'Not quite the heirs to Blair' - Conor Ryan on the coalition and education policy

In this month’s Public Finance magazine, Conor Ryan, who served as the special adviser for education to both Tony Blair and David Blunkett in the last Government, uses his regular column to critique the approach and drivers of the Coalition’s approach to the reform of public services, and improvement of the schools sector in particular.

He argues that while on the surface it is fair to say that a number of the stated objectives and strategies that David Cameron’s administration are undertaking do bear a good deal of conceptual resemblance to the reform trajectory that Blair and key New Labour ministers pursued in the second and early 3^rd term, there are subtle but nonetheless crucial differences that aren’t yet fully understood.

He believes that David Cameron and the key ministers high priority public spending departments have yet to fully grasp the need to balance the natural instinct to de-regulate and free up the frontline to deliver with a realistic suite of targets and dedicated funding streams to help shape and underpin the resultant activity:

“Decentralisation can allow real innovation and reduce needless bureaucracy. But improvement in the Blair years was not simply about letting go: there was direction as well as devolution. Unless the coalition provides strong targets and well-directed support, as well as diversity and independence, its reforms will fail – especially with money tight. But if it gets it right, it can make a difference to the quality of public services”.

In particular he argues that in the arena of education, despite being a self confessed Blairite, in terms of his appetite for radical reform, Michael Gove hasn’t fully grasped that as Secretary of State he has a key enabling role to play in ensuring that funding streams within the education budget are tied to the achievement of measurable outcomes in line with his overall objectives:

"In Labour's first term, literacy and numeracy targets were accompanied by earmarked money for books and teacher training. School sports partnerships were launched to target money on employing teachers to increase participation and competition. Specialist schools were funded to develop networks with local schools, helping preserve language and increase science take-up. With all such funds came expected outcomes. All these have fallen to the coalition's axe, despite a temporary sports reprieve".

Ryan cites the coalition’s flagship Pupil Premium policy, which is designed to boost the educational achievement and social mobility of children from poorer backgrounds, as a particularly strong example of how in a tight budgetary climate the lack of ring-fencing to the Pupil Premium means some schools may well be tempted to use the funding to plug other funding gaps in their provision.

Lastly the former Labour Government adviser voices concern that the core social mission statement of the academies programme to act as mechanisms for root and branch transformation of schooling provision in some of England’s most deprived communities may be at risk as a result of it being re-calibrated as the new orthodoxy:

“And that’s the biggest problem with the coalition approach, and where they lose sight of New Labour’s practical focus on end results. Blair certainly wanted more independence for schools, promoting trust schools as well as academies, and would support extending academy freedoms to other schools.

But he never lost sight of the social mission of academies. Replacing failing schools in disadvantaged areas helped to regenerate poorer communities, raise expectations and change the mindset of teachers, pupils and parents in the process”.