The importance of a National Education Service: a necessary and realisable dream

Jeremy Corbyn has been floating the idea of a National Education Service since his Labour leadership campaign last year. The idea is breathtakingly simple and, in fact, blindingly obvious. The formation of a fully-funded, cradle-to-grave education service is the antithesis of the outsourced fragmented and anti-democratic reforms that have been creeping in since the 1970s. These are a few of my initial thoughts on the idea.

The National Education Service would provide a coordinated high-quality education service that supports learning from early years, through schools, sixth form, further education, undergraduate, postgraduate to adult and lifelong learning.

Schools would no longer be in a position where they are artificially competing with each other, but they would coordinate their strategies and maximise the use of their resources to better serve local communities and regions. It would mean a change from the current fetishisation of leadership to promote mutual and cooperatively run services, where teachers, parents, pupils and communities are recognised as stakeholders and have a greater say in how schools function.

At present there is a recruitment and retention crisis in teaching, a National Education Service would address this. Teachers would have more professional esteem and have greater control over their work, pay and conditions. The intensity of their work would be reduced by shifting the emphasis from centralised accountability to local democratic accountability.

While some examinations would continue to be important, this would not be at the expense of developing broader skills and more holistic school contributions such as the education of the community and emphasizing inclusivity, collaboration and partnership. Certainly it would move away from excessive compulsory testing for the purpose of accountability. It would mean a departure from a narrowly defined curriculum to one which reflects the needs of the community in which the school is located. The overall aim would be to equip students with the skills and capacities to contribute to society and help them develop as individuals. An overarching aim would be to put education at the heart of making society a more effective, fairer and more inclusive functioning democracy.

In further education, it would mean an end to degenerate privatisation, but provide a service that supports post-16 education, both academic and vocational – without necessarily drawing strong distinctions between the two. It would offer adult learning, whether it be developing skills, allowing people to develop their interests or in helping them prepare for advanced studies. University education would be freely available to all and include opportunity to blend academic and vocational studies. The Open University would be restored to a position where it can offer low-cost and flexible approaches to university-level education.

This is ambitious and the main objection is, simply, that we cannot afford it. My argument is that we cannot afford not to do this. Education is not having the impact on society that it should be, it can do more to improve the quality of outcomes for communities; developing skills and knowledge and helping people make a difference in their lives and to the people around them. While all society’s problems cannot be solved by schools, education can be at the heart of improvement, by equipping the next generation to be more active and effective participants in democracy.

In terms of cost, it has been estimated that the bank bail-out, with all things considered was as much as £1.2 trillion1. Much of this investment went toward the preservation of these institutions and the preservation of the wealth of their key stakeholders. The National Education Service would be fraction of this investment. Of the order of tens of billions each year. Investment that would go directly into the economy but at the same time would result in considerable growth. If it were done carefully this kind of investment would have little impact on the deficit but would have considerable economic and social benefits2.

1.  Episode 5, The End of History. Economist James Meadway citing IMF estimates

2.  I discuss the economics of school spending in the following blog post:



About Steven Watson

Education research, critical maths, education policy, economics and politics
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The importance of a National Education Service: a necessary and realisable dream

  1. Elena Moses says:

    All of this sounds great to me and I’m interested in how you think the ideas here can be implemented. What would be the first steps for instance? I ask because some people of a more pragmatic bent would consider practicalities as a test for feasibility. Thinking about the next general election, having a definite strategy for each policy will convince those in the electorate who want more than a high level, abstract, policy (or ‘wishful thinking’ as they may see it!) of the LP’s seriousness and ability to govern. At the same time no strategy is worth anything unless it incorporates contributions from citizens in our communities from the beginning to shape and develop it. Can this process be started before the next election? Could we hold workshops locally on various issues such as education, the economy, the NHS? It would be an attempt to encourage joined up thinking. And people from diverse backgrounds and interests thinking together will produce a richer outcome than people just working with their immediate social constituencies.


    • Yes. Your reply is consistent with my thinking. We begin to organise now. None of the things I suggest will come from a government without people organising themselves. It means teachers, lecturers, students, pupils, parents and communities organising together. They must begin to set out local practical solutions: how these things might work. Teachers and headteachers know full well what is needed and how they could make schools work for their communities, but they need parents and communities to work with them and vice verse. There are those of us who can provide specific expertise and advice on organisation, curriculum, teaching and learning. I agree that we need to start now and build the steps practically. I don’t see that we need to change the structures too much, we need to employ different values. We need to start working collaboratively and cooperatively and demonstrate that we can develop a model of community education that is locally democratic and that is consistent with national approaches. We have started by establishing this group ( there is a similar group in Nottingham. I am happy to meet up with others that are interested to develop this further.


  2. Pingback: A National Education Service is exactly what we need | Steve Watson

  3. Pingback: A National Education Service is exactly what we need – Steven Watson

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s