Memorandum submitted by Confed
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Confederation of Children's Services
Managers—Confed—is the professional association representing
directors and managers of education and children's services in
local authorities in England and Wales. The prime purpose of Confed
is to contribute to the raising and maintaining of high quality
standards in local authority education and children's services.
As a learned society, Confed aims to influence national developments
in the provision of education and children's services and within
the profession to share good practice among local authorities
and promote the interests of staff working in the leadership and
management of education and children's services. Confed is committed
to a stakeholder model of a publicly accountable system which
delivers high quality, appropriately-targeted services to children,
young people and their families and carers, where all providers
work together collaboratively for the good of every child and
young person.
2. GENERAL OVERVIEW
2.1 Aspects of the White Paper appear to
reflect a London-centric agenda driven by a belief, that state
education and particularly secondary state education is not attractive
to all elements of the middle classes. As the work of London Challenge
in conjunction with London local authorities has demonstrated
the understanding and the solution to urban schooling problems
requires both a sophisticated analysis and a wide ranging and
subtle set of solutions. The fact that London schools are improving
at a faster rate than anywhere else in the country, with Community
schools leading the way, illustrates what can be achieved when
central and local government works in concert with schools. It
is not sensible, however, to examine the challenges of education
in the capital and assume that the same issues apply elsewhere
in the country and to the same degree.
2.2 For these reasons we believe that many
of the reforms highlighted in the White Paper are unnecessary,
irrelevant to a large majority of children, young people and their
families, and do not take sufficient account of existing initiatives
and improvements that schools and local authorities are already
leading.
2.3 Confed is committed to a stakeholder
model of a publicly accountable system which delivers high quality,
appropriately-targeted services to children, young people and
their families and carers, where all providers work together collaboratively
for the good of every child and young person. Overall, we do not
believe that this White Paper will deliver that aim; nor does
it sufficiently justify how the proposed reforms will enable local
authorities to create a collaborative environment.
2.4 Rather, some aspects of the proposals
could reinforce the negative elements of competition at the expense
of collaboration without building-in sufficient safeguards for
vulnerable children and young people. It is our view that collaboration
between schools, VI Forms and college is absolutely essential
in order to deliver equity in inclusion, admissions, the ECM agenda
and the 14-19 personalised offer.
2.5 The Paper does not sufficiently acknowledge
the inclusivity agenda; rather it frames the debate almost entirely
in terms of more freedom for schools which is, in our view, unhelpful
and does not accurately reflect either the current system or indeed
a commissioned system as proposed in the White Paper. The Children
Act 2004 establishes LSCBs which will specifically champion the
cause of vulnerable children and young people, including those
that may be "hard to place", but the Paper makes scant
mention of them.
2.6 We are also concerned that the proposals
do not appear to meet the test of "evidence based policy
making". Where is the evidence that value for money and improved
standards can be achieved by increasing competition among schools,
by establishing Trust, Foundation, or voluntary-aided schools
and Academies at the expense of developing new Community schools?
Community secondary schools, as a group for example, have in many
parts of the country been achieving improvements in pupil performance
above any other type of school yet they are the one type of school
that the White Paper specifically prohibits being created in the
future. It is hard to see how this sort of proposal, which flies
in the face of empirical evidence, could command the respect of
either the education community or the public at large or win their
hearts and minds.
2.7 There are obvious tensions between the
aims of the White Paper and those of the Every Child Matters
(ECM) agenda. Schools are at the heart of the local community
and a crucially important asset in the delivery of ECM goals.
As such the school is a resource for the local community, and
it must be right that its assets are held in trust by the local
authority in its role leading and governing local communities
in the interest of the wider public interest. Even, if for day
to day purposes, governing bodies exercise control over schools
the stake of the community in these important local facilities
should be preserved and guaranteed. We urge the Government to
consider how this can be achieved without compromising the operational
freedoms for schools the government wishes to retain.
2.8 Whilst the Government is doing much
to try to address inequalities through its capital building programme,
Building Schools for the Future, and changes to school
funding, it has created new anomalies elsewhere. The government
has for example established a completely different mechanism for
securing places for statemented pupils in Academies than the one
that applies to other schools. This appears to reduce the chances
of these pupils gaining a place at Academies. It also leads to
fermenting resentment amongst other schools in the area and is
a position that is hard to defend.
Higher Standards, Better Schools For All
3. CHAPTER 1—THE
CHALLENGE TO
REFORM
3.1 Confed refutes the view in this chapter
implying that local authorities interfere in the day to day running
of schools, as this is not the case and has not been so for some
time. We do, however, welcome the attempt to define a clear commissioning
role for local authorities and recognition of the local authority's
role as champions of children and parents strengthened by the
Children Act 2004. We would, however, need to be reassured that
local authorities have sufficient powers to discharge that role
effectively, including the effective powers to "decommission"
and re-allocate resources according to need and strategic direction.
3.2 The proposal in 1.19, to diversify the
range of providers of schools thus allowing more parents to choose
the school that suits their child, may be undermined by the Government
initiative which wishes to see all schools as Specialist schools.
3.3 1.20 proposes a role for parents to
put pressure on a school to improve. It is already good practice
in local authorities to establish meetings for parents to express
their concerns when a school is put in either Special Measures
or Serious Weaknesses categories.
4. CHAPTER 2—A
SCHOOL SYSTEM
SHAPED BY
PARENTS
4.1 We welcome the emphasis on parents that
appears throughout the White Paper although note that the intense
media speculation prior to the publication of the Paper may in
fact have raised parental expectations inappropriately.
4.2 It is important that parents engage
in all aspects of schooling, however, we believe that sufficient
mechanisms already exist within the system for parents to engage
with and influence the future direction of improvements in school.
4.3 The current regulations on the governance
of Community schools which provide for a third of governing body
representatives to be parent governors, are the best and most
democratic means by which parents can influence a school. This
is supported by the new inspection framework for schools which
recommends that a school's self-evaluation should include reference
to how a school engages with its parent constituency.
4.4 Engagement with the community will become
even more important as schools develop as Extended schools.
4.5 The proposal in 2.59 that a local authority
might appoint a suitably experienced person to act as a "Parents'
Champion" is interesting, but it is unclear how this fits
with the overall role of the local authority as champion of pupils
and parents.
4.6 We welcome the continued commitment
of the White Paper to 14-19 reform. Genuine choice at 14-19 can
only be delivered through partnership arrangements and collaboration
developed among providers in a locality eg on timetabling. The
continuation of this collaborative approach among providers is
essential in further developing the personalised learning offer
to pupils.
4.7 However, such partnerships are jeopardised
by increased competition between providers, particularly with
regard to the expansion of popular and over-subscribed schools
and the establishment of school Sixth Forms, all of which have
an impact on nearby schools, which may be forced to close, thus
reducing parental and pupil choice. This will lead to a fragmentation
of the system which depends for its success on collaboration not
competition.
4.8 We recommend that the Government use
this opportunity to unequivocally clarify responsibilities for
strategic planning across the whole of the 14-19 age range and
accept that this is fundamental to the successful development
of collaborative approaches. Currently the arrangements leave
too much room for uncertainty for both schools and the local authority.
4.9 Confed believes that the intention that
all new or replacement schools will be Foundation, Trust, voluntary
aided or Academies is pernicious in its exclusion of new or replacement
Community schools.
Trust schools
4.10 The opportunity already exists for
schools to acquire a Trust, as does the opportunity for parents
to start their own school. The prominence therefore given in the
White Paper to Trust status reflects either a lack of understanding
of the current system or its prominence is a statement on the
need to promote an existing opportunity which has thus far generated
little interest in schools.
4.11 We have a number of concerns about
Trust schools, however, we do recognise that the Trust model is
well-established and may be of merit if used in conjunction with
education improvement partnerships and also where there are proper
safeguards for parental and community interests.
4.12 The critical issue for Confed is who
runs the Trust. We welcome the role of the local authority and
the Schools Adjudicator in ensuring safeguards are implemented
on the charitable objectives of Trusts so that "unsuitable"
Trusts cannot run schools, ie Trusts whose objectives do not take
proper account of the views of the majority of parents, or Trusts
whose objectives cause serious concern with regard to the impact
on school standards.
4.13 The Secretary of State for Education
and Skills has indicated that she thinks it likely that there
will be community-based groups that wish to establish charitable
Trusts to run local schools. In such cases, we hope that the local
authority would be a key player.
4.14 We look forward to considering further
work by DfES outlining how a school might extricate itself from
a Trust arrangement and note the relevance in this regard of the
1841 Schools Sites Act.
4.15 The diminished role of parents in the
governance of Trust schools is unacceptable. We are concerned
about the nature of the relationship between a Parents' Council
and that of the Trust school's governing body and the accountability
of the Trust school's model of governance.
4.16 A Trust school may appoint the majority
of its governors and does not have to commit to the current proportion
of one third of its governors representing local parental interests
(as in the current Community school model). The White Paper recognised
that in such cases a Trust school must then establish a Parents'
Council, which will give parents a voice without the concomitant
responsibility of being a school governor.
4.17 In effect the proposals relating to
Trust schools disenfranchise parents by providing for their removal
(or significant down-sizing) in respect of their role on governing
bodies. Having thus disenfranchised parents, the White Paper attempts
to re-engage parent by means of the Parents' Council. This seems
to us to introduce into the school system a pointless level of
bureaucracy and change for its own sake.
4.18 Curriculum innovation is already possible
in many schools; much of the guidance on the national curriculum
is not statutory. If the Government takes the view that curriculum
flexibility is educationally beneficial, the opportunity should
be extended to all schools, not used as inducement to persuade
schools to go for Trust status.
4.19 We note and welcome that Trust schools
will be placed under a duty to promote community cohesion and
good race relations. In order to fulfil such duties a Trust school
must have regard to the community which it serves not just the
community as represented on the school's roll. It is therefore
imperative that the governance model for Trust schools places
a duty on the Trust to have meaningful representation on the board
of governors which reflects the diversity (cultural, socio-economic,
ethnicity, etc) of the local community.
4.20 We welcome the indication that a separate
statutory process will be required before schools acquiring a
faith-based Trust could become faith schools.
Expansion of popular schools
4.21 To date, very few popular and successful
schools have applied for an expansion of their capacity; indeed
few schools seem to believe that their popularity and success
would continue if they were to expand.
4.22 The practicalities of expanding an
existing school are fraught with process difficulties, the magnitude
of the process difficulties is significantly increased when one
considers the establishment of a brand new school. The expansion
of an existing popular school can easily take up to four years
to complete (a timescale by which a child would be almost out
of phase anyway) from the initial bidding phase because of procurement
procedures, acquisition of expanded site; regulations restricted
the length of time that temporary classrooms can be used, etc.
Tackling school failure
4.23 Confed welcomes the clarification of
the local authority's role with regard to failing schools. We
would, however, recommend that the duty be made statutory, not
simply declaratory with the associated appropriate sanctions and
powers.
4.24 We are concerned however, that the
time scale of one year within which a failing school must show
signs of significant improvement does not allow for sustainable
improvement over a realistic timescale. Having new structures
and teachers in place may be possible within the timescale; seeing
outcomes in exam results or being judged as "satisfactory"
by Ofsted may not be.
4.25 We remain concerned about the impact
such a time scale for improvement may also have on the ability
of a governing body to recruit a Head teacher to a challenging
school. Furthermore, we believe that the option for parents' concerns
to potentially lead to an immediate Ofsted inspection, which could
trigger a series of events if the school is found to be seriously
failing including a change in the school's senior management team,
is unworkable and likely to have serious implications not only
with regard to Employment Law, but also on the morale and aspirations
of other school leaders and teachers. We are uncertain how this
can be achieved when the local authority is not the employer as
in the Trust schools model.
4.26 The White Paper is silent on the continuing
role of local authorities in the appointment of Headteachers and
in succession planning. As the effectiveness of schools is directly
related to the quality of Headteachers, Confed would recommend
that local authorities retain a statutory advisory role in this
area.
5. CHAPTER 3—CHOICE
AND ACCESS
FOR ALL
5.1 The White Paper explicitly says that
the argument that there is no demand for choice ignores reality.
It is more accurate to say that the demand for choice exists in
some parts of our local communities—those that are, on the
whole more affluent, articulate and able to engage in the nuances
of negotiating the English state education system because their
first language is English. The White Paper presumes that the aspiration
of choice is shared by all communities—it is not. There
are many communities whose aspirations are more culturally centred—who
aspire to ensure that their children are able to speak their mother
tongue as well as English for example.
5.2 The White Paper further presumes that
parents are the "consumers" of education provision and
therefore it is the parental skills of advocacy that are formulating
education provision and not the needs of children and young people,
resulting therefore in a provision that meets the needs of a pre-dominantly
white middle class parental perception of the importance of choice.
Better information for parents
5.3 Paragraphs 3.8 to 3.12 set out how information
to parents will be improved. Much of the content is simply best
practice, although unfortunately the idea of parents being encouraged
to visit schools is not mentioned.
5.4 The ICT information divide is addressed
through discussing the need for excellent printed materials, although
internet access is becoming increasingly universal. Since delivering
e-admissions is one of the ODPM's Priority Outcomes, it seems
sensible to focus on e-channels rather than printed media.
5.5 The concept of large group public sessions
is probably not helpful, as those parents who most need the support
and advice will be those least willing to attend or speak out
in public. Many schools already provide a thorough induction programme
for parents. However, targeted one-to-one sessions for parents
who need more support, both on a self-referred and professionally-referred
basis are worth exploring further, although we note that this
is already part of good practice in many schools we are concerned
that this proposal may place unrealistic pressures on schools.
Choice Advisers
5.6 The idea of "Choice Advisers"
is interesting but probably misplaced for those parents for whom
it would provide most benefit. These parents will often already
have multi-agency support, and a further professional input will
not be effective. The "single lead professional" concept
is important here. It would be of much greater benefit in a joined-up
children and families support structure to ensure that all the
professionals concerned, including social workers, teachers, and
health professionals, have access to the objective information,
are trained to use it, and are enabled and empowered to give this
advice.
5.7 We seek re-assurance that the training
provided to Choice Advisers will be adequately funded and that
Advisers will have sufficient links with interpreting services
for those parents who do not speak English as their first language.
We seek similar re-assurances with regard to one-to-one tutors
for those students who fall behind.
5.8 On a point of detail, what protection
will local authorities have against claims that the advice of
Choice Advisers was not adequate? If a parent fails to secure
the school of choice will the local authority be liable for the
advice offered? Will this create another avenue for appeals and
litigation?
School transport
5.9 The free school transport legislation
has not changed significantly since 1944 and needs urgent updating
.The White Paper proposes that legislation be introduced to entitle
those eligible for free school meals or in receipt of the maximum
level of Working Tax Credit to free transport to any of the three
suitable secondary schools closest to their home within a 2-6
miles radius. Whilst this proposal espouses the politics of greater
equality it may not in practice deliver greater equality for pupils
in the banding target group.
5.10 It is true to say that although eligible
a number of communities do not take up free school meals or Working
Tax Credit for socio-cultural reasons. Therefore the indices are
unrepresentative of true levels of deprivation; one thinks in
particular of white working class and Black African and Caribbean
Communities. Furthermore, some of the very poorest and most deprived
members of local communities are those recently arrived migrant
workers from Eastern European countries, who, because of their
migrant worker status are not eligible for free school meals nor
Working Tax Credits. The way in which choice and access is secured
for these children, young people and their parents'needs to be
thought through.
5.11 We are uncertain of how sending a child
to a school further away from home will help parents to engage
with their child's school and in their education, which as international
research tells us, are a key determinant of educational success.
Few parents of children below the age of eight consider two miles
as being a reasonable distance to walk to school, and few parents
of children over the age of eight consider three miles as being
a reasonable distance.
5.12 The White Paper is silent on the way
admission criteria may be modified to reflect the proposed greater
access to transport and it fails to explain what incentives there
might be for example for a school serving a predominantly middle
class area to alter its admission arrangements to give higher
priority to children from say a council estate further away—even
if this was permitted by the admission Code.
5.13 The proposal is based on an urban model
of school provision and does not meet the needs of children in
more rural areas where secondary school provision may be dispersed
over a significantly larger geographical area. The proposal in
paragraph 3.15 is ill-thought through. In a rural local authority,
such as Somerset for example, schools other than the most local
will often be more than six miles away; outside the scope of the
benefit. In an urban authority, such as Dudley for example, most
parents will live within two miles of at least three schools;
again outside the scope of the benefit.
5.14 We would question whether this is the
most appropriate way to fund a scheme of banding which attempts
to ensure a more even spread of pupils from differing socio-economic
backgrounds and attainment levels across schools in a locality.
The cost effectiveness of such proposals will need to be tested.
5.15 Furthermore, meeting the requirements
of extended and wrap around provision in schools within a system
where increased numbers of pupils may not attend their most local
school, will significantly increase transport costs, provide fewer
opportunities for pupils to walk to school and may also impact
on the local authority's ability to meet the efficiencies required
of them by the Gershon review.
5.16 The local authority duty to support
choice, diversity and fair access must include consideration of
all home-to-school and other transport arrangements, including
safe walking routes. If pupils are transported to a school up
to six miles away from their home, clearly walking to school is
not an option. This is a simple example of how the White Paper
and the Every Child Matters agenda are not complimentary,
particularly with regard to two of the five ECM outcomes—"staying
safe" and "being healthy".
Fair admissions
5.17 We are concerned at the prospect of
an ever increasing number of schools acting as their own admission
authority. We acknowledge that all schools must have regard to
the non-statutory Code of Practice on Admissions, however, an
increased number of admissions authorities will increase the number
of admissions criteria, which in effect means that it is the school
which will choose its intake and not the pupil or parent choosing
the school. The aspirations are however commendable—fair
admissions for all.
5.18 The present system is based on selection:
— by parents, through a combination
of location and house price, sophisticated use of admissions and
appeals procedures, and, on occasion, conversion, sometimes temporary,
to a religious faith; and
— by schools, through a combination
of complex admissions procedures and both the spirits and the
letter of the Code of Practice being flouted.
5.19 There is no possible mechanism to stop
parents living where they choose, subject only to their personal
economic realities, or to choose their location according to the
local schooling provided.
5.20 An admissions system that attempts
to band pupils and to share out pupils of differing abilities
and aptitudes has genuine philosophical attractions. But the banding
system used by Mossbourne Academy, the example used in the White
Paper, is so complex and convoluted as to be incomprehensible
in its operation to local authority officers, let alone parents.
5.21 The problem, of course, is how the
most disadvantaged pupils (those with uninterested parents, those
living in poverty, those at risk or vulnerable to abuse, those
who have special needs or are simply unintelligent or demotivated,
those with poor command of spoken and written English) find a
school place.
5.22 If every school has its own admissions
system then there will be yet more games-playing by the literate
middle classes. The admissions system in urban areas will be a
minefield of multiple inconsistent systems. Taken together the
systems will be incomprehensible, opaque and obscure to parents—and
will seem unfair, whatever the reality.
5.23 The only solution to fair admissions
is a national, binding, independently monitored, universally-applicable
and fair Admissions Code of Practice; not a Code of which schools
"must take account" but can then ignore with impunity
(by, for example, interviewing parents). This Code could set a
national framework, or it could allow a local binding framework
to be developed and policed by the local Admissions Forum.
5.24 Any other solution will lead to either
or both of the following:
— schools selecting pupils leading
to less-popular schools entering the downward spiral of becoming
a sink school; and/or
— some pupils failing to be admitted
to the school of their parents' preference without a huge effort.
5.25 Selection (in whatever guise) implies
that at the other side of selection there is de-selection; if
some schools get the "better" pupils other schools will
get the "worse".
5.26 The underlying issue is that admissions
systems are concerned, not with admitting pupils, but finding
the fairest way not to admit pupils when a school is over-subscribed.
Any system and Code must be seen through this lens; the proposals
in the White Paper do not pass this test.
5.27 One radical solution would be to fund
schools much more sharply than at present on negative factors;
deprivation, prior attainment, and so on. Perhaps a factor of
three would be appropriate, to encourage schools to take pupils
facing more challenges. The funding could be increased until the
less favoured schools became as effective as the most favoured.
6. CHAPTER 4—PERSONALISED
LEARNING
6.1 The proposals in this chapter of the
White Paper are welcome and we see them as augmenting the progress
towards personalised learning that is already in existence.
7. CHAPTER 5—PARENTS
DRIVING IMPROVEMENTS
7.1 We welcome the provision of high quality
information for parents about what their child is learning, how
well they are progressing and areas for development. However,
the proposals that such information should be made available three
times per year seems to conflict with the reduction on the bureaucratic
burden on Teachers.
7.2 A single point of contact for parents
in school is a useful proposal and some schools have already adopted
this; it will be important that parents are aware of the level
of influence that such a person has within the school in order
to manage parental expectations.
7.3 Home-school agreements have had minimum
impact to date. It may be necessary for schools to use parent
contracts to enforce parental responsibilities.
7.4 The proposal in 5.16, to give Ofsted
new statutory powers to investigate parental concerns about a
school and, where justified require a school to call a meeting
with parents is probably a stretch too far in the Ofsted brief
particularly given the new inspection framework for schools based
on the five ECM outcomes. We are concerned that the proposed roles
of Ofsted, the Schools Commissioner and the Schools Adjudicator
will impede local authorities from finding local solutions to
concerns raised by parents.
7.5 We also welcome the proposals to enhance
school Councils and the extension of the role of the Children's
Information Service. We expect these developments to be properly
resourced and not lead to unnecessary bureaucratic burdens.
8. CHAPTER 6—SUPPORTING
CHILDREN AND
PARENTS
8.1 We welcome the commitment to extended
school developments and believe this is one route to support a
richer variety of parental engagement in schools along with many
other benefits.
8.2 We believe that proper resources must
be made available for "Children Missing from Education".
8.3 We believe that the proposal to increase
the provision of school nurses based around clusters of schools
is excellent.
9. CHAPTER 7—SCHOOL
DISCIPLINE
9.1 The inclusion in the White Paper of
many of the recommendations of the Practitioners' Group on School
Behaviour and Discipline, chaired by Sir Alan Steer, are welcome.
In particular we welcome the expectation that by September 2007
every secondary school will make arrangements for hard to place
pupils which ensure that no school takes an unreasonable share
of children with challenging behaviour, including those excluded
from other schools. This is an important signal to schools and
the communities that they serve, that every child does matter;
however the White Paper does not address the issue of how schools
can be required to fund provision for pupils out of school. It
is therefore important, and we think implied in the White Paper,
that local authorities retain funding for PRUs.
10. CHAPTER 8—THE
SCHOOL WORKFORCE
AND SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
10.1 We welcome the role of NCSL in identifying
a new group of national leaders of education, (Headteachers),
drawn from those succeeding in the most challenging leadership
roles to influence the direction and targeting of leadership provision
across the school system. We trust however that despite their
Ministerial access, it will not be this group of education leaders
alone who will advise Government on the future direction of education
policy. Such advise given to Ministers must be done so in the
context and framework of the Children Act 2004 and the ECM agenda
in order to deliver integrated services for children and young
people (schools are not of course statutory partners in children's
trust arrangements under the Children Act) across a locality.
Confed looks forward to the opportunity to work with NCSL on this
important aspect of their work.
10.2 We would like to highlight potential
issues around the capacity within the school system, particularly
at Head Teacher level, to contribute to the NCSL process of developing
the leaders of the most complex and challenging schools. This
is of particular concern as it will be an initiative that takes
place at the same time as the School Improvement Partners (SIPs)
programme, which also draws from the current or recently retired
Head Teacher pool.
School governors
10.3 Comparisons are made between the move
to Foundation school status and voluntary aided schools. The majority
of voluntary aided schools are church schools whose greater autonomy
is tempered by membership of a diocesan/church school fellowship
with strong shared values, ethos and direction. This support is
very powerful and far reaching. Separate single foundation schools
or small trusts would not provide the same networks or support
mechanisms; they could be potentially more divisive and provide
a more confusing picture to parents.
Governing body composition
10.4 Governing bodies will be relieved to
hear that the provisions of the Education Act 2002 on their composition
will remain in place. However this message has largely been lost
with more emphasis being given to the White Paper's reference
to governing bodies opting for the smallest effective model.
10.5 The White Paper equates the smallest
effective governing body with the stated belief that it is the
way "to create energetic and focused governing bodies".
We would be interested to see the supporting evidence for that
statement, particularly at a time when governing bodies are being
encouraged through the ECM agenda to place the school at the heart
of the community and to engage in partnership working that brings
the partners into the governance of the school.
10.6 Most governing bodies have demonstrated
clear strategic thinking and common sense in the current reconstitution
process. They have generally welcomed the greater involvement
of parents on the governing body, but will be very anxious about
adopting any model of governance that reduces the potential for
elected and governing body nominated parent, community and staff
involvement in the leadership of the school.
Parents and the governing body
10.7 Increasing democratic parental involvement
in governing bodies over the last 30 years has been generally
welcomed and worked well. Parents of pupils at voluntary aided
schools often pass adverse comments relating to the lack of democratically
elected parents on their governing bodies. Schools with trusts
would be similarly disadvantaged
10.8 The introduction of a statutory duty
on the governing body to have regard to the views of parents will
not be seen as a suitable substitute for democratically elected
parent governors.
Governor training
10.9 Confed urges the DfES to strengthen
the influence of the school governance team to ensure that the
advice, guidance and training provided through government departments
is timely, focused and cognoscente of the particular roles of
governing bodies.
10.10 Induction training should be mandatory.
11. CHAPTER 9—A
NEW ROLE
FOR LOCAL
AUTHORITIES
11.1 We welcome the recognition in the White
Paper that " . . . The best local authorities are strategic
leaders of their communities . . . They act as commissioners of
services and the champions of users . . ." We also welcome
the various new duties and powers which local authorities are
set to acquire in their strengthened role as champions of children
and their communities, particularly the clarification of the local
authority's role with regard to failing schools, as mentioned
above. These duties and powers should be statutory.
11.2 As well as exercising the strategic
and commissioning roles that the White Paper describes, local
authorities must continue to have the tools and resources to provide
effective support and challenge in the context of the New Relationship
with Schools. Much innovation has come from local authorities,
for example in improving teaching and learning, in establishing
collaborative partnerships, in developing behaviour and attendance
strategies and in making ICT available to all. This must continue
for the pace of improvement to be sustained.
11.3 The comments about the role of the
local authority in ensuring fair access to school places and specialist
provision are welcome, as is the intention to make it a statutory
requirement for schools to have regard to the Children and Young
People's Plan. However, those local authorities which are judged
"Excellent" in CPA are exempted from producing a single
Children and Young People's Plan and will therefore need to find
other means by which they draw on their analysis of parental demand
and consultation with local partners to draw up a strategic plan
for the pattern of schools in their area. Schools will be placed
under a statutory duty to have regard to the local authority's
CYPP, which is welcome; however, we seek clarification on this
statutory duty with regard to "Excellent" Councils.
11.4 There is a serious risk that the White
Paper's proposals will stop short of giving local authorities
the capacity to secure high standards in schools. If local authorities
are to remain accountable for standards they will need stronger
tools. Some of the areas in which the White Paper proposals need
to be strengthened are:
11.4.1 There will have to be greater definition
of the scope and statutory basis of the Children and Young People's
Plan.
11.4.2 The leverage that local authorities
can exert in bringing about collaboration between schools needs
to be strengthened if it is to encompass all schools, particularly
in areas such as developing 14-19 curriculum entitlement, making
provision for excluded pupils and in procuring learning platforms.
11.4.3 The provisions about commissioning
school places must ensure that the time required to secure new
provision is not unduly prolonged.
11.4.4 Local authorities powers to intervene
in coasting or failing schools must be backed up by the ability
to hold resources to support action and consistent with good employment
practice.
11.4.5 The introduction of School Improvement
Partners must be in the context of local authorities' retaining
the capacity to give broad and timely information about their
schools that enables them to offer support or intervene at short
notice.
11.4.6 Local authorities must have the ability
to place children with special educational needs in all local
state schools in accordance with parents' wishes and the Code
of Practice.
11.4.7 Local authorities will need confidence
in the long term funding regime if they are to sustain the extended
services that they are helping schools to develop.
11.5 Local authorities welcome the role
of champion, of leading on the commissioning of services and holding
to account a broadening range of providers. We do not accept that
this role means that local authorities cannot make provision for
school places nor accept the premise that there should be no new
Community schools.
11.6 At present where a school has financial
difficulties the local authority can provide support. When for
some reason the position at the school does not improve it only
has at its disposal the suspension of delegation. An additional
facility, which might be used before suspension is considered,
could be to allow the local authority, where a school fails to
achieve its financial management standards, to direct a governing
body to take the necessary action. In effect it would be formalising
the local authority's final warning in advance of suspension and
may in some circumstances be sufficient to achieve improvement.
11.7 We do not believe that the on-going
debate about types of schools has made any contribution to raising
standards and serving children better. Quite the contrary, this
has lead to a diversion of energy away from these key tasks. Fundamentally,
parents want a good local school. This should be every child's
entitlement and all our efforts should be focused on achieving
this goal.
Surplus places, falling roles and school place
planning
11.8 The White Paper recognises that "Local
authorities will need to plan how many schools their area needs,
where and how big they need to be, what kinds of schools will
serve the area best, and who the school should serve." This
is a welcome acknowledgement of the continued role of the local
authority in the strategic planning of school places as is the
local authorities duty to act strategically to keep surplus capacity
down to affordable levels by "taking out" the weakest
and least popular schools. The danger here is obvious, for those
weak or less popular schools in urban areas will be amongst those
serving predominantly poorer communities with potentially complex
needs. Similarly in rural areas where there is far less choice
of schools, the "taking out" of weak schools may in
effect reduce the choice of local school to zero for some communities
and indeed make the transport provision highlighted in the White
Paper a necessity for some children to attend any school. This
is hardly choice and diversity.
11.9 The White Paper has completely failed
to take into account the issue of falling roles in both primary
and secondary phases. This demographic phenomenon may mean that
successful and popular schools ultimately suffer from unaffordable
surplus capacity, thus potentially resulting in reduced choice
for pupils and parents.
November 2005
| 
