In search of a fair secondary system

The teachers' conferences that are finishing today remind us that, unlike many other trade unions, teachers' associations remain trapped by their past and still resist amalgamation. As a result, teachers are unable to present a united front to ministers and civil servants adept at dividing and ruling. The creation of separate unions reflects the emergence of different types of schools and differently qualified teachers serving different kinds of pupils. These historic divisions bear little relationship to membership today even though, amazingly, we have an even greater variety of schools. In primary education, we have faith-based (denominational), state or private schools, which may or may not include both key stages. A few local authorities retain middle schools, which cut across key stages but provide, in some ways, better educational environments. Some special schools and pupil referral units remain even though many children with additional needs now attend mainstream classes. In secondary education, however, there is a plethora of school types: secondary moderns, comprehensives with secondary modern intakes, comprehensives with balanced intakes, grammars and partially selective schools, three surviving city technology colleges, a group of technology schools and over 200 academies – all in addition to many private schools. They further divide into mixed or single sex, specialist or generalist, faith-based or secular, and community or foundation status. Some schools retain their classification as voluntary aided or voluntary controlled. A number only cater for pupils up to 16; others until they are 18. In theory, this elaborate assortment offers parents a rich choice. In reality, in most areas, schools fit within a clear pecking order determined by their intake, history, facilities and perceived success. With only the official admission code, some designated catchments and the previous popularity of schools to help them, parents have to gamble on the talent and resilience of their children. All too often they end up dissatisfied with the outcomes – as the increasing numbers pursuing appeals illustrate. But, like many, I am not convinced that we need such a variety of schools. The cost of managing the different types of governance, mechanisms of funding and levels of independence is enormous. There is considerable duplication between government departments, agencies and extra bodies such as the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust. Parents at a meeting I recently attended simply wanted a good local school. Of course schools are not islands. They need to fit within a local, democratically accountable system. They also need to be administered fairly. This means receiving the same amount of cash per pupil as their neighbours, with supplements only for pupils with special needs and those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. It means having access to the same level of capital funds and it means being subject to the same admissions code. But, when in office, both the main political parties created new types of schools with a variety of funding levels and governance arrangements. Paradoxically, they also imposed a strict orthodoxy with the national curriculum, standard assessments and inspections undertaken by an increasingly bureaucratic Ofsted. The newest schools – academies – are state-funded institutions, established and managed by sponsors from a wide range of backgrounds (who are theoretically supposed to contribute financially). The academies are funded at higher-than-average costs. Lauded widely as independent bodies, they are bound by a rigid contract with the secretary of state. So far, they have a mixed record of success but, nevertheless, are being promoted by both the main political parties. Perhaps the best way of dealing with the unfair competition posed by these financially privileged institutions – and of giving parents genuine choice – would be to turn all state secondary schools into academies, limit their religious connections and install local democratic controls – including a legally binding, beefed-up admissions code. The result would be a unified secondary system that could be seen to be fair. It would only take the teacher unions to overcome their differences and we would have the basis of a secondary school system worthy of the 21st century.