ATL

Whitehall's mixed bag

Ahead of the general election, ATL general secretary Mary Bousted looks at the positive and negative interventions from central government that have affected education in the last 20 years

Recent issues of Report have had a strongly political theme, and this issue continues the trend with interviews with the politicians who will, if their party is elected, be Secretary of State for Education.

Every ATL member, wherever they work, will know from first-hand experience how much influence, for better and for worse, politicians have on the education system. ATL members working in state schools have felt the steady encroachment of Whitehall upon their working lives.

The Education Reform Act of 1988 was our very own 'big bang'; at a stroke the National Curriculum and national testing were created, which created the data for performance league tables and the framework in which teachers' work is accounted for and evaluated. Since that momentous bill there have been no less than 16 education acts passed through Parliament — all affecting schools and those who work in them.

The intentions and some of the effects of the vast majority of education legislation have been positive (the establishment of children's trusts; Sure Start, limits on class size), but not always.

Many ATL members will remember the passing of the notorious local government act of 1988, which barred local authorities from 'promoting the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship' — a shameful piece of legislation that has now been repealed. And the 1992 act that established Ofsted, a body that, according to the intentions of the first Chief Inspector Chris Woodhead, was to be a 'weapon of terror' against teachers (an intention that has been hugely realised).

It is important in a historical perspective to have a balanced view. It is an undeniable fact that education spending has been massively increased and sustained throughout the first decade of this century. We have seen the very tangible results of this increased investment in England in the new and refurbished school buildings and children's centres that now stand proudly at the centre of their communities throughout the country; in England and Wales education staff have seen the employment of huge numbers (now approaching half a million) of support staff and the benefits of the remodelling agenda including, most significantly for primary teachers, PPA time; and in all four nations the real improvement in teachers' pay.

On a less positive note, successive governments have adopted a highly centralised approach to the tools of the teacher's trade: curriculum and assessment. Teachers in England and, to a lesser extent, Wales, work under the most stringent accountability system, which encompasses multiple layers and many sources of 'authority'.

Governments have not limited themselves to legislation about structures (although these have been a fertile area for the exercise of power — from types of schools to the creation of quangos). In England, the government has used its power to intervene at the very heart of teachers' working lives and has extended its control into the professional practice of teachers through the National Strategies.

The results have been mixed. While there has been an undeniable rise in education standards, this has come at a huge cost and is now proving to be ineffective as a standard-of-achievement plateau.

The collateral damage done to teacher autonomy and professionalism has been severe. Too many teachers feel constrained by external forces and unable to exercise autonomy in respect of their classroom practice. The unforeseen effect of the weight of legislation, initiatives, advice and guidance visited upon schools and those who work in them has been an unwanted legacy of compliance to external forces, which has driven many good teachers from the profession and left too many of those within it weary and powerless.

So it is important that now, in March 2010, we ask those politicians just what their intentions are. The questions posed to them are the ones suggested by ATL members in their response to the unions' survey, which forms the basis of our education manifesto (to be launched in the next issue of Report). The interviews with David Laws (Lib Dems), Michael Gove (Conservative) and Ed Balls (Labour) allow you, dear readers, to compare and contrast (which is a powerful way to learn).

There is, I think, one key issue: is there to be more of the same or, in a 'post-bureaucratic age', are we to hear less from Whitehall and more from the profession? Which party is really serious about professional autonomy for education professionals? And how do they propose to achieve this aim? Let us read and see…