Two Education Issues Facing the New Labour Government
Blog 27 Dave Barter, SEA NEC from Manchester, asks where Labour is going with academies. Paty Paliokosta, Kingston Uni, proposes a way forward on SEND plus info about this year's Caroline Benn Lecture
Sammy Wright (See Blog 25 for review of ‘Exam Nation’)To Give Caroline Benn Memorial Lecture.
Click here to find out more and sign up. All welcome
Labour Facing Two Ways on Forced Academisation?
This blog post looks at the contradictions in the government’s current approach to the previous Tory policy of forcing schools to academise. The author was an election agent in the 2024 general election, is an NEU member, and works in school improvement in the northwest.
What is Labour’s stance on forced academisation?
An interesting analysis by education journalist Warwick Mansell on October 1st showed1 that the Labour government did not start any forced academy projects in weeks after taking office: “The Department for Education did not initiate any ‘sponsored academies’ in the first eight weeks after it was elected, with activity in this field over the three months from May vastly down on the comparable period last year”.
A similar signal of a rejection of Tory policy came on September 2nd, with the dropping of the forced academisation of ‘double-RIs:
“The government also currently intervenes where a school receives two or more consecutive judgements of ‘requires improvement’ under the ‘2RI’ policy. With the exception of schools already due to convert to academies this term, this policy will change. The government will now put in place support for these schools from a high performing school, helping to drive up standards quickly”.2
But at the same time, other forced academisations are being forced through, such as that of Byron’s Court primary School in Brent, judged ‘inadequate’ in November 2023. Parents and staff together had campaigned to retain the local accountabilty that ‘local authority maintained’ schools have against a forced take-over by an unaccountable multi-academy trust. You might think that having campaigned against a Tory government implementing this Tory policy, Labour’s victory in the general election might bring a change, but as LabourHub reports, “After months of local campaigning against the forced academisation of a primary school in northwest London – including 16 days of strike action by staff – Labour’s new Secretary of State for Education Bridget Phillipson has decided that the school’s takeover by a Multi-Academy Trust will go ahead as planned.”3
So what is going on? Why did the DfE announce a change in September, what is changing, and what is not?
In 2016, the Tories brought in a “duty” for government to force schools to academise if they were judged ‘inadequate’ by Ofsted or failed to comply with a warning notice: “The Secretary of State must make an Academy order in respect of a maintained school in England that is eligible for intervention”.4 This set in train eight years of schools being made to become academies regardless of the views of their governing body, parents, staff, local communities or local council, who had no say in whether or not this happened - or even which ‘multi-academy trust’ (MAT) should take over the school. Across the country there have been many campaigns to save local schools, mostly without success.
And if the school judged inadequate was already an academy? The Tories simply changed which MAT was in charge. (There are now academies like Waterhead in Oldham that have already been in three different MATs since opening!).
That same 2016 legislation also created a power for the secretary of state to make a legal definition of the term ‘coasting school’, a label originally applied loosely to schools in leafy areas that performed well in league tables without much of a struggle, but then given legal meaning as another way that schools could become ‘eligible for intervention’ and forced to academise.
The legislation contained no definition of ‘coasting school’, just gave the power to the secretary of state to make one through regulations. The 2017 regulations gave a highly complex definition, based on GCSE results for secondary schools and National Curriculum tests in primary.5
In 2022 the Tories took this one step further with a redefinition of the meaning a ‘coasting school’ to be one that had been judged ‘requires improvement’ twice over.6
Cue more forced academisations. Cue more parents losing the link they had with their school, both through losing parent governors, and through policy, budget and staffing now being sat with a distant chain ‘head office, not locally.
But then we had a general election and the election of a Labour Government.
Labour’s manifesto was silent on the issue, only mentioning the word ‘academy’ once, under the heading of ‘accountability’: “Accountability is non-negotiable, which is why Labour supports school inspection…. We will also bring Multi-Academy Trusts into the inspection system”. (Bridget Phillipson’s speech at this year’s Labour Annual Conference was similarly agnostic, with no reference to academies at all).
This background explains what changed on September 2nd. The DfE announcement that day that Ofsted ‘overall effectiveness’ grades were to go was widely reported and universally welcomed (even by those who argued that it was only a less of a change than was being reported7). What was less widely commented on - other than in the specialist education media - was that the academisation of ‘coasting schools’ was being dumped too – not just the 2022 redefinition, but the whole idea: “With the exception of schools already due to convert to academies this term, this policy will change”2.
This means that an ‘RI’ school getting RI again at its next inspection will no longer have to academise. And those that have already got ‘RI’ twice and were expecting to have to go no longer will – unless their conversion date has already been set for this term.
This is a really big deal – not just because of those individual schools, but also because of what it means for so many others. Among the reasons for school governing bodies that have not previously wanted to hand their school to an academy chain then changing their minds, there are two that are overwhelmingly the most common. The first is to put off inspection for three years, as schools that convert then get three years grace before Ofsted visit. This is particularly an issue for a school judged RI where a second RI is a risk – ‘jump before we are pushed’, governors say, so that at least we have a say in which MAT we go with. This factor has now gone.
So too has the second most common reason – not wanting to be last to go. If everyone locally is academising, they say, but we are among the last to do so, we will have less choice about how, when and with whom we go. The slowdown in academisation cuts the feet out from under this argument too.
So it is not just the ‘forced’ academisations that are affected by the September 2nd announcement, but these sorts of academy conversions too, that could be properly termed not ‘forced’ but ‘coerced’. That is the effect of the new policy of the new government.
But that same government is still forcing schools judged ‘inadequate’ to be taken over by academy chains. Why? What sense does it make to say that being compulsorily taken over by a MAT is the right policy for a school like Byrons Court that has had recent difficulties since its previous ‘outstanding’, but not for a school that has been judged RI two, three or four times, being less than ‘good’ in Ofsted terms for the best part of a decade?
No sense, obviously. The Tories were consistent – forced academisation is the only way forward for everyone – but Labour seems to be facing two ways.
The explanation is in fact simple. The compulsion for double RIs to academise was not written into legislation, but in ‘regulations’ that don’t have the same parliamentary journey. The 2016 act gives the secretary of state the right to decide what the definition of coasting is; just as whichever Tory was secretary of state that week could make up a ‘coasting’ definition, so Bridget Phillipson can unmake it, no legislation needed.
The forced academisation of schools judged ‘inadequate’ is a different thing though. It is written into the 2016 act, and so needs legislation to unmake it. That would have to come through Labour’s forthcoming ‘Children’s Wellbeing Bill’.
(Critics may point out though that the very same 2016 act gives the Secretary of State the power to ‘revoke’ academy orders even without any legislative change, so she could have done that with Byrons Court, if sufficiently bold.)
But will the government use the Children’s Wellbeing Bill to do that? Is that what the government intends to do, to stop facing two ways on forced academisation? Will it now end the forced academisation of schools judged ‘inadequate’, to bring this into line with the new policy on double-RIs?
That remains the open question..
Toward Inclusion: Overhauling the SEND System for a Brighter Future
Paty Paliokosta is Associate Professor of Inclusive Education at Kingston University and sets out her pointers to end the SEND crisis. Her views are not necessarily those of Kingston University.
(With acknowledgement to Prof. Christopher Robertson and the SENCo advocacy network)
Common headlines:
“SEND System in Crisis”
“Parents Struggle to Get Support for Their Children”
“Schools Overwhelmed by Rising SEND Demands”
Support for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) remains inadequate, reinforcing systemic inequality. International evidence highlights that while our most able children excel, too many others fall behind compared to their peers in other countries. Far too many children are denied opportunities due to cost, lack of locally accessible provision, or the pressures faced by schools and colleges, which often lead to restricted access. For too long, the British economic model has relied on low wages and low skills, a situation that urgently needs to change, especially in the context of Brexit.
Without failing to recognise and overshadow the efforts of many mainstream schools that are successfully supporting CYP with learning difficulties, this blog entry explores a comprehensive approach to overhauling the SEND system, aiming for a brighter, more inclusive future. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecosystemic model is used here to set out key areas that need attention, starting from the child up to strategic, governmental level. We demand a lot from a government that has said:
‘Every child should believe that success belongs to them. Education has so often been the spark that can light a fire within, transforming life chances. It is time to light that fire for the whole country.’ (Labour Manifesto extract)
Child- and Family-centred approaches
Enabling parent/carer voices: Include the voices of parents and carers of children with SEND in formal mandatory structures in schools and local authorities. Their insights and experiences can help shape more meaningful effective policies and practices.
Increasing the feeling of belonging: Increase the feeling of belonging through relational pedagogy (Hickey, and Riddle, 2023), going back to basics. “If I am not in the world simply to adapt to it, but rather transform it, and if it is not possible to change the world without a certain dream or vision for it, I must make use of every possibility there is not only to speak about my utopia, but also to engage in practices consistent with it.” (Paulo Freire, 2000)
Access to assessment: Ensure schools have ready access to meaningful assessment and diagnosis, with support provided before diagnosis. This proactive approach can help address issues early and provide timely support.
School-level approaches
Reducing class sizes and increasing staff ratios: Reduce class sizes and increase staff ratios to create more accessibility for neurodiverse pupils, ensuring they receive the attention and support they need.
Building capacity: Increase funding for SEND in schools, ring-fence SEND funding, reverse cuts to specialist services, and ensure competitive pay for educators.
Cultural change in schools: Achieve true inclusion through a shift in school culture rather than changes in the law. Schools must uphold and enforce the Equality Act 2010 to promote genuine inclusion of disabled children and young people in an intersectional way.
Effective transition services: Set up effective destinations and progression services to support young people during and after the transition amongst schools and to adulthood. These services should be well-integrated and provide meaningful support.
Local Authority-level approaches
Establishing SENCo networks: Propose the creation of local SENCo networks supported by experienced advisers to share knowledge and insights. These networks could operate both in-person and online, ensuring wide access and participation (Robertson, 2024).
Local accountability and monitoring: Build in local accountability and monitoring of SEND provision without creating punitive approaches. This will encourage creative approaches rather than stifling innovation through mere compliance.
Scrutinising exclusions: Establish a mechanism for scrutinising and monitoring school fixed-term exclusions to ensure policies do not disproportionately impact specific groups of students.
Recognising dynamic needs: Recognise the dynamic nature of needs and context-specific issues, understanding that a need in one setting may be regarded as ‘complex’ but, in another, straightforward. This understanding can lead to more tailored support, but also to systemic changes at an anticipatory rather than reactive level.
National-level approaches
Addressing the 2014 SEND Regulations: The 2014 Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Regulations in England have been amended to introduce the National Professional Qualification (NPQ) for SENCos, effective from 1 September 2024 (Robertson, 2024). From this date, the NPQ SENCo will become the mandatory qualification for all SEN Coordinators in England. However, there are still significant gaps in the current SEND system that need addressing, and immediate action could improve support for children and young people with special needs.
Developing workforce strategy for inclusive education: Create a comprehensive, high level, reflexive workforce strategy that includes universities in the discussion and at the core. This strategy should address the skills and training needs of educators and support staff, ensuring ongoing professional development and capacity building for inclusive education.
Balancing standardisation and flexibility: Balance the need for a standardised approach with the flexibility to address local needs and contexts. Local inclusion partnerships should effectively reflect and respond to the unique needs of their communities.
Government-Level Approaches
Funding Concerns: Address funding issues at both local authority and school levels, ensuring that SEND funding is not diverted to other priority areas. Reviewing the notional SEND budget and increasing funding where necessary will help mainstream schools better support students with less complex needs (Robertson, 2024).
Commitment to Inclusion: Reaffirm the commitment to inclusion, aiming for mainstream schools to be the default providers for children with disabilities and special needs, with special schools as part of a continuum of support. Celebrating inclusive practices and building capacity in all mainstream schools to meet a wider diversity of needs is crucial.
The Need to Act: “Washing one’s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral” (Paulo Freire, 1985).
References
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hickey, A., & Riddle, S. (2023). Proposing a conceptual framework for relational pedagogy: pedagogical informality, interface, exchange, and enactment. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2023.2259906
Freire, P. (1985). The Politics of Education: Culture, Power and Liberation. Bergin and Garvey Publishers.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum.
Lamb, B. (ND) SEND Green Paper: Co-production and Parental Engagement. https://senpolicyresearchforum.co.uk/senprf-blog-series-send-green-paper-co-production-and-parental-engagement/
Robertson, C. (2024). Education policy development in England: Effective ‘mainstreaming’ of SEND provision. SENCO Forum. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8578.12547.
Useful resources:
SEND | National Education Union (neu.org.uk)
IPSEA on the SEND Review: our response to the Government’s proposals for SEND reform
SEND: Trauma, expense and delays - a system in ‘crisis’ (schoolsweek.co.uk)
SEND: Eight council reforms to fix ‘broken’ SEND system (schoolsweek.co.uk)
SEND reforms at 10: How it went wrong, and how to fix it (schoolsweek.co.uk)