Nick Denys

18th Apr 2011

“For what it’s worth, teachers could really do with fewer rules and regulations and more freedom to try what works for their classroom.”

This is the conclusion Jamie Oliver came to at the end of his “Dream School” experiment. 

What applies to teachers is also relevant to the rest of the system. Ensuring a fit-for-purpose national education system is one of the most important roles of the state, but this responsibility should not be confused with the state having to manage education through pulling leavers in Whitehall.

The Labour party still do not accept that universal entitlements – such as health or education – can be delivered in a variety of forms by a plethora groups. This is despite the evidence which points to both the failure of monolithic providers – our education system is falling behind the rest of the world  – and the unsustainability of the centralised model.

Free Schools, which many in the Labour movement are strongly opposed to, are essentially Academies, which Andy Burnham voted for.  They will have the same legal requirements, funding structure, operational freedoms and flexibilities as academies. The admissions arrangements must be fair and transparent. Selecting pupils by academic ability is prohibited. Free Schools will be able to set their own pay and conditions for staff, have freedom to deviate from the national curriculum, and the ability to change the length of terms and school days. All income and assets of the trust must be spent and used for the purpose of the trust, which will run the school. Those who reject these measures are rejecting the principle that the local is best placed to cater for itself. Britain’s recent fall down the world education league tables is compelling evidence that the structure of  giving the wise centre full control does not produce good overall outcomes.

The only real difference between a Free School and an Academy, which Ed Miliband voted for, is that they are new schools established by charities, business or faith groups, teachers or parents, or any other group that wants to meet uncatered for parental demands.

Labour seem to be objecting to the users of the service having the ability to decide how best to meet the agreed goal. Andy Burnham doesn’t think Michael Gove’s “has a plan for everyone. He’s got a plan for some kids, not all kids. And I think there’s an elitist echo in that.” By assuming the ambition of wanting to promote high standards means restricting focus to an elite Andy Burnham shines a bright light onto why Labour’s attitude to education is not appropriate for the globalised world Britain has to compete in.

Politicians should want to give all state schools the freedom to innovate, improve and be ambitious. The state then has the crucially important job of put in place a system that allows everyone to learn and copy from the success stories. This may include targeted central measures such as specifying certain admissions criteria for specific schools or providing more resources to others.  If you prioritise ensuring mediocrity for all instead of encouraging the best to flourish then you are not just cheating our children, you are hampering the growth of our nation.