Evidence based policy or policy on the hoof?

I am fascinated by Sir Michael Wilshaw's call for local school commissioners which took everyone by surprise as they were digesting their Christmas pudding. Was this simply a story for a quiet day which was short on bigger news or was there more to it?

If this is a proposal which is more than an off-the-cuff idea the possible interpretations become interesting.  Why would  a new chief inspector, even before taking up his post, come up with a proposal which was effectively an devastating critique  of government policy, based on the premise that the move  an autonomous system of academies without local accountability has massively increased the risk of school failure?  If thisis a sign of things to come we are certainly in for ‘interesting times’ 

An alternative  interpretation might be that the debate that has been started is a ‘kite being flown’ as an attempt to find a politically acceptable way to get the government out of a hole it has created by fragmenting the system?  That argument seems highly implausible bearing in mind that the proposal is predicated on a return to expensive field forces and external intervention and flies in the face of the whole thrust of coalition policy which is based on freedom and autonomy.

Another interpretation might be to view this as a bid to build up an Ofsted field force. That would seem premature but also very worrying in itself if Ofsted is being seen as  a hit squad which will go out and sack ‘incompetent’ heads and teachers. It raises all kinds of questions about the purpose of Ofsted and indeed the role of the Chief Inspector.

But the biggest question this raises for me is how education policy is developed. There is nothing wrong with a healthy public interest in education debated actively via the media. However there is a difference between the discussions any of us might have over dinner or a drink and making that official policy.  Over and over again  policies develop which are based on ideas arising from  the personal experience and views of individuals -whether they be employees of think tanks, officials or even ministers.  These get adopted and superimposed on whatever set of policies currently prevails adding further initiatives and turbulence for those in the field. This characteristic is not limited to the current government; we all remember it happening after the previous government published the Children's Plan which was to set out the whole range of policies and to which all kinds of others were added almost before the ink was dry.

For a number of years ASCL has been arguing for an alternative to this disruptive approach which actually militates against school improvement and adds immense difficulties to the role of school leaders whose job it is to implement government policy effectively. We believe that the one appointment the government should make is of a Chief Education Officer similar to the Chief Medical Officer. It should be a Crown appointment whose role as a leading expert with the highest levels of specialist knowledge and experience would be to evaluate proposed and existing government policies with complete independence. In such a context  a proposal of this kind be would substantiated by a robust, credible and above all independent evaluation of its merits before a Chief Inspector announced it on the front page of a national newspaper.

There has never been a better example of why this is necessary than the debate that has taken place publicly over recent days.