Tuesday’s education speech by the prime minister to the National College of School Leadership was talked up as part of the fight back against his Bank Holiday critics. Whatever its genesis, it was a good speech that offered a sense of where the Labour government is going on the issue.

It comes against a background of difficulties in education – including threats to boycott the national tests – and a growing sense that schools policy has been sidelined by an increased focus on social services. The government has also appeared to lose its reformist edge, something apparent in the kneejerk opposition of ministers to plans by the Conservatives to extend Labour’s academies and an initially confused approach to testing.

So, Brown’s speech restored coherence to education policy and offered some hope that a forthcoming White Paper will be a lot sharper than the Green Paper that preceded it.

The speech benefited from being chunkier than the advance billing, which had sounded as if its only policy pronouncement would be a stronger complaints line for disgruntled parents.

There is to be much stronger action on failing primary schools. Chains of schools – already developing through academies – are to be given greater encouragement. Online reporting by schools to parents of children’s progress will become the norm. The importance of external primary tests was reaffirmed, along with plans for a new school Report Card.

Local authorities will also be expected to become more the commissioners envisaged by Tony Blair in his 2005 White Paper than managers of schools and to be more responsive to parents.

But there are still areas where the government could and should go further when it finally publishes its White Paper on schools next month.

First, the academies programme and many academy freedoms should be available to federations of primary schools including weaker ones. This is not the same as a programme only open to successful primaries, as the Tories propose.

Second, although most parents may not want to set up their own schools, the government should make sure the powers in the 2006 legislation can be used by those who do and significant parent promoters get local authority support to develop their plans within available resources, and are linked to others who might be willing to take up their ideas.

Third, if local authorities are to act in parents’ interests, there must be someone with the statutory authority to force them to do so. This should be an explicit responsibility of the School Adjudicator, who already has a number of similar roles.

And, finally, the government should stop being afraid of highlighting its reformist record on schools, including on academies, reducing school failure and the basics in primary schools, and start highlighting its successes over 12 years. A reluctance to do so with vigour has given the Tories and the teaching unions a boost in the last few months.

Nevertheless, by giving coherence to an approach to education that has recently felt haphazard, the prime minister has made a valiant attempt to recover the Labour initiative in this subject.