ATL

The Tory story

ATL deputy general secretary Martin Johnson picks out some of the main issues in the Conservatives' proposals for education

ATL members are as likely as any voters to think carefully before drawing their crosses next spring. Therefore I won't apologise for talking politics in this column for the second time in a row. Recently, the Conservative shadow minister, Michael Gove, revealed more details of what he would like for England's schools.

There were 32 specific and wide-ranging proposals. Here, I summarise them, without comment; you can decide for yourselves how they match up to your concerns. Before the election, ATL will set out its wish list for a new government and invite members to compare it with these proposals and those of the other parties.

The centrepiece of the Tory plan is a wish that all schools, primary and secondary, should become academies - independent and accountable only to parents and Ofsted. In the short term, any school could apply to become one, and any school stuck in special measures would become one. It would be easier for groups of parents, 'educational charities' or even teachers to set up new academies by removing barriers such as planning law and building regulations.

The Conservatives would simplify school funding. They imply parents would receive a flat-rate voucher, with poorer parents receiving a premium on top. They are silent, as yet, on the funding prospects for schools in light of their belief that public spending needs sharp reductions almost immediately. They do say that, at the moment, "billions are wasted".

These proposals update the last Conservative government's belief that a market for schools not only enhances parental choice but also raises standards through competition. Although, of course, primary and secondary schools are already funded largely on the basis of pupil numbers, Mr Gove creates the image of a parent taking their £5,000 voucher to the school of their choice, a much clearer statement of parents as consumers.

The proposals also cover three other areas: curriculum and assessment, pupil behaviour, and the recruitment and training of teachers. They criticise current levels of pupil achievement; for example: "Last year, only 189 of these 75,000 [children on free school meals each year] went on to get three As at A level - compared with the 175 three-As pupils produced by just one school, Eton."

They "will give universities and subject academics more power over GCSEs and A levels in order to reverse their devaluation", although they have decided themselves to allow all schools to offer the internationally recognised iGCSE. A Conservative government would reform the national curriculum to focus on core subjects and change league tables by increasing the amount of data in them. Then further curriculum changes would be stopped.

To improve order in classrooms, a Conservative government would make it easier to remove disruptive pupils and increase powers to search pupils, as well as abolish the requirement to give 24 hours' notice of detention. Independent appeals against exclusions would be abolished. Disruptive pupils would be placed "in an environment - from boarding academies to reformed pupil referral units - where their behaviour is dealt with". If subject to disciplinary investigation, teachers would have the right to anonymity (a policy long supported by ATL), a reduced threat of suspension and a conclusion to proceedings within a month.

Another policy that resonates with ATL members is the belief that the quality of teachers is the most important factor in improving schools. The Conservatives want to emulate countries like Singapore and Finland, which "recruit teachers from top graduates, train them seriously, and reward and respect the profession".

However, they maintain the very English belief in the need to make it easier for headteachers to sack poorly performing teachers. They would raise the bar for entry to the profession from a grade C to a B in English and maths at GCSE. They would give more flexibility to headteachers on pay; they cite the example of rewarding teachers for teaching into the evenings and weekends. Perhaps strangely, while valuing training, they would expand the Teach First approach of training on the job.

As education staff know only too well, the devil is in the detail of many proposals emanating from Whitehall. When ATL sits down with Conservative leaders, we shall be seeking the detail - including whether it would continue the social partnership. Incidentally, one of the greatest benefits of the social partnership on school workforce issues is that, sometimes, rather odd suggestions become quite benign after confidential discussions.

The real poser is this: where should power lie in our schools system? Over the years, ATL has argued against the trend of concentrating powers at national level, with a 'vacuum' locally and too much left to individual schools. The Conservatives are suggesting an end to national meddling - but could any government resist the temptation to intervene in such a high-profile policy area? And if it could, should schools be set free to sink or swim entirely on their own?