Will Labour get more radical?

By education correspondent Mike Baker

Labour's manifesto may promise that education remains its "top priority" but it contains much that is familiar and little that surprises.

Is Labour building up to something more radical?

The appeal to voters seems to be: Let us finish the job that we started in the first term.

Yet this lack of new ideas seems to be at odds with the manifesto's promise to deliver a "revival" of public services that is "as profound as the changes to the private sector in the 1980s".

The manifesto gives no indication of what these changes would involve other than to hint at greater involvement of private sector providers.

At present there are only two state schools being run directly by private sector companies, although the private sector has taken on a wide range of local education authority services.

Is Labour building up to something more radical? Could we be about to follow the USA in having stock market-floated companies running schools for the state in the hope of making a profit? Perhaps we will hear more about this later in the campaign?

Class sizes

For now, though, we have a manifesto which is not so different from its 1997 predecessor. Some promises from last time have simply been repeated: For example, to increase the share of national income spent on education.

But it is equally interesting to note which promises Labour has chosen not to update.

The big pledge in 1997 was to cut class sizes for five to seven year olds. This time there are no specific targets for reducing class sizes. They could have chosen to extend the class size promise to seven to 11 year olds, but they have not done so.

Nor is there any update of Labour's target to cut exclusions by one third. Of all Labour's targets, this has caused them the most problem as teachers say it has led to unreasonable pressure on schools to keep disruptive pupils when, in the interests of others, they should be expelled.

The 2001 manifesto takes a very different tone, promising head teachers the powers they need to tackle unacceptable behaviour in schools.

Selection

Education action zones - one of the highlights of the last manifesto - do not merit a mention. This scheme, which involves partnerships between business, voluntary groups and local authorities, has perhaps been omitted because critics say it has produced little in the way of innovation or private sector investment.

To Labour's relief, the grammar school issue is the dog that failed to bark

Another significant change is the dropping of Labour's mantra, "standards not structures". In 1997 that was seen as an important guarantee that Labour did not intend to dismantle the remaining grammar schools.

To Labour's relief, the grammar school issue is the dog that failed to bark (with the exception of a small yelp from Ripon, the only place to hold a parental ballot against selection - which failed).

This time, though, the issue of school structures is firmly back on the agenda with the promise to "radically modernise comprehensive schools". The manifesto promises new types of schools: More city academies, more specialist schools and more church and other faith-sponsored schools.

There is no specific mention of the emotive S-word - selection - but teacher unions are fearful that that is the reality of what will flow from the increase in specialist schools and city academies.

Teacher shortages

The prime minister talked about children with particular aptitudes being served by specialist schools but the manifesto does not explain how parents can choose the type of school that best suits their child if they live in a rural area with only one accessible school.

This is a manifesto which treads more softly on professional concerns

The teacher shortage has also left its mark on this manifesto.

In 1997 teacher shortages were not an issue and the manifesto focus was on improving the quality rather than the quantity of teachers. This time there is a specific promise to recruit 10,000 extra teachers.

In general this is a manifesto which treads more softly on professional concerns. In 1997 Labour promised both "pressure and support" for teachers.

This time the emphasis is much more on "support" with promises to employ more classroom assistants, to provide teachers with computers, and to review teachers' workload.

After all, Labour knows that if it cannot recruit enough teachers all the rest of its plans could be scuppered.

So the underlying message of this manifesto is: It's time to be nice to teachers.