Print

To LGDS or not to LGDS – Part 3

Written by Glen Ocsko on . Posted in Our blog

The introduction of a Local Government Digital Service (LGDS), building on the work done by central government’s GDS, is an ongoing discussion which divides opinion as neatly as the introduction of a new grammar school “annex” in Kent. Each side is equally as convinced it is right, and totally unable to understand why the other cannot see the reason behind their own arguments.

Part 1 of this series set out why some people think LGDS is both inevitable and a great idea, while Part 2 explored why this isn’t really the case. Part 2’s admittedly pessimistic, yet arguably more realistic angle was that, while in some ways LGDS might do some good things, in all likelihood it is never likely to get off the ground and be given the chance, the authority and the resources to make itself a success.

That being said, it could be that there is still a place for LGDS. It isn’t perhaps in the same form as those who promote it might envisage, but it is still a form which will enable it to take up a key role leading and supporting the sector.

Shared standards, processes and schema

A couple of months ago a workshop was held in which it was shared that in another industry a total lack of any shared standards was hampering the ability of software providers to easily exit contracts, pick up from legacy systems and even talk with other applications when required. A common set of standards was required, though none was established nor was work being coordinated by government, central or local, to create them.

In the end, a group of the main suppliers to that sector decided enough was enough and came together to agree on a set of standards and schemas to which they would all work. They met regularly after that to review and update these, with proposed changes being put forward, discussed and agreed by them all. None of this was demanded, none of this was ‘owned’ by the authorities and none of this was mandatory.

Yet it worked. Each company was better able to deliver applications and systems which worked effectively with others, none forced others to operate in a way which would damage them, and the sector found itself in a position whereby changing suppliers was no longer the headache it once was.

LGDS would have the ability to facilitate and lead exactly such a group for local government. Using their expertise and knowledge they could easily put forward open standards for development which others would be encouraged to follow and be involved in shaping and evolving. They would not be dictating these standards but supporting their evolution, resulting in the private sector being far more willing to engage and buy in to the process. Some of these would be relatively straightforward to agree, while other, more niche areas would require more investigation and work. However, at the end of each process a central library of standards would exist.

Delivering workable, supported common applications

It wouldn’t just be in terms of standards and guidance that LGDS could operate. Due to inevitably fewer resources than would be ideal, LGDS would need to be incredibly selective when it came to choosing which applications to focus on. However, were it able to take a small number of common requirements and develop a viable, sustainable solution which others could then use that would be of great use to councils up and down the country.

To be clear, this is not intended to be a call for anything approaching a shared CMS for every council to use. While the arguments for such an approach are well known, realistically this is simply not likely to happen. However, the release of self-contained applications, each built as robustly yet simply as possible, would potentially give councils an additional option when it came to renewing their own systems.

For example, rather than commissioning a separate payments system for every service which collected payments, a simple interface could be built which delivers this function and which can then be plugged into other systems to securely share data as appropriate. The same could be offered for other well defined issues, such as forms, search engines or emergency alerts. None of these would be forced onto councils, but each would stand alone as a baseline to which others could be compared and which anyone could both install themselves as well as see (and potentially improve) the code behind it.

Not too many of these would be needed before suppliers started understanding what was expected of them, along with how they could make themselves better in order to be even more attractive and offer greater value for money. Win-win.

Acting as short term, free troubleshooting consultants

GDS is full of some amazing minds doing great things; it can only be hoped that LGDS would be equally as packed with talent. Team members are often encouraged to work on projects outside of their normal duties for a proportion of their week; however, to date, these have mostly been internal to GDS.

Imagine if that talent could be taken out of the office instead? Imagine a team of LGDS staff, trained and experienced in digitising services and improving the experience for customers, who were available to come in to solve a particular challenge within a particular council. Having trouble working out how to digitise your parking services? No problem, here is six weeks of intensive support to get you started. Can’t get buy-in from stakeholders for improving your intranet? We can help with that. Planning a huge CMS redevelopment procurement process but haven’t got the experience to do it all from scratch? LGDS to the rescue.

Short term, targeted support could be made available to councils up and down the country from LGDS. As well as having the benefit of bringing LGDS practices and principles to a wider range of councils than ever before without bogging things down in a year-long programme of work which ends up achieving little, this would also have the ongoing benefit of constantly forcing LGDS to engage with new councils across the country. There’s nothing like actually seeing a service, talking with staff and working with end users to improve your understanding of what is really needed rather than what you thought it needed.

Being a point of leadership

Finally, figureheading matters. Without a well-publicised figurehead, no matter how good your work is it will often go unnoticed. While there is confusion over who is driving something forward or where the direction is coming from it will be incredibly difficult to make significant progress, or to measure whatever progress is made.

LGDS would have the kudos of its heritage and an instant status within the sector. It would have a lot of work to do in order to win hearts and minds, and would need to build and rely heavily on the work already being undertaken by people such as Local Gov Digital, but thanks to its name and awareness at ministerial level it would arguably be far better known more quickly than anyone else.

Of course, care would need to be taken to ensure that it didn’t get too big for its boots, didn’t start trying to dictate to the sector and to suppliers, and that it didn’t become a bottleneck and blockage to otherwise excellent digital work. It wouldn’t be easy, but a guiding, leadership-from-within role is the only way LGDS will ever be accepted within the sector.

It cannot impose, but if it doesn’t offer something that hasn’t been offered before it will not be worth doing. It must both engage with and challenge the private sector rather than trying to force it out. It must do all this and more with extremely limited resources, and give something meaningful back quickly.

 

It’ll be a tough job. Time will tell whether or not they are ever given the chance to try.

Print

To LGDS or not to LGDS – Part 2

Written by Glen Ocsko on . Posted in Our blog

In the previous article a simple premise was explored; that the introduction of a Local Government Digital Service (LGDS) would be a good thing for local government in the UK. If you’ve not read it yet you probably should. It discusses the positive aspects of bringing talented people together and allowing them to focus solely on the digital challenge along with providing them with the resources to make real and lasting change.

So what’s the problem? Why wouldn’t it work? And where does that leave the sector?

No-one can possibly know for certain what the introduction of LGDS would mean for local government. Nor, at the time of writing, has anything at all been released as to the scope, resources, mandate or timelines for such an introduction, meaning much of this conjecture may change over time. That being said, like the argument for or against the sequel to Dumb and Dumber there are far, far more arguments against this than for it.

What’s the scope?

Scope creep is an insidious, constant beast which stalks the pages of every project plan ever made, especially those with the phrase ‘digital’ anywhere near them. The temptation to add an extra widget, an extra function, to use a tool in an additional way or to tackle an additional project is ever present, especially in a world where the things that could be done significantly outnumber the number of things which should be done.

Local government delivers literally hundreds of functions to millions of people, every single day. Yes, some of these have similar back-end processes which need to be replicated, but simply understanding them from an independent standpoint is nigh-on impossible, especially when you start getting into the intricacies and nuances involved. Each one directly impacts on the lives of people, often immediately, so there is little room for failure or error.

Like a minimalist tidying their house after the extended family have visited for Christmas day, it is almost impossible to know both where to start and where to stop. Every single service could make an argument for its priority, from claims that children might die, older people will be left isolated, vital housing and building programmes which lead to housing shortages would slow to a crawl, emergency services need to be better coordinated, democratic processes which have barely changed in centuries not being fit for purpose; the list is seemingly endless and multi-faceted.

Who says you can?

These are not times of plenty. Councils do not have limitless funds to throw in whichever direction they see fit, and often even those ideas which might have long-term benefit for them are often put on hold in the short term as they simply cannot afford the time, money or focus to get them started while still delivering the things they are legally obliged to do.

Many times over the past few years councils have said that soon they will be stripping themselves down to only doing what they legally are required to do, nothing more. There is no legal requirement at the time of writing for councils to work together or follow the guidance of a single service when it comes to digital services. Therefore, like it or not there are a sizable number who simply won’t do it.

Yes, of course they would be better off doing so. Yes, ultimately they would not only save money but would deliver a better service. Yes, it’s simply the right thing to do. But since when has any of that mattered in real life? Like telling a teenager to do their homework at the start of the holidays so they can enjoy the rest of their time without worrying, the majority will still leave it until the very end, when they have no choice other than to do it. Those who do indeed do it early will then strut and tell them how right their advice was, but that won’t change the reality of the situation. We do not live in such an enlightened world, and presuming that everyone thinks in the same way as forward thinking early adopters is naïve to say the least.

Individual ambition

Every council in the country, almost without exception, is fiercely independent. Yes, they may all be a family in some way shape or form, and of course they want the other members of their family to succeed. But, deep down, the more honest will agree that they don’t want any of their siblings to succeed more than they themselves are.

Councils work hard on building up their positive reputations within the sector, on showing others how ahead of the game they are and how others should follow their leads. Senior officers build reputations and indeed careers on being (and, just as importantly, being seen as) better than those around them.

Imagine their realistic reaction when they are then told that they don’t need to worry any more, that LGDS are coming in to do things for them, that all the processes and systems they have built up over years are now going to be replaced with something new and centrally controlled. They may be able to have some influence over it, to help shape it, but they will no longer be able to decide what to do, when to do it and in what way it needs to be done.

It’s only a small leap to then imagine them spending an inordinate amount of time working to prove how they are already better than whatever is being proposed. The best don’t want to be thrown in with the others; they want to be the exemplar held up by LGDS and the sector at wide and which others aim to replicate. Without a legal requirement to do so they are never in a million years going to agree to become part of a unified single CMS platform or suite of applications; at the very least, not without a serious, lengthy fight and equal challenges from their existing contracted suppliers.

Independence also comes into play regarding the choice of systems. Each council may indeed have good reasons as to why it is in fact using certain systems or processes. They might work exceptionally well. They may be incredibly cost effective. They may be proven and trusted. They may have financial incentives to continue using them, or penalties should they stop. There could be a whole host of reasons, practical or imagined, why not using a centrally controlled system or application is the right course of action.

That’s localism in action.

The small matter of money

A properly funded LGDS, with ideal staff and resources behind it, might do some wonderful things. But we’re not going to get a properly funded LGDS, are we.

Unless Mr Osbourne has found an uncashed cheque down the back of his parliamentary sofa, all budgets are constantly being cut and will be for the foreseeable future. Even the budgets of GDS itself are under pressure. What makes it likely that the finances needed to make LGDS a reality and give it the opportunity to succeed will simply be found somewhere?

GDS has not been cheap, and so far it has worked with a limited number of departments on a limited number of exemplar projects. There are 353 councils in England, 32 in Scotland, 22 in Wales and 11 in Northern Ireland. When you start to talk local councils such as parishes, village, town, community, neighbourhood and more the number rises to around 9000.

That's a lot of stakeholders.

Simply meeting with and understanding the top level of needs of a small number of them, then building, testing and rolling out applications which meet a small number of their stated needs is a gargantuan task which will take a lot of time and a LOT of money, money that we are not rolling in at the moment.

We’re all different

Leading on from that point is the fact that, whether they are in reality more or less far apart than they believe, nigh-on every single council will have firm ideas as to why it faces a unique set of circumstances, why it’s different from its neighbours or comparators and why it’s different so needs different solutions.

As with the famous Monty Python scene from The Life of Brian, they may (almost) all be pretty similar from a certain perspective, but every single council understands itself and its world, and each of them do indeed have nuances which dictate the digital directions they have taken. Each of them will have an entire eco-system of applications, websites, systems, databases, bridges, processes and hacks which work for them but which no-one else would go near. Many of these are interdependent; remove one and the knock-on effects are huge.

LGDS might be able to have a long-term impact on future projects but this is based on improving the processes and procedures for scoping and delivering future projects, as well as establishing clear standards to which suppliers will need to begin adhering. This will be notably difficult to quantify and place a value on, making measuring LGDS impact challenging at best.

Politics…

Only the most naïve of observers could not realise that behind all of this lays the spectre of politics. Whichever party is in power, the others will do whatever they can to disrupt their plans and undermine them politically.

Of course not one politician would ever openly come out and say that they were opposing something they saw as actually good for the community for political reasons, but it does happen. Wearing a different colour rosette to whomever is in power gives added incentive to make things as difficult as possible, and as the hundreds/thousands of councils across the country are all essentially political hotbeds this gives ample opportunity for the opposition to make things difficult.

It is important to note that this is not targeted in any way at any one particular political party; whoever is in opposition will act in the same way. Each would absolutely decry this publicly; that doesn’t make it any less likely.

That’s not my job, mate

One of the most often hated aspects of local government is the perception that it’s full of jobsworths who accept no responsibility for something which isn’t their direct job to do. True or not for all, the mindset of “that’s someone else's job” is an easy one to slip into.

The development of LGDS would allow every single council which wasn’t committed to making personal advancement digitally to put all digital onus on a separate service should they want to. They would not need to think about standards; LGDS are doing that. Thinking of changing a payments application? Let’s not worry about that for a while, LGDS will give us something.

Digital development and progression of digital thinking must be everyone’s responsibility. Digital is not a separate thing which someone else does to your team; it needs to be at the heart of what your service actually is and how it does its normal business. By abdicating responsibility to someone else, someone distant and far removed from the day to day life of a local government service, we risk setting back digital thinking and advancement a decade or more.

What’s the answer?

So where does that leave us? It might be cynical to think in this way, but there are clear arguments that LGDS would be a service without a clear legal mandate for working and an impossible task when it came to deciding on the scope and scale of its work. Either it delivers a small number of projects more fully or tries to spread itself too thinly to make a difference, an impossible situation due to the likely lack of funds and resources it will face. It would further weaken an already threatened GDS through a haemorrhaging of key staff and resources, and would instigate a culture of “they do digital over there” rather than “we all do and indeed are digital”. All of that on a backdrop of fiercely held council independence, hugely complex historical ICT architecture and processes along with an often denied but nonetheless very real political challenge from opponents of whomever is in government at the time.

In terms of setting up an organisation who can make a quick, instant change to things, it’s not looking good.

But it’s not all hopeless.

To misquote Tolkien; One LGDS to rule them all, One LGDS to find them, One LGDS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. It doesn’t have to be that way. There can be a role for LGDS, a way for GDS to keep to the pledges made in its name that it will work with local government but without them needing to do all of the work themselves.

Come back for part three to find out how.

Print

To LGDS or not to LGDS – Part 1

Written by Glen Ocsko on . Posted in Our blog

Like a perennial weed, the expulsion of a councillor from a certain party for them being “a bit too racist” or the inevitable deluge of Christmas memes starting from early November, the discussion about whether or not to create a Local Government Digital Service seems to be popping its head above the proverbial parapet once more.

Ever since GDS was ensconced within Whitehall, many corners of the local government sector have looked on enviously at what was (at least perceived to be) a cross-cutting team taking on some huge challenges and who both weren't afraid to make sweeping changes but also had the ability and authority to do so. ICT and web managers saw quick progress being made on previously intransigent issues, an ethos which cried out openness and pace and a service which wasn’t scared to share its successes and its failures.

When in 2014 it was announced that GDS would have its remit expanded to include local government many felt this was a long overdue development. Local government, that administrative beast filled with bureaucracy and red tape, needed a fresh team to come in, blow the digital cobwebs away and show everyone just how easy it was to build excellent digital systems which everyone could use, from Adur to Wyre Forest.

Since then of course many things have changed. National elections have altered things somewhat, which when combined with some of the most senior staff in GDS leaving (including the spiritual father of it all Mike Bracken) have led to serious discussions taking place as to the purpose and future of the service itself. Some are saying that it looks like GDS will become a far smaller, policy based team who build less and guide more, while others believe the remaining management team will take on the baton and push achievement in new and exciting directions.

Whatever happens in central government, there is a constant discussion around if and how GDS will either influence, support or lead local government to its next digital plateau. Despite the fact that no firm descriptions, plans, timescales or resources have been even hinted at, a small number of clear camps are forming either side of the yes/no debate.

In this first of a three part mini-series let’s begin with the positives, reasons why there should indeed be effort put into the creation of a local GDS.

It’ll never work, will it?

A stock response from the naysayers to the introduction of a LGDS comes in the form of the simple argument that “it’ll never work”. Do you know what? Those are almost exactly the same words which were uttered immediately before GDS itself was set up.

Whitehall is a byzantine conglomerations of teams, departments, services, ministers, civil servants, strategies, policies, procedures, reports, committees and more; how could one small team of digitally savvy people even hope to make a moment’s fleeting progress before being swamped in paperwork?

Well, to put it bluntly, they found a way. Through whatever dark arts they had at their disposal, GDS did indeed make some very quick wins indeed. The development of the stupendously well-received gov.uk (and even its forerunner alpha.gov.uk) showed the direction they were heading in and gave those slower-to-respond departments something visual to look at and understand, exciting them as to the possibilities which lay before them. Some would say that more recent progress has stagnated somewhat as the quick-wins were completed, but that would do a disservice firstly to the progress made over their existence, along with exciting new applications which are only just seeing the light of day, such as the new Verify identification service.

As the saying in financial markets goes, previous performance is indeed no guarantee of future performance, but you’ve got to like the odds here. Yes, local government is made up of hundreds of organisations, each using dozens of systems or more and each at different stages of digital awareness and progress, but that’s nothing new. Using the skills and experience built up over the past few years, LGDS would be perfectly placed to tackle these head-on and cut through much of the inertia that the sector has faced.

Best and Brightest

Way back when GDS was forming out of the primordigital soup a curious thing began happening – local government people who had been talking digital in the public domain started migrating. From writers and bloggers to doers and planners and a whole lot more besides, many of those held up within the sector as either established professionals or up and coming talent found themselves on trains and heading down to what was dubbed ‘That’ London, to sit together and start work on the Great British Digi-Off. (That this writer was never even approached is not something he holds against anyone. Definitely not.)

Hot-housing, as any fan of Silicon Valley will know, works on the basis that bringing great minds together results in exponentially more productivity and better ideas than any of them could achieve by themselves. By bringing together people from local government itself, who understood how that system actually works, and then exposing them to both each other and the work of GDS means we now have a group of highly trained, highly motivated local gov alumni who have developed and tested their ideas on the great central government guinea pig and are raring to put them into action on something more equally important – local government.

It may have resulted in a bit of a brain drain initially, but we should consider their time at GDS before moving to LGDS an extended training, research and development period. Combine this with a few more of the up and coming talent along with some gems from the private sector (hint hint) and you’ll have a mix of people with every skill required to make this a success.

We should do this ourselves

One of the most passionately argued views from those involved in local government is simple; we don’t need someone else coming in and trying to push us around, we can do this ourselves. Through a wide range of initiatives, working groups and events a network has been building and growing which does all that LGDS would do but has the added benefit of doing things from within, meaning they will be far more palatable for the sector to accept.

Noticed the game changing, systemic sector-wide progress being made so far? Nope, neither have I.

There are many in the sector who have worked incredibly hard to make good things happen, and on a small scale they have. Great projects such as the content standards and Pipeline have been established and shared, but none of them to date have had as much impact as many would like to have seen. It is still seen as a supportive network rather than a dynamic movement.

This is not intended as criticism at all, merely an acknowledgement of the challenges of balancing a desire to make digital change happen with the reality of having a main focus on a substantive role and ensuing responsibilities. Without a clear, focussed group who are doing this as their day job and doing little else, rapid progress is next to impossible. When you spend the first 50 of your 37.5 hours a week doing your normal day job, managing to fit in the extra time required to make sector-wide change a reality is always going to be filed under ‘challenging’ at the very least. And few if any have sector-wide change listed on their annual appraisal targets.

Without LGDS, change will be slow, it will be difficult to share and there will be no requirement for local authorities to do anything other than pay lip service and carry on regardless. LGDS would be the catalyst around which those interested could rally, would set out the work schedules and challenges it would be addressing and would be the gravitic force around which a whole host of smaller, localised digital projects and solutions would orbit, all safe in the knowledge that there was a clear framework for how things should be done and clear standards and guidelines in place to be followed, as well as support as and when required.

We’ve been working on real digital change since before I left school. Since GDS was founded in April 2011 the sector has had access to the same range of digital tools, has seen the development of the same range of technologies and has had the opportunity to collectively step up to the plate and collaborate on major digital initiatives. That it has not done so is not down to any single individual or group, but is indicative of the challenges faced by the sector at large and the pressures which dictate how much time, energy and money can be spent on this.

Essentially, if it were likely to have happened without LGDS it would have happened already.

Where’s the commitment?

One major argument for LGDS is simple; it would once and for all demonstrate that central government truly valued local government as a key and vital part of the governance structures of the UK.

There is no way LGDS would be able to operate without investment, and the provision of such investment would clearly demonstrate that local government wasn’t simply another item to add to the long list of not-so-urgent-priorities for the evolved GDS.

Some argue that GDS itself will remain the same as it is, with simply an additional remit to work with local government translating into an open door being left for any council(s) to get in touch if they want. A proper commitment to LGDS will show that this fear is unfounded and that things are being taken seriously. It will move the relationship on from one of general waving at each other as business is gone about regardless, on to a proper partnership with LGDS leading the way and prompting each and every council to step up to the digital challenge.

Follow me!

The final point in this argument for LGDS leads on from the last; leadership. LGDS would create a clear, unarguable focal point for leadership across the sector, and give all of those involved a central reference point on which to compare, a single organisation which was clearly setting out the standards and practices which would need to be followed by others, not to mention providing practical tools which others could then easily use.

LGDS would not necessarily force others to drop their own plans and use whatever they were putting out (at least not without significant legislative changes) but would quickly become the yardstick by which others were measured. By putting out a number of simple, powerful, effective solutions available at no additional development cost LGDS would put significant pressure on councils to justify why they were paying separately for systems which delivered the same functionality. Should they choose to continue for whatever reason they would of course be perfectly entitled to do so, but the questions would be asked and expectations raised.

A leading LGDS setup would also give access to this kind of digital thinking and output to those authorities which lack it, either through historical inertia or a lack of existing resources. For those organisations, such progress could revolutionise them as working organisations.

However…

Those five points set out just some of the potential benefits the introduction of LGDS could herald across the sector. Looking at things through those viewpoints the argument for its introduction seems laughably simple and irrefutable. Who wouldn’t want to have access to some incredible minds doing amazing things which others until that point had thought impossible to accomplish? A service which would focus on achieving their digital goals over and above all else, which would demonstrate the esteem in which local government was held and which would go on to develop tools and practices which would be made freely available for all. Digital solutions would take a giant leap forward and the world would be a happier place.

So why won’t it actually ever happen or work?

 

Come back for part two of this series to find out.

Print

Equality of Opportunity and the Exam System

Written by Gareth Young on . Posted in Our blog

I have been pondering inequality lately and the challenges we have as a society in giving our young people the same chance in life.

Every study says that these inequalities are built in at an incredibly early age and despite years of effort to do something about them we, as a society, still have to accept that where you are born and who you are born to has a major impact on the opportunities you will get in life. These inequalities are reflected through school and in the grades and qualifications that students from different backgrounds are able to access.

So, what is to be done?

I have one idea – and whilst I recognise that this may cause some readers to choke on their morning cornflakes I hope that you will keep reading to the end where I genuinely believe that the compromise I propose is something we as a society should consider.

My proposal is to do move away from purely absolute exam grades and add to them some relative grading.

To explain further:

At the moment all exams are marked and the grade boundaries set by the exam board. Regardless of who you are the mark you receive in your exam will be the only determinant of the grade you get. This means that the results of Gareth in Morden are directly comparable with the results of Glen in Westminster.

This method is obviously ‘fair’. Everyone is treated the same regardless of background, schooling or even age and there is an impartial judgement of the individuals ability provided by the examination.

However, my argument is that in many ways this isn’t really ‘fair’.

If you’re a kid who goes to a bad school with a terrible English teacher then it is likely that your English result will be worse than if you went to a good school and had a great English teacher. Likewise, if you come from a family living in temporary accommodation or an overcrowded property you are less likely to perform well in the ‘impartial’ exam than someone in a permanent house with their own bedroom.

An alternative would be to recognise this and to provide relative grades, reflecting not everything about your background but at least recognising that schools and the students studying at them are very different to each other.

So, if your exam has 5 grades, A-E (yes, I know this is touchingly old-fashioned but it’s easier maths!) then instead of there being a defined pass mark the grades would be handed out as follows:

Top 20% in your school get an A, the next 20% get a B and so on with the bottom 20% getting an E.

In this model exam grades are not giving potential employers an absolute sense of your ability but a relative sense of how you performed in that exam against your direct contemporaries.

Whilst we pretend that exams are tests of absolute knowledge at the age of 16 in many cases they are as much about testing potential for work and for college and university. I genuinely don’t believe that children from the best backgrounds are inherently cleverer than those from disadvantaged backgrounds and yet exam grades would seem to suggest that is the case. As such, perhaps knowing the relative ability of someone is far more useful to a potential employer or as a measure of their potential when they reach the next stage of education.

This would also prevent the exam system from being a means of protecting the position of the middle-classes. Exams can be gamed and those with the money, top schools and ability to support their children can ensure even an average student gets good grades - an opportunity not available for all.

Obviously, if we were to introduce relative exam grades on their own this would be a policy with significant downsides:

1)    Whilst exams are bad signifiers, in that they don’t do a perfect job of identifying the talent and potential of people, they are good at preparing people for further education and often employment. There is a risk that people coming into our universities would require a lot more work to succeed there if all they had achieved was relative success. Likewise, industry often talks of the lack of skills from young people leaving school. This could make it worse by giving people grades that aren’t linked to absolute skills and instead to potential.

2)    Parents would seek to game the system – having middle class flight towards the roughest neighbourhoods in the UK just so they can top the class is probably not the worst thing in the world but if this exam system was imposed people would exit the system and look for an alternative – perhaps an international qualification to bridge the gap.

3)    Schools would lose a key measure of success and it would become more difficult to measure the achievement of teachers – if every school received 20% As the exam league table would have a lot less meaning.

These downsides are real and are the reason I would never actually propose relative grading on it's own. However, with a slight adjustment I believe relative marking could work really well and be acceptable to all. The wrinkle is as follows:

I would keep the current exam results but mandate a second relative score to accompany it.

Thus, every exam would come with two scores written together, the first the absolute grade and the second the relative grade. For example, a student could receive a:

AA (Top 20% score on the exam, top 20% in the school)

AC (Top 20% score on the exam, middle 20% in the school)

CA (Middle 20% score on the exam, top 20% in the school)

Etc etc

These grades would tell us far more about an individual than the current grades do and with more information comes more chances for people to use those grades when recruiting and thinking about who goes to university or college or is employed. Some would choose only to recruit on absolute terms and that would be fine but some employers would be interested in the relative score as well and they would have that information and be able to use it as they chose.

Even the fiercest opponents of relativism or dumbing down might find it difficult to argue that providing more information is not helpful when judging our young people, especially when this information is directly related to their life chances.

I imagine many people won't like my grading plan, and I recognise it is far from the full answer to equality of opportunity but any small adjustment that we can introduce that would help ameliorate the inherent disadvantage many children face by dint of birth should be tried.

I’d love to hear what people think of it.

Print

Escaping the Green Belt

Written by Gareth Young on . Posted in Our blog

A few years ago I was delivering some training with a colleague who told a little anecdote about a parks officer he had met who opened the parks in his patch in a random order – zigzagging across the Borough and taking over an hour to open them all.

My colleague asked him why he did it that way and didn’t just start at one end of the borough and work his way to other end. The parks officer didn’t really know but told my colleague that this was the way he had been trained to do it. Further investigation found that the officer’s predecessor as parks officer had children and used to combine opening the parks with the school run and thus did it that way to suit him.

This story came back to me during the last week as I was thinking and tweeting a little about housing and particularly this country’s green belt policy.

In 1935 when the Greater London Regional Planning Committee proposed the creation of a green belt they did so: ‘to provide a reserve supply of public open spaces and of recreational areas and to establish a green belt or girdle of open space’.

A worthy aim from the 1930s has morphed into a policy which, at least in London, preserves a green space that is twice the size of the city itself and is far from providing a ‘reserve of public open spaces and recreational areas’. In some areas the green belt stretches out 35 miles across and protects basically the whole of Hertfordshire.

Anyone setting up a new city would not seriously think that the green belt in London is sensible policy making. Even if we accept that all of the objectives of the policy are still correct, and I’m almost certain they aren’t, the policy itself does not meet the needs. Let’s look at them in turn:

1)    Preventing urban sprawl

A belt of a mile or two across would manage this and you certainly wouldn’t require one 35 miles across to do so. 

2)    Providing recreational spaces

The greenbelt is miles away from where most people live and large chunks of it are not used for recreation or public open space but instead used for farming. Indeed, a third of London’s green belt is used for high-intensity farming which is far from the ideal pictured in the 1930s. A sensible policy would be to focus on protecting parks and open spaces within the cities or near the towns rather than an arbitrary big chunk of green space around the city that no one can actually use.

Likewise, we should be protecting farming land but as the country with the third lowest building density in the EU there is plenty of space for farming around the country and it doesn’t really need the green belt to protect it.

3)      Preserve rural England

This is where the policy gets particularly ridiculous. Houses will have to be built somewhere so not letting them be built in a big arbitrary belt around a city is simply going to push them elsewhere and be built on other parts of the countryside. Protecting greenbelt just pushes the problem around rather than ameliorating it.

What makes this historical policy worse is the unintended, and extremely negative, consequences of it. Our green belt policy has led to insufficient housing in and around our cities and thus in turn rising house prices, an escalating housing benefit bill and has helped consign people to poverty.

If there was any other Government policy which was contributing so significantly to making a negative impact on the lives of its residents it would have been dealt with years ago. The fact that it hasn’t is a failure of epic proportions – I’ll leave a discussion of exactly why this has happened for another day.

Far more importantly, you may wonder what we should do instead.

We don’t have to abolish the green belt in its entirety – the political interest in protecting arbitrary NIMBY policies will never fade – but we can make some small changes to it to improve our housing situation and to design a policy that is far more appropriate for the country as it is now, rather than as it was 40 or 80 years ago.

The Adam Smith Institute (http://www.adamsmith.org/research/reports/the-green-noose/) have predicted that allowing building on green belt land that is 1 mile from a train station only would allow for 1 million more homes to be built around London. (It is worth thinking for a moment about a policy so ill-conceived that you cannot build on land that is within ten minutes’ walk of a train station – stations being a service which primary function is to take people to and from work. If you can’t build homes there then your policy really is bad).

At the same time the Government could carry out a fundamental review of the green belt and once they have resized it down to a few miles or so across introduce new rules for any building that takes place on land previous allocated as green belt. This could include the guarantee of gardens for all developments, protected parks, meadows and other open spaces for every area and a maximum density for each development. Each one could be negotiated locally but with an explicit expectation that the point is to provide high quality housing for people to live in.

 

A policy like this would protect the spirit of the green belt policy but without the historical, illogical and arbitrary position that the current policy has left us with.

Log in to leave a comment

Welovelocalgovernment is written and produced by UK local government officers. If you have a piece you’d like to submit or any comments you’d like to make please drop us a line at: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or contact us