The Japanese word for crisis is made up of two parts, meaning danger and opportunity. That shift in perspective is perhaps never more keenly felt than when a politician moves between opposition and government.
As the Labour frontbench switched from one side of the dispatch box to the other last July, easy calls of crisis – a reflex word on the campaign trail – became knotty problems to unpick and dangers in the offing. Round-worded manifesto promises became detailed policy proposals to be costed, consulted, negotiated and legislated.
As a charity, the Confederation of School Trusts (CST) is strictly apolitical. We worked with the Labour team in opposition and into government, as we work with all the main political parties.
Our role is to work constructively to get the best education system we can – something we think is best achieved through schools working together in organisations dedicated to that cause.
We believe in deep and purposeful collaboration which is enacted by a group of schools working together in this way. This honours the work of schools, while also creating resilience in our school system.
Labour’s relationship to academy trusts has long been a complicated one. It pioneered the concept and its leaders have largely supported trusts, though some party members and particularly the unions have been less keen.
We have been pleased to hear positive words from Sir Keir Starmer and Bridget Philipson, with the prime minister telling the house of commons that “academies are here to stay, and will continue to drive up standards. We introduced academies, we are committed to them, and we are driving standards up.”
It is no secret that CST and many of our member academy trusts have been concerned about what we believed may be the unintended consequences of some aspects of the government’s proposed legislation.
We welcome the constructive engagement we have had
We welcome the constructive engagement we have had with government and its ensuing amendment to the teacher pay and conditions measure in the children’s wellbeing and schools bill. We continue to work closely with ministers and officials on the regulations that will underpin other measures in the bill.
There are many things we agree on. The urgent threat of child poverty and the need to reform our approach to special educational needs, so that all our children flourish. The challenge of revitalising teaching as a career that people want to join and to stay in, as well as ensuring rewarding jobs for all the many essential support staff without whom our schools couldn’t function.
This truly is an opportunity mission. But there is also potential danger.
We need to balance doing something with doing the right thing: looking to the evidence to inform our actions and prioritising changes that really make a difference today, and not reliving the battles of the past.
We have faith in Professor Becky Francis’ approach to the national curriculum review, but we understand why the potential for change and upheaval makes colleagues anxious. There is much nuance in the detail.
We have worked for many years with Tom Rees, chair of the DfE’s expert group on SEND. We are so proud of the paper he authored with Ben Newmark on A Good Life, which makes the powerful case for greater dignity for people with learning disability. But we also understand the fear that any change in this incredibly sensitive area can illicit.
This autumn’s promised white paper will be an important marker of what approach the government will take in future years. We look forward to the clarity that this important policy paper will bring.
We are committed to working with government to set out a shared vision for our school system, underpinned by the principles of excellence, inclusion and equity.
Our children get just one chance at childhood. Over the past thirty years we have seen significant changes in our schools. We have moved from a system that sometimes seemed to abandon children born in the wrong postcodes to one where the vast majority of our schools are good and improving.
We will keep working with government to seize the opportunity.
Your thoughts