Queen's Speech: reckless rush risks ruin

25 May 2010

Voice: the union for education professionals has given its reaction to the education legislation announced in the Queen's Speech today (25 May 2010). The independent union expressed concerns about proposals on academies and allowing 'new providers to run state schools'.

General secretary Philip Parkin said "The Conservatives promised 'change' during the election. Instead, it seems we are to have even more of the same policies as before the election, only faster. With regard to academies, what's changed apart from the speed of implementation?

"The new government should learn from the mistakes of the last one and avoid rushing through ill-thought-out legislation. We have suffered too much from politicians blindly promoting a political agenda against the advice of those who have to deliver it. We had too much change for change's sake with little perceived benefit.

"Instead, the coalition seems determined to run at breakneck speed before it can walk, rushing headlong into allowing more schools to become academies. Any new government is keen to get started, but it needs to adopt a 'less haste, more speed' approach and implement its programme within a practical and fair timescale.

"There must be sufficient time for consultation with staff, parents and local communities before schools decide to change their status. We have already seen considerable opposition to the introduction of academies around the country. In order to meet the demands of a proper consultation process and a controlled handover of responsibilities and resources from a local authority, it will be impossible to achieve a change of status successfully by the beginning of September. We are now into the summer term and with the long vacation to come, this is impractical and foolish. This reckless rush risks ruin.

"Voice supports its members wherever they work, but believes that consultations and other processes must be followed correctly and rigorously.

"We are concerned about pay and conditions at academies. Extending the programme, creating other types of school, and the uncertainty over the future of national pay and conditions are all potentially divisive and demotivating. They could also damage recruitment and retention, particularly in those schools not able to offer higher wages, and disrupt the movement of teachers between schools.

"I have particular reservations about 'free schools' in terms of their funding, viability and potential effects on other schools. I hope that, if they go ahead, they are of minimal significance and impact. Although all parents want good schools, most have no desire to set up and run them. Many schools struggle to find people willing to serve as governors, so the idea of lots of schools run by parents is a non-starter.

"A 'try a bit of this, try and bit of that', buffet approach to education provision risks chaos and confusion. Will some schools be following a new 'traditional' curriculum of chronological historical dates, while 'free' ones have a free-for-all with either little structure or a programme set by particular political, religious or business interest groups?

"During the election campaign, Sarah Teather, attacked the free school plan as a 'shambles…unless you give local authorities that power to plan and unless you actually make sure that there is money available... it's just a gimmick'. As an education minister, has she changed her mind? Her previous concerns demonstrate the need to think this one through.

"Giving schools a fancy title – be it 'free school' or 'academy' – and allowing disparate groups of parents, charities or other organisations to run or 'sponsor' them, will not magically transform them. Changing the way schools are organised and governed is not a guarantee of success or better education, and the mixed results from the academies established so far supports this. The key to the success of a school is the quality of the leadership, along with investment and a positive ethos and relationship with local communities.

"Rather than enduring an anarchic education free-for-all, families should have access to good-quality local education that is free for all, and that all schools should receive the levels of investment they need to deliver that quality education. Choice – and therefore competition – is not the way to produce an education system in which high-quality provision is available to all.

"I share Michael Gove's belief that there is 'nothing more important to the fairness of our society and the future prosperity of our country than getting education right', but have considerable reservations about some of the ways he intends to achieve it. The government and unions have to work together in the best interests of all those involved in education."

---

Press releases, papers and documents published on this page are the intellectual property of an organisation unrelated to ePolitix.com. We promote their parliamentary and political campaigning activities as they are subscribers to the ePolitix.com service.

As such, ePolitix.com does not edit, endorse, or attempt to balance the opinions expressed on this page. The content of press releases and other such types of content are the responsibility of the originating organisation.