Memorandum submitted by the London Governors'
Network
We understand that the Education and Skills
committee is undertaking an inquiry into the proposals in the
White Paper "Higher Standards, Better Schools for All"
and is inviting written submissions on any aspect of the proposals.
London Governors Network was set up from the NGC affiliated London
Borough based Associations of Governing Bodies in 1998, to facilitate
networking and discussion of pan London schools issues, in particular
school organisation. Factors such as the cross borough movement
of pupils to schools in other boroughs, different admissions criteria,
and the effects of the existing and planned school provision in
one Borough on others, affect all our schools, and are of interest
to governors in all our member Associations. We see many of the
proposals in the White Paper as particularly relevant to our current
concerns and would ask you to investigate the following areas
in your inquiry.
1. SCHOOL ORGANISATION
AND THE
PLANNING OF
SCHOOL PLACES
We have deep concerns about how the proposals
for school organisation would work in London. As London Governors,
we have been very concerned that the planning of new school places,
in particular, the location of the twenty new secondary schools
in London by 2008 promised by London Challenge meets the needs
of our local communities, especially those in the most disadvantaged
parts of our Boroughs.
We welcome the introduction of the Pan London
Admissions system, and had hoped that this would facilitate the
planning of school places across London, so that all children
were enabled to attend a good local school, which we believe should
be their entitlement.
We are very concerned about the White Paper
proposal to give all schools the option to become their own admissions
authority, determine their admissions criteria, and expand their
number of places at will, without any reference to their local
community's needs, or the needs and aspirations of other schools
in their local area. We do not understand how this autonomy in
determining the number of school places fits with the duty still
placed on Local Authorities to ensure that there are the right
number of places in their area, and their "new duty to promote
choice diversity and fair access". (WP para 9.7.)
We see the proposed abolition of local School
Organisation Committees, (which are broadly based with representation
of elected members, school governors, the LSC and church/VA school
providers,) as a retrograde step. In our experience these provide
an open local forum where the likely impact of school expansions,
or closures on other local schools can be discussed in public
and parents and governors can make representations on the likely
effect of proposals on the choice and diversity available to parents
and their children in the local area. We have no confidence that
these issues could be debated so openly if all decisions were
left to the Local Authority, with no duty to consult. Rather than
abolishing the borough SOCs, why not bring them all together in
a pan London SOC, which could inform pan London strategic planning
of school places, and involve schools' representatives as well
as Local Authorities.
The proposal to allow "successful schools"
to expand at will, if they acquire Trust status, appears to go
against current movements towards pan London planning of school
places. We have much "local area" anecdotal evidence
of parts of London where there are extreme shortages of secondary
school places, and secondary age children without a local school
place. In our experience it tends to be the most disadvantaged
children, those with the most challenging behaviour and those
who have been excluded from other schools or known to the YOTs,
who have no school place. We believe that the only incentive for
a school to be its own admissions authority is to be able to choose
which pupil/parents it wants and not include those it does not
want. We wonder how the Government intends to police "fair
admissions" according to the locally agreed admissions code
of practice, which would presumably include the duty of all schools
in an area to admit their share of "hard to place children".
2. "EVERY
CHILD MATTERS"—SCHOOLS
COLLABORATING AND
MULTI-AGENCY
WORKING
We believe that much of the White Paper is not
compatible with the Every Child Matters agenda, in the way it
appears to encourage competition between schools for the "best"
pupils/parents. The ECM agenda requires schools to collaborate
with each other to provide the best range of educational experiences
possible in a local area, so that each child can follow their
interest and aptitudes to reach their potential in a flexible
local network of education and skills providers. It also requires
a commitment to multi agency working, where the school is engaged
with a wide variety of Local Authority, Health, Criminal Justice,
and voluntary sector agencies to best meet the individual needs
of all children and their families. If the incentive to become
a Trust school is to become more independent of the Local Authority
and perhaps more attached to the ethos and values of an external
trust which might not be local, it is hard to see how the school
could at the same time become the hub of delivery of local services
as in some models of extended schools envisage, or even a community
focus in its locality.
3. COMMUNITY
SCHOOLS AND
COMMUNITY COHESION—LOCAL
GOVERNANCE AND
ACCOUNTABILITY
One key feature of the White Paper proposals
for changes in the types of new school which would be permitted
is the proposed changes in models of school governance. We are
told that Local Authorities will be commissioners rather than
providers of schools, so there will be no new Community Schools.
We totally oppose this proposal, since we see Community Schools
as those maintained schools which are most accountable to their
local community and to their democratically elected Local Authority.
However, we resent the implication that these schools are "controlled"
by the LA. The GB of community schools appoints the head teacher,
is responsible for the strategic direction of the school, and
for ensuring the most effective use of resources to promote the
progress of all the children in the school. The GB is supported
in its work by the LA, and buys services from the LA or other
providers to best meet the needs of the school. Community Schools
are now the only maintained schools which retain a version of
the stakeholder model of governance accountable to parents and
the local community.
We wish to remind the Committee of the strengths
of the stakeholder model of governance, as originally introduced
in the 1986 Education Act. The success of this model rests on
each stakeholder group having an equal voice and equal voting
power, so that the interests of any one group cannot dominate
decision making. There were originally equal number of parents
(consumers), people who work in the school (producers), LEA governors
(representing local elected representatives) and community governors,
co-opted by the other three groups to represent the community,
including local business. This potentially created a balance of
different interests between personal and current as opposed to
strategic and long term.
The Governing Bodies of Academies have a very
different role from the stakeholder model described above; they
do not have a strategic role, do not appoint the Headteacher and
do not control the budget. Academy governors who are also Trustees
may have these powers, but if the sponsor has more than one Academy
these powers will be held outside the school. It seems likely
that it is envisaged that the GB of the new Trust schools will
be the same or very similar.
It is proposed that the Governing Body of existing
Community schools can decide to become a Trust school and adopt
a Trust by a simple majority vote on one occasion, and then be
able to appoint most of the governors for ever. These new Trust
Governing Bodies can be as small as 11, and will "include
elected parents, staff governors and representatives from the
local authority and the local community". (WP para 2.11.)
But, note that a GB of 11, where the Trust appointed the majority,
ie six, would indicate only one or at most two elected parents,
out of the remaining five, leaving places for one staff governor,
one LEA governor and one community governor. Would the Headteacher
be a governor automatically? If so, would this replace the "staff
governor", or the possible second parent? Even if the Trust
did choose to appoint further parent governors, they would not
be there by right and would not have a democratic mandate from
the parent body. We believe that most school governors and the
public at large do not appreciate the threat to local accountability
and local community involvement in our schools that these proposals
could pose.
BEHAVIOUR AND
PARENTS
We applaud the White Paper's encouragement of
schools to work with parents in involving them in their children's
learning. We are consequently mystified by the conclusions and
proposals drawn from the Steer Committee Report on Behaviour.
In the Annex A to the White Paper on Resource
and Legislative Implications under School Discipline it says:
— We will legislate to extend the scope
of parenting orders and parenting contracts in particular, so
that governing bodies can use them to make parents take responsibility
for their children's behaviour in school.
Does the Steer Group report actually recommend
this? We cannot see how it is practically or legally possible
for parents to be responsible for their child's behaviour in school.
Governing Bodies have expressed their concerns in responses to
consultations on the introduction of parenting contracts, orders
and fixed penalty notices over the years since they were first
mooted by government. Surely while a child is in school, the school
is "in loco parentis"? From our experience as governors,
we know the majority of the most severe emotional and behavioural
difficulties have their roots in very difficult family circumstances
and relationships. Although these parents may be very supportive
of the school in what it is trying to do, they need support and
help themselves. Schools and their governing bodies need and want
to build up partnership relationships with the parents of their
pupils so that they can work together to support improvements
in behaviour and progress in learning. This does not fit easily
with having a power (or even a duty) to instigate court proceedings
or fixed penalty notices on parents.
SCHOOLS COMMISSIONER
We question the need for the role of a schools
"market-maker" to encourage and promote "new school
providers". There appears little appetite among companies
whose main business is not education, including those already
much involved with schools, for becoming these new providers.
(see TES 25.11.05. p.1. "Firms say no to trust schools")
The "marketisation" of schools encourages competition
between schools, with "successful" popular schools expanding,
so that the least popular lose pupils and become non-viable. Local
Authorities will be forced to close such schools. (WP para 2.36)
We are deeply concerned about what will happen to the children
in such schools. Children only have one chance in education and
it is likely to be those in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods
who attend the least well resourced and vulnerable schools. Social
cohesion in our inner cities will not be enhanced by encouraging
the most resourceful parents to leave disadvantaged areas and
choose schools in more advantaged areas. We believe that all children
should have an entitlement to attend a good local school, and
the most socially successful and achieving schools are those that
serve their whole community.
November 2005
|
