09 February 2006

There can’t be many White Papers, particularly ones so closely associated with the Prime Minister of the day, that so upset some Party members they slope off and draft an alternative version. It’s not meant to be like that at all but that’s what’s happened with the current Education White Paper.

Given the full treatment in its launch last October, greater freedoms for schools, more power for parents, Tony Blair’s ‘pivotal moment’ and all that, a sense of slow burn has been hanging over it ever since. So much so that a group of Party members including ex Education Secretary Estelle Morris got together at the end of last year to produce an alternative White Paper and now some 90 MPs are thought to have signed up to it. So what is this alternative version now doing the rounds at Westminster and being hastily stuffed into briefcases?

It centres on four major concerns with accompanying recommendations.

First, and the cause of most of the blood letting, is the issue of admissions. A fair and open admission system for schools remains an article of faith for many Labour supporters so proposals to grant schools greater freedom over such matters touches a very raw nerve. Will schools chose the pupil/parent rather than the other way round and will this as Neil Kinnock claimed ‘shatter the all ability comprehensive ideal?’ There is an Admissions Code but it’s only advisory and as the authors say “over time more schools will be free to operate outside it.” For example, “it’s unlikely that any school under this arrangement will voluntarily amend its admissions policy to include more difficult children.” You bet, nor will families in rural areas have much choice or local authorities much control. This is therefore pretty fundamental stuff and the Secretary of State’s protestations that by granting greater freedoms, all schools will be enabled to improve seem pretty thin by comparison.

So what’s proposed? The authors argue that the Revised Code of Admissions should be made statutory and that all publicly funded schools should be required to comply with it; in addition, local authorities should be given additional powers to co ordinate the admissions process for all schools. The strength or otherwise of the Admissions Code is the sticky area; the Secretary of State argued initially that there was no need to make it mandatory but recent whispers suggest that the PM may be prepared to offer concessions so perhaps the lady is for turning.

This takes us on to the second of the four concerns – the role and responsibilities of local authorities. Commissioners of services, guardians of standards was the language coming out of the White Paper but this has alarmed many Party members even those who understand what it means. There is clearly a tension here between those who see local structures as deadweight, resistant to change and something from which to break free and those who see them as vital in holding communities together and serving their needs. The PM start seems to from the former premise hence his interest in granting schools greater independence, yet as the authors argue “local authorities are best placed to keep a close watch on the performance of all schools in their area, pick up early warning signs and make the best use of local resources.” A reference in here perhaps to the concerns raised in the last Ofsted Annual Report about what were termed ‘coasting’ schools. Under the White Paper proposals, with schools at arms length, it’ll be a darn sight harder for local authorities to pick these sorts of concerns up.

There are also some specific concerns; if schools move out of local authority responsibility what happens to land, assets, equipment, the Building Schools for the Future programme? A long list in fact raised by the Select Committee before Christmas and to which the Secretary of State’s responses were not wholly convincing. The authors call for local authority powers to be “clear and applicable to all types of publicly funded school” and to support Every Child Matters.

The third area of concern is about governance of schools and the role that parents might play in this. The authors argue strongly that the White Paper offers no evidence to support granting schools trust or foundation status. Such evidence that there is, the Minnesota model, is none too convincing. There, 88 charter schools were set up, similar in style to proposed trust schools but 17 have closed and ‘choice rich’ children and parents have taken over most of the rest. On top of that, creating an Office of the Schools Commissioner will simply add to the bureaucracy just at a time when efforts are being made to reduce it. Anyway, why would schools want to go down this route? As the authors point out, schools can access most of the freedoms already by gaining Foundation status.

As for the exercise of parent power, the authors underline the fact that not all parents are ready willing and able to exercise this even if they are about anyway. “It is ironic,” they note “that in a country which has the highest percentage of the working age population in work and working the longest hours in Europe that parents are then expected to get home and run the local school too.” Hence the recommendation that “the trust concept is more fully developed and discussed before it’s enshrined in primary legislation” and the proposed Office of School Commissioner is removed to the very long grass.

The final concern raised is about how far popular schools should be encouraged to expand and new ones created as proposed in the White Paper. Again this appears to fly in the face of reality. As the authors argue, “the demand for school places is expected to fall over the next few years” and few popular schools have expressed a great desire to expand – they don’t want to take on any more aggro. Hence the recommendation that “ local authorities are empowered to assess and if necessary refuse or restrain the expansion of schools where this would not be in the overall interest of local pupils.”

In fairness there are some things in the White Paper that the authors do welcome; the emphasis on personalised learning, the desire to tackle coasting and failing schools and the wish to support improvements in behaviour and discipline, to name a few. They also say that they “support the high aspirations in the White Paper” but their fear is that its proposals will “undo many of the advances Labour has already made.” Some commentators are already seeing education as Blair’s ‘Iraq moment of the third term.’ So if you see John Simpson turning up to report on education it may be time to dive for cover.

© Edexcel Policy Watch 2005. Steve Besley is General Manger of Education Policy at Edexcel. Policy watch is a service intended to help busy people understand developments in the world of education. Visit Edexcel at www.edexcel.org.uk