Education policy

Alan Johnson has promised more "radical reform" of the education system.

His comments came after the last Commons vote on the controversial Education and Inspections Bill.

In his first speech since taking up the post in last month's reshuffle, Johnson told the Fabian Society that Wednesday's vote was "not the last word on reform".

Stakeholder Response: NASUWT

Chris Keates, general secretary of NASUWT, said: "This was a robust and combative first speech signalling, as was to be expected, business as usual on the government's reform agenda.

"His articulated aspirations for young people are ones which teachers and headteachers undoubtedly share.

"There is much to celebrate in the achievements of the school workforce in raising standards and in its response to an agenda of modernisation, which the government has sought to progress with social partners.

"The clear commitment to constant reform and renewal needs, however, to be tempered with a recognition that schools need time to embed and consolidate change if it is to be effective and sustainable.

"Teachers in schools designated as 'failing' will be delighted by the secretary of state's public recognition that neither teachers nor pupils in these schools have themselves failed and that they should be thanked not condemned.

"He clearly recognises that the reasons for decline are usually highly complex and often outside the school's control. If a school does 'fail' it is the fault of the system, not the school.

"I endorse wholeheartedly his commitment to universally provided, publicly funded services and his warning that it is important not to open the door for those who want to break up and privatise public services.

"I have absolutely no doubt that he is sincere in this belief. It is for this reason I would ask the secretary of state to think again about the proposals on trusts and undertake a robust review of the academy programme.

"As he rightly says, we should celebrate success, replicate it further and welcome private generosity. There is extensive evidence that all of this can be and is being achieved without the private sector governing and managing schools."

Stakeholder Response: NUT

Steve Sinnott, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said: "I am confident that Alan Johnson knows that the key issue for all of us in education is raising the achievement of young people from the toughest backgrounds. I want to work with him on that agenda.

"But the education secretary is wrong to belittle the opponents of the education Bill. Opposition to the proposals on trust schools and the destruction of the role of education authorities runs much deeper. Parents, the teaching profession and others involved in education do not see the value of the government's proposals.

"The reason the government has had such a tough time piloting its bill through the Commons is because the proposals are profoundly divisive and damaging.

"There will be no guarantee that the opportunities of all pupils will be enhanced and no guarantee that our children will be educated in an objective manner, free of prejudices and bias."

Stakeholder Response: PAT

Philip Parkin, PAT general secretary, said: "Education does have to adapt and change over time. It cannot stand still.

"Measures such as clarifying teachers' rights in disciplining pupils are welcome.  However, the Government seems determined to rush the education system into an uncertain future without fully thinking through the consequences. It should listen before it leaps.

"Reforms should change things for the better. They should not be introduced because the DfES needs to be seen to be doing something in the media.

"The government seems afraid that without momentum it will fall.  However, if it goes too fast and fails to take teachers, support staff, parents and students with it, it will fall on its face and we will all suffer the consequences of its failure.

"Constant innovation places an unacceptable burden on schools and school management. Significant changes need time to bed down in schools, and further innovations should be introduced at a much gentler pace in order to ensure successful reform.

"The government should not be in the business of conducting experiments with schools and children for political reasons. 

"I understand that the education secretary will dismiss criticism of trust schools in his speech. He should ask himself why that criticism is being made and from so many quarters. The fact that the government has to force through legislation with the help of the Opposition and against the wishes of many of its own MPs should be a clear warning sign.

"Many teachers are worried about the powers of the proposed trusts and their backers.  These groups will have their own agendas – be it political, religious or making a profit. Providing high standards of education and care may not be their overwhelming priority.   

"What will happen to pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, or those with social, behavioural or educational problems or special educational needs? Will shiny new trust schools, promising the best results, want to admit these pupils? I fear not.  

"The initial results from academies suggest that changing the legal and administrative nature of a school does not necessarily deliver better education. All families should have access to good quality local education. 

"Devolving greater powers to schools requires strong school leadership. However, applications for headships are down.  Finding enough heads to run the proposed trust schools could be very difficult. 

"The greatest threat to inclusion is divorcing a school from its local community and the network of support services provided by the local authority. Such networks encourage collaboration, to the benefit of all, rather than competition, to the benefit of the most successful, which seems to be the model for trust schools."