Tim Clark on The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools’ Bill: “the real test is yet to come”

Tim Clark

The Bill currently going through Parliament is a massive and wide-ranging piece of legislation which, in itself, could be a drawback: two separate Bills might help to focus debate much more. Education and schooling are specific areas of children’s policy with their own inherent needs and importance, and while safety must always be the paramount consideration in everything to do with children, if we genuinely want to raise standards in our schools and to give every child the best education possible, we must not cloud the discussion by making it too broad. This article will, therefore, focus on the “school” aspects of the Bill.

The school parts of the Bill which deal with child safety are, on the whole, to be welcomed. The new requirement for Local Authorities to draw up a register of children not in school is something which appears to be an obvious safeguarding tool and long overdue. One of the most significant changes proposed, however, comes with the loss of a parent’s automatic right to withdraw their child from school: the Bill requires them first to seek “permission” from the Local Authority (until now, parents have simply had to “inform” the LA). It will now be incumbent on parents to prove that suitable alternative arrangements are in place and to convince the LA that it is in the “child’s best interest” not to attend school. Where the LA does not give permission, School Attendance Orders [SAO] may be issued and, if necessary, parents prosecuted for failing to comply.

On the surface, this all seems very sensible but one cannot help but worry about the efficacy of its implementation. Will LA’s have the resources to follow up each occurrence? Attendance officers disappeared many moons ago, and most child welfare services are stretched to beyond capacity. What is more, most parents who withdraw their children from school, presumably do so because they are unhappy with the school: forcing them back is unlikely to create a positive, cooperative relationship. How long will it take for legal action to be brought against an offending parent? If it takes months or even years, what impact will it actually have? Is this simply another case of posturing, such as increasing the fine for taking a pupil on holiday during term time from £60 to £80? Hardly a major disincentive considering the thousands of pounds that a parent can save by taking a trip in term time compared to taking one in the official school holidays.

Tim Clark’s bi-annual Better Schools Report Event at Guildhall, London. 10.10.2024 Photographer Sam Pearce/www.square-image.co.uk

Increasing the powers of inspection to cover more small private schools, often faith schools, under the umbrella of the inspection system cannot be challenged. All full-time settings will now have to meet the Independent School Standards (ISS) and be run by “fit and proper persons” (rather vague…) HMCI will be given enhanced powers of entry to suspected unregistered (and, therefore, unlawful) providers. The rules on teacher misconduct are also to be broadened and tightened, for example to include online providers.

I am unconvinced by the proposed requirement to limit the number of branded items permissible for school uniforms – three in primaries and three plus a tie in secondaries. The argument is to make uniforms more affordable for parents. (Average prices are £442 for a secondary uniform; £343 for primary. [Policy summary, gov.uk]) This limited number of items may be enough to maintain a smart uniform, especially at primary level, but one wonders whether some wiggle room could be permitted: school sports teams or choirs competing against other schools, for example, may want to have a collective appearance. Is there a danger that this becomes a visible difference between state school teams and independent school teams? In an age when a sense of community and belonging is so necessary and important, I am sure there could be consideration of more flexible arrangements; I fear where things are so rigid, there will be some resulting drawbacks.

The greatest debate has arisen over what is seen as an assault on the “freedoms” of academies, most notably the requirements for all teachers to be qualified, for academies to follow the National Curriculum, the extension of teacher’s pay and conditions to academies and the power of a LA to direct a pupil’s admission to an academy.

To take each in turn. At present, academies have greater freedom over the employment of staff than do LA schools, where employees are required to have Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) or to “be working towards” it. I find it hard to object to Starmer’s retort that, “To say there ought to be qualified teachers in our schools should not be extraordinary”. He was replying to Kemi Badenoch’s comment at PMQ’s that, “The bill implies that doctors are not sufficiently qualified to teach biology, that Olympic medallists can’t teach PE”. Quite right – doctors are not qualified to TEACH biology – having subject knowledge is not the same as understanding the pedagogy, learning styles, assessment requirements and classroom management techniques required to teach 32 teenagers on a wet Friday afternoon, to keep them engaged and motivated, not to mention to help them understand and retain what you are trying to teach them. Would anyone really consider reversing the question: is a biology teacher qualified to be a doctor? Of course, subject knowledge is a crucial starting point and the doctor or the medallist may well make superb teachers, but not without specific training or understanding what makes a good teacher. The latest workforce census states that there has been “an increase in unqualified teachers” and that only 85.9% of EBacc hours were taught by a teacher “with a relevant post-A level qualification”.  [gov.uk] One key issue here is, of course, the critical shortage of good, well qualified teachers. One must fully support Badenoch’s argument that we should not be closing down routes into teaching but equally, we should not be lowering our standards nor forgetting that teaching is a specialised and demanding profession, simply to get more bodies standing in front of classes.

The debate surrounding the requirement for the National Curriculum to apply to academies is a long running one. I have never understood the point of having a National Curriculum if 81.9% of secondary schools and 42.7% of primary schools are exempt from it[gov.uk, June 2024]; they are simply obliged to offer a “balanced and broadly based curriculum”. The whole point of the NC was to ensure that all children received a common basic education. If this is no longer thought necessary, why is it still a requirement for schools which are maintained by a LA authority to follow the NC and to be slated by Ofsted if they do not? If we want schools to experiment with what they teach, why not give all schools permission to do so? If we really value modern languages and music for example, both of which have plummeted in terms delivery and GCSE examination entries, why are we only insisting they remain compulsory subjects in a small minority of secondary schools? Is there a level playing field when comparing school performance and examination results? The real fear, however, is that the government is currently undertaking a very rushed review of the NC. What will the new, compulsory curriculum look like? A few years ago, Labour-controlled Wales completely revised its curriculum: Wales now lags behind England in all comparative performance indicators.

Another freedom previously enjoyed by academies was the independence to set their own employment terms and conditions whereas all LA schools are bound by the terms of the annually reviewed STRB (the School Teachers Review Body). Badenoch highlighted that this could lead to some teachers facing pay cuts; the response from Labour is that STRB is “a floor and not a ceiling”. In reality, it is unlikely that many academies would be paying staff below the national norm simply because of market forces – why would staff stay in an academy paying less than the norm when there is a national shortage of teachers? Equally, it has always been possible for Heads, including those in LA schools, to attract or retain certain staff by issuing responsibility points to enhance salaries, although this is, of course, limited by a finite budget. Where some academies may have to change their practice, however, is by being required to adopt “directed time”. According to STRB, teachers can only be contracted to work for 1,265 hours per year over 195 days – 38 weeks with children plus another five days for professional development. (This does not include planning and marking at home or voluntary extra-curricular activities.) By the time one totals up a full teaching timetable, a meeting after school each week and a number of parent consultation evenings, there is little spare time left.

05/07/2024. London, United Kingdom.Secretary of State for Education,Bridget Phillipson poses for a photograph following her appointment to Cabinet by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in 10 Downing Street. Picture by Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street

I am sure some academy Heads will baulk at the thought of being forced to cooperate with their LA, of the LA having greater influence over their PAN [Published Admission Number] and even more so at the thought of the LA being given powers to direct admission of pupils who have not been given a place via the usual admissions process. Though unwelcome by some, it does seem unfair that maintained schools have had to take pupils directed to them and this may also help to iron out a current idiosyncrasy – LA’s have lost control of many schools and have not, until now, been permitted to open new ones, yet have retained the legal duty of ensuring that there are both sufficient school places available in their area and that every child has a place.

Although Labour has repeated its commitment to the academy system, there is no doubt that this Bill marks a shift in attitude and that academies are no longer seen as the be all and end all of state education. The Bill proposes to remove the current requirement for all schools causing concern to be taken over by academy trusts. [Although Ofsted has dropped the single, headline grade, it is still required to identify schools “causing concern”.] Instead, a more nuanced approach is now suggested: academisation may still be the best answer for a failing school, but there will now be the option for a Regional Improvement for Standards and Excellence (RISE) team to take over, making use of existing and local expertise. Similarly, the requirement for all new schools to be academies or free schools is to be scrapped so that new schools could again be Foundation or community (LA) schools. I see no argument against either of these suggestions: academies are not, by definition, better. What really matters is the organisation’s leadership, governance and staffing. My first headship was of an LA maintained school and it was, and still is, an outstanding, high performing school. Equally, there are many outstanding academies; there are also some appalling academies and badly performing LA schools. The answer is to forget theory and ideology and to go for whichever option provides young people with the very best education. Everything else is irrelevant.

The final aspect on which to comment is the proposed requirement for all primary schools to offer a free breakfast club to all children for at least 30 minutes before school every day. The scheme will be piloted in 750 primary schools, with definitive guidance being published once the pilot has finished. The approach seems sensible and there is certainly plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that a good breakfast aids attendance, behaviour and attainment. Over £30 million is being allocated to the project. Here, however, may be the project’s downfall. When this is rolled out to all 20,000 primary schools, the budget equates to about £8 per day, per school, to cover the cost of food, food preparation and pupil supervision. Is this realistic? The obvious question is whether this is the best use of the money: why charge the taxpayer for giving breakfast to most children who are cared for and well fed at home? Such a universalist approach seems totally at odds with the government’s recent decision to end universal winter fuel payments.

Conclusion:

There is certainly much in this Bill that is at least worthy of discussion, but the real test will come in its practical application. One wonders if the true upshot will be more bureaucracy and red tape but with little tangible improvement in either child safety or in educational standards. One also wonders at the response of the teaching profession as a whole. This has been introduced so quickly that there has simply not been time to genuinely test the opinions and attitudes of Heads, providers and certainly not of parents. This is a government with no recent experience of running education: why not first canvas the views of those who really understand the pressures, difficulties and needs of the system? Education has always been too important to be political football: urgency is not the key requisite, but outcomes and results.

Lastly, for me, the fundamental weakness of this Bill is its failure to tackle the single biggest and most damaging issue facing our schools and young people: the teacher recruitment and retention crisis. The Bill does repeat the manifesto promise to create an additional 6,500 teachers – a drop in the ocean when divided between over 20,000 schools in England – and reminds us of the 5.5% pay rise already awarded, but that is it. What of the 40,000 teachers who quit last academic year for reasons other than retirement (more than 9% of the workforce) and the fact that only 50% of teacher training places were filled in the same time frame (and only 57% the year before)? How is the Chancellor going to revitalise the economy when only 17% of physics teacher training places were filled, or 27% of design technology, 33% of modern languages or 36% of computing training places? The pay award is to be welcomed, but does it make up for the fact that, “The relative value of teachers’ earnings reduced throughout the early 2010s and has reduced further than earnings across the economy, the public sector and other professional occupations since then…. The competitiveness of teachers’ average pay has reduced markedly over a number of years”. [STRB, report 2024] Having said all that, pay has never been the key determinant for teachers – to think that it is, shows a complete failure to understand why most of us joined the profession. For the vast majority of teachers, their unhappiness and frustration arise much more from issues such as workload, rude, badly behaved and aggressive youngsters, weak and ineffective leadership, a lack of respect for the profession and their inability to do the job properly because of interference by those who lack knowledge, understanding, empathy or experience. Solve the recruitment and retention crisis to create a sustainable supply of highly trained, well qualified, motivated and experienced professionals and much else will then follow.

Tim Clark is an experienced education consultant and former headmaster with over three decades in education. He has successfully led schools to excellence and now shares his expertise globally, advocating for educational reform and leadership development. Passionate about holistic student growth, Tim remains committed to improving education systems worldwide.