Multi-academy trusts, free schools, studio schools, maintained schools, faith schools, the list seems endless.

Even for those working in education the variance in school governance structures is bewildering.

Every Labour politician gets told on a regular basis that ‘there is no point complaining about academies – you started it!’ It is the same point that is made countless times about the bedroom tax.

Indeed, we should be shouting, we did start the academies programme and we are proud of its successes.

There is no doubt that some schools have used the freedoms that academies bring and have innovated, thrown themselves into their communities and strived to deliver continuously improving outstanding education for our children. Many maintained schools have sought to do the same.

In the same way we have seen numerous media stories detailing how some academies have dramatically failed; as have schools still under the auspices of local education authorities.

The simple truth is that no matter the governance structure there are good schools and there are bad schools and our job as Labour is to ensure that the best ones flourish while we endeavour to bring the weakest up to a standard which we can all be proud.

And that is why David Blunkett’s proposals today are to be overwhelmingly welcomed.

In his report it would have been so easy for Blunkett to sell to party activists a concept of going back to the glorious days of LEAs.

But he doesn’t, he rightly says ‘clearly, the emphasis on the particular status of a school, its antecedence and sponsor, is far less important than what takes place in the classroom, the laboratory and on the playing field.’

Blunkett is right. Our children’s education is far more important than being beholden to intransigent views that the market or teaching unions are the only ones who know best.

In an ever-changing educational environment, there has to be recognition that professionals, business and local authorities can all bring meaningful expertise to the table when it comes to improving school standards.

That approach is the bedrock of the Blunkett report.

Blunkett talks of two overriding objectives, a relentless drive to raise standards for every child and to bring about ‘coherence, consistency, and a collaborative approach’ in education and where more can this be evidenced than in his very first recommendation: the creation of a position of independent director of school standards or ‘DSS’?

There is no doubt that the best schools are challenged to improve when they are effectively scrutinised and that weaker schools can improve a great deal from taking on best practice. Just what the DSS would be charged to do.

It has become very clear for anyone involved in education that the governance structure of a school is not a measure for success.

Some of us may long for the days of the strong LEA setting our standards, others see business lead schools breeding a generation of entrepreneurs.

The truth is the only thing that matters is making sure our children have the best possible facilities, a curriculum that will serve them well in a fast changing economy and the best possible teachers to inspire and educate.

To my mind the collaborative working, the emphasis on local partnerships and refreshing school place planning outlined by Blunkett recognises that need too.

———————————

Leon Spence is a county councillor and Labour lead for children and young people at Leicestershire county council. He tweets @CllrLeonSpence

———————————