The end result of the Education and Inspections Bill
July 2006
The Education and Inspections Bill has now received its Third Reading and has been sent to the House of Lords for further consideration. I voted for it because the bill as it now stands is a long way removed from what seemed likely following the publication of the controversial Education White Paper in October 2005.
That White Paper proposed a number of very welcome innovations in Education, including proposed measures on parental involvement, discipline, vocational training, and leadership in schools.
However, it also included a section to which many of us took exception. This suggested that trust schools would become the normal method of running state education, that local education authorities would effectively be sidelined as far as strategic planning of educational provision was concerned, and that future trust schools should also be responsible for their own admissions policies. This clearly raised the possibility of an extension of formal or informal selection.
In addition, proposals to expand ‘successful’ schools would normally be given the green light, regardless of their effect on other schools. It is clear that the effect of unplanned expansion of one school may well be that neighbouring schools will suffer reduced resources and a restricted curriculum to the detriment of pupils. Parents were even to be encouraged to set up their own ‘charter’ schools which would also be supported and assisted with no regard to the overall effect on the educational community within which the school would sit. On the other hand local authorities were to be prohibited from proposing or developing new community schools even if the demand and need was locally self-evident.
Many MPs considered that these proposals, far from increasing choice and diversity in the education system, would be more likely to expand the choice of some children at the expense of many others. The international experiences of such experiments suggests that it is the most disadvantaged students who will lose out.
I was one of the original 95 signatories of the so-called ‘Alternative Education White Paper’, which proposed a different view of strategic local education provision, which encouraged diversity and choice, but within a planned structure and enforceable code which outlawed selection. Whilst not rejecting the notion of ‘trusts’ associated with schools, the Alternative White Paper sought to subject trusts to the same safeguards and standards as other local education provisions. Crucially, it also sought to reverse the ‘ban’ on local authorities proposing new community schools where it was appropriate.
The Alternative White Paper received widespread support from MPs and from leading Labour figures in Education, and many of the points made were incorporated into the Bill when it was published. Most notably, schools were to abide by (and not just ‘have regard to’) a strengthened admissions code and a number of provisions were added to the Bill improving the strategic role of Local Education Authorities. LEAs were now, subject to approval of the Secretary of State, now able to propose new community schools. They also acquired a duty to promote fair access to educational opportunity.
I supported the Bill at Second Reading, with the condition that further changes to the Bill would be needed in committee or at report stage, and certainly before it received its Third Reading. There remained three outstanding issues that needed to be addressed: the criteria that would be used for the admissions code, how the Secretary of State’s veto on new community schools would be used, and how trusts could be effectively regulated in the interests of the wellbeing of the school to which they would be attached, and of the wider local educational community.
Responses to all these outstanding points were made by the government with further amendments at report stage and through the publication of departmental guidance. In particular I was delighted that the new Education Secretary Alan Johnson agreed that OFSTED would be allowed to regulate any new trusts.
The legislation, as it now stands, is a considerable improvement from what was proposed in the original White Paper, and on the bill as it stood at Second Reading. There will be no new selection for any form of school in the local authority sector. Local authorities will retain and even expand upon their strategic role in the planning and development of schools and educational provision. All but 40 local authorities will be able to put forward proposals for new community schools if they are felt to be needed.
Whilst there is no such thing as perfect legislation, I am pleased to have played a role in the Education and Inspections Bill. By Third Reading it had become a Bill that was worthy of support.