Memorandum submitted by The Independent
Association of Sheffield School Governing Bodies (SASGB)
First of all we would support and welcome the
acceptance of the Steer Group's Report on Discipline. We also
welcome the expectation that all new governors should take up
Induction Training with schools making this a priority. We also
applaud the focus on Key Stage 3 as the transition to Secondary
education is a big step for children. It is also right that parents
should be better informed about their child's progress.
1. Trust schools—any school can go
down this route—the Trust would then appoint the majority
of the governing body—in perpetuity? How is continuity to
be protected? What is this intended to achieve?
If a pressure group backed by a company sets
up a school what would prevent the company later arguing that
as it was no longer part of its core business it was withdrawing
its support. This would leave the pressure group (parents?) in
control of the school. What happens when their children leave
and they lose interest?
GBs can already appoint Community Governors
to widen the expertise it has. Currently taxpayers are represented
via LEA governors and Parent Governors. This is part of local
accountability and is crucial. Why tinker again with something
which on the whole works well. There is little evidence to support
the comments that Trusts will provide stronger leadership and
are able to drive up standards compared with other schools. Currently
Headteachers in community schools are accountable to their GBs
and thus to the stakeholders and community for the standards achieved
by the school. If the GB is not satisfied it has the power to
take remedial action and would be supported by the Local Authority.
If the sponsor appoints the majority of governors this accountability
and independence will disappear.
2. Admissions—Trust and Foundation
Schools would become their own Admissions Authority. At present
LAs manage admissions strategically to try and ensure equality
of provision across its area. As a result in Sheffield almost
50% of pupils in the most popular schools come from out of catchment
with 97% of all parents getting their first choice of school.
Allowing all schools to become their own Admissions authority
would result in popular schools operating a covert system of selection
circumventing admissions criteria (see the recent report of the
Office of the School's Adjudicator). They would not compete for
low achieving pupils! This would make good but less popular schools
more vulnerable.
These two categories of school would also own
the school assets—this would undermine the ability of the
Local Authority to manage state assets strategically for the future.
Parent Councils—It is difficult in many
areas to get enough parents to volunteer as governors. Is this
a way of getting them involved? How would these work in regard
to the GB? (Governors would have a statutory duty to have regard
to the views of parents) What exactly does having "regard"
mean in law? There is potential here for conflict and a great
deal of tension. The current system allows for parents to have
a voice via their Parent Governors. It would be a foolish governing
body which did not take account of the views of parents. The new
Ofsted Framework already examines this aspect of the GBs work.
An important point—parents do tend to
focus on issues concerning their own children and even parent
governors find it difficult sometimes to focus on wider issues.
Many leave the school when their children leave and the question
of continuity can be a problem. Self-chosen groups of parents
may not act in the interest of all the pupils in the school.
4. School Transport—free for the most
disadvantaged when school over two miles distant but within six
mile radius. No problem with the concept of enabling this to happen
but how does this square with cutting down congestion and keeping
costs down. Would subsidised transport be available for after
school activities and parents evenings? Who will be subsidising
this? Transport costs for pupils with SEN is a huge problem and
very costly in most Authorities. Subsidising more transportation
will in effect be funding taken from all schools.
5. Banding—we understand that with
regard to Admissions there will be nine bands and schools will
be expected to take from the whole range. Will this be compulsory?
Otherwise schools will not do so and even if they did that would
mean in some areas the local residents would not necessarily get
their children into the local school. Result—more car journeys
(and in some areas to the local Private School not to one across
the city).
6. Setting up new schools:
(a) Only in areas where parents are confident,
have lots of free time and good contacts could they find a sponsor
to build/adapt other buildings. Who in the long run will foot
the bill? This will apparently be allowed even in areas where
there are surplus places. No joined up thinking there then because
the DfES expect Authorities to reduce these where possible. This
proposal is probably a knee-jerk reaction to issues in some London
Boroughs where children cannot get a place in their local school.
(b) LAs will have to invite competitive tenders
from other providers for any new school they open, Academy, Trust,
VA. This will lead inexorably to the destruction of the community/comprehensive
system that has worked well. It would be replaced by an untried
system of "independent" schools funded by the state
but controlled by the private/charity sector).
This flies in the face of falling birthrates
across the country with LAs having to plan closures/amalgamations.
It makes no sense at all.
7. One-to-One Tuition in Maths and English
for underperforming pupils. We would all sign up to this but how
will it be paid for? Schools currently struggle to give such pupils
sufficient time and the introduction of PPA time has stretched
resources more than ever.
8. Expansion of good schools—who decides
whether one is good or not? This could be confused with "popular"
schools—which is not the same thing. However, such expansion
would need capital sums unless the school has surplus space (not
likely to be the case). Where will the capital come from? How
many sponsors are there willing to fund such schemes? If the Government
intend this to happen we need to know the answers to these questions.
Usually what happens is the same pot of money gets re-allocated
elsewhere. There will therefore be losers, most of all neighbouring
schools. These will inexorably lose pupils with the knock-on effect
of weakening their viability and disadvantaging those with families
lacking in confidence and skills to fight their own corner. Choice
for some will mean less for others.
9. The abolition of SOCs and the reversion
of the power to open and close schools to the Local Authority.
(How does this sit with the above proposals?)
Presumably there were good reasons for setting
them up—enabling the difficult decisions to be taken by
a group of people other than local councillors who had electoral
interests as their highest priority. This argument is still valid
as the stakeholders ensure that LA's make decisions on transparent
educational criteria.
We would very much like to see more of the rationale
for these proposals. We fail to understand how they will produce
a fair education system for all. We would also like to believe
that they have been costed. A number of them would certainly require
additional resources.
November 2005
| 
