Member News
Plans include an academies bill to weaken the role of local authorities and a second bill to give schools in England greater freedom over the curriculum.
Academies Bill
The Bill follows on from the Tories' manifesto commitment to allow more state schools – including, for the first time, primary schools and special schools– to become academies.
It will also make it easier for parents and other groups to set up "free schools".
Furthermore, schools will be able to apply for and become academies without consulting their local education authorities.
Under the proposals, any school rated "outstanding" by Ofsted would be automatically approved for academy status.
And any school which achieves academy status will be deemed a charity.
The Bill might cause dismay among Lib Dem backbenchers who fought the general election on a platform of greater powers for local education authorities and a focus on the needs of disadvantaged pupils.
It is expected to have a swift passage through Parliament, with the government aiming to have the first new academies ready for the start of the next academic year this September.
Stakeholder Response: British Humanist Association chief executive, Andrew Copson
The lesson of the Labour government's Academy programme was that they can allow sectional interests control of the curriculum and seriously threaten children's and teachers' rights. If the Coalition Government is committed to their increase, then it must ensure that their admissions and employment policies will not discriminate on religious grounds. It must also ensure that the curriculum is protected and that new Academies will not be able to teach creationism, unbalanced religious education, and flawed sex and relationships education. Unfortunately, at the present time it seems the government have no plans to do this.
Stakeholder Response: John Stone, chief executive, LSN
The new government's commitment to widening the scope of the Academies programme to give high-performing schools the 'right' to become Academies, combined with the introduction of the Swedish-style "free schools" creates the prospect of a large number of new providers entering the marketplace. These will range from parents groups at one end of the spectrum, through small clusters of academies grouped around a single sponsor, to charitable trusts, to large private-sector providers running academies in significant numbers.
In these straightened times, all providers will need to ensure that they are able to offer excellent teaching and learning outcomes supported by leading-edge technology solutions. This combined with robust back-office systems and processes will ensure that school leaders can concentrate on achieving the best outcomes for pupils.
Stakeholder Response: Philip Parkin, general secretary, Voice: the union for education professionals
The new government should learn from the mistakes of the last one and avoid rushing through ill-thought-out legislation. We have suffered too much from politicians blindly promoting a political agenda against the advice of those who have to deliver it. We had too much change for change's sake with little perceived benefit.
Instead, the coalition seems determined to run at breakneck speed before it can walk, rushing headlong into allowing more schools to become academies. Any new government is keen to get started, but it needs to adopt a 'less haste, more speed' approach and implement its programme within a practical and fair timescale.
There must be sufficient time for consultation with staff, parents and local communities before schools decide to change their status. We have already seen considerable opposition to the introduction of academies around the country. In order to meet the demands of a proper consultation process and a controlled handover of responsibilities and resources from a local authority, it will be impossible to achieve a change of status successfully by the beginning of September. We are now into the summer term and with the long vacation to come, this is impractical and foolish. This reckless rush risks ruin.
Voice supports its members wherever they work, but believes that consultations and other processes must be followed correctly and rigorously.
We are concerned about pay and conditions at academies. Extending the programme, creating other types of school, and the uncertainty over the future of national pay and conditions are all potentially divisive and demotivating. They could also damage recruitment and retention, particularly in those schools not able to offer higher wages, and disrupt the movement of teachers between schools.
Stakeholder Response: Christine Blower, general secretary, National Union of Teachers
It frankly beggars belief that a government seeking to reduce the country's budget deficit would want to push ahead with the expensive Academies programme, particularly as the evidence is clear that Academies are not the best route to school improvement.
The idea that maintained schools can simply decide to be Academies because of an Ofsted judgement also has major funding and planning implications. Expanding the programme into primary schools is also unacceptable and unnecessary.
In short, the very freedoms which the government intends for schools will be mired by controversy over its wholly unproven argument that somehow, because a school becomes an Academy, that will automatically raise standards.
Creating Academies on the scale proposed by the government will have the effect of transferring billions of pounds of publicly funded assets in the form of buildings and land into the hands of private sponsors.
Stakeholder Response: Chris Keates, general secretary, NASUWT
The Academies Bill confirms that the government is obsessed with structural reform at any price.
The government should accept that the system isn't broken and doesn't need fixing.
There is simply no evidence that academy schools perform better than traditional community schools.
A recent Ipsos Mori poll of parents in England confirms that the overwhelming majority believe that state schools are of a good quality.
96% of the public have said they don't want state-funded schools to be run by private sector companies, charities and other unelected bodies.
There is simply no evidence of a public clamour for the creation of new academy schools. What the vast majority of parents and the public want are good local schools serving all communities.
It is staggering that a government which is committed to community empowerment is now seeking to disenfranchise democratically elected local councils who represent local people and deny them any say when proposals come forward to open new academy schools.
The government's proposal for new academy schools to become exempt charities is a naked attempt to provide a further tax loophole for private sponsors.
Stakeholder Response: Philip Parkin, general secretary, Voice: the union for education professionals
I have particular reservations about 'free schools' in terms of their funding, viability and potential effects on other schools. I hope that, if they go ahead, they are of minimal significance and impact. Although all parents want good schools, most have no desire to set up and run them. Many schools struggle to find people willing to serve as governors, so the idea of lots of schools run by parents is a non-starter.
A 'try a bit of this, try and bit of that', buffet approach to education provision risks chaos and confusion. Will some schools be following a new 'traditional' curriculum of chronological historical dates, while 'free' ones have a free-for-all with either little structure or a programme set by particular political, religious or business interest groups?
Education and Children’s Bill
A Bill to give schools greater control over what is taught in their classrooms will be published in the autumn, as a companion piece to the Academies Bill.
Like that legislation, the Education and Children's Bill seeks to give schools greater control over what is taught in their classrooms.
It includes measures to reform Ofsted and to ensure that heads are held acountable for two educational "goals"- attainment and closing the gap between rich and poor pupils.
The Bill also puts into practice one of the Liberal Democrats major concessions from the coalition agreement – the pupil premium. This was a manifesto commitment designed to ensure that disadvantaged pupils attract a greater share of funding.
Stakeholder Response: Christine Blower, general secretary, National Union of Teachers
There is some potential promise within the Education and Children’s Bill. The government has an opportunity to introduce fundamental reforms to Ofsted, the curriculum and provide additional support for pupil behaviour. Yet they are at a crossroads about how they do it.
Schools don’t need a tougher Ofsted, and a more prescriptive but narrower curriculum. I urge the government to initiate a fundamental review of the way in which schools are accountable to ensure that support follows any inspection, rather than punishment.
There is no evidence that the diversity which has already been introduced into the system by the creation of Academies has raised standards.
Whilst I welcome additional funding for schools, it is by no means axiomatic that the Pupil Premium will of itself close the gap between rich and poor children.
Keep track of the bills via our legislation page.
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.