Memorandum submitted by the Association
of Teachers and Lecturers
SUMMARY
We argue that Every Child Matters represents
a huge opportunity for progress but that success is not yet guaranteed.
The education aspect of local government's role is being diminished
at the very time that the civil service workforce is also being
reduced. The likelihood is that this could lead to unacceptable
levels of local variation. More needs to be done to coordinate
planning: it would be foolish to neglect the expertise unions
can offer. For ATL, this is particularly crucial in relation to
upskilling the education workforce. We do not feel confident that
the outcomes-based model of accountability will produce the richness
of information required to ensure that the rate of progress is
maintained and innovation disseminated. The model of learning
is an impoverished one. At a technical level, we have yet to see
evidence that the inherent complexities of data use have been
addressed.
INTRODUCTION
1. ATL agrees that a strategy for all children
is the best way to protect children at risk, and that the integration
of existing services is the right direction for reform.
2. The integration of policy objectives
and funding streams, and the effective management of both, present
challenges of a scale and nature that will be overcome only by
the fullest efforts in teamwork by all parties. In particular,
Government must work in social partnership with the relevant trade
unions and professional associations. The model for new working
arrangements that should be developed is given by the implementation
of the 2003 National Agreement[7]
with school workforce unions. ATL is concerned that, in view of
the magnitude of the tasks ahead, no suitable forum has yet been
convened. While it is helpful that WAMG has embarked on aspects
of the Every Child Matters agenda, much still remains to
be done and the timetable is an exacting one.
3. The Government must accept that the state-funded
education service is even now under-resourced to achieve its educational
objectives. This presents one of the greatest practical obstacles
to reform. Budget resources at school level remain particularly
fragile. The 2003 funding crisis in schools was triggered perversely
by reforms to funding methodology which were intended to be benign.
ATL asks the Government to establish working arrangements with
partner organisations which allow fully detailed technical work
on all matters of funding connected with the Every Child Matters
reforms.
4. We believe that all authorities and other
relevant local agencies have a duty to promote the well-being
of children. Every child is our future and they have to be treated
well in our education system. Only then will they be able to function
as active and effective citizens.
Our key concerns
5. ATL is very much in sympathy with the
aspirations of Every Child Matters. However, we also draw
attention to some major concerns. These include:
— our sense of the contradiction between
reducing the education role of Local Authorities and the need
for the development of genuine partnership;
— our worry that the imposition of
one size fits all legislatively-driven structures will militate
against future innovation;
— our fear that reforms will be driven
by governmental impatience to the detriment of quality;
— our concern that insufficient attention
has been paid to crucial legal implications.
6. In relation to the last point, we are
particularly concerned about the development of City Academies
and the possible conflict between their legal independence and
the need for local collaboration.
THE PLACE
OF HEALTH,
SOCIAL SERVICES
AND EDUCATION
RESPECTIVELY WITHIN
INTEGRATED SERVICES
7. This vision of inter-agency working is
extremely ambitious. However, ambition in itself will not achieve
the ends to which the government is committed. It is important,
in any vision of future possibilities, to start from present realities
(upon which all future systems will either prosper or founder).
To this end, a key question must be asked: what is the incidence
of successful governmental inter-agency working at present and
what are the challenges which will need to be overcome if the
aims of Every Child Matters are to be realised?
8. If one considers the present structures
for education provision in England, it is not possible to conclude
that there is a strong tradition of inter-agency working at governmental
level. A plethora of separate quangos deal with regulating and
controlling the system: TTA, QCA, DfES, Ofsted, GTC.
9. This is by no means a comprehensive list
yet it illustrates a key point. The DfES manages its complex responsibilities
largely through a process of delegation to separate government
agencies and quangos. Although the DfES aims to act as a controlling
and coordinating body for separate agencies charged with particular
responsibilities for education provision, it is evident that,
on a repeated basis, there is a failure to routinely share information
amongst different departments, agencies and quangos. Thus, too
often, the recipients of education policy decisions (teachers,
students and parents) are required to implement and experience
policy decisions which appear to be inconsistent and incoherent.
10. The question must therefore be raised.
If the government is unable to coordinate information systems
within the field of education, how are information systems amongst
a much wider range of fields (education, social care and health,
for example) to be achieved? The DfES will have to act much more
effectively as a body which coordinates and controls policy initiatives
emanating from quangos in order to promote coherence and the dissemination
of comprehensive information. A coordinated approach will need
to be generated "at the top"—at governmental level—if
there is any hope of a more coordinated approach to be achieved
"on the ground". This is a key issue—the government
cannot preach one approach and practise another. The only DfES
body at present charged with overseeing policy initiatives emanating
from government agencies is the Implementation Review Unit, set
up as a consequence of the National Agreement. However, this unit
is at present in its infancy. It has no track record and it remains
to be seen if it will be effective in assessing all education
policy initiatives for their effects on teacher workload. We have
a serious concern lest the cost-cutting staff reduction exercise
in the civil service will have the unintended side effect of increasing
instability, eg within the DfES, and reducing proper in-depth
accountability.
THE PRACTICAL
IMPLICATIONS OF
THE "DUTY
TO COLLABORATE",
INCLUDING THE
EFFECT ON
FUNDING STREAMS
AND LOCATION
OF STAFF
AND FACILITIES
11. Although ATL believes that Partnership
working will be vital if we are to meet the needs of all children
and young people, the Government seems to be rushing headlong
into a "partnerships-for-everything" approach as though
partnerships are a panacea for all ills. We believe that integration
is a radical aim and more likely than just co-location of services
to lead to a system where "every child matters". Integration
would lead to serious consideration of the roles of different
practitioners, their training and ways of working, as part of
proper Partnership working. It cannot happen at the stroke of
a policy-maker's pen.
12. ATL believes it is important that the
Government considers those Partnerships that already exist within
the education sector, and uses evaluations of their strengths
and weaknesses to develop the way forward.
13. It is vital that education does not
become a lesser partner in a relationship with the care sector.
It is equally important that education does not become limited
to the "delivery" of the curriculum, with pastoral care
and behaviour management (and other vital aspects of children's
and young people's learning) seen to be the function of a different
team of adults. Recent proposals to diminish the policy-making
role of local government and increase devolution to individual
schools also run the risk of making collaboration problematic.
14. The Association is concerned that Partnership
working is made much more difficult in a culture of competition
and individual accountability. Where schools are held accountable
through institutional performance tables, there is very little
impetus for working jointly with other schools. Such joint working
is not recognised in the measures currently available. We believe
it must be if the needs of the disadvantaged are to be more effectively
met.
15. Developing and working in Partnerships
takes a great deal of time. ATL insists that schools are given
sufficient funding to ensure that staff can meet and work in contracted
time, ie that the implications of Every Child Matters do
not mean additional workload for our members. Partnership working
must not be an additional task, unwillingly undertaken. It is
also vital that there is sufficient administrative and facilitative
support for Partnerships.
16. At the same time we do acknowledge that
some problems are too complex for any one organisation to solve
alone. Partnerships have to allow for a multi-disciplinary approach
to help break down the barriers to the achievement of these disadvantaged
children and young people.
17. Central to the partnership must be the
young people themselves. It is easy to get involved with agencies
and make decisions on what to do about the young people rather
than what we can do with them. We support developments
that increase young people's involvement in local decision-making.
School Councils, Youth Parliament and citizenship offer opportunities
to young people to voice their concerns only if discussion leads
to action.
STAFF AND
MANAGEMENT NEEDS;
TEAM-BUILDING,
LEADERSHIP AND
TRAINING
18. We would support the idea of joint training
on development and behaviour issues. At the same time we draw
urgent attention to a major deficit for which previous governments
must be held responsible. It is on the area of Initial Teacher
Training.
19. These challenges arise, in the main,
from government policy for initial teacher training (ITT) and
continuous professional development (CPD) over the past 20 years.
During this period there has been a revolution in the curriculum
which is taught to students on ITT courses. Circulars 9/92, 4/98
and, most recently, 02/02 make no provision for training in child
development or child psychology. Moreover, whilst the most recent
circular 02/02 requires beginning teachers to be able to work
with other adults within the classroom context, there is no requirement
that beginning teachers have training in, or experience of, working
closely in inter-agency teams. Surveys also demonstrate that,
because of the subject emphasis in secondary ITT, and the emphasis
on training in the core subjects in primary ITT (even to the extent
that training for the whole curriculum in primary is not required
to achieve QTS), there is little opportunity, and no requirement,
for trainee teachers to receive training in child protection.
The situation for qualified teachers is little better. The criteria
for the award of TTA funds for CPD have, during the past two bidding
rounds, focused almost entirely upon subject provision.
20. As a consequence, although we now have
"the best ever generation of teachers", the training
opportunities open to the profession in the areas of child development
and child protection have been almost non-existent. Sadly, this
means that the pool of teacher expertise on which to draw for
help on in-school programmes for parents and carers will be unduly
limited. The costs of repairing this 20-year omission do not yet
appear to have been given any consideration.
21. One of the curiosities of present arrangements
is that, while we have a set of core competencies for the children's
workforce currently under development, there is less clarity about
how a competency-based system articulates with Initial Teacher
Training, Continuing Professional Development and performance
management.
22. In relation to the crucial role of the
lead professional within an inter-agency team, one must conclude
that it would be negligent (and immoral) of government to charge
a body of professionals (in this case teachers) with the huge
responsibility for child protection when the profession has had
little or no opportunity, during the past 20 years, to gain access
to training in this area. If the government's vision is to be
achieved, a very significant financial investment in training
and professional development in the areas of child development
and child protection will have to be made. The Association cannot
support any proposals which increase the professional risks to
its members, without firm guarantees covering costs of professional
development in these key areas. At the same time the government
will have to satisfy itself that the other professions will be
given a similar guarantee.
23. As far as teachers are concerned, there
is a further point. While it is absolutely correct to see the
teacher as the first point of contact, the consequence of the
Workload Agreement is to sharpen the focus of what teachers should
do to emphasise the classroom and teaching. A similar emphasis
can be seen in requirements for passing through the Threshold.
The lead professional role is different in nature. We can envisage
teachers accessing the necessary support from a lead professional
rather than as a general rule undertaking that role.
24. There is a need for extended piloting
in order to ascertain whether it is possible for any lead professional
to be able to have full budgetary control over resource provision.
Incidentally, our members' experience of contact with Connexions
suggests an unevenness of provision and indeed capability to take
on this key role, particularly in relation to FE colleges which
exist independently of LEA control. There is also an uncertainty
around the city academies.
INSPECTION
25. We support the concept of joint inspections,
believing that there is the potential for duplication of effort
to be avoided and for less of the current tendency for agencies
to pass on hard cases instead of dealing with them. But we do
not underestimate the difficulties. Some of these relate to the
rapidity of change. Thus it is clear that the frameworks for schools
and for Connexions services will need substantial revision, particularly
in the case of the former. Unfortunately both are already the
subject of new arrangements from September 2005.
26. We also have concerns about teams showing
the necessary level of expertise. The current practice of using
contracted-out casual labour for school inspections has made it
difficult for Ofsted to ensure consistency of expertise and of
judgement.
27. As far as ATL is concerned, the implication
of Every Child Matters is particularly far-reaching in
terms of accountability at every level. This has the implication
for government that all future guidance must have been the subject
of extensive practitioner consultation so that lines of accountability
are completely clear. In terms of inspection arrangements, the
implication is that visits to individual schools are reduced and
replaced by the sort of area-wide approach just beginning to be
used for 14-19 inspections.
28. We are all too well aware that at present
there are schools where responsibilities for admitting a fair
share of difficult pupils are being evaded. While this is often
known to relevant professionals, the present mechanisms—particularly
in relation to inspection and accountability-led measures of performance—unintentionally
do much to encourage this. Only an area-wide approach stands any
chance of defeating what are otherwise "perfect crimes".
We are attracted to the idea that inspections would include the
equivalent of "audit trails" to assess the quality of
provision. Our concern here centres on those whose support needs
are at risk of going undetected at present. The use of such random
sampling might well do more to strengthen the system than the
suggestion of "one flag or two as a trigger" which was
made in the original Green Paper.
29. We have welcomed the opportunity of
being consulted on the cross-service common inspection framework
but we wish to point out the dangers inherent in what is predominantly
a desk-based exercise that relies on measurable outcomes. The
risk is that this reduces the education function to ensuring that
children are prepared for school, for tests and for work rather
than ensuring that children matter as children/people. This is
an essentially more impoverished model than one based on a more
in-depth approach to a representative sample of services. And
as far as schools are concerned, we are yet to be convinced that
inspection on the Common Inspection Framework will be seen as
of any importance. For schools, individual institutional inspections
are likely to be seen as of far greater salience.
LISTENING TO
CHILDREN; THE
ROLE OF
THE CHILDREN'S
COMMISSIONER
30. We applaud the government's commitment
to listening to the voices of children and young people. Indeed,
we believe that the "pupil voice" movement has within
it the possibility of educational transformation. As Fielding[8]
has pointed out, we could be witnessing something "genuinely
new, exciting and emancipatory that builds on rich traditions
of democratic renewal and transformation". Conversely, we
could be "presiding over the further entrenchment of existing
assumptions and intentions using student or pupil voice as an
additional mechanism of control".
31. On the basis of evidence to date, we
have yet to be wholly convinced that many of the bright hopes
associated with the pupil voice movement will, in Jean Rudduck's
words, "carve a new order of experience"[9].
Many fundamental questions have yet to be properly addressed.
Who is allowed to speak? To whom are they allowed to speak—and
about what? Who is listening, why are they listening and how are
they listening?
32. If the government is serious in its
commitment to listen to the voices of children and young people,
it must surely stand four square behind the centrality of speaking
and listening throughout the school curriculum and the accompanying
public examination system.
33. In his Introduction to Every Child
Matters (p 3) the Chief Secretary to the Treasury highlights
the centrality of putting children first and of raising school
standards. We firmly believe that if this rhetoric is to translate
into a workable reality in the real world context of schools and
schooling, the following need to happen:
— a fundamental review of the government's
school "standards" agenda;
— a radical shift away from testing
and towards learning;
— an absolute guarantee that government
will honour its commitment to listen to the voices of children
and young people.
34. First there is the issue of defining
standards. This Association has long been concerned about the
increasing tendency on the part of central government and its
agencies to adopt a dangerously reductionist approach to the concept
of school standards.
35. All the evidence suggests that from
the government's viewpoint school standards means only one thing:
levels and grades in national tests. Thus for children and young
people between the ages of seven and 14, standards has come to
mean national curriculum levels in three subjects (two subjects
at age seven). At 16, standards means GCSE grades from A* to C.
We have argued at considerable length why such a narrow definition
of standards is not only unhelpful; it actually militates against
children and young people learning well in schools. We believe
that many of the current problems of low motivation, achievement
and participation stem from the unintended consequences of this
reductionist approach.
36. ATL believes the government's standards
agenda is an educationally impoverished agenda. It does not serve
children and young people well. If early years settings and schools
are to do justice to the wealth of skills, talents and abilities
children and young people bring with them, there will need to
be a fundamental re-appraisal of what is meant by "school
standards". The standards agenda should be a rich and inclusive
agenda—it should allow everyone to shine.
WORKING WITH
PARENTS
37. We commend Sure Start as offering a
valuable model for development. At the same time we reiterate
the importance of using pilots rather than assuming that England-wide
introduction of new strategies will somehow guarantee success.
THE CREATION,
MANAGEMENT AND
SHARING OF
RECORDS, INCLUDING
ELECTRONIC DATABASES
38. In the spirit of recent legislation,
due regard must be paid to the right of the individual child or
young person to a say in how much is revealed and to whom. From
the enclaves of policy making in Whitehall it is all too easy
to be unaware of the sensitivity of these issues in primary and
secondary schools. Young people have every right to be angry when
they feel that information about them is being gratuitously disseminated.
39. There are real difficulties with the
exchange of data. Children and young people should have protection
equivalent to that provided to adults. The Data Protection Commissioner
should be involved at the earliest stage. (This is an incredibly
complex area—the Commissioner is still working on the fourth
and final part of a Code of Practice on data protection following
on from the 1998 Act.) Without robust safeguards in this area,
we would be unwilling to recommend that our members should actively
support what is being proposed.
40. Working in Partnership across providers
will involve different forms of information sharing and accountability.
The use of ICT to facilitate the storage, accessibility and transfer
of data will not on its own be enough. We are concerned that the
introduction of a unique identifier number will merely add to
the array of numbers that children and young people acquire during
their school careers—including the identifier for national
curriculum test data. We are also concerned that using a child's
national health service number, as has been suggested, might mean
that information is stored, and is retrievable, long after it
is relevant. There are also issues about the range and relevance
of information stored.
41. Our disquiet arises from what we suspect
is a confusion of purposes. It will be essential that key safeguards
should be built into all systems and frameworks from their inception.
In particular, these safeguards should protect young people from
inappropriate categorisation. Early identification of possible
"causes for concern" should not lead to inappropriate
labelling of children and young people, nor should such identification
lower expectations for their social integration and educational
performance. In this respect it will be essential for all who
have access to the common data systems to have shared understandings
of the purposes to which the data can be put (for example, it
should not be used to invade young people's rights to privacy
with regard to key services—eg health care, counselling
etc).
42. Young children and young people have
different needs and expectations; any common data system should
be used selectively and must not become a "tracking"
system which could be open to abuse by state agencies who have
other concerns (eg public order and control) which may sometimes
run counter to the individual rights of the young person.
CONCLUSION
43. ATL has been offered opportunities through
WAMG and through some DfES teams to contribute to aspects of the
planning for Every Child Matters. Nevertheless, our sense
is that this involvement has depended too much on chance decisions
by team leaders. What is needed is a forum where unions can contribute
to the big picture as well as to particular tasks.
November 2004
7 Raising standards and tackling workload: a national
agreement. Back
8
Fielding, M (2001) Beyond the Rhetoric of Student Voice: new
departures or new constraints in the transformation of 21st century
schooling?, Forum, 43, No 2. Back
9
Rudduck, J and Flutter, J (2000) Pupil Participation and Pupil
Perspectives: carving a new order of experience, Cambridge
Journal of Education 30, pp 75-89. Back
| 
