Is the 'children's agenda' working for schools?

I have a piece in this week's Public Finance looking at another aspect of the fallout from the Baby P case in Haringey and the departure of Sharon Shoesmith. The merger of the education and social services agendas after the inquiry into the Victoria Climbie case has led to complaints from some that social services needs are downplayed where schools specialists take charge. But there are also those who fear that the aims of this merger are not being met. Instead a new bureaucracy has emerged, with headls having to go to lots of joint planning meetings, when it might be better simply employing social workers in schools. You can read my piece here.

The Children's Plan

I have written the cover feature for this week's Public Finance magazine, about the Children's Plan, and the tensions between the children's and school standards agenda that the Plan seeks to bridge. You can read the article here.

Is the Children's Plan focused enough?

I've now had a chance to read through the Children's Plan . There is no doubting its ambition; it confirms quite a lot that was already in train, adding extra resources and targets including more nursery places for two year-olds, well-equipped children's centres and better youth facilities. There are well-trailed initiatives on everything from new adventure playgrounds to a clampdown on inappropriate videos and websites. Plans for progress tests by stage rather than age are confirmed - Ed Balls gave some encouraging reassurance in his statement to the Commons on how they will be taken forward in the future. There is welcome recognition of the importance of data in raising standards, and a reaffirmation of proposals in the 2005 Schools White Paper - which are already underpinned by legislation - to give parents proper information on their children's progress. Jim Rose's review of the primary curriculum is also confirmed, and there are good ideas on improving school leadership and teaching - especially the Finnish-style Master's Programme for existing staff. But wading through the 168-pages, I am left with a niggling concern that the agglomeration of initiatives - many doubtless worthy in their own right - could distract from the central task of raising standards for all. There is a danger of a lack of sufficient focus. For example, Rose's phonics review from 2005 should be being implemented vigorously now across all primaries, yet phonics is not prioritised in the Plan; for many schools, there is a real danger of a clamour to join in these many other initiatives, distracting them from them their primary task of improving the basics. Shouldn't one question for the new Rose review be to decide not just which curriculum subjects should remain a requirement for primary schools, and their relative importance, but also the extent to which attempts to make schools an extension of social services are genuinely helping (or hindering)the drive to raise standards for all, and the relative value of the linked initiatives?

Cutting the clutter

The government is placing considerable store on its new Children's Plan to be published on Tuesday. Newspapers have been filled with tales of bans on TV advertising and other 'talking point' issues guaranteed to gain space on a Sunday. But what will matter most is what is planned for the primary school curriculum. And in that respect, it is good news, as Ed Balls told Andrew Marr this morning, that Sir Jim Rose, the former Ofsted inspector who led the 2005 review of reading, is to lead a review of its content. His presence should ensure a sound series of recommendations.

There are some clear priorities. For a start, the government must ensure that phonics is being used much more widely to teach children to read early on. And the teaching of the basics must be given the level of priority in primaries that it had before Charles Clarke's decision to emasculate literacy and numeracy within an all-embracing primary strategy. Then, it is right to turn testing from a one-off event at 11 for all into progress testing while ready, so long as the tests are externally set and validated, and performance tables continue at Key Stage 2; but, a similar approach is needed for 7 and 8 year-olds so that teachers and parents have an accurate baseline from which to work. Finally, Rose must be given the freedom to cut the clutter in primary schools. That means teachers not being expected to put social work before teaching; by all means, provide the wrap-round facilities around schools, but don't clutter the curriculum in ways that divert primary schools from their primary task.