Three versions of ‘Localism’:
Implications for upper secondary education and
lifelong learning in the UK
Ann Hodgson and Ken Spours
Institute of Education, University of London, UK
[email protected]
[email protected]
Abstract
As part of the international debate about new forms of governance and moves
towards decentralization and devolution, this article discusses the increasing interest
in the concept of ‘localism’ in the UK, marked recently by the publication of the
Coalition Government’s ‘Localism Bill’. A distinction is made between three versions
– ‘centrally managed’, ‘laissez faire’ and ‘democratic’ localism. The article draws on
two research projects funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and one
by the Nuffield Foundation, as well as sources by specialists in local government,
political analysts and educationalists. It explores the broad features of the three
versions of localism and their implications for upper secondary education and lifelong
learning. The article concludes by examining the strengths and limitations of the first
two models and suggests that the third has the potential to offer a more equitable
way forward.
Key words
Localism; governance; post-compulsory education and training; lifelong learning;
policy
1
Notes on Authors
Ann Hodgson and Ken Spours are both Professors of Education at the Institute of
Education, University of London and Co-Directors of its Centre for Post-14 Research
and Innovation. Ann Hodgson is currently Faculty Director for Research,
Consultancy and Knowledge Transfer and Ken Spours is Head of the Department of
Continuing Education. Both work within the Faculty of Policy and Society.
2
Introduction
Over the past two decades at least, an international debate has been taking place
about the role of national government in the delivery of public services and, more
broadly, about the nature of ‘governance’ (e.g. Rhodes, 1997; Newman, 2001; Hajer
& Wagenaar, 2003). Discussion has centred on how national governments respond
to the pressures of globalization, technological change and increasing complexities in
terms of the composition of societies, their organization and the existence of what
Newman (2001) refers to as ‘wicked issues’ that cannot simply be solved at national
government level.
While there is little disagreement about the emergence of new forms of ‘governance’,
there are differences with regards to their significance and benefits. Some see the
move from government to governance as leading to the largely positive development
of networking systems (e.g. Kooiman, 2003), while others are more sceptical about
the relationship between new forms of governance and democratic accountability
(e.g. Brenner & Theodore, 2002; Ball, 2010). There is a particular interest in the
balance between the national, regional and local levels of decision-making and the
role of communities and civil society organizations, both public and private, in the
delivery of public services (e.g. Newman & Clarke, 2009). Regional and local levels
of government are more established and active in several European countries
compared with the UK (Jenkins, 2004). According to Cox (2010) only the
Netherlands, Ireland and Italy are more reliant than the UK on central grants to local
government. The question is whether decentralization means a greater role for
localities and city regions (Healey et al., 2003) and for collaborative policy-making
between different stakeholders in what has been characterized as a neo-liberal policy
climate (Innes & Booher, 2003), or simply a smaller state with greater room for
privatisation.
3
Debates about democracy and the local delivery of services, now often referred to as
the ‘new localism’ (e.g. Filkin et al., 2000, Pratchett, 2004, Stoker, 2004, Ellison and
Ellison, 2006), have flourished in the English context in response to the dysfunctions
and political unpopularity of the top-down managerialist approach to the governance
of public services over the past two decades. New ideas about localism and the
delivery of public services have gathered support as the main political parties attempt
to appropriate the concept of empowering local communities and professionals
(Boyle, 2009). While these debates are part of the international trends already
described, they have a particular quality in England (Ozga, 2009), linked to what is
seen as a highly centralized system (Keep, forthcoming).
Reflecting on debates and developments in the English context over the past
decade, we suggest that there are different and competing versions of localism. The
first we associate with the previous Labour Government (1997-2010), in which its
attempts at empowering the local was subordinate to its centralist drive to reform
public services. The second version is emerging from the new UK
Conservative/Liberal Democrat Coalition Government (2010-), in which ideas of local
empowerment are closely tied to a smaller central state, markets and privatization.
These themes are interwoven in the Coalition Government’s Localism Bill (House of
Commons 2010), which is discussed later.
The third version has been discussed in literature from a range of political and
academic sources and includes examples of policy developments in Scotland and
Wales, where devolved administrations have been pursuing distinctive approaches to
the governance of public services (Hodgson, Spours & Waring, forthcoming). This
version can be seen to be part of a wider process of democratizing the state.
4
The article examines how the concept of localism has been and is being played out
in the area of upper secondary education and lifelong learning in the UK. The focus
is principally on the English case, although we also reflect on differences of approach
across the four countries of the UK. In doing so, we address two questions:
1. What are the key debates and approaches to governance at the local level
proposed by the previous UK Labour Government, the new
Conservative/Liberal Democratic Coalition Government, the devolved
governments of Scotland and Wales and particular political and academic
communities?
2. What are the implications of these different but overlapping approaches to
localism for upper secondary education and lifelong learning in the UK?
In exploring the relationship between forms of governance and policy related to
upper secondary education and lifelong learning, we bring together two sets of
literatures: those from local politics, government and governance and those from
education. In relation to the latter, we draw on theoretical and empirical evidence
from two UK Economic and Social Research Council projects, The Impact of Policy
on Learning and Inclusion in the New Learning and Skills Sector and New Directions
in Learning and Skills in England, Scotland and Wales, together with findings from
the Nuffield Review of 14-19 Education and Training in England and Wales. All three
projects have brought together perspectives from educational policy-makers,
practitioners and researchers, as well as researchers specializing in local
government.
5
Localism - a framework of analysis
Promoting the local has become the vogue of UK politics. According to Boyle (2009:
2), all the main political parties are ‘gargling with localism at the moment’ as they
seek to promote a more responsive approach to the delivery of public services (see
for example, Cameron, 2010; Labour Party, 2010; Liberal Democrats, 2009). While
their approaches to localism share certain features, they tend to differ primarily
around the role of the state in shaping public services and the balance of what
Pratchett (2004) refers to as ‘hierarchies, markets and networks’. In terms of
governance, they place different emphases on the respective roles of national,
regional and local government, markets and democratic participation more broadly.
Unsurprisingly, the concepts of localism and decentralisation have been and
continue to be hotly debated. Some question whether ‘the revival of the local’ is in
fact a neo-liberal means of assisting markets to become more efficient, less
regulated by national governments (e.g. Brenner & Theodore, 2002; Lindblad et al.,
2002; Ball, 2010; Hajer, 2005) and potentially exclusionary (Hajer, 2005), or whether
the idea heralds a new era of popular participation in shaping localities and public
services (e.g. Jenkins, 2004; Stoker, 2004; Lawson, 2005; Avis, 2009; Newman &
Clarke, 2009).
In this article we conceptualise the three versions of localism by way of a model
(Figure 1), adapted from the work of Newman (2001), Pratchett (2004) Newman and
Clarke (2009). We use Newman and Clarke’s terms – centralization/decentralization
– for the vertical axis, but also deploy the concepts of public value and markets for
the horizontal axis in order to more accurately capture the relationship between the
three versions and the economy.
6
It is worth noting that each version of localism does not necessarily occupy a single
location on the model. Its combined features allow us, however, to root each version
in a particular quadrant.
Figure 1. Localism: a framework of analysis
Centralisation
TRADITIONAL
HIERARCHICAL
STATE
CENTRALLY
MANAGED
LOCALISM
Public value
Markets
LAISSEZ FAIRE
LOCALISM
DEMOCRATIC
LOCALISM
Decentralisation
Localism - the case of upper secondary education and lifelong learning
in the UK
Here we use the term ‘upper secondary education and lifelong learning’ to describe
the education of learners from the age of 14, with the exclusion of those in higher
education institutions. This definition largely reflects education and training policy in
England and Wales, where there has been an emphasis since 2002 on the education
of 14-19 year olds as a distinct initial phase (DfES, 2002; WAG, 2002). Including
lifelong learning in the definition links the UK debates more closely with
7
developments across Europe. Within the UK, the term ‘lifelong learning’ has been
particularly prevalent in Scotland and Wales, whereas in England and Northern
Ireland there has been a stronger emphasis on ‘learning and skills’ (Hodgson,
Spours & Waring, forthcoming).
Upper secondary education and lifelong learning constitutes an interesting case to
explore the three different versions of localism. This phase of education, which
contains both younger and older learners, has a high policy profile due to its links
with economic competitiveness and social inclusion (e.g. DfEE, 1998; Scottish
Government, 2007; Webb, 2007; DELNI, 2009). It crosses public and private
boundaries and involves a complex array of institutions, each of which has its own
governance arrangements. Younger learners making a transition between school
and adult and working life, for example, often have to travel beyond the school
setting to choose and use a range of providers outside their local authority area
(Watson & Church, 2009). Moreover, as Lumby & Foskett (2005) argue, the process
of transition between compulsory and post-compulsory education has increasingly
becoming a site of selection and social contestation. Adults accessing lifelong
learning also experience the local, but often on a more micro-scale, as they pursue
employment-related or community-based learning. Here too governance
arrangements between the various providers remain complex and, in England in
particular, there has been the active promotion of an adult learning market (Schuller
& Watson, 2009).
Version 1. Centrally managed localism
The New Labour Government’s approach to public service delivery between 1997
and 2010 was a complex combination of central steering via national arms length
8
agencies and centrally devised policy levers, such as targets, performance
measures, funding, inspection and national initiatives, together with the
encouragement of competition between providers in a quasi-market (Steer et al.,
2007). This predominantly neo-liberal approach was tempered by attempts to
promote ‘joined-up government’ at national, regional and local levels to ensure
effectiveness and efficiency in public services and to pursue wider social democratic
goals, an approach characterized as ‘adaptive managerialism’ (Newman, 2001). A
complex mix of neo-liberal and social democratic approaches was reflected in New
Labour’s ‘public service reform agenda’, which included initiatives to more actively
capture the ‘user voice’ at the point of delivery (PMSU, 2006; Coffield et al., 2007).
However, citizen involvement was very much related to promoting competition,
efficiency and consumer satisfaction, rather than the development of sustained
democratic involvement in shaping services (Brand, 2007).
Despite having met demands for the devolution of governmental powers to Scotland
and Wales in 1999, restored devolved government to Northern Ireland in 2007,
experimented with regionalism and partially resurrected an integrating and
commissioning role for local authorities via, for example Single Regeneration
Budgets, Strategic Area Agreements and Area-Wide Inspections, the New Labour
Administration will be remembered more for top-down managerialism and promoting
markets than for its attempts to devolve power (Coffield et al., 2008; Wakefield,
2010). Because these devolution strategies were subordinate to centralism, we
characterize New Labour’s overall approach to local government and communities as
‘centrally managed localism’ and locate it in the top right quadrant of Figure 1.
9
Implications for post-compulsory education and lifelong learning
The main purpose of New Labour’s approach to upper secondary education and
lifelong learning in England was to improve the performance of the system in terms
of qualifications outcomes, to increase learner choice and to raise levels of
participation in order to build the skills for economic competitiveness, employability
and social inclusion (DfES, 2005; Leitch, 2006; DfES, 2006). Central government
largely set the agenda and determined policy via national targets, performance
measures, inspection, key initiatives and funding (Steer et al., 2007) and highly
prescriptive approaches to qualifications and pedagogy (Hodgson & Spours, 2008).
Nearly 10 years after coming to power, New Labour began to allocate a strategic
planning role to local authorities in relation to 14-19 learning (DfES, 2005), but their
ability to exercise leadership in this area was caught between their lack of power
over an increasingly diverse and autonomous range of providers and detailed policy
prescription from the centre. The Government gave local authorities a statutory
responsibility to ensure 14-19 year olds had access to all the new Diploma Lines
(OPSI, 2006), for example, but without the appropriate powers over the providers in
their area to make this entitlement a reality (Hodgson & Spours, 2008). This policy
required substantial collaboration between schools, colleges and work-based
learning providers, but the local authority only had jurisdiction over a proportion of the
first of these. Moreover, in the area of adult and community learning, there were
sharp reductions in funding which severely limited the ability of local authorities to
meet the needs of their particular communities (Schuller & Watson, 2009), although
the Skills for Life adult literacy and numeracy programme increased funding for lower
skilled adults (Hodgson et al, 2007). Centralism in policy also extended to
prioritization and support for certain groups of learners on particular learning or
10
employment-related programmes, which reduced the opportunity for planning
relevant provision in the locality.
Alongside this top-down approach to policy-making, the UK Government in England
continued to encourage market forces as a means of driving up quality. In the area of
upper secondary education, for example, it was committed to promoting collaboration
between institutions to offer a full range of qualifications in each locality. At the same
time, it continued to introduce new providers, such as Academies, and accountability
measures, such as performance tables, which encouraged competition rather than
collaboration (Pring et al., 2009). This mix of collaboration and competition resulted
in what have been termed ‘weakly collaborative local learning systems’ (Hodgson &
Spours, 2006).
The New Labour Government was committed to flexible labour markets so was not
prepared to introduce regulation in relation to work-based provision (Keep, 2005).
Instead, employers were exhorted to play a role in upper secondary education and
lifelong learning and were offered incentives in the form of national initiatives, such
as Employer Training Pilots (later known as Train to Gain), to train young people and
adults (Finlay et al., 2007). Trade unions were involved in some of these national
programmes (e.g. Union Learning Fund), but neither they nor education
professionals were seen as full social partners. Rather they were viewed as the
subjects of policy (Coffield et al., 2008).
New Labour’s approach to public services, however, had some clear, positive effects
on upper-secondary education and lifelong learning in England. Money flowed into
education, particularly for those up to the age of 19 and for those on specifically,
economically focused skills programmes, and it funded large nationally directed
capital projects that significantly improved the education infrastructure. There was
11
diversification and enrichment of upper secondary education with a greater emphasis
on vocational and applied learning for a growing range of learners. Levels of
attainment and participation in full-time upper secondary education grew steadily and
institutional effectiveness, as judged by national inspection, improved (Pring et al.,
2009).
These material gains of a centralized approach were overshadowed, however, by
several key shortcomings. First, given the substantial investment in education and
training over the 17 years of New Labour government, the amount of positive change
was relatively small. For example, while full-time participation in education and
training beyond the age of 16 rose gradually, participation by 16-19 year olds in the
work-based route and Apprenticeships did not (DfE, 2010a). Even the apparently
impressive growth in attainment had its limitations because the emphasis on
nationally devised targets, performance measures and narrowly cast qualifications
specifications encouraged both learners and their teachers to focus on accreditation
and improving grades, rather than deepening and broadening their knowledge and
skills for effective progression (Pring et al., 2009).
Second, deep inequities remained. The gap in attainment between those at the top
and those at the bottom grew and the relationship between poverty and low
attainment was not broken (Lupton, 2006). Learners on Level 3 courses in schools
and sixth form colleges, for example, continued to receive more funding that those on
lower level courses in further education colleges and work-based learning (Fletcher &
Perry, 2008).
Third, top-down accountability measures proved to be wasteful because the
accompanying bureaucracy deflected professionals from their core mission of
organizing learning and teaching and their creativity (Coffield et al., 2008).
12
Centralism of policy-making and its implementation meant that professionals felt
marginalized and were unable to use their local knowledge to respond flexibly to the
needs of their localities (Gibney et al., 2010). Their role in policy-making was largely
confined to implementation and reaction to highly prescribed national government
consultations and initiatives, while their ability to support the conception and
evaluation of policy was under-utilised. According to some critics, historic policy
mistakes, which could have been avoided, were repeated (Stanton, 2008).
Thus New Labour did not deliver sufficient benefits from its centralism and gained a
reputation for stifling local initiative. These combined shortcomings created political
and ideological space for the new UK Coalition Government to promote another
version of localism and it is to this that we now turn.
Version 2. Laisser-faire localism
The early announcements by the recently elected UK Conservative/Liberal Democrat
Coalition Government appear to be actively promoting a new version of localism
based on a discourse of markets, local community involvement and democracy (e.g.
House of Commons 2010). While localism has been a theme running through both
Conservative (e.g. Conservative Party, 2009) and Liberal Democrat (2009) policies in
recent years, it is currently being projected as a response to New Labour’s top-down
managerialism and as a critique of the role of a large and expensive centralized state
(Cameron, 2010).
Although the Government’s approach to localism is still in its early days, its major
features, as outlined in Control Shift (Conservative Party, 2009), include a reduction
13
in the role of central government and the size of the state; an emphasis on
institutional autonomy; the encouragement of more private and third sector providers
within a competitive climate; freedom from bureaucracy; empowering citizens and
communities as consumers and active participants in public services and the
promotion of ‘local markets’ in, for example, the areas of health and education. A
White Paper, Local growth: realizing every place’s potential’ (BIS, 2010), reflecting
many of the themes in Control Shift, was published in October 2010. Among its major
proposals was the replacement of Regional Development Agencies by Local
Enterprise Partnerships ‘equipped to promote private sector growth and create jobs
locally’ (Clegg, 2010: 3). More recently, the Government published its Localism Bill,
which gives groups in the community, such as voluntary organizations and social
enterprises, the right to express an interest in taking over council-run services. The
Bill proposes referenda on council tax rises beyond the levels set by central
government with provision for directly elected mayors in 12 English cities. Councils
will have greater freedom to determine how to spend monies but within what will be
much-reduced grants from central government.
The Coalition discourse on localism thus links ideas about a reduced state and an
increased role for markets to community involvement and local democracy, the socalled ‘Big Society’ (Cameron, 2010). We term this approach ‘laissez-fair localism’
because of its emphasis on the freeing up of communities and localities to pursue
their own agendas within what appears to be another wave of privatisation and the
contracting out of services (e.g. the ‘Easy Council’ concept of public services being
promoted by Barnet and Suffolk local authorities). It is for these reasons that we have
located the UK Coalition Government’s approach to localism towards the bottom right
quadrant of Figure 1, even though it is anticipated that there will be a strong rationale
for greater centralization, not least because of the need to drive down public
14
expenditure (Keep, forthcoming). There are also already doubts that the Coalition will
genuinely strengthen local democracy (Hetherington, 2010).
Implications for post-compulsory education and lifelong learning
Applying the broader UK Coalition Government’s perspective on localism to
education and training is still somewhat speculative, although early speeches,
announcements and letters by Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove,
Secretary of State for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, Vince
Cable, together with their Ministers Nick Gibb and David Willetts, provide us with
some evidence of its possible application in this area.
Scrutiny of different public services may reveal different variants of laissez-faire
localism with some being more open to marketisation (e.g. health and education)
than others, such as policing. In addition, local government will play a different role
depending on the degree of power still vested in the Secretary of State for each
particular area of policy. While local councils will be given greater control over the
funding of local services (within significantly reduced budgets) and will be given a
‘general power of competence’ in relation to local action (Conservative Party, 2009),
their room for manoeuvre in relation to the schools, colleges and work-based training
providers is likely to be highly constrained because of the Government’s push for
greater autonomy for individual providers. Only schools will receive funding from
local authorities (Gove, 2010) and many of these may choose to opt for Academy or
‘free school’ status thus depending directly on national government for their funds.
Moreover, certain national quangos such as the Young People’s Learning Agency
and the Skills Funding Agency will continue to fund colleges and work-based training
providers. Under these conditions the power of local authorities to oversee, let alone
15
influence or plan, post-compulsory education and lifelong learning in their locality will
be very limited. Instead, their role is seen as one of ‘developing’ the local market.
Prominent in the laissez-faire localism model are Ministers, national government
funding agencies and individual autonomous providers (some public, some private),
reminiscent of the Conservative approach of the early 1990s.
With regards to accountability, the Coalition Government has stated that providers
should not be principally accountable to Government but to their ‘customers’
(Cameron, 2010). Here the emphasis will be on publishing transparent performance
data so that learners, parents and employers can make more informed judgments
about provision. Learners are conceived as customers and their demand for learning
is expected to drive provision at the local level.
Rather than deploying a wide range of policy levers, as was the case with New
Labour, the new Government will use funding as the principle driver for reform.
Ministers maintain that they will focus inspection on lower performing providers and
that the reduction in bureaucracy will allow schools, colleges and work-based
learning providers to focus on their mission and to ‘respond better to the needs of
their local communities’ (Hayes, 2010a). In addition, a clear message has been sent
to the sector that the Government wants to facilitate a stronger professional voice in
policy-making via a range of bodies such as the Association of Learner Providers,
the Association of Colleges and FE Principals’ Network (Hayes, 2010b), although this
does not appear to extend to the teacher and lecturer unions. The advice of sector
managers will be sought particularly around ways of reducing costs and bureaucracy.
Employers will continue to be exhorted to engage with the education and training
system, particularly in providing Apprenticeship places, which are set to increase
under the new Coalition Government (Hayes, 2010a). Instead of being involved in
16
Regional Development Agencies, as under New Labour, employers will be expected
to play a key role at the local level in the new Local Enterprise Partnerships that
replace their regional predecessors.
In the area of curriculum and qualifications, schools and colleges will be given
‘greater freedom to offer the qualifications employers and universities demand’ (DfE,
2010b). Nick Gibb, Minister of State for Schools, brought to a halt the funding for and
privileged position of New Labour’s flagship 14-19 Diploma development programme,
revoked the statutory requirement on local authorities in England to make the full
suite of 14 Diplomas available to all learners in their locality (DfE, 2010c) and
lifted restrictions on state schools in England offering the international General
Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE), a qualification that has proved popular in
independent schools (DfE, 2010b). At the same time the recent Schools White Paper
(DfE, 2010d) has introduced a new performance measure designed to encourage
schools to ensure as many young people as possible gain GCSEs at Grades A*-C in
English, mathematics, a science, a humanities subject and a language. This
measure, while not forcing schools to alter their provision for 14-16 year olds, will
undoubtedly give them pause for thought about what qualifications they offer.
The laissez faire localism model could prove popular because of its contrast with
New Labour’s centralised micro-management and bureaucracy. Colleges and workbased learning providers in particular will applaud the new freedoms because of their
desire for greater autonomy in serving the needs of their local communities and
learners.
However, less positive implications are likely to emerge from this model, some of
which we highlight here. The widespread introduction of Academies and Free
Schools could lead to an increase in the number of small sixth forms and to greater
17
competition between providers for high attaining 16-19 year olds and scarce
resources. Not only does the introduction of new and competing institutions make the
English system more complex and divided at the age of 16, it also risks it becoming
less efficient and less equitable. Fewer resources will have to be divided between
more providers. Higher achievers are more likely to be able to study at the institution
of their choice post-16, whereas many lower achievers will be channelled towards
certain institutions, such as general further education colleges and work-based
learning providers whether or not this is their desired destination. The combined
problems of inequity, inefficiency and complexity are therefore likely to plague the
laissez faire localism model. There is an expectation that market mechanisms will
resolve these issues but history, notably reflections on the early 1990s when a
previous Conservative Government actively promoted an education market, suggests
otherwise (Gewirtz et al., 2005).
Version 3. Democratic localism
What we term here ‘democratic localism’ promotes the rebalancing of powers and
relationships between democratically elected and accountable national, regional and
local governments. It also emphasises popular participation and co-production of
services; the promotion of public value; effective, bottom-up feedback loops in policymaking and the stronger involvement of social partners.
In contrast to the ‘laissez-faire’ version of localism, which is explicitly ‘anti-state’,
democratic localism stresses not only popular participation at the lowest possible
levels, but also a strong role for national government to address issues such as wage
inequality and inequity of access to public services. It also envisages distinctive roles
18
for regional and local government, with regional formations, for example, providing
co-ordination in areas such as labour markets. What we term ‘democratic localism’
thus draws on Stoker’s notion of new localism, which he describes as ‘a strategy
aimed at devolving power and resources away from central control and towards
front-line managers, local democratic structures and local consumers and
communities, within an agreed framework of national minimum standards and policy
priorities’ (Stoker, 2004: 2).
This process of rebalancing requires shifts in how central government sees its role.
National leadership would need to move away from micro-management to strategic
leadership and to devolve powers so that regional and local government and
communities have the necessary tools to transform their localities and regions, but
within a clear national framework that supports equity (Coffield et al., 2008). Pratchett
(2004) usefully conceptualizes this type of rebalancing by making a distinction
between the autonomy of ‘freedom from’ (higher authority) and the responsibility of
‘freedom to’ act collectively and effectively at the regional and local levels. Cox
(2010: 9) goes further by arguing that in order to reap the rewards of efficiency,
effectiveness, equity and greater democratic accountability from what he calls ‘real
localism’ ‘the legitimacy of local government as a tier of government should be
constitutionally protected, as it is in other EU states’.
This perspective finds wider support in research communities involved in the study of
local government (e.g. Filkin et al., 2000; Stoker, 2004; Skelcher et al., 2005), in
education (e.g. Coffield et al., 2008; Avis, 2009; Hodgson, Spours & Waring,
forthcoming) and in the work of those associated with social democratic and liberal
politics in the UK (e.g. Lawson, 2005; Wakefield, 2010; Grayson, 2010; Cox 2010).
Democratic localism is also practised, to a limited degree, by the devolved
19
Administrations in Wales and Scotland (Brand, 2007; Rees, forthcoming; Lowe &
Gayle, forthcoming).
Implications for post-compulsory education and lifelong learning
Here we draw on concepts of ‘strongly collaborative local learning systems’ within
what has been termed a ‘devolved social partnership approach’ to the governance of
education and training (e.g. Hodgson & Spours, 2006, 2008; Coffield et al., 2008),
but also relate these notions to recent research on local government and on
governance developments in Scotland and Wales. In this respect, applying the
concept of ‘democratic localism’ to post-compulsory education and lifelong learning is
more speculative than the previous discussion based on the first two versions of
localism. The concept is intended to act as a critique and as an aspiration for the
English system of the future.
Arguably, the key purpose of democratic localism in the area of upper secondary
education and lifelong learning is to develop a learning system capable of supporting
equality, sustainability, democracy and general popular wellbeing. These aims, we
suggest, require the fusion of two approaches to governance. First, greater power
sharing is needed at the centre between the key social partners - government,
employers, trade unions, professional associations and community organizations – to
set the direction of policy over the medium term. This more collaborative form of
governance is practised in the Nordic Countries, where a wide range of partners
contribute to the formation and implementation of policies (Boyd, 2002). Second,
there would need to be a better balance between the national, regional and local
levels of governance to promote the equity and efficiency that cannot be guaranteed
in the laissez-faire localism model. However, it would be important to avoid both the
20
top-down accountability regime of the centrally managed model and the dangers of
parochial accountability associated with the laissez-faire model, which could privilege
those communities or groups with the greatest resource and loudest voice (Hajer,
2005).
In the area of upper secondary education and lifelong learning we have argued
elsewhere that local partnerships need to be given substantial funding and planning
powers for the provision in their locality (Hodgson & Spours, 2006). The role of the
local authority, for example, would be to help facilitate and co-ordinate these efforts
to ensure the needs of all learners were met and to act as overall ‘strategy maker’
(Brighouse, 2009). In this context, the role of central government would be to create
a national authoritative body to ‘oversee and scrutinize the development of a national
system of lifelong learning with suitable arrangements in the devolved
administrations’ (Schuller & Watson, 2009: 215); to provide strong national
entitlements for individuals in terms of financial support for learning and to develop
what we have referred to as ‘policy frameworks’, which provide the rules and
freedoms that ‘stimulate collective practice between social partners and encourage
local innovation.’ (Coffield et al., 2008: 186). Suggested areas for these policy
frameworks might be bottom-up, area-wide targets, stable national funding with
space for local discretion, a curriculum and qualifications framework that has units
that can be designed to respond to specific local needs and a regulatory framework
that brings ‘employers, providers and learners into a common pact to increase the
demand for learning.’ (Coffield et al., 2008: 186). Within this model, professionals
would be seen as full social partners with a role not only in implementing policy, but
in its formation and evaluation to harness local knowledge and maximize ‘policy
learning’ (Raffe & Spours, 2007).
21
Democratic localism will depend on the sharing of strong civic and educational
values to provide the ‘glue’ between the various social partners, underpinned by a
common recognition that life-long learning provides opportunities ‘aimed at
enhancing people’s control over their own lives’ (Schuller & Watson, 2009: 4). In this
sense, lifelong learning is viewed as the basis for citizenship and full societal
participation. Within a democratic model the main motivation is not responding to
policy from above, but collectively understanding what is necessary and determining
appropriate local action.
This democratic version of localism is not just a speculative daydream. Some
aspects already exist in other European countries, including Scotland and Wales,
where for example, regional and local government play a more active role than in
England (Jenkins, 2004). Under the previous government, joined-up initiatives to
address complex local problems began to take shape. However, the experience of
17 years of top-down micro-management, constant organizational change and a
stream of initiatives undermined professional confidence and the ability to play a full
participatory role in creating ‘strongly collaborative local learning systems’. What has
been termed ‘policy busyness’ (Pring et al., 2009) has, in fact, been a form of political
and professional exclusion. For democratic localism to work in its most inclusive
sense will also require a slowing down of the political process and the deliberate
creation of stability to forge a collective sense of ‘place’. These three versions and
their implications for upper secondary education and lifelong learning are
summarized in Table 1.
22