20/10/2016 Newsnight


A look at possible Brexit concessions on free movement, the super head teacher model for schools, and whether or not Donald Trump would concede if he lost the US election.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 20/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Newsnight exclusively reveals data that suggests we are rewarding


the wrong headteachers with the big bucks and the knighthoods.


It may mean that we have to go back to step one in terms of who is


running our schools. I'll be asking the Chief Inspector


of Schools if he agrees. Also tonight, as Theresa May meets


EU leaders, Newsnight understands that those in Whitehall advocating


a softer Brexit think the door should be kept open to


lower-skilled migrants to avoid And another clue about the direction


of Brexit talks, perhaps, When it comes to pass porting for


the financial institutions, that is something that has to be negotiated


as well. But I can say something very clear. If you want to have


passport in, you need to accept at least, basically, the EU regulation


that we have and the financial area. I will totally accept the results of


this great and historic presidential election if I win.


Today, Donald Trump said something unheard of in modern American


history - how big a threat is this to American democracy?


The Government has long had a penchant for parachuting so-called


The narrative goes like this - head teachers arrives -


kicks ass - kicks all the bad eggs out -


pupils and the teachers - results soar - head gets


Moves to next badly performing school and so on.


But Newsnight can exclusively reveal new evidence that


demonstrates that this strategy is not working.


Chris, a fundamental problem with the way our schools are wrong, then?


Absolutely right. This research coming out from a peer-reviewed


publication has looked at 411 English headteachers. What it


basically find is that we pay almost twice as much to the most short


termist and destructive head teachers, who just look like they


are doing a good job, while there is a huge category of teachers who do


brilliant jobs who basically never get knighthoods and who get paid


much less. This is phenomenal research, based on data from inside


schools which has never had a look at. This could be some of the most


important research for social policy in recent years.


We spend a lot of time and energy trying to improve schools in


England. But a new piece of research published tonight in the Harvard


business review and shared exclusively with Newsnight is


potentially a breakthrough. It reveals we are getting some very big


things wrong when it comes to what makes a good head teacher. This new


research throws up into question whether we are hiring the right


people to be a high headteachers and whether we are rewarding the right


people to be our headteachers. It looks at things from a very


different angle and it may mean that we may have to go back to step one


in terms of who is running our schools. This new research uses a


unique data source to work out what works. Administrative data from a


big group of sample secondary academies, which analysts at the


center for high performance have used to look at what headteachers


actually do. We looked at 411 heads and looked at the actions that they


actually take within their management information systems, how


they manage staff, how they manage teachers, how they manage students.


What they paid teachers, how they manage behaviour, how they recruit


people, how they exclude people. What we have found is that they fall


into five main categories. There are three of those groups that are


particularly interesting first of all a group that they dodged the


surgeons. These are headteachers who act decisively and cut out both


staff and pupils from their schools as they turned them around. Second,


the group they call the philosophers. These are headteachers


who think of themselves as just experienced teachers, not really


leaders or managers. They talk a lot about pet -- pedagogy in particular.


This thirdly, the architects, slow and mystical as planners who like to


do things in secret. These categories are very different.


Surgeons dropped into a school would be expected to expel as many as 28%


of the final year students to improve GCSE results. The


philosophers, 6%. The architects, just 1%. The philosophers don't


really change anything in terms of staff. While the architects manage


out poorly performing staff, they recruit replacements, so they end up


with a bigger staff. Surgeons are very decisive. They make quick


actions and sometimes those actions are controversial. A cut large


numbers of students and also get rid of underperforming staff come about


in the short term they are able to increase examination results very


quickly. You can see that in this graph, which chose the annual


average change of exam results while each sort of head is in post. The


surgeons's schools certainly do much better than the loss of that and the


architects at getting results up. They massively increase the


proportion of children who leave with five good GCSEs. Our surgeons


good in the long term? Surgeons are not good in the long-term because


they are short is. They aggressively focus on students about to take begs


nations and expel those who they think will not pass. School leaders


who take more time and focus on working with the community are able


to build sustainable schools. Yet is the same chart you saw before but


let's look at the year after those heads leave. The architects's


schools are stable but surgeons's schools's results collapse, dropping


after two years too. Only after three years do surgeons's results


stabilise, now the architects look the best. But remember, surgeons


shrink the size of the school by hoofing out kids. The surgeons would


average only between 50 and 90 students graduating with five or


more good GCSEs. The architects would leave a school where 160-170


children each year would get five GCSEs. The raw social good of an


architect is way bigger. The architects focus on building the


right school for the future, the right school for its community. They


start off by improving the environment in the school, improving


behaviour of the students and improving the leadership, and then


improving the teaching. They also engage with the local community and


try and understand what is the right school. For example, they seek


parental complaints as a positive thing because they believe that


parents are now engaged with the school, which is the right thing for


the school going forwards. He would hope that our school system is


systematically identifying and rewarding those architect


headteachers. But it isn't. If you look at who the Government gives


honours two, 60 3% of the surgeon headteachers in our example had a


gong of some kind. For the architects, it was just 13%. If you


have a look at who governing bodies are winning to pay the most, you see


the same pattern. The average surgeon was earning ?154,000 per


year on average, as opposed to ?86,000 a year for the architects,


even though they run much bigger schools. Generally when governing


boards are looking at how to reward their head teachers, they will only


look at one year's performance. One year's data. And indeed, the system


as a whole is geared around one or two years in terms of, Ofsted comes


and visits very frequently in underperforming schools, league


tables are published every year. So without a doubt, head teachers will


very much feel that they are on an annual cycle of being monitored. So


I think we could really do with a sea change where all of us think


much more about what we need to do to improve schools in the


medium-term. If that weren't enough, there is another fascinating finding


too. Of the surgeon headteachers, 71% were PE teachers. Of the


philosophers, 78% were English teachers. And of the architects, 68%


were either history or economics teachers. Our most surprising


finding was the clearly and between the subjects they studied and taught


and how they then behave as leaders of schools. We believe that this


clearly comes because they have not had leadership training or exposure


to other ways of thinking, so they fullback on the values and beliefs


within the subjects that they have studied and taught over the years.


For example, PET just believe that our winners and losers and you're


only as strong as your weakest link. -- PE teachers. So you can see how


they believe in excluding the worst performing students. We are not


rewarding heads to make the biggest impact for the longest number over


the longest period. We are simply rewarding those heads who are best


at playing the game. Joining me now is Sir Michael


Wilshaw, who is the Chief Inspector And indeed a former history teacher


himself! Good evening. Terrifying that some of the best heads in the


country are being paid the least. I'm really glad this research has


come out because it confirms things that I have believed in for a long


time, there are lots of people who go unrecognised to do a fantastic


job getting good results in the long-term and yet they unrecognised


and unrewarded. We've got too many people in the system who are into


self-aggrandisement, empire building, receiving massive salaries


and who are not building for the future. A great head is not only


somebody who improves results for all children but also ensures that


there is a future for the school and gets staff in who can replicate the


success that they have achieved. Some of this short-term stuff is


absolutely desperate, because they are going for the quick hit, the


short-term, the exclusion of that year's GCSE pupils, in these


so-called quick turnaround is, in some schools it is 28%, in some


schools it is 50%. Of course you can get any result you want the more


kids you exclude! If our inspectors found that we would do something


about it and heavily criticised the school. It doesn't seem to have been


found. We do criticise schools who have high exclusion rates. We


produced a report a few months ago on the underperformance of children


between 11 and 14 at Key stage three because in secondary schools were


focusing on key stage four, yet and India 11, particular focusing on


year 11, last year group, to the exclusion of focusing on those


younger youngsters between 11 and 14, and as a result, although their


outcomes look good on the surface, they should have been a lot better.


But you are Chief expects and you are also head of Ofsted. You think


that this has been a flawed system. Do you think you should have done


more? Have Ofsted been far too short term is about this? They're not. I


signed letters every week and if you talk to headteachers who receive


them, they say they are pleased to receive them, these are headteachers


in schools that are not good, they are underperforming, but they expect


to see that the leader is putting into place the building blocks for


improvement and strategies for long-term growth. I send those


letters out to save the school is not good yet, the results are not


good, but you are a good leader and you have got in place those systems


to improve the school. So why is it that these short-term heads, the


so-called surgeons, the quick fix guys and girls who get in and get


out fast, they are getting paid nearly double other heads? We need


to blame the governors for that and headteachers prepared to commit


themselves to the community and the school. I get worried about


headteachers who get the gongs and the big salaries and then go off


somewhere else for a bigger salary. As they had, I spent a long time in


schools to make sure that school worked and that the community was


proud of that institution. We need heads who will commit themselves for


the long-term. And if they don't do that, the government should do


something about it. They certainly shouldn't be rewarded by the


government. Let's move onto more broadly talking about education


under this Government. Describe the impact that you think Theresa May's


plans for grammar schools will have? I've been quite open about this, I


think it is a retrograde step. I came into teaching to improve the


lot of all children, not just some. If we go down the route of grammar


schools, the 15% - 20% will do well but the rest will do badly. All you


have to do is look at areas with grammar schools. Look at Kent, look


at ducking, Sutton. Look at the attainment gap between those who go


to the grammar schools than those who don't.


The best teachers will gravitate to the place where it is easiest to


teach. All you have to do is speak to people in modern schools in Kent


and they will say how difficult it is to get staff. If you look at


London schools, they are doing fantastically well serving the most


deprived communities. I can take you to academies in Portsmouth and


Birmingham where you have got great heads, architect heads, who are


doing very well by their children. The big challenge for our schools


system is to make sure we have got enough teachers and enough leaders


in our schools to improve them. It is not about structural change, we


have had enough of that. If you look back at the tenure of Michael Gove


and Nicky Morgan, how would you rate that? You were there during those


years. I was and I have had a lot of admiration for Michael Gove. He


felt, as I and many other people felt, that we needed to give more


autonomy to headteachers to make a difference. That has happened. We


need more diversity in the system with academies and free schools. He


realised the curriculum and the examination system were not as good


as they should have been anti-reform to those and we are seeing the


benefits now. If there was one thing you wished you had pushed harder on,


what would it be? I wish I had pushed harder on focusing on what it


matters for those youngsters who are not going to university, those


youngsters who need skills, who need to go to an apprenticeship. I wish I


had focused on that much more than I did. That is a big challenge for the


country, as well as ensuring you have got good teachers.


In Brussels tonight, Theresa May at her first EU summit


is addressing the 27 other EU leaders after dinner on the subject


of the UK's departure from the European Union.


They apparently have been instructed to listen but stay schtum.


The body language on both sides tonight will no doubt be cordial,


but the devil will be in the detail, and one very big detail will be


Katya Adler, the BBC's Europe Editor, is live in Brussels


Katya, what has been the reception to Theresa May?


This is her first EU summit as Britain's Prime Minister and after


the Brexit vote we would have thought it would be a frosty


reception. But all the leaders here are seasoned politicians and you can


call it duplicity or being down bids diplomats, that they are perfectly


capable of picking holes in each other's politics and being polite to


each other. But if you listen to the leaders who arrived at this summit,


there is a noticeable hardening of town. Francois Hollande of France


said, if she was a hard Brexit, we will give her hard negotiations.


Even German, the Netherlands and Italy are hardening their tones. We


have to be careful of expecting things to happen too quickly.


Although Brexit is one of the most dramatic developments in post-war


Europe, this is about a process and not a single event. In the meantime


we are in a holding pattern of screaming silencers. Theresa May


refuses to tell the leaders the precise details of the Brexit she


once and they refuse to top details whether and until a formal Brexit


leaving has started. Tonight all the leaders, including Theresa May,


talked about Russia and Syria. The Prime Minister insisted the UK


remains a full EU member until it leaves and demanded not to be cut


out of, decision-making. The British have voted to leave the EU and


Theresa May says they will leave the EU, but we are an infinite number of


decisions and meetings away and tell the UK walks out of the door. One of


the big issues to deal with freedom of movement and we have learned that


has been pushed back against the Chancellor and there is believing in


a softer Brexit who say the doors should be kept open to lower skilled


migrants coming from the EU to avoid damage to the economy. Theresa May


has been urged by senior figures in Whitehall to wake to the last minute


before she triggers Article 50. The EU leaders have to wait until the


end of March. They are making this case because Britain needs every


minute to get its ducks in a row. It is working process. You were talking


about those hostile briefings against Michael Hammond on the Prime


Minister was not amused by those briefings her Chancellor. There was


talk of the time of those briefings imposing rules to keep the doors


open to highly skilled workers and make it more difficult for lower


skilled workers. But there is a concern if you close the door too


much on the lower skilled workers it would be bad for the economy and you


would undermine key areas like the care sector.


Ring a bell? What we think should happen is an Australian style


points-based system so we get the people we need for the NHS and for


all our other businesses and services. It was one of the defining


issues in the referendum campaign, Britain would take back control of


its borders and definitively bring down emigration. But it did not take


long for Theresa May to say no to that proposal. What the British


people voted for was to bring some control into the movement of people


from the EU into the UK. A points-based system does not give


you that control. Since then immigration has unsurprisingly


emerged as one of the most contentious issues as ministers try


to thrash out an agreed UK negotiating position. The


Chancellor, Philip Hammond, has found himself under fire from leave


supporters after he urged caution at the meeting of the Cabinet's Brexit


committee over plans to restrict unskilled workers from the EU. We


understand Theresa May was deeply irritated that are misleading


account of a discussion behind closed doors was leaked in a


deliberate bid to damage the Chancellor. The discussions in


Whitehall are described as fluid. Advocates of a hard Brexit are


pressing for a system of work permits designed to keep the door


open to skilled migrants and narrow opportunities for unskilled workers.


Where there is an economic need, the Polish builder is an example, work


permits would be issued for less skilled workers. Those advocating a


softer Brexit are saying the doors should be kept open much wider to


lower skilled workers, or risk undermining, for example, the care


sector. One idea is to set a base level for a migrant salary. One


remains a porter warned Britain would have to tread carefully. We


cannot have our cake and eat it, we cannot have complete control over


who comes here and at the single market. Is there a compromise where


we have limited controls over who comes here and limited, but not all


membership of the single market? That is possible in theory, whether


it is negotiable in practice would be difficult legally and


politically. A former cabinet minister on the leave aside she said


Britain should make up its own mind. Immigration should not be a matter


for negotiation with the rest of the EU. The point of getting that


control over our laws and Borders is that we make those decisions and no


other country asks us what rules they should apply about access to


their country for work or travel. We should apply the same rules to


people coming from Europe as we do to people coming from other friendly


countries. The present system has a whiff of racialism about it with


people coming from our former colonial territories who are


severely controlled and those coming from white, European countries are


not. The same rules should apply to everybody. Theresa May faces a long


and winding road before she formally losses there is Brexit negotiations


with the rest of the EU, possibly at the last minute at the end of March.


The skirmishes have just begun. Earlier today I spoke to the German


Deputy Finance Minister, Jens Spahn, to ask about his ambitions


for Brexit discussions. I started by asking him


whether given Britain is projected to have the strongest growth


in the EU this year, despite Brexit, that the UK could do perfectly well


outside of the Union. This uncertainty stops investment.


It does not bring more growth, but less growth and I think it is


important for all of us that we start the process and get an idea


where it might end. Let me say this, I think we underestimate the


long-term results of this Brexit. Of course we can argue about what is


happening in the share markets today, tomorrow and next week, but


the long-term situation of Britain as well as the European Union will


change and that will affect the economy in a different way, much


more than we see today. But I wonder if there is a possibility that we


could have EU nationals coming to the UK to work if they have worked


rhesus. It is free movement of labour with work visas, in return


for access to the single market. Is it not possible these work visas


might be a way of negotiating? Between no relations and the


internal market there are many options in between, so I am sure we


can find something for strong trade and a strong economic agreement and


something that is about movement and working in Britain or the other way


round, on the continent for British people as well. But if it is really


an internal market as it is now in the European Union, then you have to


accept the freedom of movement. That is one of the pillars of the


European Union, it is one of the most important values that the


European Union has to offer to its average citizens and we cannot


compromise on that. Is it possible we could make financial


contributions as we do now and in return we might be able to continue


passports, for example, that is it possible there could be set access


in return for contributions? It depends on the package but I do not


see the point in paying contributions, paying money to the


EU budget that you do not have any control over any more. What is the


improvement compared to the situation to day where you are


paying money and you have control over it at the same time and


discussing what is happening with the money in Brussels? I do not see


the point, but if that is something Great Britain once, it can be part


of a package. When it comes to pass sporting for the financial


institutions, that has to be negotiated as well, but if you want


to have that, you need to accept at least basically the EU regulation


that we have in the financial area. You cannot become a kind of


financial haven, which some people are dreaming of in the UK, some


banks are dreaming of it. A very senior figure in Germany


representing the German auto industry said the UK is an important


market, but actually cohesion of the EU, 27 countries, is more important


for this industry. That is an interesting thing for him to say. He


seems to be saying even if it meant job losses, it is more important,


the very idea of Europe is more important. What do you think of


that? He is right. Of course we want to keep this market and we want to


have access to this market as open as possible, but not at any cost,


not at any price. It depends on the conditions. The internal market,


really free access, means you have to accept the freedom of movement


and if that is a condition that is not wanted, then we have to accept


the access we have today, for example the car market in the UK,


might change and we have to find a new settlement about it. Do you


think if we did decide when we looked at the deal and we did not


like it, is there a way we can get back and with Debbie the good will


to take us back? I do not know what will happen in the next few years.


We have to see the process and negotiate. I expect this referendum


counts, but if there should be a new situation in four years' time, of


situation in four years' time, of course we will debate it again.


Donald Trump's refusal to commit to the result of the US presidential


election in the third presidential debate last night was a serious


moment for the world's biggest democracy, even by the terms of this


campaign, which apparently shocked even his own backroom team.


I watch, do you make the commitment that you will absolutely not. I will


look at it at the time. I am not looking at it now. I will look at it


at the time. What I have seen is so bad, I will tell you at the time, I


will keep you in suspense. Chris, let me respond because that is


horrifying. Every time Donald thinks things are not going in his


direction commie claims whatever it is is rigged against him. Today at a


rally in Delaware, Tom had a moderated message, you will accept


the result if he wins. I would like to promise and pledged


to all of my voters and supporters and to all of the people of the


United States that I will totally accept the results of this great and


historic presidential election. If I win!


Well, in a moment I will be speaking to an adviser to Donald Trump, but


first we will go to the American political historian. Good evening.


First of all, how big a deal do you think this was, Donald Trump last


night and then today? How dangerous do you think it is, from your


perspective? I think it's about as calamitous a development for


democracy as can be imagined, not just for the legitimacy of this


election but for the legitimacy of thousands of elections that go on in


America every year. Losers, and by the way, that is not a moderation of


his position at all, saying he will only accept the results of the


election if he wins is saying that he will not accept the results of


the election is now saying that thousands of politicians around the


country can be licensed to do be the same thing and if that happens, we


will have a cascade that threatens the very foundations of our


republic. It's dangerous. A lot of people will just see this as Donald


Trump just blustering, this is just what he does. Well, what he did in


2012 was he tweeted that because Barack Obama was ahead in the


electoral college at a time in which John McCain was ahead in the popular


vote,... He has supporters who treat everything he says as gospel. A lot


of the supporters have guns and they have promised to bring them to the


polling places. He has a ready distorted the election badly by


making people believe it's not legitimate, they may not show up.


It's terrible for a country that relies on the rule of law and


reciprocal about allegation. You have obviously studied American


political history. Has there ever been anything like this? Actually


saying that the election could be rigged, before. Never. The Trump


people are trying to compare this to 2000 when Al Gore asked for a


recount, but what actually happened was when the election was announced


for George W Bush, Al Gore accepted the results and then because of the


closeness of the result in Florida, an automatic recount was kicked in


by the procedure of law and he let that go forward. It's a completely


different situation. Completely unprecedented. Let's say that on


November the 9th Donald Trump loses the popular vote and challenges,


what could actually happen? How long could it go through the courts?


Well, we have the precedent in 2000. If it's close enough, which it


doesn't look like it's going to be, by the way, in most polls, Linton is


6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10% ahead. The procedure is actually quite


complicated because it is handled state-by-state and precinct by


precinct. We don't have a federal election system in America and so it


could be a colossal mess and that could be a crisis not only for


America but for the world. What do you think the long-term impact of


this questioning of the validity of the American electoral system might


be? Hopefully nothing. That is up to Mr Trump. I employ him to think of


the country, think of the world and do the patriotically and accept the


results of the election. If he doesn't, the long-term impact of the


most powerful democracy in the world, in the eyes of the rest of


the world being questioned, would reverberate everywhere. We would not


be able to hold the rest of the world to any kind of standard


because the way America has tried to do things for 240 years now.


Thank you very much, Rick. We are joined by the foreign adviser to


Donald Trump, who declined the opportunity to have a conversation


there. Good evening. Good evening. Why is Mr Trump doing this now? You


can see clearly that they are trying to make him into a cartoon with


these attacks. It is not what he said. If it is rigged, if it is


clearly rigged... And to do that, it is not down to him to decide, it is


his lawyers and the results coming from various states. The previous


figure has mentioned that in 2000 precisely President George Bush and


former Vice President Al Gore had asked the investigation and the


Supreme Court to decide, is that so different? That was the question of


a particular number of votes and Al Gore stepped back. Where is the


evidence that Mr Trump is accumulating of rigging? It is all


over the Internet. Your viewers can go and check the cases appearing in


Colorado, in Florida. This is not to say that rigging is going to happen,


but he is taking measures. He is saying, if it is going to happen


then I'm going to take measures. I think what he is saying is because,


in the last election, when I was the adviser to Governor Romney... The Al


Gore situation was quite different because they were mandated for an


automatic recount for the hanging chads and that was quite different.


Now the Republican senator has said Donald Trump saying he might not


accept the result is beyond the pale and it does not have the support of


senior Republicans. If Donald Trump said, "If I lose then I will go


against it", then yes. But that is not what he said. He said, if there


is rigging and if there are problems. He cannot say what the


problems are because we're not yet at the ballad box. There he is


bets. -- at the ballot box. The day he was perfectly clear that if he


wins there will be no investigation. He was talking about if he doesn't


win. Is it just Donald Trump last in? I'm sure you saw the video. He


was sarcastic. His people were waiting for him to say, if I lose...


And he said, if I win and then everybody was clapping! This is


Donald Trump's style. He does not mean that really, if I am defeated,


I'm going to question the election. That is not the discussion on


strategic issues. So this is just Donald Trump's style and as the


polls widen, do you think this is really him saying, I know I'm going


to lose? Donald Trump knows exactly that his voters are not impacted by


the propaganda campaign waged against him. He wants to make sure


that this heart of his constituencies are going to vote. We


know that he is not backed by many politicians in his party, so that is


his political right to say so and under different circumstances he may


not have. But that's what he did. So this is the kind of strategy that


you would suggest that he pursue? I would not suggest that for the point


that I am not an adviser on domestic issues but on international and


national security. I would not recommend that he say so had he not


been under the kind of cartoon attacks that he has for the last two


weeks. You heard the previous speaker talking about people taking


their guns to polling stations and so forth, that actually, you would


suggest he was being sarcastic, but a lot of people you would believe


and agree presumably take Donald Trump at his word and believe


absolutely every thing he says and the tone in which he says it. Is


that not a problem that there could be incitement? Mr Trump has never


asked any of his followers to take any guns anywhere. The only violence


we saw were against GOP centres in North Carolina and other places. It


is certainly not Mr Trump who will be calling on insurrections if he


loses, but he has been sending this message because he saw and many of


his advisers told him that there are preparations, maybe not coming from


the top but he is warning that he is not going to be silent if there are


problems with this election like rigging. He is for democracy and not


against it. The papers now and one of the


presidential hopefuls says that the border belongs in Kent and not


Calais and France must push its border with Britain to the Kent


coast and stop managing migrants from the UK.


Moving on to the mirror and the shaming of BHS boss is the story.


And now we go to the Times. "Crackdown On rip-off gambling


companies". And web crime goes to the highest level for 14 years.


Before we go, the The Portuguese photographer


Tito Mouraz has just published a new collection,


The House of The Seven Women. His photographs explore


the Beira-Alta region of Portugal where he grew up where,


according to local legend, there is a house that is said to be


haunted by the ghosts of seven women, all maiden sisters,


one of them a witch. On nights of the full moon,


the women would fly from their balcony down onto the street


where they would seduce Good evening. Heading off to bed and


wondering what is in store tomorrow, pretty much what we have seen this


week. We are stuck in repeat mode at the moment. The early-morning


A look at possible Brexit concessions on free movement, the super head teacher model for schools, whether or not Donald Trump would concede if he lost the US election, and the prospect of Russian warships in the English Channel. With Kirsty Wark.

Download Subtitles