Pupils, parents and teachers left ‘bewildered and floundering’ by government’s handling of education during pandemic
Pupils, parents and teachers have been left “bewildered and floundering” by the government’s handling of education during the coronavirus pandemic, according to a critical new report.
The Institute for Government said that lessons were not learnt from the first COVID-19 lockdown, leading to a case of “pause, rewind, repeat” when it came to school closures and exams.
It said there were “dreadful communications” from the government, with “repeated declarations that schools would open or close, or that exams would be held – despite the evident uncertainties – until reality struck”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Can schools recover from the impact of the pandemic?
“The result was U-turn after U-turn, with pupils, parents and teachers left bewildered and floundering time and again,” it said.
A Department for Education spokesperson said it had “acted swiftly at every turn to minimise the impact on children’s education and wellbeing and help keep pupils in face-to-face education as much as possible” during the pandemic.
“We provided 1.3 million laptops and tablets to disadvantaged students, funded Oak National Academy to provide video lessons and made sure students could receive exam grades that helped them progress to the next stage of education or work,” they added.
“Through the tutoring revolution that will see pupils receive up to 100 million hours of free tuition, summer schools and our investment in the teaching profession we are working with schools to deliver ambitious catch-up plans so the children and young people who have been most disadvantaged during the pandemic have the support they need to catch up on their lost learning.”
The IfG report, entitled Schools And Coronavirus: The Government’s Handling Of Education During The Pandemic, comes ahead of the release of this year’s A-level and GCSE results later this month.
It labels the period following the closure of schools in England in March 2020 “easily the most disruptive period in children’s education since at least the start of the Second World War”.
The report said: “Its most important conclusion is that the most unforgivable aspect of what happened is not just the failure to make contingency plans in the summer of 2020 but the refusal to do so – when it was already obvious that fresh school closures might well be needed, and that exams might have to be cancelled again.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘We’ll be ending bubbles’
“Lessons were not learnt from the first lockdown, with the result that, for both school closures and exams, the story from July 2020 to January 2021 was a case of ‘pause, rewind, repeat’.”
It added: “Well into March 2021, and indeed beyond, pupils taking GCSEs, A-levels and BTecs remained unclear about precisely how they were to be assessed. At times it felt as though the school system was in chaos.”
But the DfE disputed this, with a spokesperson saying: “Contrary to the claims in this report, contingency plans for restrictions on schools opening in the 21/22 academic year were first published in August 2020, and contingency plans for qualifications in 2021 were first discussed with Ofqual in October 2020.”
The report did praise what it said was the “commendably swift decision” on the definition of key workers and, therefore, which children could still come to school.
But it added that the “supply of laptops for remote learning was, perhaps unavoidably, slower than anyone would have liked”.
The education secretary ‘appears not to have been directly involved in any of the key meetings ahead of the original decision to close schools’, the report says
And there were concerns expressed about the government’s “highly centralised approach” to dealing with 24,000 schools and “tensions between No 10 and DfE” [the Department for Education].
The IfG report also criticised what it said was a “refusal to trust local authorities and a failure to engage effectively with them, and their directors of public health, in ways that might have allowed a more nuanced and better response”.
It claimed that Education Secretary Gavin Williamson “appears not to have been directly involved in any of the key meetings ahead of the original decision to close schools in March 2020”.
The report included comments from a Number 10 source over how Boris Johnson approached contingency planning during the pandemic.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Families reflect on home schooling
It noted: “A No 10 source says that ‘the clear steer’ that officials received from the prime minister was not to make contingency plans. Schools were going to reopen. Exams would be held.
“The view was that ‘if you prepare for these things not happening, then the outcome is that they are far more likely not to happen… people will look for the easy way out and take it’.
“According to this insider, the prime minister’s default is to bluff. To talk up things to such an extent that they will happen through the force of his own personality. Which is a very powerful tool. But the virus doesn’t listen to those messages.”
IfG senior fellow and report author Nicholas Timmins said: “Some early decisions in England were taken well. Some, which took longer than anyone would have wanted to implement, will have some lasting benefit.
“But the failure – indeed, the refusal – to make contingency plans over the summer and autumn of 2020 left pupils, parents and teachers facing a case of ‘pause, rewind, repeat’, not least over exams.”
Boris Johnson will reportedly tell the COVID inquiry that he “unquestionably made mistakes” during the pandemic, but his decisions helped save tens of thousands of lives.
The former prime minister is due to give evidence next week – and according to The Times, he will issue an “unreserved apology” and admit his government was “initially far too complacent” about the threats posed by the virus.
Mr Johnson is expected to express regret for boasting about shaking hands with patients on a coronavirus ward and defend the timings of the UK’s three lockdowns.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
March 2020: ‘I shook hands with everybody’
He is set to argue that failing to act would have caused thousands more “miserable and unnecessary deaths – some of them in hospital car parks and corridors”.
Last month, England’s chief medical officer Professor Chris Whitty told the inquiry that he believes the first lockdown in March 2020 came “a bit too late”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘First lockdown was a bit too late’
But The Times is reporting that Mr Johnson will claim Prof Whitty was “instrumental in arguing for a delay” – and the possibility of a lockdown was first discussed three weeks before it was enforced.
The ex-PM is also expected to deny saying that he had a “let it rip” attitude towards COVID, with a view to achieving herd immunity.
Mr Johnson is expected to face difficult questions on multiple issues – including partygate, his communications with government colleagues, and the evidence heard so far.
Read more from Sky News:
Two rescued after house explosion in Edinburgh
Why did King wear a tie covered in Greek flags?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
June 2023: What was in the partygate report?
The report suggests that the former politician is preparing to argue that his WhatsApp messages have been taken out of context, meaning “dark humour is lost or morphs into mockery”.
Eat Out to Help Out is also likely to be discussed, amid claims that the government’s COVID-19 taskforce was “blindsided” when the controversial scheme was announced.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘Blindsided’ by Eat Out to Help Out
Mr Johnson is expected to argue that the policy was “properly discussed” with Prof Whitty and former chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance.
According to the newspaper, then chancellor Rishi Sunak and de facto chief of staff Dominic Cummings are both set to be largely absent from Mr Johnson’s written testimony, which is likely to be published after his appearance in front of the inquiry.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Cummings says PM was known as a ‘trolley’
Aides to Mr Johnson have said they were not responsible for briefing The Times.
A spokesman was quoted as saying: “Boris Johnson will be at the COVID inquiry next week and is looking forward to assisting the inquiry with its important work.”
The legal duel between the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Kraken, a leading cryptocurrency exchange, looks like another misguided attempt by the SEC to exert control over an industry that fundamentally challenges an outdated regulatory playbook. The agency’s lawsuit, filed in November, accuses Kraken of operating as an unregistered securities exchange.
The lawsuit isn’t just a repeat of the SEC’s past failures. It’s also a glaring example of regulatory overreach that fails to grasp the essence of cryptocurrency. It mirrors the agency’s actions against Coinbase, which mark a pattern of aggressive regulation that is both ineffectual and counterproductive. In its case against Coinbase, the SEC allegations similarly involved operating as an unregistered securities exchange. The approach fundamentally misunderstands the nature of cryptocurrency exchanges.
The lawsuit isn’t just a repeat of the SEC’s past failures. It’s also a glaring example of regulatory overreach that fails to grasp the essence of cryptocurrency. It mirrors the agency’s actions against Coinbase, which mark a pattern of aggressive regulation that is both ineffectual and counterproductive. In its case against Coinbase, the SEC allegations similarly involved operating as an unregistered securities exchange. The approach fundamentally misunderstands the nature of cryptocurrency exchanges.
Unlike traditional securities exchanges, platforms like Kraken offer a diverse range of digital assets that do not fit neatly into the securities framework. This misclassification by the SEC reveals a lack of understanding of the unique characteristics of cryptocurrencies, which function as decentralized assets, often with utility or currency-like features rather than conventional securities.
Related: Expect some crypto companies to fail in the wake of Bitcoin’s halving
One of the most striking issues is the absence of technological neutrality — the principle that regulatory frameworks should apply equally to all forms of technology, without favoring or penalizing any particular one. By forcing cryptocurrencies into the traditional securities mold, the SEC is not only misapplying laws but also showing a clear bias against digital assets. This lack of neutrality not only hinders innovation but also unfairly targets platforms that are striving to work within the regulatory landscape.
The aggressive stance of the SEC risks driving innovation and business away from the U.S. to more crypto-friendly jurisdictions. This phenomenon, known as regulatory arbitrage, could result in the U.S. losing its position as a leader in technological innovation. The crypto industry is global, and excessive regulation in one country simply pushes businesses to relocate, taking their economic benefits and innovations with them.
Related: 3 theses that will drive Ethereum and Bitcoin in the next bull market
The Kraken lawsuit is set to become another example of the SEC’s failure to successfully regulate the crypto industry, akin to the outcome of its actions against Coinbase. This repetitive cycle of aggressive and misinformed regulation is not only futile but also harmful to the credibility of the SEC. It sends a message that the regulatory body is more interested in flexing its regulatory muscle than in understanding and adapting to new technological paradigms.
The case isn’t just an isolated legal battle. It is indicative of a broader issue within the U.S. regulatory framework’s approach to cryptocurrencies. The SEC must move beyond its current, outdated tactics and engage with the crypto industry in a more informed and constructive manner. Regulation is necessary, but it must be reasonable, well-informed, and designed to foster innovation, not stifle it.
It looks the SEC is set for another resounding defeat, which will serve as one more reminder of the need for a new approach by regulators.
Daniele Servadei is the 20-year-old founder and CEO of Sellix, an Italian e-commerce platform that has processed more than $75 million in transactions for more than 2.3 million customers worldwide. He’s attending the University of Parma for a degree in computer science.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
-
Sports1 year ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports8 months agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Environment6 months agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment9 months agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Technology2 years ago
Game consoles were once banned in China. Now Chinese developers want a slice of the $49 billion pie
-
Politics2 years ago
Have the last few wobbly weeks seen a turning point for Johnson as PM?
-
Business1 year agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway