This writer worries that American ideas are being imported to English schools.
The curious episode at the center of the article is the description of a conference about creating charter schools in the U.K., encouraged by the Conservative government’s Minister of Education Michael Gove:
To see where News Corp’s interest might lie, we can look to a conference organised by Gove’s department in January 2011. Gove had invited Gerald [Joel] Klein, who was then chancellor of the New York City Board of Education, to speak to people “interested in setting up free schools”. (So called “free schools” are a version of academies which both front benches favour.) Four days after Gove extended the invitation, Klein was appointed to the Board of News International. By the time Klein attended the conference he was a News Corp employee, although Gove says he did not know about the appointment.
Also attending the conference, and present at a dinner hosted by the Department for Education, were Mike Feinberg, co-Founder of KIPP Houston, Paul Castro, Head of High Schools KIPP Houston, Aaron Brenner, Head of Primary schools KIPP Houston, Jo Baker, Director of Washington Public Charter School Board, and Monique Miller, Performance Manager of Washington DC Public Charter School Board.
This goes a way towards explaining Murdoch’s enthusiastic support for charter schools, and his ceaseless disparagement of public schools, in his many media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and Fox News.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Add Michelle Rhee to the group aiming to influence education policy in England. She went there in June to pass off her education “reform”. The title of this British article really got her number:
Michelle Rhee: ‘Witchfinder General’ of America’s Classrooms Flies in to Give Gove Her Gospel
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/michelle-rhee-witchfinder-general-of-americas-classrooms-flies-in-to-give-gove-her-gospel-7888973.html
As a teacher in England, I follow your blog (and read your books) with a fascination about both the similarities and differences between our education systems. Ideologically the US and England often go through similar fads and exchange thinkers all the time. The current UK government has flirted (I think that’s the best word) with the ideas of the American school reform movement. Most recently Michelle Rhee was over here promoting her own legend and being praised by ministers. However, there are differences as well as similarities.
Schools are governed at different levels in our countries. In England (I am glossing over what happens in the other nations of the UK) education is controlled by the UK government, with administrative powers delegated to Local Education Authorities (now just “Local Authorities”) which are the locally elected councils covering cities, London boroughs and counties. These never had as much power as American states (teachers pay and conditions and qualifications were decided nationally) and in many ways may be more comparable to school boards in the US, but were often seen as powerful and unaccountable particularly prior to the 1980s due to the lack of autonomy in individual schools. Power has shifted significantly over the years, with the 1980s seeing an increase in both centralisation (with the setting of the national curriculum and new tests and exams and creation of OFSTED, the national schools inspectorate) and decentralised to schools (with schools being given more responsibility to run their own finances).
A lot of political debate since then has centred over where power should lie. The underlying agenda of that article is about the power of local authorities and also the perception of central government (particularly under the Tories) as supporting traditional education and local government as supporting progressive education. The New Statesman magazine (along with the Guardian newspaper) is the voice of the middle-class left in England and for that reason will assume both that local authorities are good and that traditional education is bad. None of this necessarily maps onto reality, nor onto comparisons with the US. The two new(er) types of school that the article opposes are Academies, which are former local authority schools given more power and autonomy, and Free Schools which are new schools set up by parents. While comparisons can be made with Charter Schools and the US situation the following differences are probably key:
1) The English National Curriculum and testing system are already in place. Far from being part of a movement for standardised tests, Academies and free schools are given more freedom from the National Curriculum.
2) The closing of “bad schools” is not yet on the agenda. This may be because demographics mean new schools can be introduced to cope with a rising school population without closing old schools. It might also reflect the fact that there are not, as yet, very many free schools.
3) The traditional vs. progressive faultlines are more clearly on display in the debate here. That is why the charter schools mentioned are KIPP (who are quite traditional on discipline) rather than, say, the online charter schools you have been describing recently. Although some of the free schools can easily be described as “progressive” this is not something the media says much about, and the last thing the New Statesman would admit to.
4) Despite a lot of controversy over exam standards here, our exams have not become mutiple-choice, short answer messes like the American ones and only one of our three main exam boards is private. The government has shown a preference for essay questions, and more challenging exams.
5) Our teaching unions are terrible. They oppose everything but stop nothing and are barely able to work together. The government finds them a useful scapegoat but they really count for nothing.
6) The government has held off on privatisation. A lot of the debate is not about what they are doing to involve private companies, but what they might do in the future.
There is definitely the potential for a US style reform movement lobbying for privatisation and union-busting. There is Teach First, an English equivalent of Teach For America, a lot of similar rhetoric and moves towards unqualified teachers. There are academy sponsors who resemble charter schools chains. But on the whole we are not there yet. I recognise more of the English debate in your older books like “Left Back”, than in “The Death and Life of the Great American School System”. Curriculum content is more controversial than anything else. To give examples, the most heated debates in English education recently have been over whether to teach phonics and whether exams have got easier and what to do about that.
At one point, Murdoch wanted to sponsor a “free school” in East London. That came out in the Leveson inquiry:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/26/news-international-sponsor-academy-school
That’s like News Corp. running a charter school here. Can you imagine? The Bill O’Reilly Charter School For Media Studies? The Brit Hume Charter School Of Political Hackery? The Rebekah Brooks Charter School For Technological Espionage?
Nope – this was the Rupert Murdoch Free School For Media And Technology.
It fell apart even before the hacking scandal blew up on them. Apparently Rupert wanted something of a co-location, but the British gov’t didn’t have the money.
At the Leveson inquiry, Murdoch even managed to slam teachers:
“Asked at the Leveson inquiry on Thursday whether Gove was close to him, Murdoch replied: ‘I wish he was.’
In his evidence he described the standard of public education in Britain and the US as ‘an absolute disgrace’. Referring to education reform in the US, he said: ‘It’s very difficult – not for lack of money but lack of teacher co-operation.'”
Cooperating with what?
I guess he is used to minions rolling over and awaiting their own execution. Murdoch and education….that should make everyone shudder.
Where do his two young daughters go to school?
Here’s an article about how the Murdoch family treated a former tutor:
http://gawker.com/5926705/
I assume this is the kind of “co-operation” he wants from teachers.
Take whatever treatment they give you and like it.
No wonder Rupert wants teachers treated like serfs.
That’s how his family treats their own staff.
OMG….a must read..another self-serving, self-promoting Wendy. Talk about Tiger mom…..what a nightmare.
Imagine all the teachers left on the side of the road under a Murdoch education plan….read this story…..YIKES! Maybe Rupert won’t survive himself.
Why of course. Read Lois Weiner’s work in this area. This is a worldwide phenomenon born of neoliberal political and economic ideas. Public institutions are bad because they are public, and they must be sold to the highest bidder.
I laugh when people go on and on about Finland, apart from the fact it is a much smaller and completely different demographic than the United States. Someday Finland’s system is going to be dismantled as well.
Neoliberalism is a poison that needs to be discard before the entire world blows up.
[…] US education historian (and now infamous pro-teacher troublemaker), Diane Ravitch recently blogged about an article from the New Statesman about education in England. Being the New Statesman the […]