The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which threatens the huge gains made in education over the last 15 years, is moving swiftly through Parliament. If it passes, the impact on our children, especially our most vulnerable, will be seismic. Yet this Bill is slipping by largely unnoticed.
Labour’s huge majority gives it untrammelled power. But it is using this authority to push through, without proper scrutiny, a piece of legislation that will do untold damage. Here are the questions that Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson must answer about this Bill, before it is too late:
Do you understand why school leaders find it odd that you did not visit a single school last year which achieved a Progress 8 score (which measures how much a pupil improves between the end of primary school and the end of secondary school) of at least +1? There are dozens to choose from. Do you think you should have spoken to some of them and heard their views before you made big decisions to change the freedoms so many of these school leaders have? How many of the top ten Progress 8 schools do you plan to visit before the Bill is passed?
Is it true that you did not take any proper advice from school leaders at all before publishing your Bill? We understand that you only met with a group of them once a few school leaders had spoken out against your Bill, thereby throwing it into the limelight. What amendments have you made to the Bill since speaking to these school leaders? As we understand it, the only amendment made so far is on pay. Why have you not U-turned on other proposals to limit the freedoms school leaders have used to run such successful schools?
Schools that are trying to improve their behaviour need uniform to implement change. The top ten Progress 8 schools in the country all have more than three items of branded uniform. Yet the Bill will stop schools from asking students to have this number of branded items of uniform. By making it harder for schools to impose uniform policies this, in turn, will make it more difficult for school leaders to improve behaviour in their schools. Do you have any concerns about this?
What specific problem are you trying to solve by closing down the route of recruiting teachers who do not have a teaching certificate? Please could you give examples of schools which have employed terrible teachers who are yet to get certified? Many successful school leaders are worried about these proposals. An economics teacher at my school, Michaela Community School, in Wembley, north London, is a bright young man educated at the London School of Economics. He is an excellent teacher, but says he would never have gone into teaching had he been forced to deal with the bureaucracy of certification. He would have gone to work in the City, like all his friends. Can you see why it looks like you love centralised state bureaucracy?
Behaviour and recruitment are two big problems facing school leaders. From what we see, you are actually making cracking down on bad behaviour and the recruitment of good teachers more difficult for schools. Why?
Labour’s bill will also make it harder for schools to vary the curriculum in a way that is beneficial for students. Sir Daniel Moynihan, who runs the Harris Federation, has said that: “We have taken over failing schools in very disadvantaged places in London, and we have found youngsters…unable to read and write. We varied the curriculum in the short term and narrowed the number of subjects in Key Stage 3 in order to maximise the amount of time given for literacy and numeracy, because the children were not able to access the other subjects…We are subject to Ofsted scrutiny.”
So why do you want to make things more difficult for successful schools, such as those run by the Harris Foundation? Why are you making these changes? Can you see how this looks suspiciously like a grab for power by the centralised state? Do you not think it would be more transparent to publish your national curriculum before you force a Bill through Parliament forcing schools to adhere to it? Why are you doing it the other way round?
The micromanaging in the Bill could even require schools to seek permission if they want to build a bike shed, or make any alternations to their building. Haven’t teachers got enough on their plate without needless bureaucracy?
The Bill could also limit the ability of good schools to grow, instead handing power to local authorities to reduce the number of places in good schools (should they so choose). What would you say to the mother, or father, who is desperate to get her child into a good local school who no longer can do so thanks to your Bill? Is this not more needless statist micromanaging?
Any enterprising journalist who secures an interview with the Education Secretary should ask her these questions. When I met Phillipson earlier this month, I could not record my meeting with her. But a reporter can. There are so many school leaders who cannot speak out. We are depending on journalists to defend our democracy and hold our politicians to account.
This article is free to read
To unlock more articles, subscribe to get 3 months of unlimited access for just £3
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in