Memorandum submitted by the Secondary
Heads Association (SHA)
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The Secondary Heads Association represents
more than 12,000 members of the leadership teams of maintained
and independent schools and colleges throughout the UK. Education
White Papers are clearly of major interest to our members at the
institutional level and out of their concern for the education
system as a whole.
2. SHA is concerned that there is a strong
difference in emphasis between the ministerial announcements of
the White Paper and its actual content. This is not setting a
clear direction and risks the enactment of unclear legislation.
3. Whilst SHA members generally welcome
greater autonomy for schools and colleges, they are also in favour
of schools collaborating in local partnerships. It is not clear
that the proposals of this White Paper will help in either sense,
though they may well be intended to do so. The role of the local
authority in relation to schools has become uncertain, and this
White Paper does not resolve that.
4. The creation of another category of school,
and a general emphasis on structures rather than standards, will
not help to raise the educational attainment of our young people.
5. Schools want to work closely with the
parents of the children they educate, and the great majority of
parents want to reciprocate. This is not always an easy relationship;
but schools can point to many examples of good practice, on which
the White Paper does not seek to build. "Parent power"
is not likely to help, nor is it what most parents actually want.
6. Elements of the White Paper further extend
the punitive approach that has been taken in recent decades towards
schools struggling with the most difficult circumstances, and
towards those who lead them, which has harmed the education system.
7. There are some proposals that will be
welcomed by school leaders in relation to discipline, collaboration
between schools, and the curriculum.
8. We have organised our remarks as follows:
B. Autonomy, trust schools and new schools
F. Role of local authorities
H. Discipline and exclusion appeals panels
I. Collaboration between schools
B. AUTONOMY,
TRUST SCHOOLS
AND NEW
SCHOOLS
9. The White Paper is very different from
the announcements that preceded it. School leaders were told that
the Government wants all schools to become trust schools and thus
acquire more freedom. In fact, the proposals in the White Paper
would give trust schools essentially the same freedoms that foundation
schools have already. It does not seem likely, therefore, that
the proposed trust school status will be widely taken up by schools,
even those seeking greater freedoms.
10. SHA opposes the introduction of yet
another new category of schools. "The English have a genius
for turning diversity into hierarchy"—which is what
is likely to happen again. Now that all secondary schools are
heading for specialist status, we have the prospect of getting
away from a two-tier system. This is surely the post-comprehensive
model for which the Government has been aiming, so it should be
built on, not undermined. In 1997, the Government stated that
it would concentrate on "standards, not structures".
This was—and remains—a good maxim and the Prime Minister
and education ministers should return to it.
11. If schools are run by trusts with several
schools in their stable, governors would have less control over
their land and buildings than they do as foundation schools. The
situation would be akin to that of schools run under the auspices
of some livery companies, where the company owns and organises
the buildings and the individual schools use the buildings that
the trust gives them.
12. The relationship between the school
and the local authority appears to be the same for trust schools
and foundation schools.
13. The freedom to set pay and conditions
outside the national framework was given to grant maintained schools,
although only two schools considered it worthwhile to take this
power. As there is sufficient flexibility in the existing national
system schools are unlikely to make use of this provision in any
significant number.
14. SHA members are annoyed by government
documents that offer schools the opportunity "to develop
a distinctive ethos" (section 2.7 of the White Paper) and
criticise schools for a "dull uniformity" that has never
existed. English secondary schools have a long tradition of developing
and maintaining a distinctive ethos—in teaching style, organisation
of classes, school uniform, expertise in drama or music or science,
for example. This pre-dates by many years even the specialist
school system and the Government should not write as if it invented
school ethos.
15. The White Paper and the announcements
that preceded it have many references to freedom for secondary
schools. But the freedom actually wanted by school leaders is
freedom from constant new initiatives and associated bureaucracy.
16. School leaders on the whole prefer to
collaborate with one another rather than compete. There is little
in the White Paper to provide any incentive to collaborate and
several elements that risk a return to damaging competition.
17. The proposals for new schools to be
open to new providers put at risk the coherence of school provision.
Quality assurance and accountability of such providers is not
sufficiently well addressed.
18. There are too many initiatives that
divert scarce public funds away from the direct provision of services.
The proposed Schools Commissioner role, acting as a "national
champion" of trust schools, seems likely to be such a waste
of public money.
19. SHA notes the proposal for "good"
schools to expand, a government aspiration that has appeared frequently
in White Papers over the last 15 years. (2.42-2.44) In fact there
has been little such expansion because most school governing bodies
and local communities do not want it. Expansion can cause schools
to lose their distinct ethos and it can create additional costs
that schools and local authorities are unable to meet. There is
nothing in this White Paper that changes that or makes such expansion
significantly more likely in future.
C. "PARENT
POWER"
20. SHA rejects the rhetoric of "parent
power". Schools and parents want to engage in a partnership
for the benefit of the education of the young people. This requires
a stronger engagement of parents in the education of their children
and a good information flow between school and parents. This is
certainly not "parent power".
21. As parents are so important to the Government,
it is odd that the White Paper proposes that there should be only
one parent on trust school governing bodies.
22. SHA strongly opposes the White Paper
proposal for termly reports to parents on pupil progress. Apart
from the obvious ambiguity (some schools have three "terms",
some five, some six), this regulates quantity, not quality. The
Government should reinforce the obligation for schools to communicate
progress well to parents and leave it to schools to decide how
to do it. There is already much good practice in this field, outlined
in a SHA paper on the role of parents in schools, which can be
made available to the Committee.
23. Giving power to parents to set up their
own schools is unlikely to create much change, since few parents
would have the time or resources to start a school.
24. Parent councils give parents rights
without any responsibility to go with them. Schools already have
parent governors and this is a much better way for parents to
participate in school governance.
25. SHA rejects the proposal to place on
governing bodies a statutory duty to have regard to the views
of parents. (5.19) Governing bodies also need to have regard to
the views of teachers, students and the local community. SHA would
welcome parent governors becoming more representative of wider
parent views, but this should not be yet another statutory duty
placed on the governing body as a whole. The quality of links
with parents is already part of school self-evaluation and Ofsted
inspection.
26. The White Paper asserts, without comment
or qualification, that some parents find secondary schools less
intimate and approachable than primary schools. (5.29) There are
many reasons for this, just as a supermarket may seem less intimate
and approachable than the corner shop. To counter these secondary
schools put a lot of work into links with parents, and there are
many examples of excellent practice, which the White Paper fails
to acknowledge.
D. ADMISSIONS
AND CHOICE
27. Choice advisers are likely to be an
even bigger a waste of public money than the proposed Schools
Commissioner. Limited public funds would be much better spent
in school budgets than on these local authority officials. Choice
advisers will simply increase pressure on places at schools that
cannot accommodate more children.
28. It is misleading to talk of "parental
choice" when what is actually offered is "parental preference".
In practice some schools are always likely to be over-subscribed,
and some parents who would have preferred them will not be able
to exercise that choice. The rhetoric of parental choice raises
expectations that cannot be satisfied.
29. It is unclear whether in practice trust
schools would have increased freedom over admissions. Ministers
initially suggested that they would; but the White Paper appears
to offer them no more freedom over admissions than foundation
schools, which have to have regard to the admissions code of practice
and are subject to rulings by the schools' adjudicator.
30. On banding, it is important that schools
using this as an admissions filter use a local ability range.
Schools using a national ability range in a disadvantaged area
inevitably have a more advantaged intake than other schools in
the locality.
E. SCHOOL "FAILURE"
31. When a school has an adverse report
from Ofsted the first remedy the White Paper states that local
authorities should consider is the dismissal of the head teacher.
For the last 15 years, governments have developed multiple accountability
systems for schools and these remain in place. Instead of further
increasing pressure on school leaders the Government should develop
a better system of supporting schools in difficulty.
F. ROLE OF
LOCAL AUTHORITIES
32. Announcements prior to the White Paper
indicated that the powers of local authorities were to be reduced,
as schools exercised more individual freedom. The White Paper
itself, however, increases the powers of local authorities. (2.49-2.59,
9.1-9.25)
33. The White Paper does not reflect the
concept of intelligent accountability, developed by SHA and adopted
by education ministers in early 2004, which resulted in the "new
relationship with schools". Some of the duties in relation
to school improvement, assigned to the local authority in the
White Paper, should properly sit with the school improvement partner.
The proposals are likely to increase bureaucracy and accountability
in a system that has too much of both.
34. SHA is concerned at the abolition of
the code of practice governing relationships between schools and
LAs before the new relationship with schools has become sufficiently
established. This is likely to take at least another three years.
35. SHA believes that local authorities
should have a strategic role in education but that it should be
at arm's length from secondary schools. The local authority has
an important strategic role, for example, in joining up children's
services. Primary schools need more direct support from local
authorities than secondary schools, but the White Paper fails
to recognise this.
36. SHA supports the Government's proposal
that local authorities should be commissioners, not providers,
of services to secondary schools. Stronger incentives are required
to push local authorities in this direction, especially whilst
they have also schools which they own and run more directly. However,
SHA does not believe that a schools' commissioner is required
for this. It is unclear what powers of enforcement a schools commissioner
would have to challenge local authorities.
G. SCHOOL LEADERSHIP
37. SHA welcomes the recognition in the
White Paper of the importance of school leaders, both in improving
their schools and in contributing to the improvement of the system
as a whole. (8.21-8.32)
38. The scheme for a group of "national
leaders of education" will provide a welcome recognition
for successful leaders of complex schools and an opportunity for
them to influence government education policy. However, it must
be recognised that the complex schools they lead are a minority
of schools and it is important for the DfES to take advice from
practitioners working in a wider range of schools. Until 1992,
this role was carried out by HMI and since then primarily by SHA
and the other teacher associations. It is important that the DfES
retains this broader perspective.
39. SHA has consistently welcomed the new
relationship with schools, but school leaders report that the
planned reduction in bureaucracy has not occurred. Indeed, such
has been the plethora of initiatives facing school leaders that
the autumn term 2005 has been the busiest and most stressful that
anyone can recall. SHA looks to the Government to avoid such simultaneous
initiatives in future and we welcome the continuation of the Implementation
Review Unit, which is charged with challenging the DfES on the
burden it places on schools, and on school leaders in particular.
(2.66-2.69)
H. DISCIPLINE
AND EXCLUSION
APPEALS PANELS
40. SHA strongly supports the recommendations
in the Steer report and welcomes the adoption of these in the
White Paper. (7.1-7.39)
41. The Steer recommendation for pupil and
parent support workers has resource implications for schools and
SHA looks to the Government to demonstrate its commitment to improving
discipline and attendance in schools by providing extra resources
to schools for these new employees.
42. SHA supports the Government in retaining
appeals panels to consider the cases of excluded pupils. Their
abolition would, SHA believes, result in more cases being taken
to court with resultant costs in money and time. SHA supports
the White Paper's proposed changes to the composition and role
of appeals panels.
I. COLLABORATION
BETWEEN SCHOOLS
43. SHA welcomes the brief section of the
White Paper on federation and collaboration, but believes that
this should have been the major focus of the White Paper, rather
than outweighed by the unhelpful sections analysed above. (2.45-2.48)
44. The White Paper does not follow up,
as it should have done, on the DfES collaboration proposals published
earlier in the year in Education Improvement Partnerships.
(2.48)
J. CURRICULUM
45. SHA welcomes the additional funding
for personalised learning for 11-14-year-olds. However, there
is a danger of parental expectations for individual tuition being
raised, for which this modest funding will not be sufficient.
(4.12)
46. SHA welcomes the expansion of the gifted
and talented scheme, provided that it is adequately funded. (4.21-4.25)
47. SHA welcomes the statement that it will
be for schools to decide whether or not to adopt setting—it
is not the Government's role to determine how schools organise
classes. (4.36)
November 2005
| 
