This act completed its passage through parliament by
receiving royal assent on15th November 2011. It makes for some grim reading in
places. I have picked just a few
selected areas to comment on, from my personal point of view.
Section 2 gives school staff the power to search students
if there are reasonable grounds to suspect they have weapons, illegal drugs and
alcohol or stolen property. Action
would be needed on these things but it is the role of the police to deal with
criminal offences, I would think it unlikely that staff would want to get
involved in this way.
Section 5 removes the right of parents to 24 hours notice
of detention of a student outside school hours. This is not a good idea.
It may cause disruptions to other members of the family, including other
children, and could cause transport problems and undue worry to parents. Parents are blamed for poor parenting but it
doesn’t help if they are not given the information or control they need
relating to their child. If they know about
the detention beforehand they have the opportunity to add their own discussion
with their child and reprimand. Of
course schools can still choose to give advanced notice despite the act.
Section 13 imposes reporting restrictions on allegations of
teacher misconduct until this has been investigated. This seems fair under an initial presumption of innocence.
Section 20 requires community, voluntary and foundation
schools to participate in surveys. This
is daft as it does not include academies and free schools, especially given
that it is clear that Michael Gove is undertaking a massacre of the other types
of schools anyway. Perhaps that‘s why
he puts the requirements in, to find further excuses to academise these schools
against their will.
Section 25 abolishes the Qualifications and Curriculum
Development Agency. I can’t say I’ll
miss it but that is not to say I have any confidence whatsoever in the way
curriculum might be developed in its place.
Section 29 requires maintained schools to secure impartial
careers guidance for students about all 16-18 education and training opportunities. This is a good idea in principle but sources
of such advice could be difficult to find. Again, why exclude academies and
free schools from this? Don’t those students
have the same right to an informed choice?
Or will they be channelled down a route not necessarily chosen by them?
Section 31 repeals the key stage 4 diploma
entitlement. Good, this was a crazy,
cumbersome and largely useless system the previous Labour government was
imposing, business led with hardly a consideration of students and
teachers.
Section 35 on school meals is good in the sense that it
does not allow maintained schools to profit from school meals. But why leave academies and free schools
able to overcharge for meals? But it
allows different charges to different pupils for the same meal, which is just
obviously unfair.
Section 37 demands that any new school proposed by a local
authority must be an academy. For those
of us who believe that academies do not allow proper democratic involvement by
parents and teachers in their governance, as well as giving a poorer guarantee of a broad and fair education, this is obviously not a good thing,
but unsurprising given that both the previous Labour government and the current
Conservative government have forced this route. Decent education is in decline under all these politicians.
Section 46 allows far too much meddling by the Secretary of
State in local authorities’ financial provisions for the schools it maintains.
Section 55 seems to be the one being used by Michael Gove
to force academies on schools deemed to require intervention. This is despite the fact that there is no
evidence that this will improve performance.
And what about underperforming academies? What is to be done with them?
He is just a bully who does not care a jot about what local families
using the school think. How can he
imagine such a horrible tactic will encourage a school to flourish? More on that one to come I think.
Section 74 requires under the Conservatives, as it did
under Labour, that compulsory education or training will be extended to age 18. I don’t agree with this. I am a strong believer in the value of
post-16 education but I would not like it to be compulsory. If a young person wishes to start work at 16
instead, I don’t see why they shouldn’t.
Not that there are many jobs to go to at present. This reduction in choice can only be a bad
thing, for the young people ending up in more education when they don’t want to
be there and for the other young people and teachers they may be causing
disruption to.
Section 76 allows in higher education higher interest rates
for student loans, plunging students into even more debt, disgraceful! If the state wants the young to be educated
then it, we the taxpayers, should pay for this and not burden these young
people with huge debt they will still be saddled with much later in life.
Well there are good points in this act, but they are few
and far between. It does look like some
bureaucracy is removed but at the expense of democratic rights, particularly of
local communities, the students and their families. There is rampant academisation under the Tories, as there was
under Labour. The future education for
our young people looks very bleak indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment