It’s Laws v Gove again as Lib Dem schools minister says academy chains should be accountable to Ofsted

‘It’s civil war in the Coalition classroom’ – that’s how the Independent bills the latest row between those two very civil politicians running the education department, Conservative secretary of state Michael Gove and Lib Dem schools minister David Laws.

I wrote at the weekend about the first spat, which erupted after Michael Gove’s decision to sack Baroness (Sally) Morgan as chair of Ofsted for doing too good a job – at least, that seemed to be the gist of his argument, as he praised her to the skies for her “superlative” work before saying it was time for a change. Others, including David Laws, suggested Mr Gove might have a more nakedly political agenda, and be itching to foist a fellow Tory, Theodore Agnew, on Her Majesty’s schools inspectorate.

Today, David Laws returned to the fray. In an interview with the Indy he understatedly notes, “I don’t think it is one of the best decisions that Michael Gove has ever made.”

He pointedly makes clear his view that the process for appointing the new chair of Ofsted will be totally impartial, having already turned down Mr Gove’s olive branch that the panel could be chaired by Paul Marshall, David Laws’ co-editor on The Orange Book, and a non-executive director on the Department for Education board. ‘Mr Laws insisted,’ the paper notes, ‘that the panel chairman must be appointed by Sir David Normington, the Public Appointments Commissioner, as set down in the rules.’

And David Laws opened a new front against Michael Gove by making clear his view on behalf of the Lib Dems that Ofsted’s powers should be extended so that it can inspect academy chains which run multiple schools, just as it can inspect local authorities:

The Schools minister wants legislation to extend Ofsted’s powers so it can inspect groups of academies. Although it can scrutinise individual academies, it cannot investigate these “chains”. Academies now account for 54 per cent of state-funded secondary schools and 1,752 (48 per cent) of academies are in chains of two or more.

Mr Gove, whose critics claim he is over-protective of the chains, is resisting the idea – even though Ofsted can inspect local authorities, which supervise other state-funded schools.

Mr Laws said: “When the academies programme started, it had a lot of enemies and was regarded as a precious flower that needed protection. But this flower has now grown strong enough to survive in the full heat of the sun. There are some really good local authorities and there are still some terrible ones. In the same way, there are some good academy groups doing an absolutely fantastic job – like Ark and Harris – and some not doing so well.”

The Liberal Democrat minister said: “Ofsted must be able to shine a spotlight wherever it wants to. I don’t want there are to be any constraints. It ought to be able to inspect the chains.” He conceded that the legislation needed to extend Ofsted’s powers would not be passed before the general election. However, the proposal will be included in the Liberal Democrat manifesto.

David Laws is quite right on the principle of this. Let’s say Ofsted inspects a handful of individual schools all run by the same chain and finds worrying problems – at the moment, they would be unable to inspect the running of the academy chain as a whole, but instead have to continue inspecting each of its schools individually. That would take time during which those other schools run by the academy chain might continue to fail their children. It’s only fair that academy chains should operate under the same accountability as local authorities.

Inevitably, the right-wing media has treated David Laws’ intervention as a cynical ‘differentiation’ ploy, targeting Michael Gove because of his unpopularity among voters in the progressive centre. I don’t buy it. I mean, it’s true that he’s unpopular, but the last Lib Dem minister who would exploit that for purely political ends is David Laws. No, his concerns – that some academy chains are failing their pupils’ education – are real and genuine. That the Conservatives are unwilling to see this risk shows they are as ideologically blinkered as those in Labour who refused to believe some local authorities could also be at fault.

* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.

Read more by or more about , , , , or .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

8 Comments

  • Bleedin’ obvious, as they say. David is simply right.

  • Martin Lowe 7th Feb '14 - 7:39am

    Absolutely. OFSTED can inspect local authorities (which also oversees ‘chains’ of schools), so what’s sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

    You’d have to be stupid or corrupt to disagree.

  • “Inevitably, the right-wing media has treated David Laws’ intervention as a cynical ‘differentiation’ ploy, targeting Michael Gove because of his unpopularity among voters in the progressive centre. I don’t buy it. I mean, it’s true that he’s unpopular, but the last Lib Dem minister who would exploit that for purely political ends is David Laws.”

    Why is David Laws “the last Lib Dem minister who would exploit that for purely political ends”?

  • I don’t why I have waited so long to ask this… but why is it that whenever I try to read a blog by Stephen Tall (the author I am most likely to want to read) on LDV after about 2 seconds the majority of the text gets taken over by a huge white box. Not a box I can close or anything, it just all gets blanked out and I can only see the the left edge of the beginning of each line. If I wait a while it often goes.

    Unless it’s a coincidence, it always seems to be stephen’s articles! It does it on my personal macbook and my windows desktop at work!

    Any ideas?

  • Agree with Stephan and the other commentor’s – obvious really.

  • Chris Manners 7th Feb '14 - 1:43pm

    I agree with Laws on this issue and the bigger issue of inspecting academy chains.

    But aren’t you laying it on a bit thick with the “last man to exploit for political ends” lark?

    He exploited Liam Byrne’s Treasury in-joke for political aims. It is unlikely that the intended recipient, Philip Hammond, would have done so.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarTonyH 20th Nov - 6:48pm
    Nice article, and you obviously had a great win. But I would gently take issue with #3. I don't think many of the traditional campaigners...
  • User Avatarpaul barker 20th Nov - 6:45pm
    I presume that 7 is not saying -" dont ever stand paper candidates", merely that we all need to think seriously about what we are...
  • User AvatarDavid Blake 20th Nov - 6:35pm
    I'm slightly concerned that the opposition will get hold of it and use it to win more seats...
  • User AvatarDavid Raw 20th Nov - 6:24pm
    And where we don't work we never win, nor do we deserve to. I prefer item 7. "To put people off. I implore you not...
  • User AvatarLaurence Cox 20th Nov - 5:43pm
    @Graham Evans As the article linked to makes clear, it is background research that forms an input to the Independent Commission on Referendums, not the...
  • User AvatarJennie 20th Nov - 5:39pm
    " To debunk the myth of “where we work we win”, which is gold-plated nonsense. " Thank Cthulhu for that. This one has been one...