Share
Reported by Nick Jones, ESRC-Funded CSaP Policy Intern (February 2015 - May 2015)
On 5 February students from the Cambridge Master’s in Public Policy (MPP) programme witnessed a debate on the implications of research into neural plasticity for the distribution of educational funding. New findings in this area have opened up a discussion on whether education funding should still be concentrated on the early years of a persons' life, given that this challenges the premise that progress which is not made when young cannot be made up for later.
The debate was followed by a discussion session in which the MPhil students were given the opportunity to work in small groups with the debate participants, to decide on and present a policy response to this question.
The motion, that the distribution of education funding be rebalanced away from the current focus on the early years of development, was supported by Rt Hon David Willetts MP, former Minister of State for Universities and Science, and Professor Susan Gathercole, Unit Director at the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, and opposed by Dr Finbarr Livesey, Lecturer in Public Policy and Deputy Director of the MPhil in Public Policy, and Dr David Whitebread, University Senior Lecturer in Psychology of Education. The debate was chaired by Professor Theresa Marteau, Director of the Behaviour and Health Research Unit.
How strong is the evidence?
The first two speakers both challenged the strength of the evidence, with David Willett's questioning the extent to which evidence often cited as showing a greater effect for early years interventions could be expected to apply to all contexts, given that the research was initially conducted in an area with very high rates of crime and limited opportunity. In opposition, Finbarr Livesey asked the audience to consider whether or not the evidence for neuroplasticity was good enough to be the basis for a change in policy which could potentially cause harm, warning of the dangers of under-evidenced policy making.
Do later stages of education need more funding?
Susan Gathercole told the audience that some aspects of development do not take place until long after early years education has finished, meaning that an approach which focuses on this period of development to the exclusion of others would not properly address all aspects of development. David Willetts highlighted the impact which a strict focus solely on early years education can have on lower income countries, with this often being achieved at the cost of reducing funding for higher education and therefore limiting countries' prospects for growth.
Good early years education is expensive
The case for education funding becoming not less but more focused on early years schooling was made by David Whitebread, on the the basis that good early years education requires well-qualified, well-paid and reflective teachers. This is based on the premise that because the early years interventions which have the greatest benefit are complex, they need highly-skilled people to implement them correctly and realise the potential benefits.
The debate gave those in attendance a valuable opportunity to consider the difficulty of making policy decisions when the evidence is contested or in its early stages, within a context where resources are limited and any increase in funding for one area requires the withdrawal of funding for another.
(Banner image from Flickr)