The new Education White Paper was heralded as Blair’s transformation of the English education system. This White Paper was professed to signify bold ‘new freedoms’ and ‘new autonomy’ for schools. But now that the reforms have been unveiled, just how revolutionary are they, and what changes will they mean to the everyday lives of teachers and school children in this country?
In the Prime Minister’s speech during the run-up to the White Paper, we were promised ‘revolutionary’ and ‘irreversible’ reforms. So the assumption was truly drastic change to the system. And yes the reforms are drastic – bussing deprived children into middle class areas, catch up classes for an entire nation of 11 year olds. Yet on the whole, these reforms are of the sticking-plaster sort. Rather than attempting to deal with the problems which have thrown our education system into crisis head-on – class sizes, inappropriate curricula, to name a couple – mitigating remedies are being implemented as long-term solutions. In other words the current state of schools is being perpetuated by stubbornly refusing to acknowledge it as symptomatic of many misguided policies.
Equally misleading is the notion of ‘new autonomy’ for schools. Unless OfSTED’s role in schools were to change fundamentally, autonomy will largely mean more managerial responsibility for schools but not more pedagogical freedom. Looking at the 2005 OfSTED framework, there are no plans to dilute OfSTED’s power in schools. The OfSTED Inspection Framework has recently been overhauled. Inspection has been re-focused to give schools a greater sense - in government-speak - of ownership over the process. The basis of this revamp is a new emphasis on self-evaluation. Self-evaluation is sold as increasing autonomy, but in reality schools have by no means felt less pressure to conform to OfSTED’s framework; instead schools now self-regulate under strict monitoring. Accompanied with ‘shorter, sharper’ inspections, supposedly to reduce preparation but conspicuously to reduce inspection expenses, OfSTED’s refocus looked more like cost cutting and a tightening of central control than liberating schools.
Baring in mind OfSTED’s stranglehold on definitions of ‘quality’ in education, witnessed now even by the private sector since its inclusion in OfSTED’s remit, it is difficult to see why independent schools and organisations would find it worthwhile to enter into the state sector – as the White Paper proposes. Bringing private providers into the system would allegedly encourage pluralism; in fact it would more likely signify the extension of an ideological monopoly on effective education, as schools become homogenised in order to achieve ‘state standards’. A strictly prescriptive regulatory body simply cannot accompany self-governance in matters other than organisation. As long as the government insists on a tight grip over teaching methodologies through OfSTED, the education system cannot function as a true consumer-led market.