Memorandum submitted by the National Association
of Head Teachers (NAHT)
NAHT is pleased to give evidence to the Education
and Skills Committee on the White Paper "Higher Standards,
Better Schools For All" and hopes the Committee will find
the following comments and highlighting of issues helpful, in
advance of oral evidence on 7 December 2005.
It should be emphasised that NAHT is not opposed
to the White Paper in its entirety; we are particularly supportive
of the proposals set out in chapters 6 and 7, and look forward
to working closely with the DfES to ensure that these proposals
come to sensible and practicable fruition.
NAHT must, however, register our overarching
concern that the structural changes proposed are most unlikely
to achieve the Government's proper and laudable ambition, which
we share, to continue to raise achievement and to break the links
between poverty and low aspiration. On the contrary, destabilisation,
along with a confused and contradictory role for local authorities,
and others, may well undermine that ambition. Parent power, as
promoted in this White Paper, is likely to accentuate social division.
The Committee should note that heads have realised educationally
sound change, such as the inclusion agenda, sometimes in the face
of opposition from parents, who can be concerned only for their
own children.
NAHT does not object to genuinely voluntary
options for change but we oppose compulsion to become foundation
or trust schools. There is very little appetite for such change
amongst our membership: most prefer to focus on leading and supporting
teaching and learning, rather than tinkering with structures and
employer status, generally perceived as a distraction. The Committee
may wish to ascertain how much use has been made of the freedom
to innovate in the Education Act 2002, in order further to gauge
the appetite for such change.
The remainder of this document follows the chapters
of the White Paper, with comments and issues in bulleted form.
CHAPTER 1
This chapter sets out the broad thrust of the
paper. We, therefore, comment on the detail set out in each chapter,
rather than the generalities set out here.
CHAPTER 2
— Schools commissioner—much
greater clarity required. Potential conflict of interest, since
role both serves as a broker for trusts and to challenge local
authorities.
— Trusts—the majority
of community schools are unlikely to be interested. They want
to retain the authority as employer. See comments on the power
to innovate above.
— Trust school—status
is indicated as "voluntary"—NAHT completely opposed
to compulsion to become foundation or trust on closure or reorganisation.
Destabilising. Undermines planning of falling rolls/surplus places.
Can impact on other schools. Likely to be difficulties recruiting
to headship.
— Independent schools—opting
into the state system—unlikely where freedoms over curriculum,
class size, pay and conditions of staff will be lost. Potential
further drain on state funding where opting in is an alternative
to closure.
— Federation—it is contradictory
to promote voluntary collaboration alongside compulsion to federate
where schools are failing. The power to require schools to federate
undermines positive voluntary collaboration/federation.
— SIPs—we regard it as
essential that primary SIPs are drawn from serving, or recently
retired heads, as secondary SIPs.
— Ofsted—style remains
inquisitorial. Unrealistic expectations around the timescale for
improvement. Meaning of "demonstrate real progress"?
The tone and language of this chapter is inflammatory
and derogatory. This is hardly helpful.
CHAPTER 3
— Parental choice advisors—additional
bureaucracy with little real chance to support choice. Choice
must mean surplus places, with significant cost implications.
— Choice at age 11—"strengths
and interests" may not be best assessed at age 11. Aptitude
and ability should not be confused.
— Transport—a nightmare
of funding and responsibility. What is the effect on the community
of bussing children out? How does bussing work with extended schooling
and options at the beginning and end of the day. Issues of behaviour
while travelling. A purely urban solution which further ghettoises.
— Banding arrangements—this
proposal runs counter to the notion of parental choice rendering
one or the other unworkable.
CHAPTER 4
— New resource needed—must
be absolute clarity about the "significant investment"
required. The commitment in the Annex not to create "unfunded
new burdens for local authorities and schools" must be adhered
to.
— Workforce implications—teaching
is a complex and professionally demanding activity—proper
differentiation is what makes it so. All engaged in pupil learning
must understand how children learn—implications for the
reviews of professional standards currently in train—implications
for pay and conditions, especially of support staff.
— Children with SEN—this
section does not sit well with the attack on BESD schools in Chapter
2 (2.56).
Underlying the whole of this chapter is the
need for investment in development for teachers and all others
supporting learning—proper professional practice underpinned
by clear understanding of the psychology of learning and child
development. Hard to see how structural change will do anything
other than distract from this.
CHAPTER 5
— Parent power—there is
no evidence that the majority of parents seek or desire these
powers. See our introductory comments on the tension between parents'
desire for the best for their own children and that which is more
generally educationally sound.
— Termly information—risk
of conflict with recent workload reduction provisions. Consideration
must be given to extending parental rights to time off work inside
normal working hours, otherwise consequences for work/life balance
provisions of contracts.
— ICT links—only effective
where home Internet access available—least likely in areas
of severe disadvantage.
— Parent councils—clarity
required on powers, responsibilities, and remit, particularly
on the context of the relationship with the governing body. Risk
of overlap and confusion. Given the recent scrapping of the annual
parents' meeting, it is hard to see that there will be much demand.
— Hard to reach parents—most
unlikely to become involved—far better chance through home/school
outreach workers, but risk of confusion between these and families'
and pupils' support workers and educational welfare officers.
— Complaint to Ofsted—already
exists but to be strengthened. Risk of vexatious and time-wasting
complaints—likely to be of greater interest to articulate
middle class parents than the disadvantaged and disempowered.
CHAPTER 6
— Investment—contents
of this chapter are not cost neutral. Investment will be required.
The proposals are basically right, but must support the Every
Child Matters agenda.
— Risk of duplication of provision—a
pitfall to avoid—as above, must work with ECM.
— School nurses—a good
idea—we entirely support and wish to see more nurses available
to deliver services in schools.
— Extended services—must
be based on genuine, parental/community need and demand. Requires
careful assessment of need and demand. Otherwise, pointless.
— Healthy food—again,
absolutely supportive, but must be clear about funding need.
CHAPTER 7
— Discipline—Steer Report
based on practitioners' views and these proposals must be implemented
practically and sensibly. More work to be done, especially with
pupils with BESD—applaud the need for ongoing work, as per
paragraph 7.39.
— Parental responsibility—welcome
this clear statement of parental responsibility but must be clarity
about failures by parents to take responsibility for excluded
children. Needs an ECM and joined up approach.
— On and off site alternative provision—where
and what? Much further work to be done—welcome general thrust
of proposals.
— Physical restraint—necessary
but very difficult, especially in the SEN context. Huge vulnerability
of staff. Inappropriate and risky to search pupils for weapons,
etc—must be proper support for schools from police, when
needed.
CHAPTER 8
— Recruitment of school leaders—greatly
concerned at current, worsening problems of recruitment—need
real clarity on support for school leaders, their pay and conditions.
Succession planning difficult if falling numbers of deputy and
assistant heads. Some reports of deletion of these posts through
restructuring of school staff.
— Teach first—evaluation
needed—especially retention rate. Risk of short-term involvement
as a stepping stone to completely different career. Teaching must
be seen as a legitimate and attractive profession. Imagine this
approach in medicine or law.
— Heads' role—further
work to be done on the core role of the head. Clarity around career
progression for heads including "national leaders of education".
— Support staff pay and conditions—how
will consistent systems be developed which do not rely solely
on "union recognition at school level"? Need for a clear
national pay and grading structure to promote fairness and ability
to cost implications of change.
— Governor training—welcome
commitment to induction and training. Cannot be a call on existing
budgets. Requires new money.
CHAPTER 9
— SOCs—greatly concerned
at the abolition of SOCs in the context of the need for the local
authority to continue to plan the provision of school places.
SOC also a useful local decision making body.
— Clarity of local authority role—greatly
concerned that the role is not clear, eg competitions for new
schools, including own proposal, if suitable promoter not found.
No consideration of role of provider of services. Most community
schools will want to remain community schools with the authority
as employer. Real concerns about destabilisation as set out in
introductory comments. Issue of proper planning and provision
of education for all, not entirely consistent with championing
the child and family.
— New relationship with schools—concerns,
as previously expressed, about SIPs, considerable lack of clarity,
paragraphs 9.19 and 9.20.
— LA and LLSC—Committee
should note carefully the contents of the Foster Report on Further
Education, which emphasises the need to plan the system holistically,
rather than sector by sector. Also makes highly valid comment
on the overhead costs of institutions, even as large as some FE
colleges, becoming the employer of staff. Further discussions
to be had on new sixth forms and existing sixth form/FE provision.
In conclusion, the Committee may wish to consider
why, when in other public services, including the Civil Service,
the drive is towards resource at the front line, but, in education,
the opposite is proposed: namely, individual schools becoming
the employer, with all the back office investment that implies.
Front-line delivery must be the prime concern, the prime investment,
as it appears to be with other public services.
November 2005
|
