Education vote

Tony Blair could still be forced to rely on the support of Conservative MPs to get his contentious school reform plans through the Commons despite signs that a Labour backbench rebellion against them is crumbling.

Rebel leaders have suggested that 45 Labour MPs could vote against the bill on Wednesday, despite a string of concessions from the government earlier this year.

Mr Blair has made the school reforms a litmus test of Labour’s readiness to grapple with changes to public services that go against the party’s traditional instincts for uniformity and fairness. But the reforms have also become a test of his political authority and of the viability of the government under the final months of his leadership.

The original proposals

The school reforms outlined in a white paper in October are intended to do in primary and secondary education what the government is already doing in health: separate the commissioning of services (in this case by local education authorities) from their supply with competition between a diversity of providers to drive up standards.

The centrepiece of the white paper is a new breed of “trust” schools giving headteachers more control of their assets, staff and admissions policy, subject to a national admissions code. Like business-sponsored city academies, the trust schools would be expected to form partnerships with local companies, universities, community groups or other bodies.

The aim is to encourage all schools to acquire their own culture and identity, and with the help of outside partners, forge a stronger educational ethos to improve performance.

Local education authorities were to be banned from setting up new community schools, the traditional form of comprehensive under their control. LEAs would become the “champion” of parental choice but would, vaguely, retain a “strategic” role over local provision. No-one would be able to stop parents from setting up new schools.

How radical are they?

The reforms were billed as a “historic turning point” by Mr Blair, a pivotal moment when the government would abandon once and for all the left’s “old levelling down mentality which kept us in opposition so long”.

He described trusts as “independent self-governing schools” in a break with the “deadening uniformity” imposed by some local authorities. The role of LEAs would “change fundamentally”.

But in reality the reforms are incremental rather than revolutionary.

As the Commons education select committee pointed out in a report in January, trust schools would not enjoy any more freedoms than those already granted to existing foundation schools. Critics add that schools are already able to take on external partners, although ministers argue these arrangements could be more stable under a trust.

Neither can the prime minister claim to be instigating a radical split between commissioning of schools and their supply. Schools will not be forced to become trusts, so LEAs will continue to “run” traditional community comprehensives for years to come. In any case, as the select committee observed, for nearly 20 years local authorities have not had close control of schools “in the way the white paper implies and some of its critics believe”.

The objections of Labour critics

Nevertheless, the white paper and the way in which the reforms were spun, have infuriated many Labour backbenchers. More than 90 signed an “alternative white paper” criticising Mr Blair’s plans. Several more felt that critique was too soft and refused to lend their names to it.

Their primary concerns are:

- that oversubscribed schools that have more freedom over their admissions policies will resort to covert forms of academic selection (such as parental interviews or point systems) to skew the intake away from less promising pupils.

- that trust schools are unnecessary, would be unaccountable to local communities and could involve unsuitable partners or businesses

- that local authorities need to retain a co-ordinating role over admissions and supply of school places to prevent a “free for all” among competing schools

- that the expansion of popular schools could force others to contract, leaving children stuck for years in failing institutions with falling rolls and diminishing resources.

On top of the specific complaints, many Labour MPs are fundamentally unhappy with the concept of making schools compete with each other for pupils and want to see collaboration rather than rivalry.

Government compromises

Facing a massive backbench rebellion, Mr Blair has offered a series of concessions but has denied that they water down his original plans.

- further safeguards against academic selection. Interviewing will be banned, and schools will be forced to act “in accordance with” a national code on admissions, rather than simply “have regard” to it.

- local authorities will still be allowed to set up new “community” schools, although the decision would be taken by an independent adjudicator with the approval of the education secretary

- admissions forums, comprising local authorities and local schools, will monitor admissions policies and take complaints to the adjudicator

- further reassurances on trusts, with the adjudicator ruling on disputes

Will the concessions be enough?

These changes are likely to win over some of Mr Blair’s more moderate critics. But others intend to press for further concessions and are waiting to see the fine print of the schools bill, expected in mid-February, before deciding whether to vote for it when it comes to the Commons in mid-March.

Even if Labour MPs do vote for it at second reading, ministers are bracing themselves for a series of battles over rebel amendments during later parliamentary stages.

Can Mr Blair rely on Conservative votes and survive?

The prime minister took Britain to war in Iraq with the support of the Conservatives after 139 Labour MPs rebelled. He survived and won re-election in 2005. This time, his fate could be different. He has already announced his departure at some stage during this parliament. A defeat on his flagship public service reform would probably convince even his most loyal supporters that the time had come for a change of leader.