Nick Seaton of the Campaign for Real Education says you don’t strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
Speaking to the Association of School and College Leaders in Birmingham last week, education secretary Ed Balls again confirmed his intention to force headteachers of good schools to ‘collaborate’ with their less efficient colleagues who run unpopular schools.
Raising the (scandalously low) levels of achievement in some schools ‘is not just a challenge to some heads in some schools,’ said Mr Balls, ‘but to all heads in all schools.’
This means that heads of schools that provide an effective education are not only responsible for results in their own school, they are also responsible for the failing school a couple of miles away.
Everyone wants to improve standards for youngsters who don’t get a decent start in life. But Ed Balls refuses to acknowledge reality: good schools are good because, as far as possible, they ignore distractions and diktats from Whitehall and their local authorities.
Mr Balls personally leads a massive Department for Children, Schools
and Families with around 4,000 employees and a multi-billion pound
annual budget. Nearer to the grass roots, England has 150 local
authorities. No-one knows how many people they employ on education,
but collectively, they too have multi-billion pound budgets.
There’s an army of school inspectors and advisers, employed both
centrally and by local authorities, who are also supposed to resolve
problems of under-performance. What are all these people for and what
have they been doing all these years?
During the last 12 years of socialist mismanagement, the system has
deteriorated and most people know that. The misery is being spread,
instead of being isolated and resolved.
Rather than leaving the good schools alone to get on with their work,
Ed Balls and his predecessors have tried to micromanage the whole
system. They have been forcing good schools to ‘collaborate’ and
‘federate’ with unpopular schools for several years now, in the vain
hope that the good will improve the bad or, at least, improve
perceptions by rebranding.
Meanwhile, good heads and teachers have been distracted from their
primary responsibilities by having to nip down the road to assist a
Instead of creating manageable schools of a reasonable size, Labour
(assisted by some Conservatives) have amalgamated good and bad schools
– rebuilt in some cases – to create massive institutions with 1,500 or
Has it worked? Hardly. The signs are already there that many of the
business people who sponsored academies are disenchanted with the whole
enterprise. Almost like lambs to the slaughter, they have been
brought in to manage, but aren’t allowed to do so. Nor are their heads.
Local authorities still retain immense power and influence in their
areas, not least because they have local knowledge. So why don’t
elected councillors unambiguously instruct their officials to
concentrate all their time and effort on improving the bad schools and
leave the good ones alone?
Shifting and spreading responsibility, as Mr Balls is doing, will never achieve anything.
Firm, sensible local management could succeed. But only if the best
heads are allowed more freedom, not further constrained by a useless,