It was worrying when Conservatives took most of the important positions at the Department for Education. The Liberal Democrats have only Sarah Teather as an education minister – with responsibility for children’s services. Tory MP Nick Gibb is responsible for schools and this includes the diplomas for 14 to 19-year-olds. He wants to see some students doing an academic course involving only GCSE and A-Level, while others follow a vocational course. This ignores the fact that this division is at the heart of problems in our education system. A divided curriculum is not appropriate for the 21st century. All students need to be successful in both academic and applied learning.
The Government has removed the requirement for schools and colleges to co-operate so that they offer all 14 to 19-year-old students a choice of any of the 17 diplomas. Students now have to accept what courses individual schools and colleges are prepared to offer or move elsewhere. Ministers have ignored the views of employers that students need to develop important job skills before they start work.
Worse, ministers want to make schools autonomous. This is a throwback to grant-maintained schools, but without the requirement of a ballot of parents. The concept of academy schools is based on a false premise. Schools are not run or controlled by local government. The local management of schools, which was introduced in 1988, means that senior staff run schools, together with school governors. Local government’s role in the management of state schools was introduced in 1997.
The last Labour Government’s enthusiasm for academy schools to replace failing ones was misplaced. What it should have done was work with local government in addressing the problems of struggling schools. Turning a school into an academy does not automatically make it successful. The evidence is that some academies perform worse after being set up, while others fail to sustain improvements.
Under the coalition, any school will be able apply for academy status after holding a vote of the governors. The final decision over this will rest with the Secretary of State for Education, who is also responsible for all financial arrangements.
Allowing schools to decide their own admission policies will reduce parental choice. Allowing schools to determine the salaries and conditions of service for staff could turn out to be expensive as well as time-consuming for head teachers. There is already plenty of local flexibility in the present system. Currently, our teachers are among the best paid in Europe.
How will ministers deal with failing academies? Will they return them to local government control, only so they can opt out again when they are judged to have become successful?
Education Secretary Michael Gove is proposing to allow people to set up Swedish-style “free” schools in buildings such as church halls or offices. To whom will such schools be accountable? Will they be able to make a profit and will companies set up to run them be able to make money as a result?
Further education colleges, apprenticeships and universities come under Vince Cable’s remit as Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. The signs are that there will be fewer university places in spite of there being many more applicants. It looks also as if there will be higher costs for students, thereby adding to their debts after they graduate. This will mean fewer people from poorer families going on to higher education.
It would be right to introduce a graduate tax and make university attendance free at the point of use. Students would then contribute after graduation and when they reach a certain level of salary.
The abolition of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority would seem to leave decisions on the curriculum either to the market, examination boards or to ministers – who may be unable to restrain themselves from interfering in what is taught. But neither should individual schools be left to decide what they teach, since all students should receive a broad and balanced curriculum.
Local government has a proud education record and pioneered progressive ideas such as nursery education, sixth-form colleges and the abolition of corporal punishment. Removing this involvement would be a very retrograde step. Sadly, this Government seems to be adopting a deeply reactionary approach. The extension of free school meals in many poor areas has been reversed. Educational maintenance awards for 16 to 19-year-olds are under threat, in spite of the way they help the participation and retention of poorer students. Money for one-to-one tuition for struggling children has been axed.
These measures might still be defeated in the House of Commons, if Labour and dissenting Liberal Democrats can agree on a strategy. Otherwise the damage to the country’s education system will be immense. The Government’s plans for education are opposed by the teaching unions and most leading educationalists. Labour MPs should take the lead in seeking to prevent them becoming law, because the damage they will do to the fabric of our society will take years to repair.
