Back in 1997, Tony Blair liked to say that his education policy was going to be focused on “standards not structures”.
This was an attempt to contrast with a Conservative government that had often seemed obsessed with new types of school. Once in government, Labour ended the grant-maintained scheme that had allowed schools to opt out of local authority control.
At first, this seemed the right call. The education secretary David Blunkett and colleagues introduced new approaches for literacy and numeracy for all schools, regardless of name.
A change of heart
But by the end of his first term, Blair had a change of heart. He saw that the Conservatives had been on to something after all. And that it’s hard to change a school system if you don’t think about management.
He later wrote in his memoir: “We were saying forget about complex, institutional structural reforms; what counts is what works, and by that we meant outputs. This was fine as a piece of rhetoric; and positively beneficial as a piece of politics. Unfortunately, as I began to realise when experience started to shape our thinking, it was a bunkum as a piece of policy. The whole point is that structures beget standards. How a service is configured affects outcomes.”
The new Labour team that arrived in July hasn’t exactly repeated 1997. It hasn’t dismantled the academy trust structure developed under the past two governments. But it has used the same rhetoric, again talking about “standards not structures” and being “agnostic” about all the different types of school.
At the level of individual school performance, this is fair enough. Tory ministers too often went out of their way to avoid calling out the achievements of schools that are still maintained, and were often unwilling to challenge poorly performing academy trusts.
A particular structure doesn’t automatically render an institution good or bad.
Structures are critical
But as a systems-level policy, it makes no sense, for the reasons Blair gave. You can’t be agnostic about management structures when they are critical to your outcomes. Either trusts are a bad thing, in which case they should be replaced, or they can be a positive mechanism for improvement, in which case they should be at the heart of policy thinking, given that the majority of schools are now part of a trust.
Labour’s initial proposals on school improvement - regional improvement for standards and excellence - highlight the problem.
The core idea is that the Department for Education should broker improvement for schools that have weaknesses highlighted under the new Ofsted report card process, once it starts.
But isn’t that what trusts are for? If they’re not able to figure out how to improve their schools then why are we paying for CEO salaries? And what if they disagree with the DfE proposals for support?
Surely it’s time for the DfE to focus on trusts rather than individual schools? It should be looking to help the best ones grow and holding the ones not pulling their weight to account.
It shouldn’t be intervening in individual schools in trusts if they’re unable to show the capacity to support their schools. For maintained schools, the same approach should apply to local authorities.
Instead, the new government has scrapped the Trust Capacity Fund, which was designed to develop and scale up effective trusts. And there doesn’t seem to be an alternative plan on the way. Trust leaders report a frustrating lack of engagement from ministers.
This is not a plea for trusts to get special treatment, just to make use of the system we have. Indeed, rather than simply ignoring “structures”, Labour could differentiate itself from the Conservatives by, correctly, saying that the last government was far too soft on trust underperformance.
Action is needed
There are plenty of regulations when it comes to governance and finance. But educationally speaking, too many trusts are getting away with adding little value.
The last government belatedly recognised this. The case was outlined in the 2022 White Paper. Unfortunately, an undercooked Bill was rushed into Parliament where it fell apart amid that chaotic political summer.
It remains the case, though, that too many trusts, especially small ones, are not justifying the extra costs associated with them and the government needs a mechanism to force action.
The upcoming Children’s Wellbeing Bill will contain little on structures (or standards for that matter).
But the following Bill, expected in the next session of Parliament, will have to engage with some of these questions. Unlike Blair, those in government probably don’t have the luxury of waiting their whole first term before realising that structures matter.
Sam Freedman is a senior fellow at the Institute for Government and a former senior policy adviser at the Department for Education
For the latest education news and analysis delivered every weekday morning, sign up for the Tes Daily newsletter
