13 February 2006

The sound of screeching brakes if not full U turns were evident early this week as the Government announced what it called ‘reassurances’ and the critics ‘concessions’ to the education White Paper.

The heady atmosphere of last October when the Prime Minister beamingly described the launch of the latest education White Paper as “a pivotal moment” for his third administration had increasingly turned sour. With the Deputy Prime Minister having to be convinced about it, the chairman of the Select Committee hinting that it should be rewritten and a group of backbenchers peeling off to write their own version, the Prime Minister’s pivotal moment had by last week turned into “a high wire act.” The whole sorry episode has become a metaphor for how not to approach reform of a major public sector. Tony Blair said last autumn “our reform programme is just half way through;” many think it’s a bit more finished now.

However, for the moment the concessions may have worked; “we’ve got 80% of what we sought” said Nick Raynsford one of the leading rebels although other backbenchers coming out of the meeting on Monday night at which the concessions were considered were less sure. “There are still a lot of unanswered questions” muttered one and certainly there was little sign of a celebration, more a sense of further battles to come. One of these unanswered questions is how the Conservatives will play it. The Bill is due to be published this week and the first detailed discussion will take place in March under the Second Reading. The Conservatives are likely to support much but wring maximum concessions and discomfort where possible. The PM may be in for squirming rather than turning.

The concessions, described by the Education Secretary as ‘sensible reassurances,’ can be found in a letter from Ruth Kelly to Barry Sheerman, the chairman of the Education Select Committee, which the week before had published its own thoughts on the White Paper. The letter responds to many of the Select Committee’s points, finding comfort where it can, “I am pleased that the Select Committee accepted the key building blocks of the White Paper,” sharing concerns where necessary, ‘we share their concern that publicly funded assets should be protected’ and pinpointing where further reassurances have been built in.

On the principal source of tension, the extent to which schools would have to abide by the Code of Practice on fair admissions, the letter confirms three significant moves. First of all, although the Code will not become law as some had argued, “I am pleased that the Select Committee share our view that it would be impractical to simply translate the Code into legislation,” schools will have to abide by it. They will have to “act in accordance” with the Code rather than just have “regard” to it as at present.

Secondly, Admissions Forums, which bring together local schools, churches and the local authority on local admissions policies, will be extended and granted new powers. Extended in that “all schools in an area will in future be entitled to join,” and with new powers with the Forum now being able to object to the Adjudicator if it thinks a school’s admissions arrangements aren’t in line. At present this power is only available to the local authority and schools who have been variously reluctant to exercise it. The Forum will continue to monitor admissions arrangements in an authority but will now produce an annual report setting out how such arrangements are working particularly with regard to certain groups. It will not, though, set local quotas as the Select Committee had proposed.

Thirdly, interviewing as a means to selection by background, will be banned. “We will legislate for it as the Select Committee suggests.”

So sledgehammers and nuts in some places and the potential for some mind numbing bureaucracy in others but with at least an escalation process on admissions issues now in place, this may get the Bill off the immediate hook.

On Trusts, the letter confirms that “we want all schools to have the ability to acquire a Trust” but subject to local consultation and there will be no compulsion; “it will be for the governing body of a school to decide.” However, and this was stated in the White Paper and is confirmed in the letter, where a local authority believes that the acquisition of a Trust “may have a detrimental impact on standards or that proper consultation has not been held, it may refer the decision to the Adjudicator.” The Schools Commissioner will remain despite criticisms of the role by the Select Committee and others, because it’s felt that it could have an important support and brokerage role to play in setting up Trusts.

However, the Secretary of State does go along with some of the other concerns that have been voiced about Trusts. On ‘safeguarding’ against inappropriate Trusts, “we will develop mechanisms;” on poorly performing Trusts, ‘we will develop another mechanism’ and on protecting publicly funded assets, sports facilities for instance, there will be further mechanisms, in this case the Adjudicator who will act as the referee. So plenty of mechanisms to be put in place but significantly the assets will revert back to the governing body in the case of a Trust being removed.

Finally on local authorities, the roles of commissioners of services and guardians of standards remain without any further elucidation but importantly authorities will be able to propose new local authority schools although this would need to be sanctioned by the Secretary of State and the Adjudicator.

A further example of where a small shaft of light is beginning to appear from out of the initial gloom. It just remains to be seen how many have seen the light.

© 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