The 5 Biggest School Policy Obstacles for the New Government

A future Labour government faces a “stuck” Ofsted reform, “very difficult” immediate discussions on teachers’ pay and will have no choice but to clarify its position on academies, sector leaders have said.

Policy guru Sam Freedman and Ark schools academy chief Lucy Heller outlined the key hurdles facing the next government at the Festival of Education today.

Here’s what you need to know…

1. ‘Difficult’ decision on teachers’ salaries

The Department for Education’s funding black hole is set to hamper discussions about funding teacher pay rises and school buildings – as Labour takes on budgets that have been drastically slashed.

Freedman, who worked at the department under Michael Gove, said the “scale of the challenge” facing the new government was “significantly greater” than it was 14 years ago.

The DfE’s financial situation is “significantly worse than it was then” and budgets “have been slashed to the point where there is a huge black hole”.

He believes the new education ministers will “immediately” attempt to negotiate with the Treasury over the planned annual spending review.

“These are very, very difficult conversations about teachers’ pay, about capital for school buildings and things like that, from the perspective of the DfE, which is currently facing serious financial problems.”

Pointing to commitments on childcare for one- and two-year-olds and funding problems for universities, he noted that even within the DfE, “schools may not seem to be the most pressing priority on the platform”.

Freedman argued that the government “will have to” accept the recommendations of the teachers’ pay commission.

“But are they funding it properly? What does the proper funding look like? And will the Treasury agree to it? It’s closely tied to recruitment and the money they have for things like scholarships.”

While he believes unions will not vote for a pay strike this year, Freedman believes that “over time (the National Education Union) will become more oppositional to the Labour government and will use that as a recruitment tool”.

2. Ofsted reform could be ‘stuck’

Labour could become “bogged down” in “painful” talks if it goes ahead with plans to scrap the current Ofsted grading system, the pair argued.

The party announced it would replace standard grades with a new “report” that would include information for parents on the school’s performance.

But Freedman said the change could make it harder for the new government to conduct complex talks about what will be included in the scoreboards and how much weight they will be given.

“I have a feeling that next year (they will be) burdened with it because they have to do it, they promised to do it.

“You’re going to have to have a very detailed and quite painful conversation about that scoreboard. And then you’re going to have a whole bunch of questions about… who in the DfE is responsible for interpreting that scoreboard.”

Bridget Phillipson, Labour’s shadow education minister, said the decision would be subject to consultation with teachers and parents.

So far, the party hasn’t provided many details about what the leaderboard will look like.

But Heller said current reports often have “the juices squeezed out of them. I often think that if I erased the names on the Ofsted reports, I wouldn’t be able to tell one school from another”.

3. Fewer specific policies, more consultations

Freedman described the “loss of any sense of connection between the school system and the broader child welfare system” as the “biggest problem” of the past 14 years.

He added that when the Conservatives took power, the decision was made to leave schools and focus on education, while other parts of the system dealt with the wider issues facing young people.

But due to underfunding and cuts to pastoral services, they have been “devastated” by “significantly more children with mental health problems, significantly more children living in poverty”, which has had a negative impact on schools.

But he doesn’t think Labour “is approaching it in the way Michael Gove did, which is with a very clear vision of exactly what he wants to do”.

Instead, they have “a set of beliefs… (with) a lot of space in which to fit, and organizations will have a lot more consultation and opportunity to contribute to that set.”

4. The silence of the Labour academy will not last

The new government will have to answer questions about the extent to which it wants the academy programme to be expanded in the next parliamentary term.

Asked about Labor’s “agnostic” stance on foundation development, Freedman noted the party would need to clarify its position.

“You can’t write a white paper without delving into structural issues,” he said.

“The big question is how far would they like to go? Is it a different way of organising trusts, is it a different way of doing oversight and thinking that oversight involves something more? There are lots of things that could be done.”

Heller believes that “most schools” are now under trust management, so “greater consolidation” of academies will most likely happen “naturally, almost independently of politics”.

Currently, Ofsted rulings can also result in intervention by the Department for Education to relocate academies or transfer local authority schools to foundations.

Freedman noted this would be a “challenge” in the “second half” of Labour’s Ofsted programme.

“That’s a very primitive way of doing it. But if you don’t do it that way, in a very centralized system like the one we have, how do you do it?”

5. “Radically reform SEND”

Radical reform of special needs funding is needed to reverse changes that have “left schools in the most disadvantaged areas worse off”.

Heller argued that “the vast majority of children with special needs should be cared for in mainstream schools.”

“We need to end the effective arms race that we have created for parents, where they feel that in order to get the support that their child needs, they have to go and somehow fight for it. It’s an absurd system.”

She also warned that recent funding changes had “made schools in the most disadvantaged areas worse off, not better”.

Freedman argued for differentiation in “how we address different health conditions” and for a way to “channel funding to schools in a way that doesn’t go through education, health, and welfare plans.”

Otherwise it is “all or nothing for the child, the parents and the school”.