Education agenda set on reform

By Mike Baker
BBC News education correspondent

"Changes will be accelerated"

It was the Conservatives' top education issue and now Tony Blair has made it the new government's priority for his third term: classroom discipline.

Sorting out pervasive low-level disruption, as well as more violent and aggressive behaviour, will now sit at the top of the Education Secretary Ruth Kelly's in-tray.

This is the most striking impact of the election campaign on the education landscape. But what else has changed?

Fresh from seeing his Commons majority cut back, the prime minister stood in Downing Street and pledged that the education reforms would continue.

Far from any suggestion of modifying or diluting 'New Labour' policies on schools, he gave the impression they would be speeded up.

So, for all the doubts that have been expressed about the programmes for City Academies, specialist schools, and public-private partnerships, these will be accelerated.

Top-up protests

Moreover, despite the successes of the Liberal Democrats in several university-dominated constituencies, there was no hint of any change to the plans to introduce university top-up fees in 2006.

Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats opposed tuition fees. Their joint vote far outweighed Labour's support. But top-up fees will go ahead, in England at least. The universities will, for the most part, be relieved.

So, apart from the new emphasis on "respect" and discipline in the classroom, has the election changed anything?

Well, for a start, there is enforced change in the ministerial team. The former Schools Minister, Stephen Twigg, lost his seat.

If any image summed up the change since 1997, it was the sight of Mr Twigg - looking tired and downcast - as his defeat was announced.

What a contrast from his beaming look of amazement eight years ago when, as a young, recent ex-president of the National Union of Students, he snatched the scalp of the former Tory minister, Michael Portillo.

It was a metaphor for the change in the public perception of the Labour government: like a well-hit cricket ball, much of the shine has been knocked off.

Twigg's defeat is a serious blow to the ministerial team. He was the sole element of continuity on the schools side from the teams which worked under the two other education secretaries of the 2001-2005 parliament: Estelle Morris and Charles Clarke.

Discipline is the top priority, said Tony Blair

Concern has already been expressed about the high turnover of ministers and the inexperience of Ruth Kelly, who stays on as education secretary.

With former Schools Minister David Miliband's departure before the election, and now the loss of his successor Stephen Twigg, the schools' team looks very new indeed.

The importance of experience was underlined just a week before the election by the poor performance of the junior Schools Minister Derek Twigg (no relation) at the annual conference of the National Association of Head Teachers.

If ever there was a cautionary tale for the re-elected Labour government it was the response Derek Twigg received from head teachers.

They were deeply unimpressed by his speech and some even jeered and hissed, particularly when he insisted school league tables were here to stay.

These are the people - school leaders - whom Labour must win over to deliver its reforms.

NAHT delegates are, I would guess, more likely to be Labour supporters than Conservatives.

Yet it was the Tory spokesman, Tim Collins, who was roundly applauded (sadly for him this new-won popularity did not prevent him losing his own seat).

Loudest applause

For those of us who have attended teacher union conferences for many years, this was astonishing. The Conservatives almost always get the worst reception. They often seemed to speak a different language from teachers.

So Labour's new ministerial team would do well to get out Tim Collins' speech and mark-up all the points where he won the loud support of the head teachers.

In fact, I have done the work for them. The head teachers clapped enthusiastically for the following: better support for teachers facing allegations of abuse, scrapping the £50,000 fund-raising requirement for specialist schools, giving entire schools' budgets directly to head teachers, reducing central government initiatives, cutting back on national tests (Sats), making A-level a two-year course again, and abolishing university tuition fees.

Tony Blair said the electorate had spoken and his new government would listen. He has listened to one message: the concern over school discipline now seems to be as widely held amongst the public as amongst teachers.

But what will the new government do about it? Only the Conservative manifesto offered a fresh idea: the creation of 24,000 places at new "turnaround schools" which would take all the pupils kicked out of mainstream schools.

Labour seems unlikely to adopt this. Will they shift a little more on the Conservatives' other policy: giving head teachers absolute freedom to exclude badly-behaved pupils with no right of appeal?

School discipline is not going to be solved as easily as the issue of school dinners

The NAHT leader, David Hart, has suggested a compromise way forward: no appeals against exclusions except where there is a dispute over whether the procedures were properly followed.

School discipline is not going to be solved as easily as the issue of school dinners (and that took 25 years to achieve the return of tough nutritional standards).

It is sometimes argued that the independent schools offer a role model. It is certainly true that many parents turn to the private sector because they believe the discipline is better.

But is it better because the teaching and disciplinary codes are more effective or is it simply that badly-behaved pupils, with unsupportive parents, do not get through the door in the first place?

If it is the latter, then the key would appear to lie with giving state school head teachers absolute right to admit and exclude difficult pupils. But if that happens, where do those youngsters go instead?

A major complaint of teachers is that children, and their parents, are very keen to assert their rights. Pupils know that school staff dare not physically restrain them, even though the rules do allow this in certain circumstances.

This might be one of the first areas Ruth Kelly should address: a change in the law which would reassure teachers that, when they feel it necessary to deal physically with violent or disruptive pupils, they will not face disciplinary or legal action themselves.

That would be an important first step towards Tony Blair's stated aim of 'bring back respect to the classroom'.

---

We welcome your comments, although we cannot promise to respond individually. We will publish a selection later in the week.

Terms & Conditions