Who and what is in the middle tier?

Fiona Millar & Henry Stewart's picture
 171
Debate the election issues with LSN

With the local and European polls out of the way, the way is clear now for 11 months of electioneering and policy wrangling until the General Election next May.

The recent “Trojan Horse” story has raised a number of questions about the way schools and governors are currently held to account locally and nationally. Michael Gove has appointed regional schools commissioners to manage academies and free schools but has little to say about the future local authority role, which is still (in legal terms) substantial and includes provision of school places, admissions, the requirement to intervene in schools causing concern and to provide for children with SEN.

Ofsted has also appointed regional directors and last month a Labour Party review into the local authority role, carried out by former Education Secretary David Blunkett, proposed the creation of a new Independent Director of School Standards , possibly to work across local authority boundaries, brokering collaboration, commissioning school places and holding schools to account.

The LSN founders, and contributors, don’t always agree on the fine points of these policy proposals so decided to start a debate about the whole question of “local oversight” here…

FIONA MILLAR: "Overall I think the Blunkett proposals are an inevitable tentative first step to resolving the chaos that Michael Gove will leave behind. As I explained in my Guardian Education column last month Gove will leave such a mess behind him that a clean solution will be hard to devise overnight. To understand the extent of the fragmentation and atomisation read the article by David Wolfe QC in the Education Law Journal last year. In it the London barrister spells out the legal minefield created by thousands of schools accountable only to the DFE via a multitude of subtly different funding agreements, depending on how and when each school was established.

That a new order must arise from this chaos seems to me inevitable, preferably one that creates strong, collaborative local systems that embrace ALL schools, whether free, maintained or academy. Given that so many schools now lie outside the LA framework, it may be necessary to create a new all encompassing layer".

HENRY STEWART:"Surely the simplest response would be to make all state schools – whatever their structure – accountable to the local authority? If it wasn’t for that strong Westminster prejudice against local government, that would surely be the proposal.

The distrust of national politicians for local government is a peculiarly British disease, in probably the most centralised system of government in the developed world, and one which has caused considerable damage to our society.The chaos over school places is a direct result of Michael Gove’s refusal to let councils plan and build new schools to meet the local need.

And his intense distrust of local authorities (which he apparently sees as part of his much disdained “blob”) means that now almost any group can put together a business plan to run chains of academies. The fact many have precious little educational experience seems to have been an advantage in his book.

I have described elsewhere the result of this. Of 151 local authorities only two (1.3%) have an average GCSE benchmark, without equivalents, of 35% or below. Of the seven largest chains, four of them (57%) have an average GCSE benchmark of 35% or below.

Compare those two statistics. What this means is that the personal ideological dislike of the Secretary of State for local educational authorities has led directly – in the schools in these under-performing chains – to lower achievement for thousands of our young people."

FIONA MILLAR: "I can understand the reaction of people who are disappointed that councils can’t take over all these functions again. I have sympathy with that view. Some local authorities have successfully nurtured and maintained their families of schools against the tide of national policy, and done so more effectively than many academy chains. We shouldn’t forget that.

But in other parts of the country local authorities haven’t been as successful as the ones you and I are involved with and in many areas the infrastructure is disintegrating; local authorities either don’t want, or haven’t got the capacity, to do what is needed

The Blunkett proposal for a new director post, appointed by one or more local authorities and responsible for intervention and brokering collaboration, possibly across borough boundaries as in the case of the hugely successful London Challenge, is more sensible than Gove’s regional commissioners who are only responsible for academies and free schools, or the idea of Ofsted running both an inspectorate and a school improvement service."

HENRY STEWART: "I can understand the reason behind Blunkett’s proposal. It is likely that if he had recommended a greater role for local authorities, his report would have been sidelined by national politicians with a deep distrust of the local, enhanced in Hunt’s case by the apparent poor performance of his constituency Stoke-on-Trent’s Council (though he did say in his Sunday Times interview of 25th May that it was improving).

The original academies programme too was a response to a perceived failure of local government or, arguably, to the failure of one council, Hackney. Key Labour educational players (Tony Blair, Andrew Adonis, Michael Barber and Charles Clarke) were involved in the politics of Hackney Council in the 80s and 90s. I have heard a description of how they would sit on the Downing Street sofa, scoffing at the absurdities of Hackney schools and determining a way of avoiding council involvement.

I was a governor in Hackney then and I do agree that the system was dysfunctional and letting down local children. At roughly this time Estelle Morris intervened to create the Learning Trust (an arms-length not-for-profit organization), under whose co-ordination Hackney’s education was transformed and is now arguably among the best in the country. It is true that the majority of Hackney secondaries are academies, most of which are newly built. However the local authority ensured there were no chains involved, that all schools were committed to working together and that admissions were co-ordinated by the local authority. And the transformation in primary schools in Hackney have taken place, up to this year, with no academy involvement.

But the important thing to note is the fundamentally different approach. Adonis and Blair invented a new type of school to get over the problems they had experienced in one council, which has led to the chaotic system that Blunkett so accurately describes. Estelle Morris provided a solution that fixed the problems in that local education authority and laid the basis for over a decade of improvement there.

You may be right, Fiona, that the educational capabilities of many local authorities have disintegrated over the last four years. But many are still performing strongly. You have yourself powerfully described the transformation enabled by Tower Hamlets Council in one of the most deprived areas in the country.

This is the decision that Tristram Hunt faces: Does he create a new and entirely unproven education layer or does he recognize the decades of experience and the large number of high-performing local authorities, and seek to sort out those that are under-performing."

FIONA MILLAR: "Unfortunately in politics it is always easier to go forward and create something new than it is to re-create the past so I think whatever our personal preferences, the pragmatic approach is to accept that , should Labour win the next election or even be the biggest party, there will be some sort of new model of local accountability ,involving central and local government together, which is effectively what the Learning Trust was in its day.

I suppose you could argue for a tailored approach applicable to the authorities which are seriously under performing, but I am more attracted by the idea of a systematic approach to this issue across the country so that children, regardless of the type of school they are in, or the area in which they live, can expect the same high standard of accountability.

I also don’t think we should overlook Blunkett’s other proposals that every school should be put on the same legal footing in terms of curriculum, admissions and so on. Under the Labour plan schools will actually be built where they are needed, rather than where they are not. Open competitions will be run by the IDSS to choose who should run them with no presumption that any one “type “ of school or provider is best. For the first time in almost a decade new schools won’t have to be academies. I consider this a huge sea change.

And I like the idea of commissioning places across borough boundaries. In an area like London, where a combination of parent choice and very small local authorities mean that children are frequently educated in different local authority areas to those in which they live, a regional approach to need and demand would be more efficient and effective."

HENRY STEWART: "Should one never re-create the past? A majority in opinion polls call for the railways to come back under public ownership and I certainly hope Labour will fulfill its promise to get rid of the bedroom tax.

There are many differences between the Learning Trust and the proposed DSS. The Learning Trust just worked in one local authority but took on the full responsibilities of a local education authority, and still fitted within local accountability.

In contrast the DSS proposal surely creates far more questions than it answers. It has been described to me, by a local government expert, as “the most muddled proposal I have ever seen”. Which powers and responsibilities lie with whom are unclear, as is who the DSS will be accountable to.

On the one hand the report suggests an increase in LEA powers, with all school funding coming through the local authority. On the other hand it is the DSS and not the LEA that will intervene and challenge when a school is perceived to be under-performing and in proposing that all schools join a federation seems to suggest that this is the body which provides the support and challenge that schools need.

Blunkett provides an accurate analysis of the problem our schools face, of an atomised system with schools working under hundreds of different funding agreements. He gives the example of a local authority that knows one of the academies in its area is under-performing but has no power over it and cannot get the DfE to take any action, which is a common problem in the current situation. And many of his proposals are good, giving all schools the same freedoms."

FIONA MILLAR: "I don’t think you can equate repealing the bedroom tax to rolling back the years to the early 90s, which was really when this experiment with independent state schools started. The fundamental problem remains that there are now thousands of schools contracted directly to the Secretary of State so it is impossible to just wave a magic wand and give them back to the local authority, as I explained here..

But you are right. There are still too many unanswered questions. Labour must explain clearly how the local authority and the independent directorate will relate to each other, how the statutory duties will be divided up and to go back to David Wolfe’s original piece, how will the jungle of different rules governing each academy and free school be streamlined and what legislation will be necessary to ensure all this happens seamlessly?

Parents probably don’t think much about who actually ensures the smooth operation of their local schools. But they do care when things go wrong, they care when they can’t get a place for their child, when they are not listened to and when they can’t get quick and easy redress. That is what these proposals are about.

One of the reasons some of us opposed the Labour academy model from the start was the fear of how schools, run directly by contract with the Secretary of State, might be used in the hands of a different party. Depending on who wins the General Election, there may be worse to come, which is probably why these proposals haven’t drawn forth any serious challenge. Everyone knows deep down that something must be done. The Blunkett review may just be a tentative first step, but it is an essential one."

HENRY STEWART:"Let’s face reality. Local authorities are always going to be part of the solution. The DSS appears to be little more than a one-person quango. It can alert people to problems in individual schools but it will not be the source of support and school improvement. Those will either be provided by a similar chaotic range of hundreds or thousands of chains, federations and others as at present or it will be provided by the 151 local education authorities – with a focus on making sure they are all effective.

You are right to conclude with the needs of parents. Where do they go when things go wrong? They don’t go to the DFE and I’m not sure they will go to the new DSS. They overwhelmingly go to their council and (even if they didn’t bother to vote) to their local councillor. Call me old-fashioned but that good old democratic accountability is something to support and enhance, not disregard in a new combination of centralisation and atomisation."

 

 

 

 
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook

Be notified by email of each new post.





Comments

Roger Titcombe's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 12:46

It doesn't help that for many years Ofsted has been giving 'outstanding' judgements to bad schools for all sorts of invalid reasons linked to false notions of school improvement.


Andy V's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 16:11

"recently resigned governors complained that a school culture encouraging ‘pious’ Moslem religious practice is being mislabelled as political extremism. They may be right about that." From your statement I assume you are unaware that for this type of "'pious' Moslem", as you put it, there is no distinction between religious beliefs and practice and politics, in Islam it is called living in a theocracy. From that perspective the implementation of "'pious' Moslem religious practice" is a form of political extremism.

The Rabia Boys' and Girls' school in Luton is a case in point:

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provi...

Its wilful ignoring actions in:

1. Ignoring of a broad and balanced curriculum
2. Discriminating between girls and boys (even down to only males teaching boys and females teaching girls)
3. A curriculum so narrow and packed with Islam. Arabic and Urdu that Eng and Maths suffered as did creative and arts subjects.

are all the actions of pious Islam in action and wholly contrary to the country's Education Acts.

Andy V's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 16:13

"That is why all schools ... need to operate within a clear and unambiguous framework of national regulation, just like all other public services. You mean like the NHS post code lottery or LA lottery regarding Council Tax Benefit?


Ben Taylor's picture
Mon, 23/06/2014 - 20:32

The system always had a market of sorts. School attendance is not mandatory in law in most circumstances, it is full time education that is. So there was always the self employed option of home schooling. I admit there is a need for standards but you are too dismissive of what parents want. That includes faith as a way of living. It only seems now after decades that we can finally start to insist on certain minimum standards which cut across all cultures.


Andy V's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 15:21

Yes, the LGA did release a report to that effect but I am unpersuaded by a sample based on little over a 1000 people and an unidentified / undisclosed geography regarding to the spread of LAs involved.

I know that 'pollsters' are supposed to be super accurate these days but this contributor remains cynical on that score (e.g. just look at the latest poll forecasts for the local council and European elections). Neither UKIPs results nor those of Marie Le Penn's group were forecast accurately, and least of all the right wing group(s) in Germany that captured and unpredicated and unprecedented 7% of the vote.

Andy V's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 15:51

Any sources of evidence for this claim?

It is also worth noting that the Ofsted framework and handbooks have no option but to operate within what each SoS Educ lays down as expected school performance. That is to say, Ofsted don't construct and set the targets for leagues tables, absences, exclusions, etc this falls to the SoS and DFE.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 16:28

I agree with you Andy. I was just making the point that the regulation of schools by means of a market driven by parental choice doesn't work. However Ofsted and DfE have ignored all the points you make and made excuses for it for years.

However regarding single sex education, I was teaching in the City of Leicester in the 1970s when the LEA went comprehensive. I objected to the idea of the existing boys' and girls' secondary moderns becoming single sex 11-16 comprehensives and was told by union leaders that this was a parental choice issue.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 17:30

Andy - I have given examples on this site. As I have argued with you in the past Ofsted makes its mind up about a school before the inspection visit from the flawed C grade driven data, then does the odd short lesson inspection to find some verbal padding for the report. The following practices are commonly found in 'outstanding' schools.

1. Only pupils likely to get C grades allowed to take GCSEs in traditional subjects. Evidence for this is in the performance tables showing exam entries per pupil for low, middle and high attainers with and without vocational alternatives.

2. KS4 starting in Y8/Y9 with multiple early entry with pupils dropping vital academic subjects as soon as they get a C thus denying themselves access to Academic A Levels - especially popular with outstanding 11-16 schools.

3. Multiple entries with different exam boards.

4. High pressure behaviourist teaching methods combined with teaching to the test that alienates pupils and does not result in deep learning.

5. Very ordinary 'average grades per pupil' with and without vocational alternatives for low, middle and high KS2 attainers.

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2014/05/outstanding-schools/

(you took issue with my conclusions)

There is much more in my book, where a major theme is that 'outstanding schools' are frequently best avoided, certainly for KS2 L3 pupils, who in many 'outstanding schools' get a very restricted curriculum. 'Outstanding schools' typically are entirely focussed on C grade GCSE or equivalent passes arguing that this is in pupils' best interests when it is really only in the interests of the school and the salaries and bonuses of the 'executive' team.

I would recommend 'coasting schools' (eg like Eton College) every time over the hyperactive, desperate, results driven, high stakes, high stress striver types.

A good school is one where pupils are developed to become cleverer, wiser, healthier, more confident and assertive and with the courage to make balanced, considered moral judgements in challenging circumstances and where there are accepted limits to passive compliance (ie pupils learn the difference between right and wrong and acquire the courage of their convictions).

A bad school is one where pupils leave with dozens of C grade or equivalent passes without gaining any deep understanding, interest or enthusiasm for learning only to discover that their exam results are largely worthless in the worlds of work, civil society, further and higher education.

There are many, many, outstanding schools in this latter category. Indeed the central failing of the marketised English education system is the inbuilt high stakes incentivisation of schools to achieve 'outstanding' status resulting in poor, shallow quick fix teaching and degraded curriculum, so robbing their pupils of a high quality developmental education.

It is all in my book - out soon.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 17:36

Sometimes the regulations are flawed or too weak - for example as with the 'Trojan horse' issue (lots of 'outstanding schools' here). Sometimes elected local government is just that - the public get the services they voted for - or not.


Janet Downs's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 16:10

Andy - you're right that the size of survey is important. So I've dusted off Statistics for Dummies. It says (p182) that for large populations "you only need to sample a tiny portion of the total to get close to the true value". The "get close" bit is the "margin of error".

It gives as an example of a Gallup Poll sampling 1,000 US people about whether they approved of the president. 52% approved BUT Gallup had a margin of error of plus or minus 3%. So it would be accurate to say between 49% and 55% of all Americans support the President. The authors say:

"Isn't it interesting that a sample of only 1000 Americans out of a population of well over 310 million can lead you to be within plus or minus only 3% on your survey results?"

I guess there are 16 million parents in England (that's probably an over estimate), so if 1000 is a small enough sample for 310 million Americans, it's surely large enough for 16 million English parents.

Re UKIP predictions: this summary of voting intention polls done before the recent European elections show high figures for UKIP.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/european-elections

Andy V's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 16:39

Read the report to see the extent of the failings.

I have no problem with single gender schools but when a school goes further and not only forces a situation where boys cannot be taught by women and vice versa but also effectively has separate curricula for boys and girls. This is far, far from "single sex education", it is discrimination that parallels the beliefs and teachings of Islam and implemented by pious believers. No amount of piety can make what they were doing acceptable in Britain.

Andy V's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 20:56

And once again you overlook the fact that times and inspection frameworks change. In the good/bad old days when Section 5 Inspections were preceded by a Pre Inspection Briefing (PIB) it could be argued that Ofsted was suggesting an outcome before the actual inspection. However, the other side of that is there was transparency and school knew in advance what the inspection team were likely to focus on. However, this changed and now schools get half a days notice, no PIB and the inspection team arrives and looks for evidence of impact in what the schools does. That is to say impact on the progress and attainment of pupils. All of the evidence is predicated on impact over time and includes the in-year evidence a school may wish to offer alongside other robust external evidence (e.g. and I stress for example, FFT). Not forgetting that pupil progress is based on the attainment at point of entry, which is particularly important for KS 3&4.

I do not see that what you offer is evidence of prejudged inspection outcomes.

Andy V's picture
Mon, 23/06/2014 - 10:07

Such a trite and shallow statement, "the public get the services they voted for – or not." All to often voting patterns reflect family tradition or based on promises made by politicians (local and national). Indeed, the 'swing' voters have grown in numbers considerably over the last 2 decades and these are people who vote based on manifesto promises.


Roger Titcombe's picture
Mon, 23/06/2014 - 14:13

I was thinking about the consequences of democratically electing Margaret Thatcher. Voters have to bear some responsibility for their decisions.


Andy V's picture
Mon, 23/06/2014 - 15:29

Better to keep personal politics out of this. I am sure there are those among the electorate of that time who think very differently to you.


Phil Taylor's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 16:38

Yes Roger, it is odd that sex segregation is an issue (even a 'pretend' one) in a nation that has always had schools where the sexes are segregated and, yes, predominantly taught by teachers of the same gender.

There are also, from time to time, articles about mainstream state co-ed schools that, have found that particularly in certain subjects, girls (or boys) do better if they are segregated.

Then there are the 'Public Schools' - need I say more?

Perhaps this is one of those 'British values' we are hearing so much about - total hypocricy?

Andy V's picture
Sun, 22/06/2014 - 20:21

I am minded that the description "segregated" is being used inaccurately and too freely.

With respect read the Rabia school report before making assertions.

"There are also, from time to time, articles about mainstream state co-ed schools that, have found that particularly in certain subjects, girls (or boys) do better if they are segregated." By this would I be right to assume that you are referring to schools - state and/or fee-paying - that use the diamond approach or variation thereof. That is to say, in some modules of some subjects girls and boys are taught in different classes. The chief aims of this are to target pre-identified aspects/concepts that each gender find difficult, also to facilitate T&L activities that are tailored to each gender. But, and it is a crucial but, other than the identified modules the subjects are taught is mixed gender class groups. This can hardly be labelled as segregation.

For me your assertion of "total hypocrisy" has a distinctly empty ring to it. Rabia school is simply not preparing its pupils for life in a diverse multi-cultural society and is operating a curriculum that:

"There is insufficient time available in Key Stages 3 and 4 for teaching subjects other than those linked to Islamic religious studies, Arabic and Urdu. This means that pupils cannot cover the required content in English and mathematics in the depth necessary to enable them to reach the highest grade.

There is no geography taught to boys and no history taught to girls. There are no facilities for girls to study sciences as single subjects. This disadvantages both genders when making GCSE choices and later on when pupils leave school.

Vocational experiences are limited to work experience for boys, with nothing provided for
girls. This reflects the poor quality of careers and educational advice and guidance, which is largely focused on boys’ destinations rather than treating girls and boys equally."

I would be very surprised to say the least if this were to be the position in the schools you refer to Phil. So as I suggest, read the report before venting your misguided angst.

Phil Taylor's picture
Tue, 24/06/2014 - 13:06

You have dominated this thread to such an extent that is not perhaps surprising that you should think I was replying to one of your posts Andy, but in fact I was replying to Roger and agreeing with him that sexually segregated schools are wrong.

Since you disagree about this it may be hard for you to understand that the media outcry we have heard about the segregation of the sexes in some of the schools inspected - not just the one you refer to - is, in the light of the examples I have given, totally hypocritical as the impression has been given that the sexual segregation is wrong in itself whereas, as I have pointed out, it is still alive and kicking in both the state and the independent sector and generally accepted there.

Andy V's picture
Tue, 24/06/2014 - 13:23

Believe it or not I was indeed replying to your response to Roger. Yes, I really did recognise that you were responding to Roger and not me. The latter was absolutely clear in your opening comment, "Yes Roger". I am unaware that contributors cannot offer responses to each other. Had I known that you only wanted to engage with Roger I would not have commented. I will not respond in future.

My parting comment is a request that you read and consider my response about single gender schools and segregation rather than give what appears to be a knee jerk reaction. Single gender schooling is one thing but "segregation" and adverse differentiation between genders that gives males dominance and/or superiority is a wholly different thing.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Thu, 10/07/2014 - 07:16

Wilshaw supports council control of all schools. He said the to the Education Select Committee. I agree with Wilshaw.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jul/09/ofsted-no-evidence-pupi...

Noting that responsibility for oversight for maintained schools lay with the local authority and responsibility for academies lay with the DfE, Wilshaw said: "The question is if those responsibilities are being taken seriously."

Asked about DfE reforms to give additional oversight through regional commissioners, Wilshaw said: "It looks to be a very, very big challenge in a large number of local authorities."

Wilshaw said school oversight should remain with councils – a position directly at odds with a push by the education secretary, Michael Gove, to allow academies to escape local control. "In my view there already is a middle tier, and that is the local authority," he said.

Janet Downs's picture
Thu, 10/07/2014 - 09:01

Roger - thanks for the link. Yesterday the LGA said it wanted local authorities to oversee all schools perhaps via local trusts:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-28212734

Pages

Add new comment

Already a member? Click here to log in before you comment. Or register with us.