Morning:
8°c
What would really make our schools better?
David Cameron thinks he knows: "I want my school to be a place where the head knows each pupil by name and teachers can hear themselves talk in class, where children are taught at their level, not in mixed ability classes."
He has launched his own set of proposals, cheekily descending on Labour's flagship project, the Mossbourne Academy, to make his point.
There is unforced enthusiasm about what he likes: the calm that always marks out a well run school, the way an academy in the previous educational wasteland of Hackney can secure not only high standards for itself but for others who strive to match it and thus break the local cycle of failure.
That is a mode of communication Gordon Brown and his Schools Secretary Ed Balls conspicuously lack. They do not really understand or dignify the frustrations of the many parents who are worried, with good reason, that their children will end up with a less thorough education than they had, let alone the progress they naturally expect.
Mr Balls always sounds incredulous that we might have any doubts about his various schemes, though, really, it should be the opposite: he is the one who has to persuade us that it's all going well.
It is just a shame that the Conservative alternative doesn't yet convince. Take the randomly mutating policy on what is supposed to happen about teaching by ability. Where do they stand here? It rather depends which lunar phase we are in at the time.
Mr Cameron rashly promised a "grammar-school stream" in order to placate the diehard selective-school worshippers in his ranks when they were bearing down on him earlier this year. In fact he didn't mean what everyone else means by a "grammar-school stream", which is sorting the sheep from the goats. He meant, a helpful decoder explains, "a grammar-school stream in every subject" - which is what the rest of us call teaching in ability sets, not a "stream" at all.
Most of the best performing state schools prefer to teach in ability sets, so that they can cater for pupils who excel in French but are beta at maths, and so on. The politics of selecting a single "stream" across all subjects at 11 are toxic, which is why Labour swooped to complain about "social segregation".
So - oops - we now have a new Tory commitment to "rigorous setting" and bye bye grammar-school stream that never was.
"Basically, we blundered into it and Michael [Gove] has had to reverse us delicately out of a very tight parking space," says one close aide with refreshing candour.
Mr Gove has some good instincts on his side. Don't compromise on excellence but don't get hung up on a selection argument that narrows his party's appeal. Tackle the hidden hurdles that hinder innovation in the types of schools that can be set up.
The Gove/Cameron charter is, however, frankly extraordinary in its apparent desire to have even more decisions made by the Secretary of State than the most ardent centralisers of New Labour.
Mr Cameron wants all children to read by the age of six - which turns out to be a tricksy headline grab, since the small print acknowledges that it applies only to "every child capable of doing so". Six as opposed to six and a quarter? And the Conservatives complain about foolish Labour targets!
Politicians who claim one day to "set schools free" and "trust the professionals", only to slide into dictating the minutiae of how good heads do their jobs, or whether children stand or sit to say good morning are inviting puzzlement. (We gather Mr Cameron prefers they all stand.)
Really, this is not his business. I know one outstanding deputy head of a school in a deprived area of London, who bases his entire theory of order on constantly telling the mainly poor Afro-Caribbean boys in his classes to tuck their shirts in and do up their ties because so many have had no training at all in dressing or presenting themselves in their home lives. He knows what works best. Let him get on with it.
What matters is that there is a standard and a framework that promotes the best results, is tough in tackling rather than excusing failure, allows teachers to impose discipline and promotes the kind of choice in schools that allows us to compare achievements and learn from the best. Mr Cameron must beware his inner micro-manager.
His great opportunity on schools is wide open. It needs to be consistent and discerning. The Tories have gone from a diet of no policy to a binge that leads to unnecessary errors.
I still have moments, listening to Mr Gove, when I feel that he is keener to score a quick point over his opposite number than to tell me how his plans would work for our children. If he really believes in the Swedish model, why not accept the principle that profitmaking companies can run schools? Even radical New Labour sorts have now accepted they should do so - why are the Tories suddenly trimming on this question? Indeed, why should new schools have to be approved by the Government other than as a last resort in local disputes?
Parents are better informed about education nowadays. They pore over their "best schools" supplements and tables; they aren't so easily fooled - if they ever were - by the idea that one simply tells teachers to impose more discipline and it then happens.
Much of it still comes down to the hardest things to deliver of all: more consistent teacher quality, better incentivised and tirelessly pursued. The Lib-Dems' spokesman David Laws first conceived the idea of greater financial incentives for those who improve underperforming schools: an ingenious application of market thinking ripped off wholesale by the Tories (just in case they think we didn't notice).
Through the mist and din, we are making some progress. The brightest thinkers in the three parties agree on more than they disagree on. The need for more diversity in the kind of state schools on offer is now more broadly accepted than it ever was. The only question is who can make the best case on delivering it in real life.
Until Mr Cameron can decide whether his vision is to set more of them free of central control or to boss them around even more with his own pet requirements, his claim to lead the next stage of the reform crusade will be flawed. He can do better than that - and for all our sakes, he should.
