I am really pleased that later today I have got the opportunity to meet my local MP to express my views on the White Paper and also hope next week to be meeting with the regional schools commissioner. I thought I would set out in this post the points I intend to make on a number of aspects of the White Paper.

There are a number of sensible and welcome aspects to the White Paper. In particular, looking again at school funding is long overdue. The geographic disparities in funding schools in different areas has needed addressing for years. This is not to argue that all schools should get the same but there are numerous examples of schools facing equally challenging circumstances getting wildly different levels of funding as a result of geographical quirks. A needs led approach to funding will be a great step forward.

I think there are some interesting opportunities around teacher workload and reducing bureaucracy within the system. As far as I am aware there are very limited examples where schools and the education system have looked to Lean Thinking, but there are tremendous opportunities to apply sound principles of operations management to impact on workload. A good starting point would be to let teachers think about if an activity is adding value to children. If the answer is no, have a debate about why the activity is being undertaken!

In this context I wonder to what extent the new leadership qualifications and pathways will offer the real generic operations management skills that are so often absent in public sector management development? This will not be the first or last time you hear me make this argument!

The fact that this White Paper explicitly addresses alternative provision must be welcomed. My caution here, based on experience of working with Pupil Referral Units for excluded children, is that there must be a robust process for ensuring schools “stick to the rules” around exclusions and disadvantaged pupils. Currently this is patchy and some of the most challenging children get the worst deal. The reformed system must have real and robust measures to ensure that every child is treated appropriately and attempts by schools to circumnavigate the rules of the game can be swiftly and effectively challenged. The increase in the number of academies will make this even more essential. Ultimately these children are likely to become the greatest long term cost to the public purse if early and effective support is not in place.

Whilst it is slightly off piste I can’t let the opportunity go without making the case for better mental health services for children. Quicker access to support and more support would enable many more children to successfully progress through the system. This support is currently nowhere near adequate or sufficient!

So turning to the A word. Actually I don’t have an issue with schools being an academy, but I do have an issue with the F word. I really fail to see the case for forcing schools that are doing quite nicely to have to take their eye of of the teaching and learning ball because they have been told they have to become an academy. Watching the debate this week in the Commons this seemed to be a view held widely by backbench Conservative MPs.

I want to focus on some of the more subtle points of this debate that go beyond the perfectly reasonable argument of “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”.

Firstly if the change is imposed it will come with inevitable guidance that will feel like one size fits all. I am already involved in discussions that might lead to a formation of a multi-academy trust and already am being told no you can’t do that but you must do that. Even at the start of the process the dead hand of the centralising DFE can be felt. Local solutions should be local!

Secondly, the Regional Schools Commissioner role means the DFE will centrally control the system through a series of unelected and probably unchallengeable quangos. This is not localisation but thats not surprising as the DfE were at the back of the queue of government departments in discussions about devolution. So here’s an idea why not make the RSC electable like the PCC? If its good for the goose why not for the gander!

Finally, for now, I am worried about the provisions on control of school land. Major regeneration projects such as those potentially needed for an Achieving Excellence Area might prove impossible if land ownership is dispersed through the system. My personal experience is that the strategic control of land is essential for wide scale regeneration to be  affordable and deliverable. I don’t think the White Paper recognises that point at all.

This is a significant White Paper and I do urge that responses to the consultation are seriously considered. We do know what works and what does not work. Top down change does not have a strong track record, bottom up change does. Whilst the rhetoric is about freeing up schools the moment the F word is used it totally undermines local determination.