Whether under Labour or the Tories, free schools and academies need to be managed

The education department cannot be expected to oversee more than 3,000 schools. We need local commissioners to act as champions for standards.

Labour has opened up a debate about the government’s academies and free school programme this week. Rafael Behr described it as "neither a capitulation to Gove's agenda nor a ferocious reaction against it." But across the political divide, there is an elephant in the room for whoever wins the next election.

The biggest challenge for both Michael Gove and Stephen Twigg is how to ensure proper oversight of so many autonomous schools. We now have a situation where the Department for Education is required to deal with an under-performing academy, but there are already signs that the department is too remote and overstretched to do so. A handful of civil servants in Whitehall are now responsible for overseeing 3,000 schools, something that was previously done by local authorities.

The academies and free school programme is a force for good. The first wave of academy schools created a series of strong institutions, serving communities that did not have access to high-quality school places. They have helped to transform inner-city neighbourhoods such as Hackney, which were previously mired by sink schools and middle class flight. They build on the progressive principle that the state works best through strong independent institutions serving their local area, free to innovate to meet local needs.

The public education system is richer and more innovative with these new school providers. Free schools such as School 21 in Newham and the Greenwich Free School are adapting their curriculum and delivering classes in new and exciting ways. Where there is a lack of good school places - and that means places of a high enough standard to meet parental aspirations and community expectations - it is right that new schools can be set up.

But the government’s rapid and uncontrolled expansion of academies over the last two years has created a number of tensions that need to be resolved. Twigg has rightly pointed out that the government needs to be clearer about which freedoms are best for driving up standards in schools. It is a good idea to give schools more space to design their school day or the curriculum they teach. But there is little justification for allowing schools to hire unqualified teachers or serve unhealthy school meals.

Ensuring that all schools employ qualified teachers would be a positive move. In the world's top education systems, the best graduates go into teaching. In Finland, teaching is a skilled profession that requires a master's degree, not one for the unqualified. Gove’s decision to give schools freedom to hire unqualified teachers was a retrograde step that will only harm standards.

Last year, 14 of Gove’s new flagship 'convertor academies' fell below the minimum performance target and there have been reports of financial mishandling by academy chains. This is a problem because the government does not have a programme for dealing with academies that are failing or for monitoring the performance of chains. We need a more robust system in place to deal with poor school performance.

The world’s leading school systems all have some sort of 'middle tier' of governance between central government and a school headteacher. This middle tier is important for monitoring standards, managing the local schools market, and providing a mixture of support and challenge to help schools improve. In Canada it is done by a local schools superintendent, usually an outstanding headteacher that has been promoted to oversee schools in their area. In a report published tomorrow, IPPR recommends that England should follow a similar model by creating local school commissioners. These would be education experts, appointed at arms length by local authorities, who can monitor and support schools to improve. They would act as champions for parents and standards, with statutory duties to respond to parental demand and to intervene to tackle failure or under-achievement.

Free schools and academies have the potential to transform the school system but they need more robust oversight, with proper systems in place to deal with poor performance. Creating this effective middle tier will be a key challenge for whoever wins the next election. 

Jonathan Clifton is a senior research fellow at IPPR. @jp_clifton  

Boris Johnson with Toby Young and pupils at the opening of the West London Free School on September 9, 2011 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

Jonathan Clifton is a senior research fellow at IPPR.

Show Hide image

France’s burkini ban could not come at a worse time

Yet more legislation against veiled women can only further divide an already divided nation.

Since mayor of Cannes David Lisnard banned the full-body burkini from his town’s beaches, as many as 15 French resorts have followed suit. Arguments defending the bans fall into three main categories. First, it is about defending the French state’s secularism (laïcité). Second, that the costume represents a misogynistic doctrine that sees female bodies as shameful. And finally, that the burkini is cited as a threat to public order.

None of these arguments satisfactorily refute the claims of civil rights activists that the bans are fundamentally Islamophobic.

The niceties of laïcité

The Cannes decree explicitly invokes secular values. It prohibits anyone “not dressed in a fashion respectful of laïcité” from accessing public beaches. However, the French state has only banned “ostentatious” religious symbols in schools and for government employees as part of laïcité (the strict separation between the state and religious society). And in public spaces, laïcité claims to respect religious plurality. Indeed, the Laïcité Commission has tweeted that the ban, therefore, “cannot be based upon the principle of laïcité”.

While veils covering the entire face such as the burqa or niqab are illegal, this is not to protect laïcité; it is a security matter. The legal justification is that these clothes make it impossible to identify the person underneath – which is not the case for the burkini.

 

By falling back on laïcité to police Muslim women in this way, the Cannes authorities are fuelling the argument that “fundamentalist secularism” has become a means of excluding Muslims from French society.

Colonial attitudes

Others, such as Laurence Rossignol, the minister for women’s rights, hold that the burkini represents a “profoundly archaic view of a woman’s place in society”, disregarding Muslim women who claim to wear their burkini voluntarily.

This typifies an enduring colonial attitude among many non-Muslim French politicians, who feel entitled to dictate to Muslim women what is in their best interests. Rossignol has in the past compared women who wear headscarves through choice to American “negroes” who supported slavery.

Far from supporting women’s rights, banning the burkini will only leave the women who wear it feeling persecuted. Even those with no choice in the matter are not helped by the ban. This legal measure does nothing to challenge patriarchal authority over female bodies in the home. Instead, it further restricts the lives of veiled women by replacing it with state authority in public.

Open Islamophobia

Supporters of the ban have also claimed that, with racial tensions high after recent terrorist attacks, it is provocative to wear this form of Muslim clothing. Such an argument was made by Pierre-Ange Vivoni, mayor of Sisco in Corsica, when he banned the burkini in his commune. Early reports suggested a violent clash between local residents and non-locals of Moroccan origin was triggered when strangers photographed a burkini-wearing woman in the latter group, which angered her male companions. Vivoni claimed that banning the costume protected the security of local people, including those of North African descent.

Those reports have transpired to be false: none of the women in question were even wearing a burkini at the time of the incident. Nonetheless, the ban has stood in Sisco and elsewhere.

To be “provoked” by the burkini is to be provoked by the visibility of Muslims. Banning it on this basis punishes Muslim women for other people’s prejudice. It also disregards the burkini’s potential to promote social cohesion by giving veiled women access to the same spaces as their non-Muslim compatriots.

Appeals to public order have, occasionally, been openly Islamophobic. Thierry Migoule, head of municipal services in Cannes, claimed that the burkini “refers to an allegiance to terrorist movements”, conveniently ignoring the Muslim victims of recent attacks. Barely a month after Muslims paying their respects to friends and family killed in Nice were racially abused, such comments are both distasteful and irresponsible.

Increased divisions

Feiza Ben Mohammed, spokesperson for the Federation of Southern Muslims, fears that stigmatising Muslims in this way will play into the hands of IS recruiters. That fear seems well-founded: researchers cite a sense of exclusion as a factor behind the radicalisation of a minority of French Muslims. Measures like this can only exacerbate that problem. Indeed, provoking repressive measures against European Muslims to cultivate such a sentiment is part of the IS strategy.

Meanwhile, the day after the incident in Sisco, riot police were needed in nearby Bastia to prevent a 200-strong crowd chanting “this is our home” from entering a neighbourhood with many residents of North African descent. Given the recent warning from France’s head of internal security of the risk of a confrontation between “the extreme right and the Muslim world”, such scenes are equally concerning.

Now more than ever, France needs unity. Yet more legislation against veiled women can only further divide an already divided nation.

The Conversation

Fraser McQueen, PhD Candidate, University of Stirling

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.