Professional Documents
Culture Documents
forming and brokering such relationships was another matter, and the result was a
patchiness in outcomes.
As more schools converted to academies under pressure from government, it became
increasingly clear that the secretary of state was in an unsustainable position, responsible
for standards in thousands of institutions, preaching local management while presiding over
the most centralized system of education governance ever conceived. It was a lonely
position, given that local authorities had been divested of the moral authority and resources
to manage their own maintained schools, and Ofsted lacked the powers to inspect the
growing number of academy chains, the agencies that operate as quasi-school boards
accountable only to their private sponsors. Ministers and their advisors began to cast
around for an intermediary body with which to share responsibility, the so called middle
tier.
Why it matters
At a time when there is growing recognition of the need for less fragmentation, better
planning and deeper collaboration in services such as health and social care, policymakers
have been slow to realize that all this applies to education too. In part, this is because of the
anxiety lest they be seen to be rowing back from the principle of local management of
schools and colleges. But it is also because Tory and Labour politicians share the view that
local authorities role in education should be minimized. This is in stark contrast to their
trumpeting of devolved powers for city-regions. Hence the interest in both parties in the
middle tier as a way of devolving responsibility for education without resuscitating local
education authorities, and the proposals for commissioners or directors of standards as the
embodiment of a new intermediary agency.
This reflects the recognition that the current improvement framework is overly dependent
on the blunt stick of Ofsted or Department for Education intervention on the one hand, and
on the other, provider-led strategies. There is also an anxiety that the lack of a local
governance system provides no protection against rogue institutions. Such worries were
magnified overnight by the multiple failures of governance put on front page display in
Birmingham in 2014. Frenzied media debates about British values and a Muslim take-over
conspiracy plus the Secretary of States decision to call on the advice of a counter-terrorism
expert were symptomatic of a simple truth: the Trojan Horse affair pinpointed with
agonizing accuracy the problems that arise when there is no consensus about the purposes
of schooling and no agreed way of dealing with disputes. It laid bare the councils
powerlessness in the face of the breakdown of governance in academies. It demonstrated
vividly why in a highly diverse society what is taught in schools cannot be left to this
headteacher or that governing body to determine in isolation. The Trojan Horse affair
signaled the end of the doctrine that education is the private property of whoever happens
to sponsor an academy. If education is a public good, then the people who run it have to be
publicly accountable for their actions. That is why local education governance matters.
Collaboration matters
For Compass, it is vital that the governance of education, locally and nationally, is
underpinned by a commitment to collaborative and democratic practice.
Collaboration matters because there is a limit to what can be achieved in education by
institutions operating alone. This is very clear in the case of school and college led
improvement strategies that depend not just on institutional collaboration but also on
brokerage and coordination by other agencies including councils to ensure consistency and
coverage. What are the things we can do better together is the animating principle of
effective local school improvement agencies, such as Leeds School Improvement
Cooperative Company or the school partnerships promoted by the Manchester and London
Challenges. Another example: in our increasingly diverse communities, leaving individual
schools to determine their policy on religious education is a recipe for trouble. Similarly, it
makes no sense for schools serving the same population to decide for themselves whether
to take part in a safeguarding strategy or to exclude students regardless of the impact on
those students or other schools. With the extension of compulsory education beyond 16,
the growing risk of young people disappearing from full-time education or training or taking
part in unsuitable courses requires collaborative action by providers and agreed systems for
tracking individual progress.
A final example is about governance itself. The contribution of governors to improving their
school or college can be strengthened by broadening their experience through a network
that brings them into contact with others or helps to place them on other governing bodies.
As the Department for Education handbook for governors says (January 2014, page 8),
Governing more than one school helps develop a more strategic perspective and more robust
accountability through the ability to compare and contrast across schools. Local governors
networks are vital in enabling another informed voice to be heard in a room full of confident
professionals.
There is mounting evidence of the positive impact of parental and employer involvement in
schooling, rather less on that of co-constructed learning by students and teachers. (But also see the
review of parental involvement para. 123 onwards in Underachievement in education by white
working class children, Education Select Committee, June 2014.) The international PISA study
highlights the importance of student engagement and the part played by strong student-teacher
relations, high expectations and a strong disciplinary climate but it can only speculate about the
benefits of reforming the curriculum or pedagogy. (J.D. Willms, 2003 Student Engagement at School,
OECD, p.57.) A qualitative evaluation of Learning to lead, a student engagement initiative that has
grown to involve a network of 150 schools refers to its huge contribution to building capacity for
learning in its deepest sense. (David Frost and John McBeath, 2010, Learning to Lead, University of
Cambridge, p.66.)
with their emphasis on active student engagement, and the cooperative schools trust
model that ensures a place for parents, students and employers in governance.
Our vision
To bring about a similar educational transformation in England, Compass has a clear view of
the steps required:
1. Commitment to a diversity of models of planning, management and oversight with a
freedom to experiment within broad national parameters set following a national
debate about educations purposes, standards and priorities
2. Devolution of power and resources from top to bottom from central government
down to the local community
3. Self-managed education institutions accountable to the public through
democratically run education-specific boards
4. Government confined to a strategic agenda setting role with no more micromanagement of teaching and learning
5. Creation of an integrated department for education and a single funding agency for
a coherent cradle to grave lifelong learning service, moving gradually to equitable
funding regardless of provider
6. Ofsted reformed, overseeing standards, supporting local improvement initiatives,
offering HMI support and wisdom, carrying out area reviews and inspections,
moderating peer reviews, intervening in extremis
7. New evidence-driven council for curricula, qualifications and pedagogy.
In their role of strategic oversight, they would be analogous to health and well-being boards
without the responsibility these bodies perform of operational management. They would
replace education scrutiny committees, carrying out this vital function with greater power.
Existing scrutiny committees are hampered in several ways:
1. as committees of backbench councilors they are a poor match for the influential
cabinets of senior members
2. as committees of the same body, the local authority, that is responsible for aspects
of service delivery, they are potentially compromised by apparent conflicts of
interest eg mounting a serious challenge to local safeguarding practice entails a
challenge to the leadership of the council
3. the adequacy of their resourcing depends on decisions made by the cabinet.
In comparison, LEBs would
enjoy statutory powers including the ability to require providers to collaborate in the
implementation of the plan and to make recommendations to the Secretary of State,
Ofsted and the funding agency for education
operate at a level above single local authorities
be chaired by a senior elected local councilor nominated by the participating local
authorities and endorsed by the members of the board with the status and pay of a
council leader.
To summarise: whereas local authorities would be responsible for strategic planning and the
provision of certain education services, including the funding of all schools in their locality,
the primary purpose of local education boards would be to ensure the effective delivery of
the objectives and priorities set out in local plans.
Employer rep
Representative, local
education forum
Representative, local
headteacher partnership
Expert advisor/academic
HE rep
LEP rep
2. Wasteful bureaucracy
Nobody wants local education boards it is said - they are another example of the lefts
addiction to wasteful bureaucracy. Yet the commissioners put forward as intermediaries
between Whitehall and schools are classic bureaucrats with no clear lines of local
accountability despite the growing rage across Europe against un-elected, un-accountable
officials, and the electorates mounting impatience with the remote, self-aggrandising
bodies in charge of privatised and out-sourced public services. It is an oddity that although
we pride ourselves on being a democracy, too often democracy is seen as a drag on
progress, that we are better off being led by technocrats professionals who know better.
In the end, the only way for the peoples voice to be heard is through democracy, with all its
imperfections (as Churchill more or less said in the House of Commons in November 1947).
3. Council scrutiny committees are already providing oversight
A further objection is that local education boards would duplicate the work of council
scrutiny committees. In fact, we propose that education scrutiny committees are replaced
by the boards.
The Centre for Public Scrutiny, a body set up to develop local council scrutiny, is candid
about the weaknesses of the practice such as the difficulty of challenging cabinet
committees, whether that comes from within the governing party or the opposition.
Scrutiny committees can demand the review of contentious decisions but little more. They
lack muscle. Local education boards, which would replace local authority scrutiny
committees, would be at arms length from individual councils, led by a senior local political
figure and underpinned by statutory powers so that they could require a local authority or a
school to change its practices.
LEBs
Review
annually/propose
changes
Las
Lead on design and
implementation
Providers
Contribute to design and
implementation
10
Advocacy and
redress
Accountability
School/college
places
School/college
improvement
Funding
Review progress on
closing educational
gap and
safeguarding/final
point of appeal on
redress applications
Report annually on
education plan
objectives online
and via meetings
with
stakeholders/activity
subject to Ofsted
area review
Review annually/set
five year plan
Review poor
performers and
action taken/make
recommendations
for further action to
Ofsted and local
providers
Make
recommendations
to education
funding agency
Champion of children,
families and
disadvantaged/lead on
st
safeguarding/1 point
for redress
Ofsted inspection of
Council education
services eg pre-school,
youth, careers, children
in care
Recommend changes
to funding agency
Establish sub-regional
or regional selfevaluation and
inspection programme
in collaboration with
provider partnerships
Identify
schools/colleges
requiring support and
consider action with
Ofsted
Act as conduit for all
school funding (incl.
academies) according
to national formula
Ofsted inspection
11