Anyone aiming to promote change in the upbringing and education (including schooling) of children in England (as I assume all conductors are) will be doing so within an endlessly shifting public policy environment.
Today the Education Select Committee released a report about the role of the Regional Schools Commissioners (RSCs).
I suppose if you need to know what a Regional Schools Commissioner is then you will do so. If that's you, well and good. But as a reasonably intelligent person (though I say so myself) and one interested in educational public policy, I wasn't too sure. And my guess is that goes for almost everyone else, too.
So I took a look at the review on Schools Week "The 24 recommendations in the Regional Schools Commissioner report – and what they really mean" by the Editor Laura Mcinnerney.
This I glean from her review.
- The role of the national schools commissioner is not clear.
- The difference between the responsibilities of the Regional School Commissioners, local authorities and Ofsted is not clear.
- The national schools commissioner is not at present responsible for coordinating the work of the Regional Schools Commissioners. (Is anyone?)
- The Regional Schools Commissioners between them aren't consistent enough.
- The Regional Schools Commissioners don't have to publish their vision or workplace or priorities.
- The Regional Schools Commissioners don't have to "check their plans with other people".
- RSC regions are not the same as Ofsted regions (or anyone else's, as far as I can tell.
- London is split between three RESC regions.
- And there's more. One begins to lose the will to live!
Does anyone truly think this mess of responsibility and accountability actually makes any sense whatsoever?
Ok, the Education Select Committee recognises these deficiencies in making its recommendations. But how on earth did we get here, other than that it seemed to someone a good idea at the time?