OPTING OUT:
A TALE FROM A SOUTH LONDON SCHOOL
Paul Kreling

Yesterday (Monday February 11th 1991 - ed.) I attended a meeting at a school in the Pepys ward in Lewisham-Deptford, citadel of socialism and an area of considerable poverty. I had to pinch myself slightly to remind myself that I was not dreaming - a Conservative Barrister, member of the Inner Temple and once a pupil of two fine Chancery sets in Lincoln's Inn, sitting in on a meeting deep in enemy held territory.

The people present had come together to discuss a proposal that their school should opt out of Lewisham's control. There were all types at the meeting - the Headmaster, a Cambridge man, highly respected for his insistence on discipline and order (the children still ate lunch in silence) to the ordinary parents, some with dull eyes, others anxious to know what the future held for their children. The Chairman of the Governors, dressed much as the parents around him, admitted that he had no conception of what opting out would mean. When presented with a petition signed by twenty percent of the parents he had no idea what to do. So he rang the local Education Authority - and needless to relate, they were completely unhelpful. After all, such a move threatened their power base.

And power was what they had attempted to exercise over the school. First, they had attempted to reorganise the school (or was it two schools and should they have used the statutory amalgamation procedure? - I have yet to discover). Secondly, they had produced a report, which was damning of the ethos of the Junior School - too disciplined, too formal, too strict, too regimented, they said. Should be more like the Primary School, should read more "real" books. And should, it was whispered, get rid of the Headmaster. And, yes, that was another point. Who was the Headmaster? Before there had been two. (Was that legal under the 1944 Education Act as a school ought to have one Headmaster?) As they did not use the statutory amalgamation procedure it was presumably only one school. I made a phone call and learned that the Headmaster could be appointed by the new Board of Governors - but they would have to advertise the post. See the 1986 Education Act.

Then there was the problem of whether the Secretary of State's decision to allow opting out could be appealed against by Lewisham. No, I was told, it could not. Of course, if could be, for the Department of Education is considered a lower court by the Crown's Courts and Anisminic shows that judicial review is nearly always possible. Especially if you take the wide view, which would make all rights of appeal reduntant. On what grounds - well Wednesbury unreasonableness and ... Nobody eventually seemed to be interested in hearing any more of my fascinating speculations. There were far more important things to discuss.

First - what about my child's special needs? Would they still be catered for or would I have to pay? Rumour had been circulating about the cost of going Grant Maintained. The platform categorically denied that such payments would have to be made. The Labour councillor looked glum. Her own people stirring up problems. And horrors, they even tried to take her to task on the expense of the mugs that Lewisham gave out to celebrate their new education role after the end of ILEA. And the giving of money to Millwall football club. Was it œ1 million or œ2 million? Really, people should be seen and not heard. It was intolerable. The Government should not be allowed to put such potent weapons into the hands of the common people. Really, it was too much.

Then a young black couple were teased into asking a question by the Chairman of the Governors. They had been silent all night. What, the lady said, about the nursery school? No categorical answer was possible. It was DES policy that nursery provision should be included in the new Grant Maintained schools. But the law was unclear, as, in s8(2) of the 1944 Education Act, it defined primary education as full time education! Was nursery education full time? So it could be challenged by Hammersmith, who have the same problem. The platform said that the lawyers would make a packet if such a case were taken to the House of Lords. (Pity I do not have a seat in Chambers. Might keep me in work till I retire. Just right for that little country mansion I have my eyes on. But never mind, there's always another dispute just around the corner.)

But there was a threat to all our hopes. Saint George might not slay the dragon. There was at first a problem with doors that one could only go through one way. Once Grant Maintained always Grant Maintained. But could one be forced to go back through the door by the Dragon? That was what we now all had to fear. I felt a common sense of purpose with these people, in the way that I never thought I would - the Dragon was the spectre of a Labour Government. They would thrust us back throught the door in the twinkling of an eye. The fresh fragrance that only freedom can bestow would be snuffed out and the darkness of local authority control would once again descend. The œ2,000 to knock down a shed in the play ground. The right to send an "illiterate" teacher back to the school when once rejected by the Headmaster. We shared in the common horror.

But putting that aside, could the school still be closed down in the future? Well, yes, but only if the Secretary of State gave seven years notice. Longer than the length of any previous Labour Government. So if no new statutes were to be introduced they would not be able to close us down. Sighs of relief all round.

Then a curious dispute arose about who made new law. Always an interesting problem even to highly experienced Barristers. Especially when attempting to discern the `intentions of Parliament'. Shades of Lord Denning. But the view seemed to be that legislation made the law, not the Secretary of State. I nearly directed everybody to look at the ninety percent of law made by Statutory Instrument by Secretaries of State. But I decided that my observer status might be compromised. Anyway, if I opened my mouth I might reveal something of my independent school background. Not a good idea - do not want to associate this too closely with the Conservatives. It is really to do with the way the school is run.

When I reached the school I noticed there was an election for Parent Governors going on. Was that right as the administrative operations were suspended? We were sternly told from the platform that we were wrong and that this was the best illustration possible that we could not possibly run our own affairs without making a hash of it. In fact that view of the election turned out to be wrong in itself. The election had sensibly been held when many parents were going to come to the school anyway. And it was to select potential parent governors for the new governing body if the ballot result meant that a Grant Maintained school had to be set up. That is perfectly correct under s66(5) of the Education Reform Act 1988 in the situation where there are no or at least less than five parent governors willing and able to serve on the new governing body. Looked as if we could manage our own affairs after all.

It seemed that we would be eligible to receive 15 percent extra to compensate for the services that Lewisham used (sometimes) to provide us with. The Headmaster would be responsible for the Budget. But was it really 23 percent? The Director of Education for Lewisham told us that that was so. The Headmaster told me afterwards that they would save money from that because they did not need most of Lewisham's services - no doubt some of the "Advisory" teams do become a little tiresome when one is actually truly committed to the exhausting task of teaching children. The colour of children's faces is, it seems to me, irrelevant. Stretch the strong and spur on the weak.

Finally, I went back to a friend's house, who had introduced me to the problem in the first place and had given me a lift to the meeting. We talked through the points. He had made a strong speech willing the parents to take the future into their own hands. Then I arrived home at midnight and retired to bed. Uneasy. Why? Because these wonderful, loyal human beings, some bright, some dull, some with prospects, some without, just might have been jumping from the frying pan (Shrove Tuesday was, after all, just beginning) into the fire. For instead of being funded by Lewisham, at least a local body, they were to be funded directly by the Government. Was I not urging them to vote for the effective nationalisation of their school? Why was the Labour Party not clamouring for it? Especially when you could never pass through the door the other way. Truly, the reversal of roles was complete.