging circumstances, than colleagues in the schools in more affluent areas. The problem is compounded by the difficulties in recruiting teachers – why would a teacher want to work in the more challenging school (especially if they had the choice)? Why would a head put their reputation on the line in a more challenging school? Lets be honest, school leaders are getting less and less time to make an impact, one poor Ofsted report and they are on the scrap heap.