ASCL’s response to the education white paper dominated discussion at December’s Council meeting, with plenary debate divided into themes led by the committee chairs. On many topics there was strong agreement but on others, such as school improvement partners and provision for excluded pupils, reaction was mixed.

Good in parts...

English Bac

Education Committee
While ASCL has been in favour of a baccalaureate qualification that recognises a broad course of study, the English Bac is a performance indicator, not a qualification. It also contradicts the explicit statement in the white paper to increase freedom and autonomy, by attempting to drive the curriculum through performance tables.

The curriculum review has sensibly been given ample time to seek evidence and report, and yet it appears that the government wishes to push schools into changing their Key Stage4 curriculum without the time to consider how it will affect the long-term interests of students.

There was extreme disappointment with the list of humanities subjects and modern language qualifications which count towards the baccalaureate as well as strong concern that this has been introduced as a retrospective performance measure for the 2010 examination results.

Some council reps spoke in favour of the indicator as a means of ensuring schools are encouraged to offer this route to students from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, a greater proportion were opposed on the grounds that it marginalises other worthwhile subjects and leaves little opportunity for students to pursue other areas of interest.

Workload agreement

Pay and Conditions Committee
The committee welcomed the intent to give greater flexibility in the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions framework. ASCL policy has long been a national framework with local flexibility, but this balance has to some extent been lost as the framework has become more cumbersome and prescriptive. In particular the rarely cover and no detriment clauses put unwarranted constraints on schools’ capacity to deploy and manage staff.

However, it would not be helpful to see the national framework lost entirely, or reduced too far, and it will be important for ASCL to be fully consulted about and assist with the development of the new system.

Behaviour

Public and Parliamentary
Council felt strongly that parents have ultimate responsibility for their children’s behaviour outside of school hours. The white paper glaringly omits any mention of parents’ responsibility and ASCL would like to see a strong message from the government on this. Extended powers to discipline students outside of school premises and hours would be welcomed as long as they do not come with an expectation that school staff have a responsibility to do this.

The vast majority of schools take bullying very seriously and resent any implication that this is not the case. However, the white paper statement that there should be a zero tolerance approach to bullying assumes that bullying is always clear cut. What may appear as bullying to one parent may be seen very differently by other parents or even the pupils themselves. A school should be able to exercise its own judgement in deciding what constitutes bullying and how to deal with it.

School improvement

Professional Committee
The proposed increase in the number of national and local leaders of education (NLEs/ LLEs) was welcomed as a means of increasing school to school support. It is important that they retain autonomy and do not become a field force replacing those abolished by the present government.

The extended role of NLEs/ LLEs calls into question the continuation of the school improvement partner (SIP) programme. Just under half of council members reported that the SIP process had a positive impact on the school; the rest said that it had not. It was suggested that SIPs may no longer be needed with a new accountability framework. If SIPs are to continue, there must be clear protocols and guidance about their role and quality assurance. It would no longer be appropriate for SIPs to be employed by local authorities.

However, clarity is needed about the future arrangements for into the performance management of headteachers.

Initial teacher training

Professional Committee
ASCL broadly welcomes the proposals for initial teacher training (ITT). Making it more school based will help to achieve a better balance between the various elements of teacher training. Council welcomed the notion of a training school as a hub, but there must be true collaboration between all schools and providers involved.

Council strongly rejected the notion that criteria for becoming a training school hub should include an outstanding Ofsted grade. Not all ‘outstanding’ schools are equipped to do training and there are other schools that would be better placed to take on this role. For example, schools with a low raw attainment may otherwise offer excellent education and as they are likely to be in difficult areas they may be much better placed to train teachers to work in such areas.

Likewise, no other artificial barriers should be placed in the way of a suitable school becoming a training school; for instance it should not be limited to academies or schools with NLE heads for example.

Permanent exclusions

Public and Parliamentary Committee
There was general agreement that schools should work together sharing a collective responsibility for the education of all young people in their geographical area, not just their own schools. Therefore working together on provision for hard to place pupils is the right approach. Behaviour partnerships have worked well in most areas and ASCL Council would have liked to see these retained.

However, in regards to proposals to trial new approaches which would see schools retain responsibility for pupils they have excluded, there were serious reservations about how this will work in practice.

Some Council reps expressed support for this arrangement as long as there was adequate funding involved and schools were not ‘forced’ to take pupils excluded elsewhere. It was stressed that for the approach to work, schools must be given sufficient funding to provide or access the high-quality, appropriate alternate provision and the emotional and behaviour support from trained professionals which is needed by many of these students.

Funding

Funding Committee
The committee was concerned about several aspects of the introduction of the pupil premium.

There is already an indication that the premium is viewed as the replacement for discontinued funding streams such as one-to-one tuition, but the uplift at school level is unlikely to be sufficient for this. Every school must have the funding to provide adequate support to all young people regardless of their background.

ASCL has long advocated a national funding formula. However its implementation must be very carefully planned and phased in.

It is imperative that the formula be equitable and predictable. This means that schools and colleges required to do the same job in very similar circumstances should have equality of opportunity in terms of funding. That is not necessarily the same thing as identical funding levels when analysed in terms of pounds per student. Any move on this direction needs careful and fully informed modelling prior to implementation.

The next ASCL Council is 3-4 February where the discussionof elements of the white paper is likely to cintinue. For the full ASCL response to the schools white paper The Importance of Teaching, see www.ascl.org.uk/consultations

Designed with IMPACT

© 2024 Association of School and College Leaders | Valid XHTML | Contact us