Yesterday the Conservatives published their draft education manifesto, which contained a number of interesting points. Self-described in the media as ‘brazenly elitist’, the new policies promise to raise teaching standards by employing only the best graduates – all teachers would be required to achieve at least a 2:2 in their degree, and have at least a ‘B’ grade in GCSE English and Maths. (Currently 2 per cent of primary school teachers and 3 per cent of secondary teachers gained a third, and a ‘C’ in GCSE English and Maths is required.) The draft also included the provision for teachers to use reasonable force to deal with disruptive and violent pupils without fear of legal action, and the ability for headteachers to pay good teachers more, enabling struggling schools to attract the teachers who will help turn them around.

New Academies are the centrepiece of the Conservative education manifesto: over the next few years, David Cameron has pledged to create 220,000 new school places. Academies are independent of local education authorities and accountable to parents more than ministers. This independence appears to be a major reason why existing Academies have been so successful. Allowing flexibility in the curriculum, ethos and structure of the schools, freeing them from central bureaucracy, has been credited with turning failing schools into some of the best in the country.

But Academies have not met with universal approval. The model currently in use has meant that, in return for a relatively small proportion of start-up costs – 10 per cent or a maximum of £2 million – a sponsoring individual or organisation receives a disproportionate degree of control over the school’s ethos and curriculum. (In some cases this has meant that Christian sponsors have drawn fire for promoting the teaching of Creationism.)

Potentially a more serious criticism is that Academies are able to select 10 per cent of their pupils by specialism, again chosen by the sponsor. Some argue that this would result in the highest-achieving pupils moving to the nearest Academy, leaving other local schools to slide down the league tables.

In the light of this, perhaps the most interesting feature of the Conservatives' draft education policy was this paragraph:

‘Education’s real power lies in its ability to transform the life chances of children brought up in the toughest of circumstances. We can’t go on giving the poorest children the worst education, which is why we will introduce a pupil premium – weighting school funding towards children from disadvantaged backgrounds.’

This is a policy worthy of the Labour party, who have pledged to improve social mobility through new bursaries to help open up internships to people from poorer backgrounds and a ‘structured package of support’ aimed at helping up to 130,000 of the brightest pupils from poorer families go to college and university.

As well as countering the criticism that Academies could end up being elitist and selective, the proposed pupil premium has implications for existing church schools and other faith schools, and new ones set up by parents and other groups under the new Academy rules. Some faith schools have also been criticised on the grounds that they can be socially divisive, and that middle-class parents wealthy enough to jump through the hoops required to give their application an advantage are the ones most likely to see their children attend. However, recent research has highlighted that not all church schools have the same ethos and that their Christian character extends across a spectrum that sees benefits in terms of (i) promoting Christian identity in the context of a Christian community; (ii) developing the wellbeing of all pupils, regardless of faith; (iii) providing a moral and ethical framework and promoting civic values; and (iv) enhancing academic pupil performance.† The question for staff, governors and parents involved in such schools is where they see themselves on this spectrum and what that means for the communities of which they are a part.

In practice, what the Conservatives’ premium for disadvantaged pupils should achieve is creating new competition – this time not for the highest-achieving students, but for those financially and socially worst off. While the requirement for high standards among teachers might be ‘brazenly elitist’, the policy of extra funding for the most disadvantaged has real potential to ‘secure justice for the poor and uphold the cause of the needy.’ (Psalm 140:12)

Watch out in the spring for a report that the Jubilee Centre is currently working on, exploring the opportunities that Labour and Conservative plans for Academies offer for getting more involved in shaping the future of our communities.

† See Green, B. (2009) Mapping the Field: A review on the current research evidence on the impact of schools with a Christian ethos, Theos.

• 
• Share