Education White paper - response from the NUT
Opposition to the Prime Minister’s plans for major structural reform to the education service could be ended by following proposals set out in the first of a series of new pamphlets by the National Union of Teachers.
It points out that there is no evidence to support Government claims that the structural changes will, of themselves, bring about improved standards of achievement. Indeed, what evidence exists, suggests the contrary.
The NUT wants to see:
1. All state funded schools, including academies, required to adopt common admission arrangements determined by Local Admission Forums after consultation.
Without such a requirement, selection by stealth or even more overt methods will be inevitable as schools compete for pupils who will ensure high league table positions, leaving the children most in need struggling.
2. A cap on schools’ abilities to expand.
The number of pupils each school admits should be governed by two criteria: the need to prevent damage to neighbouring schools and the efficient use of resources. To allow a school to grow without constraint will undermine the character of the school and the very factors which made it popular and successful.
3. Proposals for the establishment of new schools and the expansion of existing ones should be decided by School Organisation Committees including proposals from local authorities and local communities.
Establishing new schools without consideration of the impact on existing schools and the economic use of scarce financial resources, makes little sense. The desires of a part of the community must be balanced against the needs of the whole community rather than allowing one group to hold sway. Local authorities must be able to continue to establish community schools.
4. A ‘Schools Commissioner’ is unnecessary.
This would be an unnecessary new layer of bureaucracy. A Schools’ Adjudicator already exists with powers to intervene on admissions and school provision. It is the powers of the Schools’ Adjudicator which need review to ensure fair admissions access.
5. Curriculum flexibility should not be used as bait to encourage schools to opt for Trust status.
The Prime Minister should make up his mind: either all schools should be granted new curriculum flexibilities within a revised National Curriculum because it is right for children’s learning or the current arrangements should apply to all schools. The National Curriculum is overloaded and needs a fundamental review but that is not the same as suggesting it should be disapplied in some but not all schools simply because of a change of status.. Parliament should ask itself whether the concept of a broad and balanced curriculum is an entitlement for all young people or a punishment for schools.
6. No school should have the ability to vary teachers’ pay and conditions.
There is already sufficient flexibility in the statutory arrangements for teachers’ pay and conditions of employment to deal with problems of shortages or retention. Allowing individual schools even greater flexibility will put schools in less well-heeled areas at an even greater disadvantage.
Steve Sinnott, NUT General Secretary, said: “Many aspects of the Prime Minister’s White Paper command the support of teachers and parents. But the Government has got it wrong on its structural proposals.
“Neither parents nor teachers want to see yet another type of school to add to the existing profusion. Nor do they want to see schools under the control of commercial sponsors or individual groups of parents.
“Education is a service for all children and should not be used to meet the narrow needs, interests or prejudices of a rich sponsor, an individual employer or pressure group. Education has to equip young people for a future of change and development not a society and economy set in stone.”
It points out that there is no evidence to support Government claims that the structural changes will, of themselves, bring about improved standards of achievement. Indeed, what evidence exists, suggests the contrary.
The NUT wants to see:
1. All state funded schools, including academies, required to adopt common admission arrangements determined by Local Admission Forums after consultation.
Without such a requirement, selection by stealth or even more overt methods will be inevitable as schools compete for pupils who will ensure high league table positions, leaving the children most in need struggling.
2. A cap on schools’ abilities to expand.
The number of pupils each school admits should be governed by two criteria: the need to prevent damage to neighbouring schools and the efficient use of resources. To allow a school to grow without constraint will undermine the character of the school and the very factors which made it popular and successful.
3. Proposals for the establishment of new schools and the expansion of existing ones should be decided by School Organisation Committees including proposals from local authorities and local communities.
Establishing new schools without consideration of the impact on existing schools and the economic use of scarce financial resources, makes little sense. The desires of a part of the community must be balanced against the needs of the whole community rather than allowing one group to hold sway. Local authorities must be able to continue to establish community schools.
4. A ‘Schools Commissioner’ is unnecessary.
This would be an unnecessary new layer of bureaucracy. A Schools’ Adjudicator already exists with powers to intervene on admissions and school provision. It is the powers of the Schools’ Adjudicator which need review to ensure fair admissions access.
5. Curriculum flexibility should not be used as bait to encourage schools to opt for Trust status.
The Prime Minister should make up his mind: either all schools should be granted new curriculum flexibilities within a revised National Curriculum because it is right for children’s learning or the current arrangements should apply to all schools. The National Curriculum is overloaded and needs a fundamental review but that is not the same as suggesting it should be disapplied in some but not all schools simply because of a change of status.. Parliament should ask itself whether the concept of a broad and balanced curriculum is an entitlement for all young people or a punishment for schools.
6. No school should have the ability to vary teachers’ pay and conditions.
There is already sufficient flexibility in the statutory arrangements for teachers’ pay and conditions of employment to deal with problems of shortages or retention. Allowing individual schools even greater flexibility will put schools in less well-heeled areas at an even greater disadvantage.
Steve Sinnott, NUT General Secretary, said: “Many aspects of the Prime Minister’s White Paper command the support of teachers and parents. But the Government has got it wrong on its structural proposals.
“Neither parents nor teachers want to see yet another type of school to add to the existing profusion. Nor do they want to see schools under the control of commercial sponsors or individual groups of parents.
“Education is a service for all children and should not be used to meet the narrow needs, interests or prejudices of a rich sponsor, an individual employer or pressure group. Education has to equip young people for a future of change and development not a society and economy set in stone.”
Labels: NUT policy
posted by West Sussex Teachers' Association at
11:10 AM
0 Comments
