Bristol Schools: ten solutions

So, if we can't blame the local authority for all the ills of Bristol schools, what is the problem, and what is to be done?

1. Rather than abolishing the local authority, it should be given more power. Schools need to be accountable and democratic - everything that academies are not. Local authority officials need to be able to go into schools, find out for themselves whether the head teacher's doing a job, and give a kick up the backside if they're not. This is far from the case at the moment.

2. Governors - the representatives of parents and the community - should be given proper training and be paid for their work. Governors are to all intents and purposes the non-executive directors of a school, and need to be able to afford the time away from work to do the job properly. (Just like jury duty.) Equally, no one should be allowed to to be a governor without taking a mandatory one or two week course in how the education system works.

3. Teachers should be allowed to teach. Like any other job, you get good at teaching by doing it. Teachers need advice and support from proven, experienced teachers, not educational theorists or university educationalists. Unfortunately Bristol teachers are confronted with a different fad at the start of each school year. Forget the endless initiatives and focus on what works.

4. Spend the education budget on teachers and smaller class sizes rather than flash new buildings and endless technology. Most of us learnt to read and write before interactive whiteboards were invented.

5. Scrap national testing and targets.

6. Scrap the national curriculum while you're at it.

7. Scrap state faith schools.

8. Abolish the charitable status of private schools and put the money into the state sector.

9. All children should go to school in their local area. If people want to move to South Glos or North Somerset, then let 'em. But you shouldn't be allowed to live in Bristol and go to school elsewhere.

10. Broaden the catchment areas of all secondary schools and have a lottery for the popular ones. Otherwise there's no getting away from selection by house price.

There's a lot here that would have to be done by central government. But Bristol City Council could change catchment areas tomorrow, it's possible for new academies to be opposed locally, and the local authority could and should change its focus from educational novelty to supporting good teaching.

For the rest, that's what you get your vote for.

Bristol Schools Mythbuster

Blimey. We all knew Bristol schools were in trouble, but the news that 40% of Bristol secondary school pupils are being educated outside the city's state schools (20% in the private sector, 20% in neighbouring districts) is still pretty stark.

On the face of it, the problem and the solution seem pretty simple. The Local Authority (LEA as was) is failing miserably in its duties. Get rid of it, give schools more autonomy, and watch standards rise. This is the Tory view, the government's view, and the view of many in Bristol.

Luckily for them, it's already happening. Practically every crap secondary school in Bristol is in the process of becoming an academy, and primary schools probably won't be far behind. New Oak Primary in Hengrove was saved from the clutches of the Christian Oasis Trust, but rumour has it that the city's academies may have their eyes on other primaries.

Unfortunately it's not that simple. The 'get rid of the LEA and all will be well' view rests on two myths:

1. The LA controls what happens in schools.

Sure, the likes of Heather Tomlinson certainly act - and get paid - as if they have a say in how Bristol schools are run. But in fact, the LA can only really intervene in a school if it goes into special measures. The real power in British education lies with central government and headteachers.

Central government's obsession with testing and targets has, according to a major review carried out by Cambridge University, led a rise in pupil stress and 'teaching to the test' rather than a genuine rise in standards.

Headteachers are held to account by school governors rather than the local authority. Governors are by and large well meaning amateurs totally overwhelmed by the workload and ever changing bureaucracy of modern education. Getting to grips with whatever the Department of Education is called this month is enough of a challenge, never mind truly getting to the bottom of what is going on in a school.

2. Schools outside of LA control will necessarily do better.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that, once freed from the dead hand of the LA, schools will flourish.

Bristol's own City Academy, under "inspirational" headteacher Ray Priest, is often held up as a prime example of this, and used as a justification for the transformation of other failing Bristol schools into Academies.

A much quoted statistic is the improvement in exam results at the City Academy - up from 33% achieving five GSCEs at A-C in 2004 to 50% in 2006. Not bad.

But how many pupils got five GCSEs at A-C including English and Maths ? 18% - a measly 2% rise from 2004.

So, three years after glorious liberation from LA control, 82% of its pupils are still failing to get the qualifications that might actually get them a job. Not a resounding success for a school where, according to its websites, 'learning comes first', pupils are 'learning about learning', 'learning today for tomorrow', and even 'learning to live together' in 'learning villages'.

Academies are nothing less than the privatisation of state education, handing over the education of the most vulnerable to shadowy coalitions of businessmen and the religous right. It shouldn't suprise us that a right wing think tank like Policy Exchange supports them. But it is more suprising that people on the left are in favour - particularly when there's bugger all evidence that they actually work.

So what is to be done? To be continued...

Ho ho hum hum

Gordon Brown's first speech on the environment yesterday was rather overshadowed by the failures of the government's internal mail system. (Incidentally, run by TNT. Is it any wonder Royal Mail's in trouble when even the government chooses to privatise their post?)

Anyway, back to Gordon. The message seems to be getting across that 60% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are not going to be enough, with even our dour PM accepting that 80% cuts 'may' be necessary.

Superficially heartening, and at least good to know that all the efforts of campaigners and the IPCC haven't been totally in vain. But what continues to beggar belief is the unwillingness to acknowledge what targets of 80% will actually mean.

According to Brown: 'I know this means facing up to hard choices and taking tough decisions. That it means governing not gimmickry. That is what we will do.'

But, as ever, this administration seems to think that governing involves handing out a few energy saving light bulbs. The really hard choices - like how such targets are compatible with continued airport and road expansion - are swept under the carpet.

Even a no-brainer like banning or levy-ing plastic bags - already successfully carried out elsewhere, and likely to enjoy far more public support than, say, road charging - is too tough a decision. Instead, Brown proposes to 'hold discussions' with supermarkets to see if we can all play nicely and phase them out on a voluntary basis.

If he can't stand up to business on a non-issue like plastic bags, then even a target of 8% looks too ambitious. So much for the vision thing.

Choose to lose?

Some interesting, and even thoughtful, debates about Chooseday elsewhere.

I've met a few of the people involved in Chooseday, and got the impression that they are basically well-intentioned and well-meaning. But that doesn't make it a good idea.

In fact, the most useful thing about Chooseday is that it shows just how silly it is to pretend that carbon cutting is or should be a matter of individual choice. This has become an ever present refrain in the last few years: choose to leave your car at home, choose to insulate your loft, choose to buy fair trade coffee, choose to carry a shopping bag, choose to fly less.

Unfortunately there are two massive problems with this approach:

1. It completely lets government off the hook. Let's face it, major social and economic change is not achieved by well-meaning individuals (although they may get the ball rolling). The welfare state wasn't set up by some voluntary organisations suggesting 'Wouldn't it be nice if we all paid some money into a national social fund? We could use it to pay for healthcare and pensions!' Segregation in the American South wasn't abolished by a public awareness campaign. Laws had to be passed, and individuals had to abide by them, whether they wanted to or not. Choice didn't have a whole lot to do with it.

2. People don't always behave as predicted. A report out today suggests that we use the money saved by energy efficiency measures in part to pay for other carbon-heavy activities. So you might get a council grant to insulate your loft, and then splurge the money you've saved on your leccy bill on a plasma TV or a holiday abroad. Hey, that's your choice, and if the prices of the TV or the flight don't reflect the damage done, then who can blame you?

Now I'm not suggesting that we ban cars - on Tuesday or any other day. But people need incentives, both negative and positive.

It goes without saying that the buses in Bristol should be half the price and five times as frequent/reliable/clean. And I speak as somebody who actually takes the bus on a regular basis, unlike many with opinions on this subject. Nothing ticks me off more than hearing 'I can't be expected to get the bus until the service improves'. (Well, maybe 'I can't be expected to send my kids to a Bristol state school.') What about all the people who have to rely on buses - kids, the elderly, those who can't afford a car?

But even with the best bus service in the world, people will still choose to drive. So let's make that choice a bit less attractive - congestion charging, workplace parking charges and residents' parking should all do the trick. And, while we're at it, let's not build any more roads for a while.

All of this, and more, can be found in the eminently sensible Transport Manifesto for Greater Bristol. Interestingly enough, when in opposition, the council Labour group set up an epetition calling for 20 mph speed limits in residential areas - one of the manifesto's key demands. Now they are back in power, they seem content with draping Chooseday banners over the Council House. Looks like they've passed the buck back to us hapless individuals.