John Bald: Councils will be given more power to show their vindictiveness towards academically successful schools

John Bald is a former Ofsted inspector. He is Vice-President of the Conservative Education Society.

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill has cleared the Commons in remarkably short order. Its 144 pages and innumerable sub-sections are a long way from the brief resolution  – an amendment to a Conservative motion advocating the opposite! – that launched the comprehensive takeover in 1965. It nevertheless shares the goal of allowing Labour to do whatever it likes through a combination of financial arm-twisting and secondary legislation, which now includes the National Curriculum (NC), Ofsted’s inspection framework and SEND.

Bridget Philipson’s public statements seem reasonable. She professes – I think, sincerely – a belief in excellent schools, from which she herself benefited. She is not restoring the hegemony of local authorities (LAs) by closing Academies and Free Schools, and is not stopping these from recruiting whomever they wish – having them work towards QTS is not unreasonable, and should be extended to train the Assistants who are currently working as untrained teachers across the system. The University of Buckingham should consider expanding its activities here.

The full National Curriculum (NC) has never been provided since its inception in 1988, and that is not about to change. From the outset, its programmes of study have been the outcome of political squabbles that have left it overloaded and unmanageable. So is the English Baccalaureate, Ebacc, which made sense as a core of five subjects (English, maths, science, a language and a humanity) but which has been gold plated and overloaded to the point at which Professor Francis is right to say that it is restricting choice. If she and her colleagues really want to improve matters, they should cut the NC and Ebacc down to size and give schools some scope to meet the real needs of their pupils.

But why put Professor Francis, who appears never to have had a stick of chalk (or equivalent) in her hand, in charge of both the NC and SEND, when her CV records no experience of teaching in either mainstream or special schools? Why, if Michaela is not endorsed, despite its unprecedented success, has she not quoted specific examples of excellence elsewhere? Katharine Birbalsingh’s enemies – they are worse than opponents – say there are plenty, but don’t say where they are. I’d be happy to visit one. In fairness, Miss Snuffy appears, when invited to meet the Secretary of State, to have broken one of the first rules of diplomacy – “Do not insult the alligator before crossing the river.”

And why, as Harry Phibbs has pointed out, give LAs the power to direct an Academy to admit a pupil other schools have rejected, even if they do not have the resources to meet the child’s needs? Given the vindictiveness of some LAs towards academically successful schools, it is easy to see officials laughing up their sleeves while using this power to dump every pupil with extreme behaviour in the same place. The truth is that SEND, which is now dominated by behaviour, has been an unholy mess since Baroness Warnock’s 1978 report said, more or less, “If there is a problem, define it in a statement, and provide a solution.” A succinct recipe for chaos, which the Lib Dem Sarah Teather made far worse. A mistake by Conservative ministers to let her do it, although one supposes that the Lib Dems had to be given something to do during the Coalition.

The wellbeing sections have their own controversies, beginning with a crossover from education, which gives Ofsted unprecedented powers to gain access to unregistered private schools. These were rightly identified by Amanda Spielman as a serious problem in her first annual report, and this legislation provides what appears a full range of powers, including forcible entry. Registration of pupils educated other than at school is essential element, but may well reach the Supreme Court. Another is the right of LAs not merely to restrict the liberty of children in their care, but to deprive them of it, subject to the provision of suitable accommodation. These children, normally teenagers, may not have committed a criminal offence, but can be, and are, exploited by adult criminals for purposes including drug dealing and prostitution. Those responsible for their care have been powerless to prevent them from harming themselves and others, and have themselves been subject to abuse from adolescents who may be physically stronger than their carers. This situation cannot continue. Stopping it by what amounts to preventative detention for people who will often not have committed any offence is nevertheless an unprecedented development, and we will hear more of it.