Pretending we have choice in education
Blair still affects choice whilst keeping a tight grip on actual control. From the Daily Telegraph:
Every secondary school is expected to become an independent, self-governing academy within five years, Tony Blair said yesterday.
Parents would be given power to change the curriculum, replace failing heads and start new schools, he promised. Anticipating today’s education White Paper - “a pivotal moment in the life of this Government” - he outlined radical plans to “complete the reform” of state education in England that Labour started when it came to power eight years ago.
Councils will be stripped of their responsibility for schools; businesses, churches, City livery companies and wealthy individuals will be allowed to take over schools; independent schools will be encouraged to accept state cash and join the state sector; and there is to be a new emphasis on grouping pupils by ability and offering advanced classes to the brightest.
(My emphasis).
Blair will allow schools to run their own budgets but he will not allow them to raise their own money. So ‘their own budgets’ actually aren’t. They’re whatever the government of the day deigns to give them.
And, frankly, I do not believe for one moment most of these claims of new freedom for our schools. I anticipate that for each of these freedoms granted there will be limits, parameters and that the LEA - which will still have a role - will be able to veto those independent decisions made by schools but which the left simply don’t like.
There are signs that Blair’s desperate attempts to secure some sort of positive education legacy - a Guardian/ICM poll shows that just 29% of respondents said schools had improved since 1997 - are forcing common sense - of a sort - to exert itself in his thinking. From The Guardian:
In a swipe at past Labour policies, he said local authority efforts to create equity had resulted in “deadening uniformity”, with child-centred learning and a rigid adherence to mixed-ability teaching too often failing to meet basic standards.
This actually sounds promising - until one realises that this is part of his vision of “self-governing independent state schools” - surely the oxymoron of the century. If it’s state-owned it is simply the beneficiary of devolved power - not independence - and devolved power can be given and it can be taken away. Schools will not be able to raise their own money and they will not have control over their hiring and firing processes.
The only way for the poorest children to achieve world-class education is for world-class education to be the norm. Currently, with half of primary school leavers failing the three Rs - and Ofsted still lamenting that the more effective traditional, synthetic phonics reading method is still ignored in favour of fashionable ‘whole language’ teaching - world-class education is nowhere in sight. Wealthier parents already achieve the best education for their children either by paying directly for it or by buying the more expensive houses within good schools’ catchment areas (and so paying a premium for their children’s education via their mortgage payments). Poorer children get what’s left.
Learning and advancement are not helped or hindered only within schools but since schools are the prime institutions involved in formal education I would suggest we allow them all the freedom they can handle in educating our children.
We really ought to remove the state from schooling and give parents a voucher that a school can redeem for the approx £5,200 per pupil that state education costs. Let schools compete for the vouchers by offering to parents what parents want. And allow schools to raise additional money by charging additional fees or by other means.
Let business agencies (the CBI for example), charities (The Literary Trust, for example), churches and other interested parties contribute to the setting of school educational aims and aspirations. But allow schools the final say in devising their own targets - and let them decide how best to meet them. Let schools determine who they hire to achieve their targets - and how much they pay them.
The government can arrange the provision of a separate set of examinations designed to test the brightest pupils, stretching them to discover who the outstanding children are and giving them the special guidance they need. And recognise that not all pupils will be academically inclined so allow schools to devise vocational programmes for these children.
More than anything else, schools should not be seen as isolated educators but part of a larger, fluid project in developing our children in all the varied ways that a person can be developed with local businesses and institutions being utilised to give them experience and exposure to the realities of life. A society that expects the school system to produce the very best - whatever the very best happens to be - and allows teaching professionals to devise ways of getting there will raise standards for all.
On a slightly lighter note:
It emerged last night that a complete print run of 5,000 copies of the White Paper had to be pulped over the weekend because of spelling mistakes and drafting errors. A revised version will be ready for consideration this morning, a spokesman for the Department for Education said.

Gary
Though, as you point out, there is a lot wrong with the latest education proposals, we should take comfort that they are heading in the right direction.
A reduction in the power of the hard-left LEAs and the dreadful appeals councils, and an increase in the right of schools themselves to admit or exclude pupils represent major U-turns from 8 years of failed orthodoxy.
The tragedy is that it really is so simple. My 5 year old boy attends a school which teaches reading via phonics. Nearly all the children in his class of 5 and 6 year olds can already read basic text. It is heartbreaking that so few children are taught this simple but effective way to read.
Comment by pommygranate — October 26, 2005 @ 1:23 pm
I understand your point - my daughter was 5 years ahead of her reading age by the time she was 7. I was very proud of her, of course, but I’m equally sad that other kids are left behind due to poor schooling, a most unhelpful culture and lazy parenting.
My problem with Blair’s latest outburst though is that he may not (a) follow through nor (b) actually mean exactly what he says.
For so long as the state controls schools they aren’t free. And this government has a track-record in intervening in all areas of our lives so they won’t hesitate to over-rule schools ‘in the public interest’ or wherever they (the government) could be seen to be wanting.
Why on earth does he want schools which are currently independent to become state schools? So he can control them. What else?
But I tell you what: I’ll try to be optimistic. Here goes:
.
.
.
Nope, didn’t work. Sorry.
Comment by Gary Monro — October 26, 2005 @ 1:54 pm
If parents choose to home educate in Australia, a growing trend, there is zero funding to assist with resources and facilities.
How much would the average student be subsidised annually by the “State”?
This denial of equity is discriminating and totalitarian.
What if education vouchers were given to parents who could take their education “vote” in the direction of their choice. This might only be suitable as a part of the funding mix for education but delivers some real economic democracy to education.
The State after all collects my tax as a home educator but denies my family our just contribution of the education budget because my wife and I choose to exclude the “State” from dictating the schooling of my children.
This reality is a clear example of the true tyranny of the dominate policies supported by main stream political regimes that pontificate about freedom and democracy when in fact the practice is otherwise.
The “money creation” fraud is of course the central policy that makes this all possible.
Comment by Christopher Brooks — October 26, 2005 @ 8:31 pm
We really ought to remove the state from schooling and give parents a voucher that a school can redeem for the approx £5,200 per pupil that state education costs. Let schools compete for the vouchers by offering to parents what parents want. And allow schools to raise additional money by charging additional fees or by other means.
Why is it that conservative solutions always seem to involve taking our money and giving it to the rich?
The rich don’t need £5,200 of my money to educate their kids. And the poor will still get whatever’s left. Only this time after their £5,200 has been devalued by forgoing economies of scale that the state can avail of but individual schools can’t, and by private interests taking profits.
Making word-class education the norm is a good goal. But this won’t do that.
Bottom line: you get what you pay for.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — October 27, 2005 @ 12:03 am
Frank,
Don’t let your disdain for the rich distract you from the other benefits. It’s an unhelpful view that regards something that rich people can enjoy as automatically bad - even if the poorer do well out of it also.
All of us will be consumers with schools wanting us to buy their product (I usually detest consumer/product analogies so please resist the temptation to take me to task for using it now). They will simply have to perform better in order simply to survive. This raises standards in even the worst of schools.
Economies of scale are not the preserve of the state (and I’m not sure they actually use them anyway). Any group of independent schools can join together and co-operate for all sorts of ends - economical and also educational.
“Bottom line: you get what you pay for.”
Agreed. But the recipient of your cash currently doesnt realise he’s being paid because he gets it automatically. When you , the individual, have some say over whether he gets it his world suddenly changes.
Frank, you’re a bit of a bright spark. Go and find me something really wrong with a voucher system. If you post on your blog (and let me know) I’ll happily link to it.
Here’s your starter:
In order to be attractive to parents, some schools may well refuse admittance to chilfren with discipline or behavioural issues. These children might find themselves being refused schooling anywhere.
If you can find a couple of others it’ll make an interesting post.
Comment by Gary Monro — October 27, 2005 @ 10:18 am
I don’t have any disdain for the rich, indeed I would like to join their ranks. (Not that I am poor now - it’s not really an either/or thing.) I just think the rich should pay their fair share.
I think that is the flaw with the proposed system as you describe it. I think you can easily introduce competition of the sort you want without subsidising rich parents with money that belongs to poor children. I’ll elaborate in a separate post as you suggest.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — October 27, 2005 @ 5:41 pm