Memorandum submitted by the National Union
of Teachers (NUT)
1. The National Union of Teachers welcomes
the decision by the Education and Skills Select Committee to conduct
an inquiry into the Government's White Paper, "Higher Standards,
Better Schools for All".
2. In the last year, the NUT has published
three major policy documents:
— "Bringing Down the Barriers",
published in November 2004, set out proposals on the structure
of the Education Service; on the National Curriculum and its assessment;
on the teaching profession; and on school accountability;
— "Learning to Behave—a
Charter for Teachers" sets out practical proposals to
tackle unacceptable pupil behaviour; and
— "Bringing Down the Barriers
to 14-19 Education" sets out proposals to protect young
people from the potential inequities in the current dual Diploma
proposals.
3. A number of proposals in these NUT documents
have been adopted by Government, including; the idea of a Pupil
Behaviour Charter; the need for a clear, unambiguous legal right
for teachers to discipline pupils; and funded practical personalised
learning. The documents above are attached for the Committee's
consideration.[1]
4. The NUT is in a strong position, therefore,
to evaluate the Government's proposals, using its own as a template.
TWO WHITE
PAPERS AND
THE NEED
FOR EVIDENCE
TO INFORM
REFORM
5. There is a strong case for arguing that
the White Paper is, in fact, two papers; one which contains wholly
unnecessary and damaging structural reform; the other which sets
out proposals which have the potential for supporting teaching
and learning.
6. It may well be that the White Paper's
proposals for structural reforms draw on evidence; but references
are extremely sketchy. A YouGov poll on parental views is referred
to, in paragraph 3.1, without any accompanying explanation. The
Prime Minister refers to developments in Sweden and Florida in
his introduction. No serious analysis of the evidence behind these
references is included. No evidence is brought forward at all
to substantiate the majority of proposals for structural reform.
The NUT believes that reforms of such a radical nature cannot
proceed without a much greater exploration and analysis of the
assumptions behind the White Paper.
7. The NUT submission does not address all
the proposals in the White Paper therefore. It concentrates primarily
on those which relate to the strategic direction of the education
service. It focuses on the implications of "choice"
and "diversity" and on the implications of proposals
affecting local authorities' relationships with schools.
THE IMPLICATIONS
OF "CHOICE"
AND "DIVERSITY"
8. Fundamental to the White Paper is the
Government's case for reform. It believes that choice for parents
and diversity of provision will, in themselves, raise standards.
The White Paper is predicated on the need to promote choice and,
in promoting it, seeks to address the imbalance between "the
affluent (who) can buy choice and the `least well-off parent'".
While the case for reform is well-rehearsed, its goal, in contrast,
is completely obscure:
"Our goal is no less than to transform our
school system by turning it from one focused on the success of
institutions into one which is shaped and driven by the success,
needs and aspirations of parents and pupils."
9. As a goal, it appears to contrast institutional
success with that of the needs of pupils and parents; a completely
invidious distinction. For such an avowedly radical White Paper,
the opacity of its goal should lead members of the Select Committee
to ask what exactly is the White Paper's objective.
10. The Government's agenda appears to rest
on a number of assumptions. They are that:
— it is possible to neutralise the
effects of social disadvantage by ameliorative measures applying
to education only;
— all will benefit from an education
service based on choice and diversity;
— parents want to attend parents' councils
and establish new schools; and
— the involvement of the private sector
will improve education.
11. The evidence base for the above assumptions
is shaky, to say the least. The proposal for parents' councils
seems to be drawn from the need to provide a voice to parents
who would be disenfranchised from standing for election to Trust
school governing bodies. It is an ill-considered attempt by the
Government to restore a voice for parents in the context of its
promise to expand parental rights. As a proposal it seems not
to take into account the history of badly attended school Annual
Parents' Meetings.
12. The other assumptions in the Government's
proposals also need unpacking. The Education and Skills Select
Committee will be familiar with the OECD PISA Report, "Knowledge
and Skills for Life", and its conclusion that, "social
segregation brings benefits for the advantaged", and that,
"segregation of schools is likely to decrease equality".
Members may be familiar with the report's message that education
systems which enable choice of provision within schools, rather
than between schools, are far more likely to meet the needs of
all young people.
13. In this context, it would be worthwhile
for the Education and Skills Select Committee to explore the Prime
Minister's claim, in his introduction to the White Paper, that:
"Swedish parents can choose an alternative
school to their local one, including a diverse range of state-funded
independent schools and that . . . schools and areas where there
is more choice have improved most rapidly."
14. Such references are worth exploring,
because there is some evidence that the proposals for Trust Schools
are based on the Swedish model, supported, as they were at the
time of the launch of the White Paper, by a chorus of support
from sympathetic think tanks.
15. The NUT believes that the Swedish system
is worth a far greater in-depth analysis than that provided by
the White Paper; an analysis which the NUT believes should lead
the Education and Skills Select Committee to very different conclusions
from those of the Prime Minister.
16. The report, "School Choice and
its Effects in Sweden", by the Swedish National Agency
for Education (2003), contains a sharp analysis of the independent/public
schools system in Sweden. The Agency describes choice in Sweden
as an urban issue; a finding which could apply equally to the
English White Paper. In Sweden the conditions for choice vary
between authorities; "The likelihood of parents making a
choice of schools increases dramatically if they live in a city
and are highly educated".
17. While the Agency finds that the idea
of school choice is popular with parents in Sweden, there are
major costs which the Swedish National Agency acknowledges.
— "Schools which experience difficulties
are likely to find that conditions for development work have deteriorated."
— "There is little that points
to school choice resulting in a more effective use of resources."
— "Real school choice requires
over-provision, which is not cost-effective."
— "It is doubtful whether . .
. we dare draw the conclusion that school choice in itself affects
parental participation and involvement."
— "In local authorities with a
strong element of competition, school closures are a reality .
. . talk of collaboration has been replaced by talk of competition
. . . various forms of selection mechanism are already in use
and a clear division of not only pupils but schools into `better'
and `worse' is today a reality . . . the school system is becoming
more and more differentiated (with) schools with different statuses
. . . and we . . . are thus approaching the point of talking about
a new type of parallel school system."
— "While those who will and can
actively obtain the information they need . . . increased school
choice requires will, knowledge and time to the extent that ever
larger groups of parents and pupils end up being left outside."
18. The above points, themselves, should
have prompted the Prime Minister and his advisers at least to
draw breath before wholeheartedly endorsing the Swedish system.
But there is one major cost which deserves attention on its own.
Its conclusion is that, "school choice has reinforced segregation",
particularly in the matter of ethnic composition. It is a conclusion
which is directly linked to that of the OECD PISA Report.
19. The NUT has highlighted the issues above
from the Swedish National Agency Report, not because it wishes
to cherry pick the criticisms and hide the conclusions in the
report, but because there is a case to answer.
20. In England the admissions system currently
enables parents to have a measure of choice but the White Paper
predicates its version of choice on an internal market between
self-governing independent Trust schools; a clear attempt at imitating
the Swedish model without acknowledgement of its dangers.
21. The attempts at redressing the balance
in the model proposed by the White Paper may have a marginal impact
on the circumstances of those families. It is worth noting in
this context that "less affluent" parents while able
to have their children bussed free of charge to one of three schools
chosen by them, may then be unable to be "fully engaged"
in those schools because they cannot afford to travel the distance
between school and home themselves.
22. There are important lessons to be learnt
from Sweden, including a national agency which seeks to evaluate
the evidence of strengths and weaknesses of a system without apparent
spin. The Swedish system has very real defects, however, against
the UK Government's own criteria for the education service in
England. The Swedish system of choice, as its National Agency
concludes, may lead to an "increased willingness by teachers
and local authorities to listen to parents", but the NUT
believes that there are plenty of mechanisms available in the
education service to enable that to happen already; including
elected parent governors, parent/teacher associations and the
range of opportunities for parent/teacher contact which schools
employ already. Indeed there is an argument for less affluent
parents having the facility to access advisers to enable them
to negotiate the system.
23. Probably the starkest contrast between
the Swedish Agency's analysis and the White Paper's aspiration
can be drawn from the two following statements:
— "Assume that half benefit and
a quarter lose from school choice and on a quarter it has no effect.
Using a utilitarian view of justice, we should be satisfied with
such a situation . . . The middle classes are favoured . . . and,
overall, the performance of the country schools is possibly improved".
There is, however, a crucial obstacle to this . . . a development
. . . characterised as `parallel school systems' would be worrying
from an equality point of view." (The Swedish National Agency)
— "We cannot content ourselves
with a school system which, while much improved, is not universally
good; or a system that succeeds for most pupils, but not for all
pupils". (The White Paper)
24. The trouble with the Government's proposals
is that they draw on a model with which the Government itself,
against its own criteria, cannot be content. In short, the Government's
encouragement of an internal market concentrating on parental
choice at the expense of the idea of a good local school for every
child could lead to the kind of social segregation already in
evidence in Sweden.
25. Indeed the underlying fault line with
the Government's model of choice is based on a pessimistic premise.
26. The NUT has addressed explicitly the
issue of choice in Bringing Down the Barriers. The NUT's
contrasting vision, which is focused on how equality of access
to high quality education can be secured, is summarised below:
"It would be profoundly pessimistic to assume
that the idea of good local schools for every community is a less
powerful idea than the concept of the right to choose schools
. . . All parents should be entitled to send their children to
good local schools . . . This is the wish of the vast majority
of parents . . . Local schools are enhanced by their communities
and communities are enhanced by their local schools."
27. Compared with the White Paper, Bringing
Down the Barriers, provides a practical and optimistic strategy
for ensuring that good local schools are at the heart of their
communities.
28. The NUT believes in the concept of a
good local school for every child. Unlike the Government it believes
this goal is attainable.
29. For such a goal to be achieved the causes
of economic and social disadvantage need to be tackled. Latest
census data, analysed by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, illustrates
that, in broad terms, wealth, poverty and poor health are distributed
on a geographical basis across the United Kingdom.
30. With reference to education, the Foundation
found that "an inverse education law" appears to exist
in which areas that have the highest proportions of young people
with no qualifications tend to have the fewest teachers available.
It is this inverse education law which needs to be tackled.
31. The choice agenda, described by the
Government in its White Paper, appears not only to ignore the
root causes of social disadvantage, but also appears wilfully
to propose measures which will exacerbate the educational effects
of social disadvantage through encouraging segregation as the
evidence from Sweden indicates.
32. In contrast, the NUT believes that the
Government's Every Child Matters agenda has the capacity
to contribute not only to the concept of a good local school for
every community, but also to the regeneration of communities.
Such an agenda will be undermined by the Government's proposals.
33. Alongside the establishment of self-governing
independent schools (Trust schools and Academies), is an acknowledgement
by the Government that, "where a new school is established
as a result of parental demand or an existing school chooses to
expand, the result may be that there are more surplus places".
The consequences, according to the Government, are such that,
"local authorities will need to move quickly to close schools
that are failing to attract sufficient pupils" (paragraph
2.36) and to establish new schools which may involve housing new
schools in, "high quality, temporary buildings"(!) (Paragraph
2.34). This revival of the idea of an internal market is boosted
by the new statutory requirements on local authorities to promote
choice, diversity and fair access to school provisions.
34. This revival of a market between schools
could be devastating for schools in the most fragile communities.
Schools which should be at the centre of their communities could
be closed as a result of the removal of planned pupil numbers
for each school. This would threaten the rights of parents least
able to choose schools, the capacity of schools to help regenerate
their local communities and the jobs of some of the most committed
teachers and support staff in the education service. The idea
of a revived market based on expansion of "popular"
schools certainly undermines the White Paper's promotion of partnerships
and collaboration between schools; an idea for which the NUT has
long argued.
35. In this context the Select Committee
should note that the Government has subtly changed its target
for the number of Academies it wishes to be open by 2010 from
200 to "at least 200" (paragraph 2.30). The Select Committee
has expressed concerns rightly that Academies have not been subject
to independent evaluation. Claims by the Government that Academy
status of itself has boosted achievement do not stand up to examination.
The Government has failed to answer a whole range of questions
about the impact of Academy status on other schools, on admissions
including pupils with special educational needs and on funding
including funding for pupils which Academies exclude. The Select
Committee should both question the Government on its changed target
and, separate from the current study being conducted for Government
by PricewaterhouseCoopers, reiterate its call on the Government
to commission an independent study prior to the programme being
expanded further.
36. The proposed requirement on schools
to have regard to Local Authorities' Children and Young People's
Plans fails to provide sufficient protection against the effects
of unlimited expansion of "popular schools", "Academies"
and self-governing independent status, particularly since the
new Schools' Commissioner will have the responsibility of chivvying
local authorities which do not go down the "choice"
and "diversity" route when planning provision.
37. The capacity of local authorities to
have at their fingertips a range of options, such as federations
and clusters, will be constrained further by the Government's
decision to prevent local authorities publishing proposals for
the establishment of new community schools. The decision to discontinue
community school status is incomprehensible since the vast majority
of schools have appreciated the partnerships with local authorities
and with each other that community school status enables.
38. Indeed, Trust and Foundation status
are answers to problems which do not exist but the removal of
community status will certainly create problems. There is long
standing research, commissioned by the NUT from Warwick University,
which showed that allocating a range of additional administrative
responsibilities to schools, through the then GM status, diverted
the attention of school leaderships away from pupil achievement.
There is little evidence also that head teachers want these proposed
additional responsibilities.
39. The international evidence against the
diversity of provision the Government is proposing is well established.
The OECD Programme for International Student Assessment's findings
stands as a well established critique of Government proposals.
The Government would have done better if it had concentrated on
proposals informed by OECD findings: a funding system which meets
need; a curriculum which encourages all schools to innovate; an
accountability system which supports schools, and high quality
professional development as an entitlement for all teachers and
support staff.
ADMISSIONS AND
CHOICE
40. The Government's proposed approach to
the mechanism for enabling choice is both unclear and could lead
to chaos.
41. It appears that all self-governing schools
(those that have Foundation, Voluntary-Aided or Trust status)
can construct their own admissions policies in the context of
the Admissions Code of Practice. No reference is made to School
Admissions Forums; the implication being that the new Schools'
Commissioner will be able to intervene and redress injustices
to local admissions practices. Indeed, it is possible that there
could be a two-tiered approach to admissions, with community schools
following the pattern of admissions agreed at Schools Admissions
Forums and self-governing schools constructing their own.
42. The proposal to allow individual schools
to establish a banding system looks superficially attractive,
but is fraught with problems and the potential to operate subtle
selection practices despite the Secretary of State's denial that
this will take place.
43. If schools have their own individual
banding systems, then each school will be able to select its own
number of bands and the thresholds of attainment at each band
level. There is no guarantee, in the White Paper, that the range
of bands should cover the entire range of need in a local population
cohort and, as a consequence, youngsters with learning difficulties,
and statements of special educational need, could be barred from
being admitted to schools simply because they could not reach
the lowest band. One of the most significant effects, however,
of an individual school banding approach, could be that a considerable
number of pupils may not be able to be admitted to their local
school because of over-subscription in particular bands.
44. A single common banding system, combined
with a proximity criteria across a local authority or across a
geographically coherent area, should remain an option for local
authorities if local communities, after consultation, agree with
that approach. The chaos arising from the operation of individual
school admissions criteria, all purporting to conform to the Admissions
Code of Practice, will neither benefit parents, nor school communities,
as they will simply fuel the competitiveness of an internal market.
45. Indeed many questions posed by the White
Paper. For example:
— how can extended/full service schools
maintain and provide a range of services if they can be closed
as a result of local authorities having to "move quickly
to close schools that are failing to attract sufficient pupils"?
— how does the concept of school choice
sit with the encouragement to schools to federate and organise
in clusters?
— how can parents be enabled to choose
schools, instead of schools choosing parents, when schools themselves
are able to operate their own admissions' arrangements? and
— how can parents have choice when
a local school is not amongst the range of choices?
46. The alternative is a successful one,
which the Government has decided to dismantle only seven years
after its creation by the Schools Standards and Framework Act.
School Organisation Committees are to be abolished because they
give a "bias to the status quo" (paragraph 9.12).
Schools Admissions Forums will become an irrelevance. Although
not perfect, both sets of arrangements have worked despite the
Government's criticisms. They have provided a forum for community
consensus and dialogue. Abolishing them because local communities
favour the status quo, smacks of a zealous top down agenda which
ignores inconvenient evidence.
47. The issue of admissions will always
be tough and, indeed, there is no "holy grail" for best
admissions practice. A Code of Practice and Admissions Forums
provide a good framework for fair local authority-wide admissions
arrangements. All that is needed is some fine tuning. In terms
of creating new provision, the Government, in fact, needs to be
much more radical. It should establish a strategic approach to
meeting social and economic disadvantage across communities.
48. For all the above reasons, the NUT would
reiterate the proposals which it set out in Bringing Down the
Barriers, which it believes that the Government should have
adopted in its White Paper.
— Local authorities should establish
Children's Services Advisory Forums whose membership would include
representatives of parents, governors, teacher and support staff
organisations and would be chaired by lead members of Social Services.
— Local Admissions Forums should determine
schools' admissions policies. All state funded schools, including
Academies, should be required to adopt the admissions arrangements
determined after consultation by Local Admissions Forums.
— School Organisation Committees should
be retained. Proposals for the establishment of new schools should
come from local communities, including parents. School Organisation
Committees will be required to consider proposals, both from local
authorities and local communities. Local authorities should be
able to combine to determine where new schools should be built.
— Specific funding, to support collaborative
arrangements between schools, should be available to schools from
Government to local authorities. It should be a requirement that
specialist facilities developed by individual schools should be
available to schools in the wider community.
— The Government should re-establish
its Education Funding Strategy Group as a Children's Services
Funding Strategy Group. It should have two roles. The first should
be to draw on the previous work conducted by the Government's
Education Funding Strategy Group and establish a funding mechanism
for schools and local authority services that is based on activity-led
funding, costing the requirements placed on schools. In the context
of a wider and refocused strategy for promoting economic and social
regeneration it should examine the capacity of local authorities
to sustain, across all services, the needs of socially and economically
disadvantaged communities.
49. There are a range of other proposals
within the NUT's Education Statement, but the above illustrates
the kind of strategic approach needed to tackle genuinely the
effects of economic and social disadvantage.
OTHER PROPOSALS
IN THE
WHITE PAPER
50. The NUT would wish to comment briefly
on other proposals contained in the White Paper. The NUT has made
proposals itself in the three education statements referred to
earlier. There are a number of proposals in the White Paper with
which the NUT would agree.
51. The NUT welcomes the £335 million
allocated for practical personalised learning, including small
group tuition. It welcomes that the funding will be targeted towards
local authorities with the largest number of underachieving and
deprived children. It welcomes also the proposal that nutritional
standards will be applied to tuck shops and vending machines and
that all schools are expected to achieve healthy school status
by 2009. The proposal to ensure that each primary and secondary
cluster has a school nurse is a very real step forward in terms
of monitoring the health of children and young people.
52. The NUT welcomes also the fact that
chapter 7 on school discipline adopts directly a range of NUT
proposals. The NUT supports much of the Alan Steer Practitioner
Group report and welcomes the group's adoption of the idea of
a national behaviour charter and the introduction of a "clear
unambiguous legal right for teachers to discipline pupils".
It is vital that the Government now adopts the idea of a national
behaviour charter. The NUT's own behaviour charter has been sent
to all schools and has been welcomed by teachers.
53. The NUT welcomes also the Government's
commitment to further advice on bullying, including a focus on
racism and homophobic bullying alongside a new proposed requirement
on local authorities to make provision from the sixth day for
excluded pupils. In addition, the Government's adoption of the
Steer Group's recommendation that further investigation is required
to determine how BESD provision might be expanded and improved
is a positive step.
54. There are a number of further steps
which the Government should take in relation to supporting teachers
and support staff in tackling unacceptable pupil behaviour. They
include inserting into the criteria for exclusion, "persistent
low level disruption", and guaranteeing a place for a classroom
teacher on independent appeals panels. In addition, the national
guidance on physical restraint and physical contact with pupils
is not sufficient and neither is the availability of professional
development dealing with violent pupils and situations where teachers
may feel that they have to use physical restraint or physical
guidance for pupils. Those issues need to be taken up by the Government
including through the Ministerial Stakeholder Group.
55. Nevertheless, the White Paper's proposals
on school discipline are a very real step forward.
56. There are a range of other proposals
within the White Paper which are sensible including:
— single point of contact for parents;
— a national campaign on the benefits
of parental engagement;
— the range of proposals in chapter
6 on supporting children and parents;
— new proposals on Looked After Children;
— an increase in boarding provision;
— work with schools' partners on how
more black and minority ethnic teachers can become school leaders;
and
— the mentoring programme for chairs
of school governors.
57. The NUT believes that this range of
proposals can be worked on and developed with the teaching profession
and they could have positive impact on all children and young
people's learning. It is regrettable that the importance of such
proposals are obscured by Government's proposals on choice and
diversity.
58. There are a range of proposals within
the White Paper which the NUT believes require further explanation
or with which the NUT would disagree.
THE SCHOOLS
COMMISSIONER AND
CHOICE AND
DIVERSITY
59. The establishment of a "Schools
Commissioner" is unnecessary. A Schools Adjudicator already
exists with powers to intervene on admissions and school provision.
It is the powers of the Schools Adjudicator which need review
to ensure fair admission access. The requirement on local authorities
to promote choice and diversity should be dropped although the
proposed requirement to maximise fair access should be retained.
SCHOOL TRUSTS
AND NEW
FLEXIBILITIES
60. Schools should not have the ability
to vary teachers' pay and conditions. The Secretary of State should
make it clear that the STPCD should apply to all maintained and
aided schools including Foundation schools and, if created, Trust
schools.
61. The NUT is deeply concerned also about
the implication that curriculum flexibility will be awarded as
bait for achieving Trust status. In the context of the NUT's believe
that the current overloaded National Curriculum needs a fundamental
review, the Select Committee should ask itself whether the concept
of a broad and balanced curriculum is an entitlement for all young
people or a punishment. Either all schools should be granted new
curriculum flexibilities within the revised National Curriculum
because it is right for children's learning (as the NUT has argued),
or the current arrangements should apply to all schools.
14-19 OPPORTUNITIES
62. The NUT welcomes the proposals for new
cooperative relationships between Local Learning and Skills Councils
and local authorities. The NUT believes that local authorities
should retain their powers to create new 16-19 provision.
63. The NUT believes that the Government
should, however, review aspects of its 14-19 White Paper proposals.
In its Education Statement, "Bringing Down the Barriers to
14-19 Education", the NUT argues for:
— the award of a level 1 foundation
award within the general GCSE diploma in order to prevent the
haemorrhaging of young people at 16 into the "Not in Education
Employment or Training" (NEET) group;
— setting up of a specific working
group to examine the needs of youngsters who could face learning
dead ends;
— the adoption of a range of principles
prior to the roll out of further 14-19 reform including a proper
thorough piloting period prior to the introduction of a new qualification
and an audit of funding implications; and
— a reversal of the decision by the
Government to introduce a first tranche of specialist diplomas
alongside the implementation of a revised Key Stage 3 National
Curriculum in 2008.
SPECIAL MEASURES
AND NOTICES
TO IMPROVE
64. One year guillotines for schools under
special measures or subject to notices to improve present an absurdly
rigid approach to school improvement. The net affect of such an
approach will be to drive away committed and good teachers from
schools in those schools which receive such designations. This
requirement should be withdrawn.
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE
TABLES AND
CONTEXTUAL VALUE
ADDED
65. School performance tables should be
dropped as they have been in all other parts of the United Kingdom.
There may be advantages to a contextual value-added approach but
the overarching disadvantage of performance tables is that they
cannot summarise the overall quality of work in each school. Contextual
value-added may lend the impression of authenticity to the essential
lack of fairness enshrined in performance tables but it is the
performance tables concept itself which should be removed.
BILINGUAL SUPPORT
AND THE
ACHIEVEMENTS OF
WHITE WORKING
CLASS BOYS
66. The NUT welcomes the proposal to expand
the programmes targeting the achievement of young black people.
It believes also there is a strong argument for a specific funded
programme for targeting the achievement of white working class
boys.
GROUPING AND
SETTING
67. Latest research from Brighton, Sussex
and Cambridge Universities demonstrate that there are no overall
advantages to grouping and setting and, in some circumstances,
such approaches can depress expectations and achievements. It
is not the place of Government to micro-manage the way schools
organise the teaching of their pupils.
THE NATIONAL
CURRICULUM AND
ITS ASSESSMENT
68. There are no new proposals within the
White Paper on the National Curriculum and its assessment. The
six teacher associations have submitted proposals to the Secretary
of State for a review of Key Stage 2 assessment. The NUT looks
forward to meeting the Schools Minister to discuss the NUT's proposals.
69. Alongside the reviews being conducted of
the English National Curriculum and the curriculum at Key Stage
3, the Government should introduce reviews of the overloaded primary
curriculum. It should review also the Key Stage 4 curriculum to
ensure a broad and balanced entitlement including access to a
modern foreign language and/or community language.
70. With respect to the last point, the
NUT makes it clear in its 14-19 Education Statement that it believes
that the "bunching" of reforms facing secondary schools
and colleges during the academic year 2008-09 is unacceptable
and that such an introduction could repeat the turbulence that
affected the introduction of the Curriculum 2000 reforms.
INFORMATION TO
PARENTS
71. While the NUT agrees that parents should
have face-to-face discussions with teachers about their children's
needs, the proposed amendment to regulations requiring schools
to give information on progress to parents at least three times
a year will create additional and unnecessary workload for teachers.
The Select Committee should explore the implications of this proposal
as it appears to run counter to the Government's own intentions
to remove unnecessary bureaucratic requirements.
SCHOOL LEADERS
72. The NUT welcomed the Government's intention
to push more minority ethnic teachers to become school leaders.
The number of minority ethnic teachers who become school leaders
should match at least the percentage of minority ethnic young
people within the education service.
CONCLUSION
73. There are a range of other proposals
within the White Paper which require further exploration with
Government. The NUT believes that the Government can only successfully
move on the initiatives with which the profession agrees if all
teacher and support staff, unions and organisations are fully
consulted. The Select Committee should include within its report
a recommendation to Government that all teacher organisations
are consulted fully about its next steps on the White Paper, including
proposals for the new Education Bill and any subsequent government
guidance.
November 2005
1 Not printed. Back
| 
