Education White Paper

Ruth Kelly has detailed Government plans for a major overhaul of the schools system in England.

The education secretary, who was joined by Tony Blair, used a school visit to launch the government's education white paper.

Under the proposals parents will be given more choice over which school their children attend.

Popular schools will also be helped to expand, with more help from businesses or groups of parents.

And the role of local education authorities faces a fundamental overhaul, with a new focus on raising standards and spreading best practice.

Government Response: DfES

“There is nothing more important than educating our children. Doing the best for their child is what every parent strives to do. And we must make sure that our school system is one that helps them to do that.

Because of the progress we have made since 1997 we can now take the next, vital steps. This White Paper sets out our plans to radically improve the system; putting parents and the needs of their children at the heart of our schools, freeing up schools to innovate and succeed, and bringing in new dynamism and new providers. We will ensure that every school delivers an excellent education, that every child achieves to their potential, and that the system is increasingly driven by parents and choice. To make that happen we need an education system that is designed around the needs of the individual – with education tailored to the needs of each child and parents having a say in how schools are run. To achieve that we need to reform schools themselves so that they have the freedoms and flexibilities to deliver the tailored, choice driven education we all want.

This White Paper sets out how we will meet these challenges and build the school system we all want for our children. More than anything it is a White Paper about aspiration. We must have the highest aspirations for every child whatever their talents and ability. And we must have a schools system that can respond to those aspirations. Working together with our many partners in schools and communities, we can achieve our aim of a world class education system, with every school a good school, and every pupil achieving.”

Opposition Response: Conservatives

David Cameron, shadow education secretary said:

"I have always said that what we need is proper rigour in our education system, proper autonomy for schools, and progressively more choice for parents. If the Prime Minister introduces a White Paper with that in mind, then he will have the full backing of the Conservative Party, and we will help him to introduce the reforms properly. Because the education of our children is too important to play games over."

However Mr Blair has effectively wasted eight years being timid and not reforming education properly, and only now at the twilight of his premiership is he actually taking the steps that we pressed him to take for so long."

"It is going to be a serious concern whether they can really introduce these reforms. We have got the roadblock of Gordon Brown, we have got the roadblock of the trade unions, and now we have got the roadblock of John Prescott - who has clearly had a big row over this."

"The row between Tony Blair and John Prescott over the White Paper explains why this Government will never be able to deliver higher standards and rigour in our schools. Tony Blair has had two terms to put reforms in place and has not done so.

"However, we have consistently called for greater school autonomy, choice for parents, and rigour. We will support Tony Blair against both his front benchers and back benchers if he is true to his words."

Opposition Response: Liberal Democrats

Edward Davey MP, Liberal Democrat Shadow Education Secretary, said:

"The Government should focus on standards not structures.

"It is what happens in the classroom, not the boardroom that makes the difference in a child's education. The Government's proposals today won't change anything, in any classroom, anywhere in the country.

"Handing over admissions risks a free-for-all between schools, producing a shambles that will confuse parents, not help them.

"Our secondary schools need real and effective reform - a new and relevant curriculum offering choice of academic and vocational training, smaller classes and properly trained expert teachers.

"Parents and teachers care about pupils' literacy, not the Prime Minister's legacy."

Stakeholder Response: The National Governors Council

 

A spokesperson for the National Governors Council told ePolitix.com: "NGC believes that the most important issue for all schools is the standard of education provided and the quality of teaching and learning. 

 

"The recent Ofsted Annual Report has shown that high standards can be achieved in all types of school.  Changing the structure of schools is not a panacea as Ofsted inspection reports have highlighted.

 

"NGC acknowledges the important role of parents as key partners in schools.  Effective governing bodies already consult and engage parents.  Governing bodies are responsible for the ethos and standards in schools and are accountable, to parents, the local community, and the local authority and at national level to Ofsted and central government. 

 

"Parents already have the power to influence school policy through their statutory representation on the governing body.  NGC is concerned that allowing schools to set up trusts which can appoint the majority of the governing body will reduce truly local representation on governing bodies.

 

"We are concerned that encouraging individual schools to expand and allowing new schools to open unchallenged will have a detrimental effect on other schools in an area.

 

"It is not clear how allowing schools further freedom over admissions will aid the most disadvantaged pupils.

 

"Finally, proposals to transport children across towns to improve choice seem to fly in the face of health and transport policies to encourage more children to walk to school and reduce school traffic."

 

Stakeholder Response: 4Children

Anne Longfield, Chief Executive of 4Children said:

“We are very concerned that moves to give schools ever more autonomy risks cutting our precious community resources adrift from their local neighbourhoods and other services that are crucial to meeting every child’s needs. This has been described as a ‘pivotal’ piece of education legislation, yet there is no mention of the government’s own policy to develop Extended Schools and encourage co-operation amongst schools and with other local children’s services. The government appears to be giving out contradictory messages and undermining its ambitions for children – not least by dividing the standards agenda from the wider children’s agenda, when in fact they are absolutely mutually supportive.

“The Extended Schools agenda is about supporting schools to play their rightful role at the heart of their communities. It is about putting children first and helping schools and families to meet their needs and fulfil their potential in the round. As well as opening their doors beyond the traditional school day, extended schools can become inspirational places for children – improving educational outcomes, supporting parents, engaging with the wider community, and dealing with problems before they arise. The government have fully embraced this approach with commitments to make all schools extended by 2010 and through other measures such as Every Child Matters and Education Improvement Partnerships.

“The Every Child Matters process and the policy of developing extended schools have the potential to improve outcomes for all children, reduce inequalities and increase social mobility. This is not in opposition to driving up educational standards, but an absolute pre-requisite. Ministers need to assert this strongly so that schools play their essential role in local strategies to support children and families. If the great strides we all want for every child are to be made, the extended schools agenda must be central to the government’s approach to schools and education policy – not an after thought or an optional add on”.

Stakeholder Response: Advisory Centre for Education

Chris Gravell, policy officer for ACE said:

“ACE receives thousands of calls a year from parents and carers struggling with the school system, often in order to support disabled children or children with unacknowledged social difficulties, such as a family break up.

“Under the White Paper’s stated aim of giving schools the ‘right to discipline’, when we next get a call about a child who has lost control because of a bereavement or because their difficulties aren’t understood by staff, how do we help the parent get their child the support they need rather than punishment?

“Pupils with special needs and disabilities make up two-thirds of those expelled from school. The Government’s own advisers on behaviour, the Steer Committee, has just said, ‘We see a close link between poor behaviour and previous failure to deal with a pupil’s special needs properly,’ but the White Paper does not address this aspect of behaviour.

“On restraint, there is no necessity for more legislation, as teachers already have powers here under section 5550A of the Education Act 1996. Perhaps existing guidance should be reissued.

“We commend the White Paper’s moves to offer parents more say in their children’s education, but believe at the moment the threats outweigh the rewards. And the threats are against those least likely to be able to defend themselves.

“Most parents do not want to set up or control schools. They just want to be involved in their child’s education, and to have levers to pull when things go wrong.

“But with the new powers promised to schools, when we get a call about a bullied child refusing to go to school, how does the parent protect themselves against the school fining them for truancy? It’s not unusual for schools to deny that they have a bullying problem.

“The White Paper sets up market forces and punitive measures against pupils and parents as cure-alls for problem schools, which seem to conflict with the positive social justice initiatives of, for instance, the Every Child Matters programme, where the voices of children and of disadvantaged groups are given due weight.

“We hope that the Government can show representatives of parents and children that it will address these issues properly in the next weeks and take advice and evidence from a wider group than the narrow set who currently form their ‘Stakeholder’ group on behaviour.”

Stakeholder Response: ATL

Dr Mary Bousted, ATL general secretary, said:

“Extra resources for schools to increase their ability to meet individual pupil needs, as set out in the Education White paper, are welcomed by us. The union also welcomes the immediate implementation of the Steer Committee’s key recommendation, including the our proposals for parent pupil support workers.  ATL also supports new legislation on school admissions which needs to address the weakness in the code of practice.

However, we condemn the nonsense of school trusts, and predicts widespread anger at attempts to further foist private sector ideology onto a public service.

School trusts are a solution to which there is no known problem.  Talk of increasing the supply of education providers is political nonsense, it is a product of policy wonks with little idea of what works.  Schools already have as much freedom as they want, apart from the tyranny of the league tables.  Too much of the White Paper is a return to the failed rhetoric which was abandoned in Labour’s first term.”

Stakeholder Response: Examination Officers’ Association

Andrew Harland, Chief Executive of the EOA said:

"The EOA welcomes the proposals outlined in the recent White Paper, however a better supported and funded examination system, at grass roots level will be needed in order to maintain and exploit all the choice being offered to students and parents throughout the country.

Those examination personnel who operate and administer examinations in centres are vital in completing the education cycle, by linking all the outcomes derived from teaching and learning activities with the assessment process, through the public examination system."

Stakeholder Response: General Teaching Council for England

Carol Adams, GTC Chief Executive said:

“Every parent knows that the most important influences on their child’s education are inspiring teachers and dynamic head teachers.  Every child has an entitlement to high quality teaching and a broad and balanced curriculum.  Early intervention, one to one tuition, mentoring and above all investment in high quality teaching and teaching support hold the key to raising achievement for all pupils.

“Although some schools in challenging circumstances are improving fast, the most disadvantaged pupils in those schools are still lagging behind.  For these children, further structural reform may be at best irrelevant and at worst leave them further disadvantaged as better placed parents benefit from the Government’s choice agenda. 

“The Children Act is driving the creation of coherent local services to help disadvantaged and vulnerable children.  The White Paper proposals must not undermine this effort.

“Parental involvement and stimulus are important and welcome but we cannot fairly expect parents, whose primary concern must be opportunities for their own child, to carry the burden of ensuring that schools deliver every child’s entitlement to good teaching and an appropriate curriculum.”

Stakeholder Response: IoD

Miles Templeman, Director General of the IoD said:

“The IOD today broadly welcomes the Government's education reform agenda, set out by the Prime Minister and detailed in an Education White Paper.

The IoD represents business leaders across the UK. Surveys regularly show that they regard an improvement in education and skills as one of the most important issues facing the Government.

The IoD particularly welcomed the proposals for greater diversity in education and the ability for schools to employ their own teachers and own their assets.

As anyone who's run a business knows, it is best to leave good managers to manage, rather than imposing unnecessary and costly central controls. The same must be true of education. Schools freed up from the control of LEAs could become better schools.

However, that assumes that there are the good teachers available to make the most of these new freedoms. That may not always be the case. So there does need to continue to be a safety net in place. There will remain a need for a National Curriculum, even if there is some greater flexibility to account for local needs; and the need for regular inspections by Ofsted to monitor performance remains essential.”

Stakeholder Response: Institute of Education

Professor Geoff Whitty, director of the Institute of Education, said:

Research on school reform in terms of autonomy and parental choice suggests that while they may well improve education overall, they risk increasing the gap between the most and least successful pupils.

The focus of this week's White Paper is primarily on structures – on reducing the role of local authorities, encouraging new providers to enter the market and suggesting that state schools might be run by self-governing trusts with external sponsors, joining specialist schools and academies at the heart of a diversified system.

According to Tony Blair, the market is a key ingredient in this agenda. Unfortunately, not all parents have the same resources.  This is recognised in material terms and the government's aim of ending the unfair advantage of parents buying themselves a good school through the purchase of houses nearby is a laudable one.  But subsidising transport is a necessary but certainly not a sufficient condition of extending choice to less affluent parents.  Given differences in cultural resources, much more needs to be done to support disadvantaged parents in active choices.  Quite how local authorities or the new schools commissioner, or even the proposed ‘choice advisers’, will do this is quite opaque.

Furthermore, some of the new freedoms being offered schools may themselves make it even more difficult for disadvantaged families to access the best schools.  It is currently the case that the 200 most successful state schools in academic terms have far fewer children on free school meals than the rest.  In other words, current admissions policies allow some schools to be socially and academically selective.  Thus, while the White Paper rejects a return to formal selection, it fails to recognise just how much informal selection already takes place.  It acknowledges the desirability of all schools having comprehensive intakes, and suggests that schools will be able to use devices such as banding to ensure it.  However, it leaves any change in admissions policies to the discretion of schools themselves.  Few are likely to change their policies to their own disadvantage and to the advantage of others, especially when all the rewards in the system come to those that outsmart their competitors by fair means or foul.

The notion that good schools should expand or work to improve others in a federation is an attractive one in theory.  Hitherto, though, popular schools have often preferred to protect their market position rather than expand.

There is little doubt that some schools will benefit greatly from the reforms, but no strong reason to believe that those schools will become significantly more inclusive than now.  The schools that do not benefit from the reforms may fall even further behind and they are likely still to contain the majority of disadvantaged pupils.  Yet, the proposed further reduction of the powers of local authorities means that, if this happens, there will be no levers left to prevent the few once again benefiting at the expense of the many.  Unless, that is, central government is prepared to challenge school autonomy - which is, on the fact of it, totally against the spirit underlying the White Paper.

If the many rather than the few really are to benefit, it is vital that these issues are given serious attention before the White Paper is translated into law in the New Year.  And, if evidence informed policy remains a commitment of the government, this serious attention will necessarily lead to some considerable modification of the prime minister's emphasis on unbridled school autonomy and parental choice.

Stakeholder Response: LGA

Alison King, LGA education spokeswoman said:

“Education reforms fail to give local authorities enough clout to ensure parents and pupils get a fair choice.

“Our fear is that the choice available becomes choice by the school over who they admit, not choice for the parent about the right school for their children.

“The white paper gives an important role to councils in commissioning new schools. But it fails to give enough clout to local authorities to address the challenges outlined by central government.

“For example, councils acting on behalf of local parents will only be able to negotiate admissions guidelines for three years at new schools, and they will not be able to influence them at all in existing schools.  This must go further - it must apply to all schools and with no time limit.”

“This flaw means new schools will soon be able to go their own way, disengaging from the communities they are meant to serve by setting their own admissions policies.

“Schools must work within a shared system that promotes improvement and fair access. Whilst local authorities have been given a role in championing children and challenging schools we need sufficient teeth with which to achieve this for all children and with all schools.

“But we have gained some new teeth: we welcome the important role in challenging all schools, including coasting schools. We will talk to ministers about the details of how that is done.”

On the expansion of popular schools, Cllr King said: “While there is an argument that continuously successful schools should get bigger, it is a fallacy that schools can expand at will to meet parental demand as each new school year begins.

“And expansion is not without consequences. Every new place created in a successful school means an empty place next to a child learning in a less successful one.”

Stakeholder Response: NASUWT

Chris Keates, General Secretary of NASUWT said:

“The White Paper reflects the content of the Five-Year Strategy published in July 2004 and pulls together a number of other initiatives already in the public domain.

“NASUWT welcomes the fact that the White Paper acknowledges its provisions are building on success and that a key element of that success has been the role played by the school workforce.

“With any Government initiative the touchstone for NASUWT is the impact it will have on the working conditions of NASUWT members and other teachers.

“Years of detailed work have been put in by NASUWT and other social partners to make progress towards securing conditions of service and pay which reflect and reward the professionalism of teachers and recognises their fundamental contribution to the standards’ agenda.

“The Secretary of State has given NASUWT a categorical assurance that self-governing schools will adhere to the national pay and conditions framework.

“The power to innovate is not new but NASUWT has already raised with the Government the need to involve social partners in the process should any school apply to the Secretary of State to exercise this power.

“NASUWT supports the Government’s ambition to ensure that all pupils, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, have access to high-quality education within the ethos of the public sector.

“A key element of the White Paper, the personalisation agenda, is at the heart of school workforce re-modelling. It will be crucial for the DfES to engage in detailed discussions about the introduction of ‘more personalised learning’ to ensure that gains already being made in workload reduction are not undermined.

“The White Paper outlines a new role for local authorities. NASUWT welcomes the fact that local authorities are being given a central role in coordinating all school admissions. This will ensure that the proposed new freedoms are properly managed and should avoid the chaos which has so often occurred in the past when there have been misguided attempts to put individual schools in sole control.

“If the role of local authorities is to be redefined, it will be crucial that the opportunity is taken to strengthen their powers to intervene in matters relating to the school workforce.  There are too many examples of schools exercising autonomy by denying teachers their statutory rights.

“No one would deny the importance of engaging parents in their child’s education. It will be crucial that in seeking to engage them, an appropriate balance is maintained between rights and responsibilities. Clear protocols will be needed governing the relationship between parent councils, governing bodies and headteachers.

“NASUWT has serious reservations about the proposals with regard to charitable trusts. The relationship between trusts and local authorities will be critical. The creation of quasi-local authorities but without the democratic accountability must be avoided at all costs. The question will undoubtedly be asked whether a self-governing trust will meet the Government’s ambition to provide more freedom for schools who currently outside a trust already have considerable autonomy and freedom to make their own decisions. There can be no doubt that this proposal will hit the rocks of opposition if the charitable organisations being considered include some of the private company sponsors which have stirred up such controversy in the Academy Programme.

“The timescale for the implementation of the White Paper proposals must take into account the capacity of schools to manage change. To date schools have responded magnificently to the Government’s agenda but there does come a time when they look to the Government to create stability to allow for consolidation.

“NASUWT will wish to study the White Paper in detail and will make representations to Government on its content and the subsequent legislation.”

Stakeholder Response: NUT

Steve Sinnott, NUT General Secretary, said:

“This is an extraordinarily wrong-headed White Paper. The Education Secretary’s picture of legions of parents knocking on the door to control schools is not based in reality.

“Parents do not want to control schools. They want to know they can turn to their head teacher or teacher if they have questions about their children’s education. They want to know their child is happy, safe and learning. Above all they want a good local school for their children.

“The vision of so-called academy style freedoms with a new and confused role for local authorities is hardly a recipe for stability and confidence amongst both teachers and parents.

“Instead of democratic accountability through education authorities we have a confusing mish mash of trusts and parents’ councils all with a say in the running of our schools.

This is a tangled web of responsibility rather than clear lines.

“The pity is that hidden amongst outlandish ideas, the White Paper has some genuinely good proposals. In particular, the commitment to personalised learning which the Union has been urging on the Government. That is now to be delivered with ring-fenced funding.

“If the Education Secretary is sincere about new freedoms in the National Curriculum, the profession will be delighted.”

Stakeholder Response: PAT

PAT General Secretary Jean Gemmell told ePolitix:

“We agree with the Government’s aims of raising standards and achieving better schools for all. 

“However, the White Paper raises many questions about how the proposals are to be implemented and how they would work in practice.

“In particular, it raises questions about how these new proposals would fit in with the Every Child Matters agenda and the 14-19 curriculum proposals.

“While some successful schools may welcome greater freedom over administration and the curriculum, we do not want to see gulfs widen, with less successful schools left behind.

“We need to study the White Paper in details and respond as part of the consultation process.”

Stakeholder Response: SHA

SHA general secretary, Dr John Dunford, said:

“School leaders welcome greater freedom for schools, but the freedoms being offered in the white paper are largely an illusion. What schools need is more freedom from government interference and incessant education reform. Schools which are already overloaded with initiatives are unlikely to rush towards trust status, since they can already link with external partners through specialist status and they can increasingly develop the curriculum freedoms they require without any statutory changes.”

“The white paper should have contained more on schools working together so that the state school system does not break up into 3,500 small, independent units. Only through increased partnership among schools will standards continue to rise in the system as a whole.”

“On choice, the government is putting political rhetoric above reality. In many areas of the country, choice is a mirage, either because there is only one school in the locality or because some schools are very over-subscribed. Under these circumstances, schools choose children, children don’t choose schools. The white paper proposals are unlikely to change this.”

“On the role of parents, in his speech yesterday, the prime minister should not have used the words ‘parent power’. Schools want to work closely with parents, not be ruled by them. Only a very few parents want to run schools and many are unwilling to be involved at all. Sensible reform should attempt to improve parents’ engagement with their children’s education. This requires a clearer analysis of the rights and responsibilities of parents and schools so that the relationship can be improved. Many schools are not yet in a position to deliver more frequent computer-based reports to parents on their children’s progress and a sensible timescale will have to be allowed for this change.”

“On behaviour, I welcome the government’s support for the recommendations of the Steer committee. This represents a sensible, practical way forward, based on the experience of senior practitioners. However, the government must not expect that schools will solve all the behaviour problems that exist in wider society. Schools are havens of calm in comparison with some of the communities they serve, but they cannot work all the miracles that the government expects of them.”