Nick Seaton: Let education be led by the wishes of parents, not the whims of politicians

The Academies Act is now law, but will it produce the necessary improvements? Its primary purpose – to remove as many schools as possible from local authority control – is a step in the right direction. But will it simply shift control and responsibility from local areas to Whitehall?

Academies' funding agreements are controlled by the education secretary and apply for seven years only. What may happen when the government changes?

Last November's White Paper, The Importance of Teaching, published in preparation for a new Education Bill in 2011, offers some excellent proposals. Yet fundamental issues, and contradictions, have not been addressed. Or, as seems more likely, they have been deliberately disregarded.

Current education law is unfit for purpose. Because it is long-winded, confusing and contradictory, even lawyers seem unwilling to use it. Far too often, it is either circumvented or ignored.

One of the worst offenders is Labour's 1998 School Standards and Framework Act (SSFA). It does have two redeeming features. One is to reinforce the requirement for all schools to hold a daily act of worship. But as Ofsted inspectors report, even that requirement is frequently ignored. Why has no-one yet been prosecuted?

SSFA's only other benefit is that it ensures that none of England's remaining 164 grammar schools can be turned into a comprehensive, unless a parental ballot shows a majority in favour of change.

But as the new Academies Act is encouraging more grammar schools to become academies, that section may, in practice, become irrelevant. As the law stands, grammar schools can be subsumed or destroyed but, despite massive demand, new ones cannot be created.

Detrimental features of SSFA include giving too many powers to the Education Secretary; limiting parental choice by "rationalisation of schools places" and, worst of all, compelling all schools to adhere to a complicated admissions code formulated by ministers.

Under SSFA, before any school makes offers for places, it may test all applicants. Then it must ensure its admissions are "representative of all levels of ability" and that "no level of ability is substantially over-represented or substantially under-represented" – so-called "fair banding".

This not only imposes an extreme version of the "comprehensive ideal" on all schools, except for a small number of threatened grammar schools. It also militates against common sense.

Who could doubt that at secondary level, it is more effective to teach youngsters of similar ability whether high, medium or low? But how can all-abilities be taught effectively in a single school, unless it is very large with at least five forms for each age-range?

The law should not deny choice without good reason. So SSFA is a prime target for repeal. However, a sensible government would go much further. State education as a whole can never thrive until it is divorced from politics. This could be done with an Education Simplification Act.

Ministers claim they want less bureaucracy and more autonomy for schools. If they mean what they say, very few statutory requirements are necessary, though all should emphasise direct accountability.

Parents/guardians/carers should be responsible for ensuring children attend school (or are educated "otherwise" ie at home) from the age of 5 to 16, as now.

Within that age-range, headteachers, governors (and home-schoolers if applicable) should be required to provide a balanced curriculum comprising English, maths, science(s), geography, history, at least one foreign language, art, music, religious education (including daily worship), plus PE and games. Lessons in anything else should be additional and voluntary.

Heads and governors should be required to enter all six-year-olds for national reading tests, 11-year-olds for a universal general knowledge test and 16-year-olds for recognised qualifications. This on the understanding that all results will be published.

Heads and governors should be entitled to set their own admission arrangements to cater for the particular market in which they see themselves.

Ministers should be required to return all the tax allocated to education directly to parents (or young adults) in the form of a voucher to spend at the educational institution of their choice, either state or private.

Education for under-fives and over-16s should be treated separately and funded as required.

There should be legal protection for good schools and whistleblowers.

And now that the principle of fees for university education is established, why not free further and higher education from political control too?

Less legislation would mean the law would be upheld and respected. Education would be led by consumer demand, instead of the whims of politicians. Such measures would encourage personal responsibility rather than reliance on the state. Above all, they would allow some freedom.

Nick Seaton, from York, is chairman of the Campaign for Real Education.