Labour’s future schools policy: why accountability matters

Stephen Twigg, Labour’s Shadow Education Secretary is one of the more thoughtful and pragmatic individuals to hold this vitally important brief for some time. To his credit Stephen has been out and about these past two years listening to pupils, teachers, parents and governors and finding out more about the challenges they face on a day-to-day basis. In addition Stephen has been looking closely at some local, regional, national and international programmes that have had a demonstrable impact in raising levels of attainment particularly with groups of vulnerable leaners such as free school meals pupils, white working class boys and children in care.

However he is also astute enough to understand that the intelligence gathering, policy formulation phase will soon have to end and that both he and the party will need to outline a creative and compelling vision of what our school system will look like under a future Labour government. More importantly he will need to articulate how as a nation we will seek to meet the needs, ambitions and aspirations of the young people our schools and colleges are meant to serve.

The pragmatic Twigg realises that, rightly or wrongly, one of the most contentious areas for a future Labour government and a future Labour Education Secretary will be how we ensure that state funded schools are accountable to local people. When Labour wins the next election and, as I hope and expect, Stephen is appointed as Education Secretary he will come under significant pressure from various wings of the party to either keep his foot firmly down on the ‘structural reform’ pedal or to apply the handbrake, do a U-turn and find a way of bringing academies and Free Schools back under local authority control. What should he do?

First of all I think it is important that both in opposition and in government he articulates the difference as he sees it between ‘state control’ and ‘state accountability.’ Should local or national governments control and micro-manage what happens in our schools or should the emphasis be back on ‘standards not structures’ on the holding of professionals to account for outcomes not processes? The Left should be mindful that what the past fifty years of school reform shows us is that the road to securing better educational opportunities for all is paved with good intentions but the impact has been minimal. Almost all of the post-war restructuring of the secondary school system in England: grammar schools; city technology colleges; grant maintained schools and even specialist schools mainly benefited the middle classes and not the urban poor. Those on the Right of the party need to be honest and admit that all of this is primarily because the advantaged and educated have always known how to ensure that their children attend the establishments that will help them become advantaged too. In this context Twigg will need to make clear where he and the party stands in relation to academies and Free Schools. In recent years I have been arguing that Labour should seek to accelerate the sponsored academy programme for failing schools when it gets back into government.

I firmly believe – and have seen at first hand – that academies provide the best means by which education can truly make a difference to the life chances of young people regardless of their background. The last Labour government deserves huge credit for making the case for the setting up of so many of the first academies in areas of significant social and economic deprivation. The truth is that for numerous, often working class communities trapped in a cycle of educational failure and under-achievement Labour’s academy programme provided new energy, new purpose and new opportunities for thousands of young people who deserved better. Yet I know that many fellow party members and supporters feel differently and often their concerns relate to what they see as the lack of local ‘control’ or the lack of clarity as to ‘who’ these state funded academies are accountable to. In fairness they have a point; academies do not always succeed and some sponsors do not see why they should be accountable to anyone other than the Secretary of State.

In my view Labour needs to take these genuine concerns seriously and should consider strengthening – via legislation if needs be – the existing role of local authorities (LAs) as children’s’ champions. For example a future Labour government could do this by:

• Making clear that LAs have a crucial role in ensuring that all children have access to high quality educational provision;
• ‘Requiring’ all poorly performing schools in a LA, including academies and Free Schools to produce twice yearly reports for local children and young people scrutiny boards on the progress the school is making in terms of standards of attainment;
• The creation of ‘Independent Local Education Scrutineers’  (ILESs) in each LA who will be tasked with the role of challenging local providers to improve but only if their performance is a cause for concern – either in terms of standards, access or community cohesion. ILESs are likely to be former headteachers or principals and will be appointed by a panel of local elected members, headteachers and academy principals, parents, governors and students for a fixed term (possibly 4  years) and  accountable to local children and young people scrutiny boards. ILESs would be tasked to produce termly reports to the scrutiny board and have regular meetings with regional directors of Ofsted.

‘ILESs’ would be contracted for around 50 days per year and paid a flat daily rate of something in the region of £300 per day in line with other public service appointments. Central government would fund 50% of the costs with LAs funding the other 50% with the option of increasing the number of days if needed or required.

Accountability in all areas of public life is important and there is a real and in my view genuine concern about  the lack of transparency at a local level in relation to academy sponsors , their aims and values and exactly how they are helping to ensure that the young people they serve make rapid, systemic and sustainable improvements.

Stephen Twigg cannot afford to get bogged down in endless debates about school structures or governance arrangements in his first years as Education Secretary. He needs to make clear that what matters ultimately is the impact that state funded schools have on the life chances of the pupils they serve. By all means strengthen local accountability structures but in doing so let us also be clear about what it is we want to hold schools and academies to account for.