The coalition government’s education policy is a series of contradictions.
On the one hand, they want to give what they call ‘the professionals’ a greater say and to decentralise. On the other, they want to determine precisely which form of phonics should be taught in primary schools, as well as the nature, style and content of history teaching across the curriculum.
They want ‘most’ schools to become academies; and yet they want to retain a grip on the curriculum which, in the next breath, they say they will devolve to schools themselves!
The contradictions make it difficult to get to grips with their policy in relation to academies and the way in which they claim standards are to be driven up.
There’s no doubt that dynamic leadership, quality teaching and professional pride can go a long way to achieving that goal. The problem, though, is very simple. There just aren’t enough headteachers who are good at both raising standards and improving the quality of teaching in the classroom while, at the same time, performing well as the managers of every aspect of the education service.
What academies have to do – particularly in the model outlined by education secretary Michael Gove – is take on the functions that local authorities currently perform, whilst at the same time developing their own management of everything from salary rates to alterations in the curriculum and the school day – not to mention relations with the wider school family.
The truth is that this policy is not as radical or frightening as may be feared. Nor is it overly undermining of the collective approach to providing a holistic education system which has been the bedrock of our system for decades.
It is also, however, not as effective as is being paraded in terms of lifting up schools that are really struggling.
This is self-evident. The emphasis of the policy is that schools that are doing well should become academies and float off – not, as the original policy enunciated by me nine years ago intended, to give a massive boost to schools in areas where children have been losing out for generations.
This should not come as a surprise. The Conservatives always promise to the many what they intend only to deliver to the few. In this case, they are promising to the few – the most successful, prosperous schools – what the many are not in a position to take advantage of.
The part of their policy which should most worry us is the way in which resources are to be sucked away from the worst off. This is part of their broader agenda, best illustrated by the £6.2 billion of cutbacks announced for this year and the £1.2 billion which is being withdrawn from the most disadvantaged communities through cuts in external funding to local government. The new local government minister, Bob Neill, put the coalition’s view succinctly when replying to me in the House of Commons: “Those in greatest need ultimately bear the burden of paying off the debt”.
The aspect of academies which draws resources out of the support services of local government has to be deeply concerning for all those who care about special needs education. David Cameron, of all people, should genuinely take an interest in what Michael Gove is doing in this area.
Our worries should be tempered by the reality. Whilst a large number of schools have expressed an interest – just as they did in grant maintained status over fifteen years ago – very few will, in my view, progress to the final stages. In any case, the Department for Education, with its diminished resources, is not in a position to process, vet and approve all the applications that will come in over the next few months.
However, we should be aware that ‘freeing up’ schools (who are not, as is so often said, ‘controlled’ by local authorities) is a popular concept. Care in opposition is vital if we are not to revert to the old ways of kneejerk reaction and immediate condemnation.
We need to remain both a vigorous opposition and a government-in-waiting. The Conservatives took ten years to manage that trick. We should endeavour to do so, as we have so far, from day one.