Another year, another education shake-up

It’s hard to know where to start with Brown’s latest plans for schools.

Giving parents more power in schools has been a constant refrain from Labour, particularly since it fought the last election on choice in public services. Unsurprisingly the reality has never quite matched the rhetoric. The last education shake-up was supposed to make it easier for parents to start schools, trigger inspections etc but there has been no obvious revolution in state education as a result.

Next month another education white paper will be produced – there is no apparent need for one but Labour seems to be taking the same view of education as it does criminal justice – the regular production of white papers and Bills is more important than whether they actually serve any purpose. If today’s reports are to be believed it will include more powers for parents including the absurd idea that a parent can demand action at a school their children don’t even attend (begging the question on what basis they will be judging that school?). This time it will be LEAs responding to parents’ desire for action, rather than Ofsted – marking yet another swing in the pendulum in Labour’s enthusiasm for LEAs. Traditionally, Labour has seen local authorities as essential in the delivery of state education. Then the Blair years saw them become the bogeyman obstacle to progress – independence for schools and direct funding from Whitehall became the mantra. In the last Education Bill they became commissioners of education rather than direct providers but then when Brown took over in Downing Street talk of independent state schools withered and now LEAs are sponsoring city academies – the class of school originally created to bypass LEAs. Now they are once again to be the arbiter of standards.

As for parental influence on education, the last word should go to Boris Johnson who gave this answer in the recent Spectator coverage of his first anniversary as London Mayor.

"As a ‘father’, I don’t want to waste my time at some blooming consultation with the teachers, jostling for attention with a load of sharp-elbowed mums. I don’t want to have ‘control’ over my kids’ education. I want the teachers to have control. They already have the government telling them what they can and can’t do to a degree that is utterly absurd and humiliating, and contrary to their vocation as teachers. The last thing they need is to share their dwindling prerogatives with a load of ghastly and ill-informed parents. If you mean, should parents be more free to choose their kids’ schools, then yes, by all means — but the choice will be pretty meaningless until you bring back academic selection."

Grammar schools: it just won't go away.

Tucked away in the Yorkshire Post today, Francis Maude having his say on the grammar school row. It was all DC's fault it would seem.
Time for all Tories to just take a vow of silence on this one and make setting out a coherent education policy a priority for conference.

Coulson is Cameron's choice

David Davis did remarkably well this morning on Andrew Marr. He clearly hates the grammar school policy but struck a healthy balance between supporting his leader and maintaining his own credibility by admitting that his own preference was for more grammar schools but that he supported the party's policy because he lost the leadership election. However, it was a shame that Davis agreed he and the rest of the Shadow Cabinet had been consulted only for Marr to fail to ask the obvious follow-up which was whether he objected in that meeting has has been widely suggested.
More intriguing was his answer to a question about the appointment of ex-News of the World editor Andy Coulson. He confirmed he hadn't been consulted about that one. So the man Cameron extended the hand of solidarity to after beating him in the leadership election did not even have a say on the Coulson appointment.
Clearly Davis and Cameron don't pretend to be big buddies but there seems to be a growing body of evidence the Tory leader isn't really talking to anyone much outside his own circles. Will much was made of the Graham Brady intervention in the grammar schools row it was Dominic Grieve who really forced the embarassing U-turn. Grieve undoubtedly felt able to speak out because he feels no great loyalty to DC. Now the Shadow Home Secretary, who represents a reasonable constituency of opinion in the party, isn't being consulted about major appointments.
Cameron must realise that he can't just bulldoze his ideas through the party and needs to keep these senior figures on board.

Grammar schools gaff

Nick Robinson thinks that the row started by David Willetts over grammar schools, or more precisely, academic selection, yesterday was a deliberate effort by the Tories to capitalise on thr sense of "change" being felt in political circles as Gordon Brown finally gets a firm grip on the top job.
It would be nice for those on the Right to think so. But the ham-fisted way Willetts's speech was handled by the Tories which meant his message ended up being "We're ditching selection and following Blair" when the reality was far more interesting rather points against the Robinson theory.
Whenever these questions come up, VFTN is always inclined to believe cock-up rather than conspiracy.