Oct 14

Private schools with a public purpose

On Monday this week, St Mary’s Calne and the Girls’ Schools Association hosted a seminar in London to discuss the educational hot topic of our time: how independent schools can become more and more involved in the state sector, blurring boundaries which have grown up, and retuning, some would argue, to the original aims of private schools – to educate young people who would not otherwise be able to receive an education. Mr Bill Watkin of the Schools’ Network, which offers practical support to schools seeking to enter into partnership with state schools, was joined by the impressive Dr Elizabeth Sidwell, the Schools Commissioner, who spoke passionately about the urgency of helping under-performing state schools, so that no child would have his or her school years blighted by low aspirations and poor standards.

All the participants – Heads, Bursars and Governors – listened especially attentively, however, to our other speaker, Dr Albert Adams, former Head of Lick-Wilmerding School in San Francisco, and now an Advisor on Education, Leadership and Public Purpose. As the Head of Lick-Wilmerding, Al Adams spearheaded a vast number of initiatives in the local and national arena which had at their heart the concept of ‘public purpose’ despite – perhaps because of – being formed in and by private schools: summer school programmes, school-to-school partnerships, community service programmes, advisory work with struggling schools, professional development initiatives for teachers … the list was seemingly endless. Clearly, Dr Adams’ Governors were strongly supportive of the work that he did, even to the point of allocating 20% of his time to this project, but the benefits for the school, let alone the community, were manifold. His enthusiasm, however, was clearly the driver – he was passionate about his work, and this was palpable.

The messages of the afternoon were, in the end, simple: it is time to leave behind the antagonisms that have existed in our recent educational past between the private and public sectors, and to embrace the real value that independent schools bring to the UK educational scene. Schools need to play their part in this; so does our government and media. When this happens, it opens the door for independent schools to do what they are really good at – lead learning, both in their own schools and in partnership with other schools. We have immense talent in the independent sector – and, working with the outstanding elements of the state sector, we can really effect change.

The key, however, is reciprocity. This is not a case, as Dr Adams put it, of ‘noblesse oblige’; independent schools are not pretending to know all the answers and to impose them on others. Our independence is our strength, and we have evolved into powerful places of learning – an educational power which we can share, but which will grow still further through the act of sharing, as our staff develop a broader skill set and bring this expertise to a wider range of young people, who in turn can learn to understand and appreciate one another better. Successful programmes will always be mutually beneficial, and this was a core message of our meeting of minds.

These are exciting and interesting times in education – let us see where they take us.

Oct 11

Ed Smith, Cricket and Renaissance People

Last week I was in a blustery St Andrew’s for an excellent – bracing, even, in more ways than one! – annual meeting of the Headmasters and Headmistresses Conference. Led and organised by the new Chair of HMC, Ken Durham (Headmaster of University School, Hampstead), the conference took as its theme ‘Excellence, not Privilege’, and featured a number of stimulating speakers who approached this theme from a number of angles, recognising the excellence of the independent schools’ sector as they did so.

One of the speakers was Ed Smith, erstwhile independent schoolboy, England cricketer, writer and columnist for The Times, who spoke convincingly about his understanding, born of experience, that he came to be a better cricketer by not focusing solely on the game of cricket. Instead, he argued, he improved his cricket because he had a life beyond the sport – connected with cricket, of course, as he was passionate about it, and reflected in his writing especially, but employing a whole range of other skills, thoughts and experiences. Focused technical expertise, he argued, will only take you so far, and has in fact the potential to become twisted and counter-productive – we may have mocked the old-fashioned banker, but a dash of their hunches, coupled with greater time spent pondering over judgements, might just have saved us from the financial mess in which we find ourselves today. Much the same could be applied to politics – do we really trust ‘career’ politicians in the way that we trust people who have had a life before politics, and a more balanced understanding of the world as a result?

A very successful coach I know – and now award-winning author (Lynne Copp – follow her on Twitter at @DancingHandbags) – returned recently from the Women in Networking International Conference with a clear message that we all need to become ‘T-shaped’: broad and deep – a good broad understanding of business and a deep speciality. This was in effect what Ed Smith was saying, and both messages resonated with my instinct that in order to be successful and happy in life, it is not sufficient to be very, very good at only one aspect. We don’t have to be outstanding at everything we do, but we do need to be able to engage with the breadth and variety that life has to offer. This is exactly what Renaissance Man was all about. Updated for today, the concept of Renaissance People is a very attractive one.

Stretch yourself: start becoming a Renaissance Person today.

Oct 08

Queen Elizabeth I: a supporter of girls’ schools?

Toward the end of last month, in my capacity as President of the Girls’ Schools Association, I hosted a dinner for around 50 guests at the Honourable Society of Gray’s Inn in London. It was a super evening: present were Heads of a number of great girls’ schools, and Heads of a number of great prep schools, together with some invited guests. Professor A C Grayling spoke inspiringly about the landscape of Higher Education and what universities should be doing for their charges, and he had a receptive audience when he spoke about excellence and aspiration, coupled with the need to direct young people to enable them to focus on the future, not simply drift into the world of work.

When it came to the Royal Toast – a Gray’s Inn tradition – I drew attention to the portrait of Queen Elizabeth I, which hangs in the Dining Hall beneath our dining room. Up to the age of 11, Elizabeth shared the tutors of her half-brother Edward, but she was a bright girl with an appetite for learning, and in 1544, when she was 11, she had appointed to her a personal tutor, William Grindal. By this time she could write English, Latin, and Italian, but under the talented and skilful Grindal she also progressed in French and Greek, and is reputed to have spoken Cornish. After Grindal sadly died of the plague in 1548, Elizabeth continued her education under Roger Ascham, a teacher who believed that learning should be active, engaging and a positive experience, and after whom the great girls’ school in Sydney, Ascham, is named. Roger Ascham wrote a treatise on educational method, The Scholemaster, which was published posthumously in 1570, and he was generally credited with directing the young Elizabeth to an extremely high level in her studies.

By the time her formal education ended in 1550, Elizabeth was the best educated woman of her generation, and undoubtedly an advocate of education for its own sake. As I said to the accumulated body of Heads at my President’s dinner, I think it is not too far a step from this to imagine that Queen Elizabeth I would have been an enthusiastic advocate of education for girls in the 21st century, and for girls’ schools in general, had she been alive now. How wonderful to have royal approval!

A study of history is a marvellous thing …

Oct 06

What a world-class education really means

One of the other speakers I very much enjoyed listening to at the IAPS conference (see my blog on Sunday) was a teacher from Windlesham House School in West Sussex, a prep school teaching girls and boys up to the age of 13. He was speaking about the partnership that Windlesham has with The CRED Foundation, which enables the school to take trips abroad, to developing countries, on expeditions which are mutually transformative, and the pictures he showed and the stories he told were captivating.

Through CRED, groups of boys and girls from Windlesham have been out to help in projects in Africa and now India – visits which by all accounts have changed the lives of the participants quite profoundly. To see poverty up close, and to do something to help put it right – this was the opportunity that these young citizens had, and they grasped it with both hands. Whether it was by teaching, or by playing games, or simply by connecting and building relationships, the visitors were able not only to gain an insight into the issues facing the whole of humanity, but also to seek to do something about them.

This was a fabulous opportunity, and it made me reflect on the purpose of the education to which we devote our time in schools. Independent schools in the UK – all independent schools, not just prep schools – set their sights extremely high in all that they do, and nowhere is this more obvious than in the aims that we set ourselves to ensure that the education we offer to our students is absolutely excellent – world-class, in fact. A world-class education must be worthy of the name, and cannot be restricted to the development of the individual alone, although this is an important part of it; rather, it must allow for the growth of the individual into a social, socially-aware, socially-responsible, human being who understands and is sensitive to the needs of the wider, global community, and who is prepared to make a difference.

I feel this incredibly strongly in my role as an educator; hearing the stories of 12 year olds last week, and the change these experiences have wrought in their lives, inspired me yet further. We should all be seeking to change the world for the better. If you haven’t started yet, it is never too late to begin.

Oct 04

“Women earn more than men”: should we be excited?

An article in yesterday’s Independent by Richard Garner, the Education Editor, drew attention to the content of this year’s Elizabeth Johnson Memorial Lecture at the Institute of Physics. Betty Johnson, who died in 2003, was a great supporter of women in the sciences, and in her honour, this lecture this year was given by Mary Curnock Cook, the chief executive of UCAS, the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service. She spoke in part about figures published by the UK Office of National Statistics, in their Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, which revealed how women of a certain age group (22-29) have started to earn more than men, and it was this figure that made the headlines. Is it indeed proof that the gender pay gap is closing, or even that women’s qualifications are translating into better-paid jobs in the workplace?

Delving further into the statistics shows us that the news isn’t perhaps as positive – or, indeed, in an age where we are used to seeing stories of a persistent pay gap, as unusual – as the headline in the Independent suggested. For a start, the difference is very slight – a difference of a few pence an hour, hovering around the £10 an hour mark. Besides, this pay difference is restricted to this particular age group of 22 to 29 (and given that the average age to have a first baby in the UK is now 29, this may be a significant cut-off point). Overall, the picture is not so rosy either – while junior women managers now earn £21,969 on average, ie £602 more than men at the same level, female managers in general are paid on average £31,895 per year, which does not compare nearly as well with the £42,441 that men are paid on average for doing the same job. It is no surprise, then, that while the mean net graduate premium – the amount by which lifetime pay is boosted through degree level qualifications – is £108,000, this splits into an unequal £121,000 for men and only £82,000 for women.

Still, we should not be too pessimistic – any signs that men’s and women’s pay is growing closer together are encouraging as we strive to move our society towards a situation in which gender inequality is not even an issue. This is not about women seeking to be superior to men, nor is it even about particular women always seeking to be paid the same as particular men (although to be fair, if they are doing the same job, then they should be!). Statistics are a crude measure and do not discriminate between individuals of different characters, aptitudes, experiences and suitability for any particular job; they are a fair indicator, though, of trends, and one trend we would need to see in order to ‘park’ the whole issue of gender inequality would be precisely the sort of trend to which Mary Curnock Cook was drawing attention. In the meantime, it seems sensible to continue setting the kind of target, however aspirational, which Lord Davies broadly recommends in his report for the number of senior women on boards. Unless we set ourselves goals, we will not get to where we should be in this respect.

So in the light of this news, let us all – in equal (no pun intended) measure – celebrate, be cautious, and determine to make sure that the issue does not yet fade from our consciousness.

Oct 02

How a hijack revealed the immense power of humanity

One of the privileges of being President of the Girls’ Schools Association is being invited to the annual conferences of the other UK Heads’ Associations, and last week I was a guest at the IAPS conference of Prep School Heads, which this year was held in Birmingham. It was a super conference with a stimulating theme of ‘Torch Bearers – Key Relationships in Shaping Society’, and it was great to be able to spend three days talking and thinking about the relationships we foster in our schools, which is one of the amazing strengths of the independent schools’ sector.

The speakers were inspirational, and one particularly inspirational – and moving – speaker was Mike Thexton, who told the story of how he was involved in the hijacking of Pan Am flight 073 in Karachi in 1986. He has written a book about the incident ‘ What happened to the hippy man? ‘ which refers to his rather unkempt appearance at the time (he was returning from a climbing expedition to honour his brother, who had died in the Himalayas, climbing without oxygen). In the early stages of the hijack, one passenger was shot, and Mike was chosen as the next man to die. He spent hours kneeling at the front of the plane, by the door, waiting to be shot, until he was eventually sent back to his seat. The ordeal did not end particularly well – 20 people were shot in a mass shooting by the hijackers – but Mike managed to escape, and live.

He spoke in a very matter-of-fact way about the incident, and had us captivated, holding our breath in shock and awe. It was a powerful presentation. Two points in his narration were particularly powerful, though. He told the story of the air hostess who, when told to collect in the passports of the passengers for the hijackers to select their victims, demonstrated incredible courage in ‘losing’ the passports of the white Americans who were on the flight – judging, rightly, that they would otherwise be the first to die. It struck home – I remembered the story of bravery and resilience in another hijacking experienced b a dear friend of mine, which you can read about on her website.

He also told his own story – of how, at the front of the plane, a bullet away from death, he not only said goodbye in his head to all his family and those dear to him, but he decided that he did not want to die angry, and that he would forgive the hijackers. He did, and he found an amazing peace and calm.

The strength that comes from going beyond the everyday, from rising above concerns with the self, and taking a bold, brave leap into concern for others, even in the face of tremendous adversity, is phenomenal. Terror may be an extraordinarily disempowering, imprisoning force – but we break free when we decide, consciously, that we are greater than the bodies in which we inhabit our lives – we are part of this amazing body of humanity.

To be courageous and to forgive – two choices which we can all make.

Sep 30

Having 3 children doesn’t have to damage your career

If you have time, do read these two online articles: the first, entitled ‘Working Moms: Women With Three Children Less Likely To Have Jobs Than Those With Two, Study Says’, reports on the findings of a research study in Australia, published in July, which looked at how women with more than two children were less likely to be in employment than women with fewer than two children. The second, on bnet.com, written by Laura Vanderkam, is called ‘More Kids Won’t Kill Your Career-Unless You Want Them To’ and takes slight issue with the findings, pointing out that the figures are less depressing than mothers of three or more children might think.

I might be said to have a vested interest, as I have three children of my own and a career, but in fact I was just curious to explore why it might be that the study findings were as they were (other than, of course, the obvious costs both financially and in time of managing large families). What was really interesting, however, was that despite the headline – which re-emphasised the ‘difficulty’ aspect of working motherhood, as captured too in the film and book ‘I don’t know how she does it’ (see my previous blog) – the facts were somewhat different. In fact, an average of 55% of the women with three children interviewed in the study actually did work outside the home. This means that women with three children were more likely to work than not to work – a fact which did not make the headlines. Given that only 21% of women under 30 with three children were working, (not surprising, as it is quite hard to manage to have three children before the age of 30 as well as study and work), then this suggests that a much higher proportion of older women with three children were working too.

So the picture is not bleak at all … but in any case, I would question whether we should even worry about statistics, except in as far as they highlight areas where employers need to address hurdles which prevent women from working and having families. Let’s move instead away from an entrenched position where we assume that life is difficult for working mothers; what really matters is that women are allowed to make their own choices, and that there is nothing to prevent this happening. As Laura Vanderkam says at the end of her article, ‘Sure, it’s challenging, but so are most things that are worth doing in life. Three kids doesn’t have to be the kiss of death, and isn’t for most Australian women, apparently. Even if that didn’t make the headlines.’

Indeed.

Sep 27

Re-forming the state education landscape in this country

There has of late been a whirlwind of activity in the field of national educational debate in the UK, with a drive on the part of Government to encourage independent schools to sponsor failing state schools as they become Academies – effectively, semi-independent state schools. (I say ‘semi-independent’ because I have yet to be convinced that Academies will have the true independence experienced by fee-paying independent schools, which can – albeit within a regulatory framework designed to keep children safe – respond immediately and effectively to the needs of their children and their parents.)

At a lunch last term at Guildhall in the City of London, Michael Gove said that independent schools should ‘hang their heads in shame’ if they did not sponsor an Academy; at a meeting in Downing Street earlier this month both David Cameron and Michael Gove made a similarly robust case for independent schools to take over state schools; a symposium on Academies at Wellington College last Thursday was well-attended by the great and the good in the independent sector; independent school leaders are meeting with Government officials – the Girls’ Schools Association, for instance, met with Dr Elizabeth Sidwell, the Schools Commissioner, last week. It seems very much as though there is a movement which is taking us towards a blurring of the boundaries between state and independent education, and there seems to be a cross-party commitment to the Academies programme.

Why is the Academies programme so important? The argument is as follows: education is without doubt vital for the future of the young people in this country and for the country as a whole. There are too many under-performing schools, which are blighting the education and aspirations of too many young people. A good – great – school has a strong, aspirational ethos, outstanding teachers and strong, robust, autonomous leadership. Independent schools have this expertise, this ‘DNA’, as Lord Adonis called it several years ago. It takes only a small step of the imagination to see that the state sector could benefit from the involvement and engagement of the independent sector.

So why should independent schools even entertain the notion of ploughing time, effort, and – no doubt, in due course – financial resources – into state education? This question has yet to be answered in the minds of many, and many more are extremely cautious, but when the answer comes, it will be connected with the original charitable aims of our independent schools, many of which were set up to educate the poor and disadvantaged. It will also be because as educators we have a strong sense of moral purpose in what we do, and this means reaching out beyond what we do in school to the wider community and world. It will be because we recognise that we have huge experience in running extraordinarily fine schools, and that we have a responsibility to share this. And it will be because we understand that our pupils will benefit when our teachers will gain an even greater breadth of experience.

There are many difficult hurdles ahead, both practical and conceptual – the relationship between Government and schools, for example, not to mention the thorny issue of funding and investment (who pays and how much?). No school should be rushing into this kind of relationship. But when you look at all the successful and mutually rewarding partnerships we already have in place across the independent-state divide, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that we might edge yet closer.

If our young people benefit, then we owe it to them at the very least to consider it.

Sep 25

The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling: do single-sex schools really make pupils more sexist?

I wish that I could gain access to the full study published in this month’s edition of Science journal which appears to conclude that single-sex education is bad, wrong, immoral, not worth it – you can imagine the tone. As the website of the American Association of the Advancement of Science, who publish Science does not allow free access to the whole article, I have had to make do with the summary, and with the number of press articles (including in the Telegraph) picking up the highlights (possibly from edited press releases, although I would hope that the AAAS have given education journalists access to the full report).

I would love to read the whole article, partly because I enjoy soaking up research on anything to do with education, but partly too because I am extremely curious to see what makes the authors of this report so certain of their conclusion. I have no issue with them claiming that ‘there is no well-designed research showing that single-sex (SS) education improves students’ academic performance’, as I suspect that they are probably right – how would one design such research in a way that was ethically and practically acceptable? Besides, each young person is a unique individual; how can we ever be certain that what works for one person will work for another? And at what point in their life could we take a stand and draw a conclusion about the effect of their school experience – at 18, 30, 65? And how would we distinguish their experience of schooling from all the other experiences they will have had in their lives? And how could we pull apart all the very, very many aspects that make up education or schooling anyway: different teachers, teachers at different times of the day, teachers at different stages of their lives, teachers with different life stories who interact with their charges in different ways as a result – and so on, to name but a few?

I do, however, have a problem with the authors of this report claiming that this lack of scientific evidence makes single-sex education ‘deeply misguided’. If there is no evidence to suggest that single-sex education is better or worse than co-ed education, as they claim, then the same must be true of co-education. And what evidence are they drawing on to conclude that ‘sex segregation increases gender stereotyping and legitimizes institutional sexism’? This is so far removed from my experience of single-sex education that I find it completely perplexing. When a statistical analysis conducted by the Girls’ Schools Association shows that, ‘compared to all girls nationally, in GSA schools over 70% more girls took A level maths; over 50% more girls took a science at A level; over 90% more girls took a physical science (physics or chemistry) at A level; over 80% more girls studied French, German or Spanish at A level.’, then you have to wonder how the authors of this new report came to their conclusion. Surely they haven’t fallen into the trap of judging schools today by the outcomes of schools several decades ago, when our social history was very different?

The aspect of the report, though, which caused me quite simply to put the report out of my mind and file its conclusions as verging on opinion rather than fact is the affiliation of all of its authors: ‘All authors are founders and uncompensated board members of the nonprofit American Council for CoEducational Schooling.’ As I said in my letter to the Telegraph the day after the news was published, which was sent on behalf of the Girls’ Schools Association, I sense a strong self-interest here in the research group reaching such a radical conclusion. What a shame that this should undermine a legitimate research goal.

By all means let us keep researching the area of single-sex education, as every other part of education, in the search for what helps young people learn and grow into well-rounded, well-grounded young adults. Let us debate, let us share experience, let us develop good practice. But let us recognise too that in a healthy national and international education system there will always be sufficient choice for parents to be able to find the right place at the right time for their daughters and their sons, and a part of this must be choice in schools with different gender balances. I know some great single-sex schools, and I lead one myself. The girls emerge as amazingly well-balanced human beings, with a self-knowledge and ease of being which surpasses most of their expectations, and those of their parents. I would defy any of the researchers to come and experience my girls’ school and still think single-sex education was even remotely ‘misguided’!

Sep 23

Women’s depression rates: how can we prevent them rising further?

A relatively well-considered article in the Daily Mail last week drew attention again to the rise in the number of women who are being treated in this country for depression, and who are as a result of this diagnosis are being prescribed anti-depressants. As usual in the Daily Mail, it is important to read beyond the sensationalist title, which accuses (on this occasion) drugs companies of cynicism in encouraging prescriptions of their own products; equally, it is important to gloss over the usual embedded criticisms of women – especially working women – which surface briefly. And do – as ever – steer clear of the comment streams which follow the article, which contain polarised, ancient views of women which can border on the ludicrous.

This aside, the main drive of the article is that we do not really know why women suffer from depression more than men, although we have a fair inkling that it lies in the speed at which social change has occurred over the past few decades, and the impact that this has had emotionally and physically on women’s lives. This change, of course, is to be welcomed: with every decade we move closer to a situation where gender inequality is no longer a reality, and where women and men are able to be more authentically themselves. It stands to reason that when we reach such a harmonious state – and I am under no illusion that this will be hard to attain – then we will end up with a happier, healthier, more balanced society.

What we must not forget, though, is the period of time between now and then. Change is hard; transition causes stress, and the psychological hardships experienced by women and men in relation to their shifting gender roles should not be underestimated. Drugs, as part of an arsenal of approaches to help ease this transition, can of course be of benefit. The point of the article, though, is that we should be more robust; more appropriate than drugs, perhaps, are personal counselling and guidance to help women deal with these enormous changes.

This makes perfect sense. We should be supporting all our women, young and old, to make the most of themselves, and we should not be afraid to stand up and argue for this kind of help. Muddling through will get us only so far; the more resources we can devote to enabling women to develop strength and resilience, the better. Girls’ schools make a phenomenal starting point; the medical profession should catch up.