09 February 2006

Another week and more developments around the Education White Paper but which of these two might prove the most decisive in the long run - the Chancellor coming out and declaring his support for the reforms or the release of an eagerly awaited Report by the Commons Select Committee? There’s no doubt things remain in the balance, even the PM has described it as “a bit of a high wire act” but these two interventions should help rather than hinder progress on the White Paper.

Gordon Brown first. His declaration of support, “I cannot be stronger about the importance I attach to this reform programme” came in a week which had seen former Labour leader Neil Kinnock emerge to add his fruity voice to the critics. Not every one saw this as a step forward; the media were distinctly under whelmed and the Chairman of the Select Committee added tartly, “Neil’s a dear friend but he’s been out of the loop for a long time.” Some of the more outspoken critics have started to switch their attention to other targets; many for instance suspect the behind the scenes influence of Lord Adonis and there have even been calls for his head but this is unlikely. Supporters of the Paper, meanwhile, believe that opposition to it is being co ordinated by a particular group, the Compass group who are committed to the comprehensive ideal. As for the Conservatives, they seem intent on turning the screw by both offering support to the PM while topping the Select Committee with some proposals of their own.

In such a fetid atmosphere, Gordon Brown’s declaration of support was a calming influence. He’s done this sort of thing before; his eventual support for tuition fees helped swing the vote in January 2004 and his support may be crucial this time. Now, two years on, his moves are watched more closely by those with an eye on the future so this declaration is important in every sense. The arguments are not over but the plates have shifted; an ex Party Leader and ex Education Secretary suddenly seem less powerful once Blair and Brown are united.

So what of the Select Committee inquiry into the White Paper? Released eventually last week, it set out in its own words to “separate out from the White Paper what is actually proposed rather than what some of its critics have alleged that it contains.” It’s certainly taken in a lot of evidence in a very short time; the Education Secretary appeared before it twice, the Schools Minister once and a lot of other eminent and professional people have added their bit over the last couple of months.

It makes for a considered Report. Much of this is due to the measuring stick that it has used to judge the Paper. “The Secretary of State told us that this White Paper is all about driving up standards for the most disadvantaged children and we shall take this as a measure on which to judge the Paper.”

As such, the Committee comes out in support of most of the principles behind the White Paper but makes some important recommendations as to how they might work in practice. Where it does chide the Government, and it is more chide than downright oppose, is over the emphasis given to the trust school proposal. The furore that this has provoked has meant that the good things in the Paper such as the emphasis on personalising learning, behaviour management and professional development for staff, all things now generally recognised as valuable, have been obscured. In essence therefore, this is more a criticism of the presentation of the Paper, the hype, the build up, the staged headlines, the meeting with parents at Number 10 on the eve of the launch, than of the substance.

Much of the White Paper, as the Committee point out, is not new, just turn to the 2004 DfES Five Year Strategy and the 2005 Party Manifesto and much of it is there. Nor does it require much in the way of primary legislation to enact, “trusts are a development of foundation schools and the Schools Commissioner in its present form can be established by the Secretary of State without legislation.” But there are some difficult areas in the Paper and the Committee looked at three in particular; trust schools, local authorities and choice/admissions.

On trust schools, the Committee is largely concerned that the Government has not provided enough detail about what these are and how they differ, “much more detail and clarity is needed on the process involved in becoming a trust school which the Trust Schools Prospectus does not provide.” It’s also concerned about safeguards on assets and so on. Some important points are made, for example “we recommend that the Government should publish a list of bodies it considers appropriate to act as Trust sponsors,” and “the promotion of Trust schools should not be an overriding policy objective…it should be one option in a pluralist schools system.” But perhaps the most telling point is this, “no causal link has been demonstrated between external partners and the success of a school, or between the independence of a school from local authority control and its success.” This suggests severe reservations about the whole trust idea.

On local authorities, the Committee argues that rather than having their role reduced under the proposals, “they will have significant and even increased responsibilities” but that these responsibilities need to be more clearly defined and appropriate powers granted to be able to discharge such duties. In addition, schools ‘should be given the formal duty of co operating with the authority and other agencies on the Every Child Matters agenda’ and under future competition arrangements, local authorities “should have the right to put forward a proposal for a new community school;’ we shouldn’t assume therefore that all schools will want to acquire the status that the Government suggests. The Committee also want the Government to issue guidance “as a matter of urgency” to ensure that PFI projects under the BSF programme are not adversely affected.

Finally on choice and admissions, the Committee wants regulations brought forward as soon as possible to bar the ‘use of interviewing in the admissions process;’ local authorities to be given the statutory duty to monitor admissions practices in their patch and to provide benchmarks for each secondary school in their area for the number of pupils admitted to Year 7 eligible for free school meals or working families tax credit. And as a parting shot on selection– “we have not yet been presented with a credible explanation of the distinction between aptitude and ability. ” Marks will be awarded for concise answers.

© 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