Restoring lost hope and optimism in the political process

These five recent articles do a good job of summarising the current plight of school leaders all with the following central theme: Things aren’t looking good for our next generation.?

1. Pupil behaviour 'getting worse' at schools in England, say teachers. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-68674568
2. School suspensions: England set for highest number in school year. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-68846086
3. Schools lose a quarter of lesson time to poor behaviour DfE survey. https://schoolsweek.co.uk/schools-lose-a-quarter-of-lesson-time-to-poor-behaviour-dfe-survey/
4. Poor behaviour hitting teaching and wellbeing, say most teachers. https://www.tes.com/magazine/news/general/poor-pupil-behaviour-hitting-teaching-wellbeing-say-teachers
5. Teaching assistants are the backbone of a crumbling education system. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/apr/30/teaching-assistants-are-the-backbone-of-a-crumbling-education-system

You may notice that defensive positions have been adopted in response to these challenges with statements about funding that has been set aside to address these connected issues. e.g. mental health support workers, behaviour hubs, financial incentives for new teachers etc.?

I am keen to learn whether universal approaches such as teaching assistants, extended school days and smaller class sizes under previous Governments were cheaper than the targeted measures we are currently using at the point when intervention is needed. Whilst looking for definitive guidance about whether preventing really is cheaper than the curing I found this blog from 2016 on a gov.uk page (https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2016/02/29/investing-in-prevention-is-it-cost-effective/) and found this paragraph to be topical with an election looming:

For example, seriously tackling the obesity epidemic and ensuring that this does not afflict children of future generations is a major challenge: most measures taken now will only show success in 10-20 years’ time. Decision makers must be brave to invest in preventive activity of proven cost-effectiveness, even if the benefits may not be seen for a decade or more.

It is no surprise that more recent government guidelines are hard to find. If we have been struggling to adequately fund at crisis points then the promise of longer term savings derived from a prevention-first approach will remain a pipe dream. The decision makers referenced above need to be at the highest level of Government, and inside the Treasury itself, because central and local governments neither have the cash or the time needed to develop and implement preventative strategies that deliver short term returns on investments.

Making brave, sensible and long-term decisions about this generation, the future workforce and our society of tomorrow would lead to more than just a winning election result. It would restore lost hope and optimism in the political process and establish a positive legacy for our next Prime Minister.