Memorandum submitted by Campaign for State
Education
CASE is an education campaign group, which campaigns
for the right of all to the highest quality state education, regardless
of race, gender, home circumstances, ability or disability. CASE
relies for its income entirely on membership, publications and
donations and so speaks with an independent voice for the right
of all children to the best.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 CASE is opposed to the Trust model which
is at the heart of the White Paper. This model is based on a political
agenda which furthers competition and the control of schools by
the private sector, faith groups and "not for profit groups".
P 10 of the Foreword describes the effective break up of the state
education system in the secondary sector (with the primary sector
to follow). Building on existing legislation, new and "failing"
schools will be subject to competitive tendering process—and
all will become self governing trusts.
1.2 We do not believe that these fundamental
and controversial changes are supported by evidence and many concepts
are poorly defined. Indeed, some of the proposals are directly
or inherently contradictory. There is a great deal of rhetoric
in the White Paper, but there has been far too little evaluation
of academies and specialist schools to allow the Government to
make the claims set out in the White Paper. Despite all the assertions
in the White Paper it is not clear to CASE how parental choice,
fair admissions or the interests of the local community can be
safeguarded. The White Paper itself talks about the number of
good schools and the improvements that have been made, but then
proposes to sacrifice this to an unproven and potentially destructive
model of competition and privatisation.
1.3 We believe that the local authority,
representing the public sector, is best equipped to run schools
as well as taking a strategic role in planning overall provision
and taking responsibility for the Every Child Matters agenda.
Nothing in the White Paper convinces us otherwise. There are no
published criteria on what makes a faith or other group (often
with no experience of education) more fit to run a school even
within the confines of a charitable trust. It may be at odds with
the community at large. Under the White Paper these Trust schools
would become autonomous; local authorities can at least be changed
after an election and their decision making and finance is a matter
of public record. The White Paper therefore further undermines
local democratic accountability.
1.4 The Government commits to rebuild or
renew all secondary schools and half of all primary schools in
the next 15 years (1.14) through Building Schools for the Future.
We presume this will bring those schools into a Private Finance
Initiative, though this is not explicitly stated. It is not clear
how this will link to a Trust model in which the school will control
its assets. Existing PFI arrangements have been criticised for
big capital and revenue deficits, less control over buildings
and their out of school use, and less control over budgets (top
sliced to cover PFI costs). Schools should not be pushed into
more PFI arrangements without an open debate about the impact
and costs. We assume academies will continue to be built under
separate funding arrangements
1.5 The White Paper does not address the
role of faith schools in a multi faith society facing issues of
social and racial cohesion and segregation. In October 2005, Margaret
Hodge argued that faith schools should admit children of other
faiths to prevent social and racial segregation, or face being
closed. The same month, Ruth Kelly said faith schools should no
longer interview parents to determine their religious commitment,
but also supported the Oratory's right to do so because it was
a "unique" case. CASE believes that the Government must
clarify its thinking on the role and impact of faith schools.
2. "FOCUS
ON CHOICE"
2.1 CASE supports the principle of parental
choice in their child's schooling. In this context, our experience
is that majority of parents prefer a good local comprehensive
school that will meet the needs of all children in the area. The
majority of parents do not want their 11 year olds to travel long
distances, to have to choose a specialism or be tested for selective
schools, especially if they can go to a local school that has
diversity of provision. Many comprehensives already achieve this
diversity; studies have shown that the most able students achieve
better in this environment also.
2.2 There is no option under the White Paper
for parents to choose the "status quo" of a community,
comprehensive school. There have already been cases of LEA comprehensives
being turned into academies against wishes of parents (eg Thamesmead,
turned from a secular comprehensive into a Catholic academy against
the wishes of parents) It is likely that we will see far more
examples of this under a dogmatic system which insists that "failing
schools" and new schools must become Trusts
2.3 Our belief is that in reality, many
schools will continue to do the choosing—through academic
selection (including grammar schools), faith, and specialisms.
We believe this will be exacerbated if more schools become their
own admissions authorities.
2.4 Indeed, there is evidence to suggest
that the fragmentation of school admissions in the name of choice
may actually be the problem. A recent "Times Educational
Supplement"(TES) survey found that children living in areas
with fragmented education systems, with large numbers of faith,
foundation and academically selective schools, faced the worst
admissions problems. London—where parents should have the
greatest choice of schools—is actually the worst-affected
area. In Barnet, north London, which has a high number of faith,
foundation and grammar schools, just 52% of local pupils got into
their preferred school. In Westminster, 59% of parents succeeded.
2.5 There has been criticism that the White
Paper is "London-centric" in its approach because it
is here that choice and admissions are most difficult. Elsewhere
in the country only 1 in 10 parents fail to get their first choice
(TES survey) and we need to investigate why this is—is it
specialisms, grammar schools, and other forms of selective education,
being outside catchment areas, banding—and look at local
solutions.
2.6 Despite the assertion in 3.6, we believe
the Government's drive for specialist schools and academies in
itself reduces choice, particularly because specialisms are not
co-ordinated. An area may have only two schools, both with the
same specialism. In this instance parents and children are often
deprived of choice, particularly if they feel the specialism does
not suit their child. We do not believe that the vast majority
of parents and children wish to choose a specialism at 11.
2.7 This sort of choice also suggests that
schools will have a number of unfilled places to facilitate; this
cannot make sound economic sense and the White Paper makes it
clear elsewhere that under-subscribed schools will be closed.
2.8 The other obstacle to choice is over-subscription
of popular schools. This is barely mentioned, but will remain
problematic however admissions are organised and will continue
to make choice illusory for some. CASE believes the way to minimise
parental frustration is to focus on making every school a good,
local comprehensive and encouraging parents to support this school.
We believe this would prove a popular model, which already works
well in many parts of the country.
2.9 We also believe that "choice advisers"
are only necessary because of the plethora of admissions arrangements
and admissions authorities in some areas. Parents who are able
to vote with their feet (p8) are usually middle class parents
who have the resources to ensure children get into "better"
and often more selective state schools. No amount of "choice
advisers" will overcome this.
3. FREEDOMS
3.1 CASE challenges many of the statements
the White Paper makes about "freedoms":
There is an implicit assumption throughout that
more freedom for schools is the solution with the academies/foundation/specialist
schools quoted as examples of success (eg 1.19 assumption that
the "energy" of a "diverse set of providers"
is key).
3.2 CASE has seen no indication or evidence
that the private sector or "not for profit" organisations,
possibly with no background in education, are more equipped to
deliver education. Similarly there is no evidence that specialisms
per se improve school performance—particularly when only
some 10% of specialist schools use their right to select. It is
more likely that success is due to factors such as the extra funding
that specialist schools attract. Similarly, there has been no
proper evaluation of academies—the first two PricewaterhouseCooper
(PWC) reports are mixed; and the first suggested that academies
might create a two tier system. It is also not clear that the
projected £6 million capital spent on them is Value for Money,
but again this injection of capital may be a key reason for any
improvement.
3.3 "The best state schools and there
are five times as many as 1997 share these characteristics. But
many would like to go further to develop new freedoms and strong
relationships with sponsors." (p3) There is no evidence for
this, and CASE believes that most schools and governing bodies
want the resources to do their job well within the current local
authority structure. Indeed there has been a significant lack
of interest in the current enabling "fast track" legislation.
The old Grant Maintained schools had a financial incentive; specialist
schools uptake has been high but again there has been a financial
incentive. There are currently no such incentives for Trust status.
3.4 Already, the Government has struggled
to find enough sponsors for its academies programmes. It is even
harder to see where private Trust sponsors will be found given
the stronger restrictions around charitable status preventing
financial benefit, as well as safeguards to prevent permanent
ownership of the school's building assets. Similarly if Trusts
are bound by fair admissions policies and the interests of the
local community they may consider there are not enough "freedoms".
The White Paper (1.30) lists educational charities, faith groups,
parents and community groups as possible "not for profit
providers". CASE's view is supported by a TES article (25.11.05)
in which the vast majority of identified potential sponsors say
they are not interested in setting up Trusts. It is not clear
what will happen if the local Authority tender for a Trust and
there is no suitable bidder.
3.5 We are also concerned that political
dogma will lead to the speedy closure of "failing" schools
so that they can be tendered out to the private sector through
Trusts even if parents and the local community do not want this.
(2.55) If schools are put into special measures, how will "real
progress" in a year be measured? Examination results (for
example) may well not improve in that timescale, even thought
the school is making real progress.
3.6 The White Paper (p10) also proposes
giving "good" schools more freedoms and expansion. Expansion
is not necessarily in the interests of schools—those that
become too large may lose the very characteristics which make
them popular and successful. It could also lead to bigger class
sizes, against principles set out elsewhere in the White Paper.
3.7 The Government has assumed in the White
Paper that diversity is best provided by a "diverse set of
providers." CASE still believes that this is best provided
through a comprehensive school that offers diversity. "Diverse
providers" are likely to promote divisions and inequalities.
The White Paper also describes Trusts taking on further flexibilities
which would then apply to all schools with that sponsor—effectively
a "brand" of school. CASE believes this would also be
deeply divisive should any Trust apply for these flexibilities.
3.8 There is a fundamental contradiction
between "putting parent's needs at the heart of our school
system" and "freeing up schools to innovate and succeed".
There is no guarantee that the two will necessarily coincide depending
on parent wishes and student needs and the school's definition
of success and freedom. In particular, parents will no longer
have the option of a community, comprehensive school if they consider
this their "need".
3.9 How will personalised learning (Chapter
4) fit with freedoms for schools, particularly if Trust schools
do not want part of the whole government agenda? (For example,
inclusion of Traveller and Gypsy families.)
Of acquiring "freedoms", the White
Paper states: "They will do so without unnecessary bureaucratic
interference in a system of fair admissions, fair funding and
clear accountability". CASE believes that this sums up many
of the shortcomings of the White paper.
3.10 "Unnecessary Bureaucracy"
There is no definition of "unnecessary
bureaucracy" and many teachers would argue that this describes
the Government driven testing and assessment regime.
In 1.35 the White Paper states "If parents
want a school to expand to meet demand, it should be allowed to
do so quickly and easily. If parents want a new provider to give
their school clearer direction and ethos that should be simple
too. And if parents want to open a school, then it should be the
job of the local authority to help them make it happen".
Given this statement, CASE believes that "unnecessary bureaucracy"
could mean a local authority's efforts to fulfil its responsibilities
in opposing or seeking to amend a particular proposal.
3.11 Fair funding
The issue of "fair funding" and what
this means is not really explored; especially fair funding to
properly resource schools working with higher numbers of deprived
children and casual admissions. However, the White Paper does
commit to £335 million to local authorities with the largest
number of underachieving and deprived children to be targeted
to most challenging schools and £60 million for schools with
the highest number of children who have fallen behind. CASE welcomes
the recognition that such schools need additional resources and
hopes that increased resources will be targeted in this way.
3.12 FAIR
ADMISSIONS
CASE does not believe proposals in the White
Paper will deliver fair admissions; indeed it believes that they
are likely to deliver the opposite. The 2004 Education and Skills
Committee Report on Admissions highlighted many of the inequalities
in admissions which this White Paper will perpetuate.
3.13 The White Paper is not explicit that
Trust schools are their own admissions authorities, but this is
the case. The White Paper refers to them being bound by the Code
of Practice on Admissions. However, the Government's recently
revised draft states that schools which are their own admissions
authorities need only "have regard" to the Code. Unless
the Code of Practice is statutory on all schools and there is
an end to selective practices, there is no guarantee of fair admissions.
3.14 CASE welcomes admissions protocol for
hard to place pupils, but again this will need statutory force
and to apply equally to all schools. It is not clear how it will
be implemented in academically selective schools, especially those
which are their own admissions authorities. Currently the local
authority cannot require an academy to take a pupil with special
educational needs, even if that school was named in a statement.
3.15 Trust school are able to implement
admissions practices that "they think will best meet their
local circumstances". (3.22) If they are not bound by the
Code of Practice they could use it to their advantage at the expense
of other schools. The good practice arrangements agreed with the
local authority when a school becomes a Trust only apply for three
years (3.27/ 8).
3.16 Clear accountability—parents and
local communities
Academies and Trust schools do not deliver clear
accountability—they are accountable to a Governing Body
the majority of which is appointed by a private sponsor or Trust.
In the Education Act 2005, the Government took away some of the
additional mechanisms of accountability including the requirement
to produce an annual report and to hold a parents meeting.
3.17 CASE believes there is a danger that
the White Paper will encourage schools to be accountable to their
Trust and Ofsted, but not the local community. This is far less
accountable than a local authority, whatever its faults—and
we would acknowledge that some local authorities have not responded
well to a shortage of school places in their area. However, we
believe this should be addressed on an individual basis with individual
local authorities.
3.18 New providers are often not rooted
in the community (2.2) but may be distant businesses or church
groups who appoint the majority of governors. Appointed governors
may well not come from the local community and may know little
about it. How will this community voice be safeguarded?
3.19 It is not clear how local complaints
procedures apply if schools operate outside the local authority
eg in academies and trusts. (5.16) Involving Ofsted is Draconian
(particularly if it results in the school being tendered to new
providers) and the focus should be on local procedures and mechanisms
for resolution, which empower parents.
3.20 CASE has heard disturbing examples
of the concerns outlined in paragraph 5.15 at academies where
there is no requirement for basics such as a complaints procedure.
There has been no culture of listening to parents or finding positive
ways to resolve concerns. There is no accountability or "higher
authority" for parents in these instances.
4. IMPACT ON
OTHER SCHOOLS
4.1 The choice and expansion agenda does
not talk about the impact on schools that lose pupils as a result.
There is little mention of falling rolls and the White Paper does
not fully address the fact that its proposals may be taking place
against a backdrop of falling rolls. The White Paper talks about
collaboration to meet the issues of falling rolls, but it seems
unlikely that autonomous schools will collaborate when they are
competing for pupils in this context. The "market economy"
model of the White Paper suggests some will close and "fittest"
will survive. They may also survive because they have been able
to manipulate their "freedoms" to this end.
4.2 We believe that the White Paper ignores
the issues arising when local authorities have to close schools
in the event of "surplus capacity" caused by falling
rolls and other schools expanding or opening to bring "new
dynamism to the system". It does not discuss the impact on
pupils and parents who are part of a school which "fails"
and closes, or the disruption to pupils who are then placed elsewhere.
This is not a system focussed on "the needs of children"
because having your school closed whilst you are in it is very
traumatic. It is likely to hit the poorest children in the most
disadvantaged areas—who may then need the transport proposals
to get to any school at all. It also does not address the problems
of rural areas faced with falling rolls and the potential loss
of their local school, which will also need those proposals.
5. "PARENTS
DRIVING IMPROVEMENT"
5.1 It is hard to reconcile this initiative
with the position of parent governors, who are marginalised and
only mentioned briefly in Chapter 7 of the White Paper. A key
weakness is that academies are required to have only one parent
governor. In new Trust schools, the Trust will appoint the majority
of governors including parent governors and need have only one
elected parent governor. Trusts will be tempted to appoint supportive
or unchallenging governors. We believe the Select Committee should
examine how much parents are able to shape existing academies
and Foundation/Trust schools, and how much the school's autonomy
works against the voice of parents.
5.2 CASE believes that if the Government
is serious about parent voice (5.21) they should recognise that
one of the strongest influences is through elected parent governors,
who could represent the genuine interests of parents more effectively.
Similarly we do not understand the recommendation to reduce the
size of Governing Bodies, so soon after legislation gave them
the chance to reconstitute to include more governors. We are concerned
that parent governors will be even more marginalised in this smaller
model.
5.3 Parents are assumed to be homogenous
group. The reality is that they may well have different ideas
and priorities and aspirations for a school and its pupils. In
this case the more articulate and/or middle class parents are
likely to win the argument.
6. PARENT COUNCILS
6.1 Only Trust schools will have statutory
guidance on Parent Councils (5.21). In other schools it will be
guidance and academies for example will not need to comply despite
having a minimum of one parent governor. There are gross inconsistencies
in these proposals. We believe the guidance should be statutory
on all schools. The Education Act 2005 also abolished parents
meeting with Ofsted making it harder to validate parents views
as set out in the school's Self Evaluation Form. We believe this
should be reinstated.
6.2 CASE has been a strong supporter of
parent Councils and we have attached our briefing entitled "Parent
Voice" (Appendix 1). We hope the Government will develop
a robust model of parent councils on that will have a powerful
voice at every level.
7. SELECTION
AND THE
11+
The White Paper says the 11+ is divisive and
there will be no return to it, but apparently refuses to acknowledge
that there are still 163 grammar schools. If the system is so
divisive (in the Government's own words) why have they not acted
to end it? And why have they not addressed the issue in this White
Paper?
8. LOCAL AUTHORITIES
AS COMMISSIONERS
8.1 CASE welcomes a strong, strategic role
for the local authority, with its role in planning the number
of schools, size and location. However we are fundamentally opposed
to removing its power to run school as well as plan strategically.
8.2 Should the Government pursue its plans
to make the local authority a commissioner, we believe the White
Paper is flawed with basic contradictions about the powers it
will confer on the local authority. The local authority would
already be limited in terms of the kind of school it could commission
because it would be required to engage with Trusts and would be
monitored by the new School Commissioner who is charged with developing
Trust schools. There is also an inherent contradiction that the
local authority must be responsive to parental choice, to plans
for new schools and to expansion any of which they might oppose
in their strategic or community role. Given the high profile of
the this initiative, we believe their powers may well be sacrificed
in order to ensure that new Trust schools are commissioned ("unnecessary
bureaucracy"). The local authority will also be responsible
for dealing with the effects of choice, if some schools become
undersubscribed and are forced to close. The traumatic effect
on children and communities of such a closure cannot be underestimated.
8.3 CASE would stress that local authority's
role and powers must not be undermined by conflicting tensions
in the White Paper. The local authority must also retain strong,
statutory powers to ensure the Every Child Matters agenda is not
undermined by academy and Trust school's "freedoms".
9. TRANSPORT
CASE is concerned about the impact on children
travelling greater distances to school and the environmental impact
of more vehicles on the roads. To travel six miles (for example)
by on either a yellow bus or public transport in London could
take an 11 year old three hours a day.
10. BANDING
Banding is proposed as a new panacea in fair
admissions. CASE asks that the Government and Select Committee
review existing arrangements as we believe there are serious shortcomings:
— In schools which band in relation
to national figures or by the spread of applicants, the results
can produce a "favourable" intake with more children
in higher bands.
— In local authorities which band,
the reality can be that children in lower bands end up with less
choice of schools (or sometimes no school).
11. POSITIVE
INITIATIVES
CASE would like to express support for some
principles and statements set out in the White Paper. For example:
— the focus on the needs of the child,
personalised learning, transitional support and on the quality
of teaching, and classroom support. In Chapter 5 (p 69) we support
the good practice in home school liaison, and translation services.
However, CASE believes that exemplary examples of this good practice
already exist in many of our comprehensive schools and there is
no reason why they cannot be implemented in the rest with the
right resources and School Improvement support;
— the Government commitment to additional
funding eg £335 million to deliver effective small group
tuition (4.12);
— the positive acknowledgement of the
role of the workforce in bringing about improvements, and the
commitment to future development;
— the implementation of the recommendations
of the Steer report although believe the Government must address
all the recommendations and not only those which focus on discipline;
and
— the principle of Parent Councils
and better communication with parents.
| 
