The debate about the future of school governance was given new energy last week following an RSA report making the case for school commissioners. Robert Hill’s paper argues for a leaner Department for Education, a continued role for local authorities in planning places, and a new tier in the form of expert commissioners.

The justification for a ‘middle tier’ between schools and Whitehall is that there is an increasing polarisation of power between headteachers and the secretary of state. School commissioners could plug this gap and provide regional or city-region leadership on education issues. Hill argues that aside from key budgetary issues and national frameworks, school policy should be devolved to these bodies that can more effectively coordinate services.

There are, however, limitations to the model set out by the RSA paper. It should be an essential component of any reform that it doesn’t recreate bureaucracy or divert funding from classrooms. Where I disagree with the proposed reforms is in the suggestion that local authorities can continue to play such a key role in the oversight and planning of schools. There is a danger that in the culture of cuts we make reforms that duplicate roles and add unnecessary layers of decision making to the system. It would be possible to transfer all of the statutory and planning roles from local authorities to school commissioners. Democratic accountability would still be in the system through school governors and the selection of commissioners.

The most important argument for school commissioners is that they have the potential to directly improve teaching and learning. Thinking beyond the current framework of school governance, school commissioners could build capacity between schools to collaborate, not by employing staff themselves but by freeing up the best teachers in the area to go and support others. These new bodies could also pool resources between schools to address complex issues in communities which have high NEET or teenage pregnancy rates. School commissioners could also promote excellence by offering teacher bonuses for excellent practice. Through high-profile leadership and pooled budgets, school commissioners would be able to offer practical support that would improve teaching and learning.

In many ways the debate about school commissioners tracks to the heart of Labour’s discomfort on education reforms. The implication of proposing less government involvement is that we are accepting the ‘academisation’ of schools in the England. That is true but the ongoing obsession with school governance is a distraction from what really counts: the quality of teaching and learning in the classroom. We need to reorientate ourselves with the new reality of school governance, accept it, and argue for reforms that give every child the best shot at achieving their potential. School commissioners are a good place to start.

—————————————————————————————

Josh MacAlister is a teacher. He tweets @joshmacalister and has previously written for Progress here

—————————————————————————————

Read also …

Martin Johnson, deputy general secretary of ATL union, on why the focus on the ‘middle tier’ is a distraction

Josh MacAlister on why we should back school commissioners

—————————————————————————————

Photo: UK Labour