M. Devlin - Closing the attainment gap - reality or pipe-dream? Joan Gaynor Mowat
Attainment gap linked to socio-economic issues - international problem - highly resistant to change.
Primarily focusing on schools as a means of closing the attainment gap won't work. The heart of social inequality needs to be the primary target.
Firstly: Important to remember: The problems facing Scottish education in closing the attainment gap are universal - apply at a global level.
Secondly: The persistance of problems internationally (associated with inequitable outcomes for children) have been resistant to change.
Thirdly: Begin driven to compete with data (OECD reports on performance and comparative studies - have led to policy borrowing as a means of tackling inadequacies in performance. Furthmore, these polices are critiqued or scrutinised.
Summary
The article discusses the issue of the attainment gap associated with socio-economic status in Scotland and examines the Scottish government's efforts to address this problem. The author critiques the government's approach, arguing that the problem cannot be solved solely by focusing on schools and attainment outcomes, but must also consider the economic, social, and relational constraints faced by families in poverty.
The article suggests that a holistic, systems-level approach is necessary and calls for a wide range of public policies to address inequality. The author also discusses the limitations of policy borrowing and the need for research-informed practice and collaboration between higher education institutions, government agencies, local authorities, and schools.
Overall, the article highlights the complexity of the attainment gap and the challenges involved in addressing it effectively.
Role of Leadership
Leadership plays a crucial role in closing the attainment gap in Scottish schools. The Scottish government has recognized the importance of leadership in addressing this issue and has implemented various initiatives to strengthen leadership capacity within the education system. These initiatives include the appointment of Attainment Advisors, the establishment of a National Improvement Hub, and the publication of the National Improvement Framework for Scotland.
Effective leadership is essential in driving change and ensuring that schools are equipped to address the challenges associated with the attainment gap. It involves building capacity at all levels of the system, including school leaders, teachers, and other stakeholders. Leadership preparation should focus on specialized knowledge on disadvantage, coaching, and strengthening networks. Great leaders should be attracted to tough schools, and their professional development should emphasize inclusive pedagogy and addressing barriers to achievement.
Furthermore, leadership should extend beyond individual schools and involve collaboration between Higher Education Institutions, government agencies, local authorities, and schools. This collaborative approach allows for the sharing of expertise and the development of research-informed practice. It also highlights the need for a systems-level approach, recognizing that schools cannot address the attainment gap alone and that a wide range of public policies addressing social and economic inequalities are necessary.
Clearer Guidance from Scottish Government needed
There's a need for clearer guidance from the Scottish Government in order to successfully implement change initiatives. It mentions that successful initiatives from Harvard University are based on a strong research base and a framework of principles that allow for flexibility and innovation at the local level.
Questioning whether the National Improvement Framework (NIF) in Scotland provides this same level of guidance and flexibility. It suggests that the NIF lacks a clear narrative or theoretical perspective, and its link to practice on the ground is unclear. The document also raises concerns about the identification and relationship of the key principles and drivers within the NIF.
The six key drivers identified in the NIF are school leadership, teacher professionalism, parental engagement, assessment of children's progress, school improvement, and performance information. The document questions how these drivers were identified and how they relate to each other. It also mentions that the NIF has faced criticism from practitioners and academics who view it as a return to national testing and its associated risks.
The problem with policy borrowing
The article explores the international trend of borrowing education policies from one country to another. The pressure to perform well in international league tables and reports has led to a growing influence of these comparisons in shaping educational policies. Governments have started importing and exporting policies as a potential solution to their problems.
In Scotland, the need to address inequalities has further fueled the drive to seek solutions from around the world and within the UK. However, policy borrowing often overlooks the cultural and political context, raising questions about the transferability of policies. Policy borrowing is seen as a conscious adoption of policies observed in another country. It is regarded as a solution to educational problems, but there is a distinction between policy borrowing and policy learning.
Policy learning focuses on governance, implementation, and the conduct of policy across national boundaries, while policy borrowing is more selective and political. There are two approaches to policy borrowing: normative, which identifies and transfers best practices, and an approach that examines why and when certain practices are considered best. Policy borrowing is not entirely rational and depends on political, social, and economic factors. It requires political willingness, problem recognition, and external funding to create a policy window for change.
Contradictions within the system
There are concerns regarding national testing and the impact of marketisation, managerialism, and performativity on educational reform.
Proxy measures and symbolic rewards are used to determine the worth of individuals and organizations, but questions arise about who defines valuable performance and the validity of these measures.
The language used in educational policy, such as terms like 'outstanding' and 'excellence,' is often narrowly defined and lacks clarity. Teachers are worried about how performativity affects their teaching, leading to a focus on short-term improvement rather than long-term gains.
This results in a narrowed curriculum, limited skills development, and concerns about the use of data. Teachers feel conflicted between their desire to make a difference and policy directives. This conflict exists at the individual and organizational levels, as autonomy given to schools for innovation comes with increased accountability.