Schools - the battlefield in the socio economic war

Schools – the constant battlefield in the socio – economic war

With the governments drive for standards being clouded by the insistence that the role of education is to prepare young people for the world of work schools are yet again thrown into the maelstrom of defining education for social or economic purposes.

Ironically, in the early part of this century at the heart of both arguments is now the quality of the learner and the learning experience. 

While basic English and maths is becoming a given the content and regurgitation driven education so beloved of our processors is diminishing with the ‘social’ skills of problem solving, team work, responsibility for actions, adaptability and so on becoming a prominent clarion cry for reformers who believe education should provide labour market ready ‘product.’

The irony of this lies in the basic premise of educators, and good teachers are educators, that the basic skills for learners can be boiled down to three components:

• ·        Language, in our case English, as well as a second or third language, enabling you to communicate your ideas and learning.
• ·        Maths (or physics) to appreciate logic and reasoning, system and processes, not just number crunching
• ·        Learning itself, the research, analysis, sharing, problem solving, modifying, stretching and accommodating etc....

Within the last premise other subjects can appear but not as content; facts, dates, deaths, names and finally regurgitation to accommodate some abstract measuring criteria.

The skills for the future lie within these three basic premises, not measuring the content of learning or what additional skills a young person should have.

In the 21^st century we may have the opportunity, utilising the technology, brilliance of educators and the desire of young people to learn, to address the question of “what is education for?” in a far more democratic way than ever before. 

Democratic, not because politicians say it is, but because learners have access to more information than ever before.

People travelling in ‘learning’ directions that institutions may not have thought of and need to accommodate, researching their own interests, problem solving, innovating and sharing beyond the confines of school and college walls.

They will develop learning and employment skills simultaneously hopefully within a system that accommodates this form of learning.

Then all we need to do is develop a process to measure them, or do we? 

Hillsborough

Hillsborough – 96 catastrophes caused by institutional "multiple failures" (cock up) followed by institutional cover up. 
Concerns had been expressed over Hillsborough since 1981 when similar instances , but with no fatalities, had occurred.
It is now believed that up to 41 of the 96 who perished might have survived if the response to the disaster had been different.
164 witness statements had been altered and 116 statements unfavourable to South Yorkshire Police had been removed. 

It was identified by the independent enquiry that the then Conservative MP for Sheffield Hallam, the late Irvine Patnick, passed inaccurate and untrue information from the police to the press thereby influencing one of the most infamous headlines in history 


It is now understood that South Yorkshire Police had performed blood alcohol tests on the victims, some of them children, and ran computer checks to impugn their reputation. They were of course Liverpool fans and had caused the Heysel Stadium disaster, they must be in the wrong.
How wrong they were.


http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/

'Thatchers' Years - her promise and her reality

"Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope." Margaret Thatcher on the steps of 10 Downing Street, May 1979. Yea... thanks for all that harmony, truth and faith that you brought to the country (7 photos)

 

Inclusion Innovation Enterprise Social by any other name

Inclusion Innovation Enterprise Social by any other name

This discussion document ( produced as part of my work with RAWM) explores the issues and relationships concerning social inclusion, social innovation and social enterprise. Its aim is to stimulate and inform the debate concerning social inclusion and the role social innovation and enterprise plays in resolving issues and wider economic growth.  You are invited to comments and make observations on the content; this activity will culminate in a  third sector,  cross region, round table discussion later in the year. A discussion that will hopefully influence  the development of strategic  planning documents concerning social inclusion and economic growth. The discussion is in three parts – PART ONE begins by discussing terminology but also explores levels of engagement and community /civic development.  PART TWO outlines the specific role and issues addressed by social enterprises and potential innovation together with the problems accrued though changes to public procurement processes. PART THREE identifies that ‘social’ does not have to mean care or service, but can have wider implications to the local economy. This part also begins to examine social impact, a measurement remote from formal economic activity measurement, but totally relevant to social enterprises, of whatever sector, within an economic growth agenda.

Ted Ryan European Policy Associate RAWM February 2013  ©rawm 2013

INTRODUCTION

This discussion document explores how, with a slight modification to terminology, we can incorporate ‘inclusion’ programmes, which tend to focus on the social aspect of ‘community development, within socially innovative programmes that encompass social and economic activity.

The document is founded on the premise that we cannot separate social inclusion programmes and objectives from social innovation, and social innovation from community lead initiatives.

Examples of social innovation range from community nurseries and care programmes, catering, horticulture and arts organisations. Products and services delivered through social enterprise, co–operatives, charitable and VCS trading arms, earning and receiving funding from a variety of clientele and sources.

Social Innovation and community lead delivery are recognised within EU structural funds and will therefore have an important role to play within economic development and regeneration programmes that receive funding through that source.

However, for such initiatives to be successful within an economic growth programme  there may be a need to explore terminology and role within social inclusion and innovation programmes that clarifies what we, as a third sector, are talking about, who we are targeting and how do we do it.    

There is an exploration of terminology within social inclusion policies, providing clarification and categorisation of issues, outlining how community lead, socially innovative programmes can be developed.

While this process will acknowledge and promote a ‘social’ response to issues, it also recognises the importance of the economic impact of activities, as well as the business activities of the providers.

PART ONE

SOCIAL INNOVATION – SOCIAL INCLUSION

Defining social inclusion terminology

The general ‘wide ranging’ aims of Be Birmingham’s consultation “Giving Hope, Changing Lives – Birmingham Social inclusion Process - Making Birmingham an Inclusive city” are outlined as:

Support families and children out of poverty, Embrace super-diversity [a term used throughout the document to describe Birmingham’s wide range of nationalities and communities], Protect the most vulnerable, Connect people and places, Create a city that values young people, Empower people to shape their neighbourhood, Address safety, isolation and loneliness.¹

Whilst there may be general agreement that all the above aims are laudable, they are not very specific in terms of project development and impact. Regeneration and economic growth activities are developed to challenge deprivation, unemployment and worklessness, wider issues of income inequality, child poverty, and health inequalities are often included in overall aims. Education and the skills gap become the focus for specific programmes and activities. These are not, however, specific impact measures within which social innovation programmes can be developed.

The Birmingham report, like so many other social inclusion policies, reduces the objectives to Place, People, Wellbeing, Inclusive Economic Growth and Young People. By doing so the activity parameters may be set very wide and create non-specific, generalised projects which, instead of targeting the extremes i.e. categories 1 and 2, Table 1,  programmes are developed that enable categories 2 and 3 to become more engaged; in other words we move to the centre, reducing the impact of inclusion programmes.

^{Table 1 -} Basic of categories of engagement

1.             Those not engaged – the furthest from engagement

2.             Those ‘putting their toe in the water’ – people not engaged, but willing to give it a try

3.             Individuals involved in civic and economic activity but compliant with status quo, norms and values

4.             Individuals who are leading civic and economic activities

5.             Individuals innovating civic and economic activities

Social innovation impact requires ‘smart’ targets, activities and programmes developed with specific measurements and terminology – targets that can be sub categorised.

If we start by deconstructing the five elements in Table 2  , modify the terminology and provide sub categories within terminology where necessary, we can begin to identify social inclusion issues and how social innovation programmes can address identified issues.

^{Table 2} – Five (traditional) elements of social inclusion

1.             Place

2.             People

3.             Wellbeing

4.             Inclusive Economic Growth

5.             Young People

If we are to develop ‘inclusive’ policies that engage, excite and motivate people, we need to develop an awareness of who we are targeting and what our expectations of them are, what activities we should develop to engage them, and ask how do we monitor and measure our activity and impact?

Starting with Place – Place is actually geography, an attachment to a geographic location for specific reasons and activities (actions); simple sub classification within this category would be

·                     to live

·                     to work

·                     of interest

·                     for recreational activity  - fun and cultural

People is a generic term describing ‘everyone’, whereas if we use the term ‘individual(s)’, it is far more specific, and we become capable of identifying programmes that enable individuals to have their own stories and journeys to tell / share and undertake and be valued, irrespective of age or gender. There is no one starting point, and no finishing line.  Any social innovation can recognise the differentiated need and starting point of individuals, the length of journey that an individual wishes or needs to undertake, and engage the individual in planning, developing and implementing programmes. 

Wellbeing, so often categorised as ‘health’, is a much wider concept, including personal development and attitude, state of mind, drive and belief, lifestyle and values. Many of these are very subjective and ‘value laden’, but no more value laden than ‘wellbeing’.

If we are to be inclusive, wellbeing is part of geographical and individual support, people and place, developing personal aspirations that are achievable and can be attained in short, identifiable, steps, enabling the individual to believe in  themselves and the progress they can make.

Having developed geographic, individual and aspirational elements  within which to develop social innovation, Inclusive Economic Growth becomes operationally focused  – the provision of opportunity for skills development. Activities are designed that an individual undertakes, in environments they can access, and where they feel comfortable and supported. Inclusive economic growth is a support programme, acknowledging an individual’s associations of place, as above, that acknowledges people’s starting point, aspiration, journey and support necessary to achieve this.

Young People, so often identified as a separate ‘commodity’ in social inclusion policies, should be included in all the above elements. We should not compartmentalise young people outside the ‘social inclusion’ elements of geography, individual, wellbeing or inclusive economic growth. Programmes can be developed within these elements, as they would for other, identified, individuals (groups of), or of geographically associated groups.

If there is to be a separate element concerning younger people, it needs to accommodate and focus on investment and belief in the future, including all individuals and groups promoting development by  through geography, personal growth through aspiration and development, and an economic place in the community that is valued. The element should promote the belief that we encourage our young people to adopt all these positive values, and support them in how they achieve their goals in their way, and not necessarily in a way that we need to either condone or condemn.

^{Table 3} – Revised elements of social inclusion (without sub categorisation)

1.            Geography

2.            Individual

3.            Attitude, drive and belief (confidence)

4.            Skill acquisition and personal development

5.            Aspiration 

Inclusion through innovation

The five elements definition of social inclusion should not just be confined to social and welfare services,  they can also be used to develop economic, skills and leisure activities. 

If we start from the premise that socially excluded individuals are not involved in ‘civic societal constructs’ then it can be assumed that ‘mainstream’ solutions have not, or do not, work. Social inclusion is about involving those who aren’t involved in ‘civic societal constructs’ (mainstream activity) i.e. employment, community engagement, recreational, social and leisure activities etc.

Social innovation programmes are about new ideas (products, services and models), or the new application of old ideas that work to address pressing unmet needs. In identifying specific individual, or group of need(s), ‘non mainstream’ or new forms of organisation and interaction may need to be designed or supported, utilising different ‘actors’ and partners (civil society, citizens, public and private sector).

While the ‘end result’, the ‘inclusion’, may be economic, civic or leisure, the ‘innovations’ to engage the excluded are primarily social in their ends i.e. how they enable individuals to engage with civic societal constructs, at their own level, and in their means i.e. how the engagement is achieved.

Too often programmes solely focus on the social aspects of inclusion, social outcomes, to the determent of an individual’s economic progress. Social outcomes should include economic factors. The alleviation of poverty, economic well being and inclusive economic growth are all economic constructs - engaging and including individual within these activities is not purely a social activity but has measurable economic impacts.

In addressing social inclusion there are two important dimensions to Social Innovations:

• ensuring the activity has a social outcome (including economic)
• ensuring the process has user involvement, engagement and management, collaborative working, holistic approaches, outreach in local communities.

Social innovation is entrenched within the social economy, meeting social need, creating and enhancing social and economic relationships or collaborations, within a wider economic framework, and is one of the most rapid growth areas of the economy.²

Levels of engagement, development and involvement 

Having accepted the breadth of the inclusion issues, we also need to appreciate differentiated involvement by those ‘actors’ we aim to engage and partner.

In the majority of programmes engagement is top down, usually initiated through specific funding programmes, and therefore lead by officers or institutions.

A simple categorisation of ‘actors’, could be formulated, and then sub categorised, which allows us not only to identify individuals and groups, but also engagement rationale.

If we reverse the ‘top down’ principle we recognise ‘community actors’ as the initiators of any form of civic involvement for communities (of interest, culture or geography). Elementary engagement with any community is through these individuals, who are often very focused on their specific issue. They are aware of their community, its activists and non activists. They ‘hover’ between category 3 and 4 (table 1), either becoming compliant to organisational values (and therefore complaining about non engagement), or leading civic activity and actively working to engage or inform those not active.

An elementary ‘Community Actor’ programme would support these individuals in developing skills and their appreciation of non engagement, a programme that is ‘pedagogically democratic’ in that its content is developed and initiated by ‘the actors’, with facilitators responding to ‘actors’ learning need and requirement not provided from ‘off the shelf’ experiential and historical delivery based curriculums.

If we are to access those furthest from any form of engagement, activities must be supported and augmented by community ‘actors’ and a community animateur process, locally lead, locally delivered and locally managed. The very fact that there are groups not engaged, or detached from organisational activity, implies that current structures are deficient in managing and engaging the breadth of individuals, the copious geographies as well as the many mindsets that prevent engagement and therefore progress – personal, social and, in terms of EU programmes, economic.

Having developed the ‘actors’ skills at a local level, it is necessary to progress development, widening engagement from local ‘focused’ issues to individual development within a wider social and economic framework, ‘actors’ could progress to  ‘Community Engagement and Development’ programme, with attached training and development for ‘actors’.

While the first ‘elementary’ programme would encompass a wider range of ‘community actors’, this programme would benefit  a smaller number, as fewer people would be interested in wider issues than their own immediate geographic issues. Nevertheless, the focus remains local, accessing those who are not engaged in civic activities, learning, sport, cultural etc. The ‘actor’s role is to appreciate the breadth of involvement and work to facilitate engagement in specific activity or a wide range.

At this level the ‘actors’ role is still one of facilitation, and liaison with external / outside agencies, ensuring the provision of such agencies is compliant with local requirements, negotiating and monitoring activity and facilitating stakeholder involvement. Agencies need to respect local ‘actors’ and the requirements of individuals and communities, of interest and geography.  Provision should not be off the shelf programmes that have worked elsewhere. If individual need and geography / geographic exclusion are the issues to be addressed then provision has to recognise that, and the local or personal knowledge of the ‘actor’ respected.  

The training and learning undertaken by the ‘actors’ should be experiential and peer lead, not dictated by historical ‘off the shelf programmes’, tutor experience, delivery organisation experience or precedence.

‘Actor’ involvement and development should recognise the journey which individuals are making, and that their peers in other communities are just as valid a source of information and development as historical research and accepted ‘dogma’.

The next progression for ‘actors’ is developing civic leaders and innovators, people who begin to develop and lead community activities themselves, identifying, developing and facilitating their own ‘actors’ to support them in a sustainable and evolving series of events and activities that are identified by the community, developed by the community, then managed and delivered by the community.

Too often, institutions, organisations and public officers intervene or lead any of these three components of development - this then ceases to become social inclusion development and becomes programme delivery, partnered by, but not in partnership with, community actors.

^{Table 4} – Three step ‘actor’ development within social inclusion and social innovation

1.            Community ‘Actor’ programme

2.            Community Engagement and Development

3.            Community Leadership and Innovation 

The complex issues faced by many of our communities, of individuals or of geography, cannot be lumped together within a single ‘social inclusion’ policy.

To facilitate social inclusion, and assist people on their ‘journey’, recognising the individual, and their starting point, their allegiances to (various) geography [geographies] as well as their ability to facilitate, innovate and resolve cannot be a top down approach. It must be a community /civic lead activity, encompassing (and developing in partnership with the participants) the processes outlined above.

However engaging people in the start of a journey is one issue. Supporting them as they progress through a friendly, civic, community lead process, through to the more complex issues of economic engagement, employment and learning is another.

If we recognise the need to support excluded individuals at the start of their journey, we must recognise the need to continue that support, albeit in a modified form, as they progress on their economic and independent, and therefore increasingly complex, journey.

PART TWO

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE AND INNOVATION, issues of development – from ‘actor to animateur’

Having recognised the importance of community lead / civic engagement for those furthest from the labour market, and therefore not involved in an ‘inclusive economic growth’ programme, we have to acknowledge the continued support required for individuals who, for whatever reason, take longer to become, or in some cases cannot fully become, economically active, and are continually excluded from ‘norms’ and mainstream activity.

We cannot assume that all individuals are capable of full time employment within the labour market. Are these economically excluded individuals not to be included in mainstream developments and provision, or just managed, cared for, within provision? Are we to ‘lump’ all these people together or, building on the concept of the individual, develop community ,of geography or interest, civic activities that can include the individuals, starting the journey from their own specific capability and journeying, at their own pace, arriving at a destination they are comfortable with?

Social innovation programmes, community and civically lead, within the social economy, can accommodate such developments.

This process is not one of ‘charity and care’, ‘handouts and management’, but one of business, humanity, and compassion, with an understanding of the individual’s journey, place and circumstances, and an appreciation of the economy, targets and their achievement capability, matched to a support programme to accomplish set and agreed targets and activities.

This support programme cannot be achieved within mainstream provision with specific output and impact measures, aimed at the ‘average’, job ready or other activity, beneficiary / participant.  These programmes cannot cope with the breadth and rigours of individual need, and variety of support required, to accommodate individuals comfortably along this journey.

However, social innovation and social enterprise programmes face many difficulties. The first is the assumption that all of the above, and the issues identified in part one, can be accommodated in a ‘one solution fits all’, because it is easy for public sector finance to accommodate large contracts, not to focus on individual orientated programmes accommodating specific needs and requirements. Social Innovation / inclusion programmes may not result in the same economically measurable outcome - a job / economic activity, but they will have other economic and social impacts that can be measured. 

Social innovation and enterprise is too reliant on traditional, mainstream, public sector funding and institutions. This, in itself, is not the problem; public sector funding must recognise the potential economic, as well as social, impact that these programmes can have. However it does make them susceptible to changes in expenditure policies, a risk-averse public sector, differentiated contracts and regulations to private sector contracts, resulting in a lack of sustainable funding and therefore stifling of business growth potential from other sources and markets.

In the development and procurement of ‘mainstream’, publicly funded, services there is over-reliance on standard impact and output measures, targeted at the average, mean, beneficiary.

Services and activities, developed to enable individuals to acquire specific and labour market oriented skills, to become economically active, are monitored and measured to accommodate ‘middle’ ground clientele and beneficiaries. Those with greatest need, or furthest to travel, fail within this process, and, although the process may accommodate the bulk of its target, those socially excluded, as identified previously, will always fail or underachieve. Without the appropriate, community / civicly lead informed support, innovation and belief, such individuals will remain excluded.

One last issue for discussion is that of public procurement. Because of due diligence, financial and governance evaluations and liability tests, as well as length and parameters of contracts, procurement favours the very large social enterprise (FE Colleges, Housing Associations etc.), or private sector provision. Smaller social enterprises, with the best opportunity of reaching and supporting those most excluded, are themselves excluded from ‘competitive procurement’ because of the issues outlined. Smaller social enterprises are required to comply with public sector services terms of conditions, as well as public sector regulations and structures. While it is acknowledged that organisations receiving public funding should be robust and legally compliant, the ‘one size fits all’ rule cannot apply across the board if we are to develop socially innovative and community lead solutions to exclusions. 

As some private sector contracts run over a longer period, investment and borrowing can be set against the contract – the length of ‘social’ contracts prevents this, therefore investment in infrastructure, IT and Smart technology, is limited.

A socially innovative, socially inclusive, community lead, enterprise response must be capable of operating on a level playing field, measured against set inclusion objectives and subsequent impacts within robust, yet flexible, due diligence measures.   

     

PART THREE

DELIVERY WITHIN THE ECONOMY – IMPACT AND CSF OPPORTUNITIES

The social innovation and enterprise, the impact within wider economic parameters

Up until now the focus has been on the service provision of social innovation and enterprise, developing individuals on their ‘journey’ to social and possibly economic inclusion.

However, social enterprise and innovation, community-led, does not just have to develop and deliver services to address social issues. By its very nature, social enterprise will have a social purpose, but that purpose can include developing a specific product, or products and activities that compete with ‘mainstream’, private, provision.

These business activities widen the remit of social innovation and enterprise to encompass services and products that may not be reliant on public sector funding. Such companies - social enterprises, CIC’s, mutuals, co-operatives - have been developed within retail, and the service sector - cleaning and estate management, fashion and creative arts sectors etc. While providing a place for ‘socially excluded’ individuals who have the furthest to travel and require additional support to do so, the business model is a standard open market competitive one. These companies are businesses, with a social purpose.   

While these businesses can be measured by standard economic criteria, the value added, by the very nature of their social purpose, should also be acknowledged - this is done through measuring their social impact.

Social Return on Investment (SoRI) provides a clear process for determining which social impact indicators can be measured. The Impact Reporting and Investment Standard (IRIS) provides a set of performance indicators with standardized definitions. Used together, these measurements provide an opportunity for social innovation, inclusion and enterprise programmes to be measured against standardized performance indicators.

This, in addition to impact measures conceived though economic and social inclusion programmes, provide a clear and comparable value, a true value, of these programmes. 

AND FINALLY.......

• Social innovation and social enterprises are the core elements to any social inclusion programme.
• Social inclusion is a principle element in any economic growth programme, it is not the only one but without a robust engagement and support programme from those furthest from the labour market, those with the poorest skills and qualifications economic growth programmes will underachieve.
• Social enterprises are not looking for handouts or charitable contributions to be nice to people. Depending on the type of business, social enterprises seek contracts and aim to develop new markets and clients, providing services, products and support within competitive markets.
• Their social purpose means they are people focused. However, we should not confuse or prioritise the ‘social aspect’ over the economic / enterprise element of their title. They manage their activities in a traditional economic and business-like manner, contributing to the local, city / town, region and national economy in the same way as other businesses do.

APPENDIX AND OTHER REFERENCES

Alastair Grier, RBS chief operating officer, business & commercial banking, introduces the results and analysis of the 2012 RBS SE100 Index

“The RBS SE100 Data Report is telling us that in a tough economic year this is the sector to watch as the top 100 enterprises are still growing at an incredible rate”.

“We believe that this growth is also sustainable and stable, which makes it a vitally important sector for the country, not only financially for the economy but on social and environmental levels too”.

“that leadership teams are on average made up of 45 per cent of women”

“social enterprises are measuring their social and environmental impacts in more sophisticated ways”

“social businesses are finding ways to succeed, build value and create positive change come rain or shine in terms of the economic or political climate. The growth rate of our top 100 fastest growers – the SE100 – has dipped this year from 91% to 60% – but 60% is still a remarkable achievement”.

“enterprises on both the Main Index and the Newcomers Index turned over £778m and created £19m of profit between them, with average income from trading (as opposed to grants or fundraising) at 80%”.

“top 100 growers also achieved a considerably higher combined income this year than the top 100 growers from last year – they posted a combined turnover of £319.4m, which is £146.7m more than the top 100 growers in 2011 – an impressive 85% increase”.

“Almost 58% said that being a social business gave them a competitive advantage and 66% said this advantage was stronger this year than the year before. Some 82% made a public statement about their social value, 63% measured their impact, 34% changed the way they did business as a result of measuring their impact and 34% said they had won new business because they had been able to demonstrate their impact.”

Fewer entrants to the survey this year than last, 365, compared with 409 last year and 350 the year before, but the researchers from Bristol Business School/University of the West of England achieved a greater depth in this survey than in previous years, with many more questions and much fuller answers

¹  Giving Hope Changing Lives, Birmingham Social Inclusion Process, Green Paper, October 2012,   page 5

² 2012 RBS SE100 Index