The Blair administration has returned to the mercantilist staple of economic competitiveness in order to justify the centralisation of policy with regards to education. Whilst this justification shares a discourse with the Thatcherite wing of the Tories, the tired refrain is a standard of governments that wish to legitimate their policies. The latest incarnation has taken micromanagement with its centralised demands for information and structured results to a more controlled stage than any previous government.
As an example, we can look at the recent statistical release from the Department of Education and Skills measuring truancy. These are placed in three categories as unauthorised absences, authorised absences and total absences:
The information is based on data collected from the absence in school returns and is currently in the process of being checked by schools as part of the Achievement and Attainment tables exercise. This will contain statistics of authorised, unauthorised and total absences in maintained primary and maintained secondary schools analysed by Local Authority and Government Office Regions, together with a time series by main school type for all absences, authorised and unauthorised.
These statistics are located in Education and Skills, subcategory: School welfare, behaviour and attendance.
Having obtained this information (with its accuracy open to question) and identified 'problems', the government has to establish policies that will resolve these. Therefore, the latest press release from Jacqui Smith identifies 8,000 'serial truants'. Their parents are required to sign parental contracts and join a 'Fast Track to Attendance' program in order to ensure that their children attend. To reach the targets set by the centre, local education authorities are provided with powers and policies that coerce parents into sending their children to school, irrespective of the problems that the child may face. For example, a proportion of absenteeism is caused by those who are bullied in school, when security in these establishments is notably worse than it used to be. Forcing parents to send their children back to a school that they fear is a cruel act, one that only a bureaucracy obsessed with figures could achieve.
Annual attendance data published today for 2004/05 shows that overall school
attendance continues to rise and has reached a new record level, with 8,000 more
pupils regularly attending school every day in the previous year - 50,000 more
than in 1996/97.
Working with schools and local education authorities, the Government’s
drive to improve school attendance has led to the fourth annual consecutive fall
in the number of absences such as medical appointments or family holidays which
are agreed by schools. These authorised absences, which account for 4 out of 5
days missed from schools have reduced by over 1.5 million days - equivalent to
12,500 more pupils in school every day in 2004/05.
At the same time there has been a rise in the number of unauthorised
absences which account for 1 in 5 days missed from schools, increasing by
875,000 days - equivalent to 4,500 more pupils out of school every day in
2004/05.
As the grey language of the press release states, law-abiding parents have been coerced into reducing their 'authorised absences', although since these are agreed, they presumably should not count anyway. Truancy, or its euphemism, 'unauthorised absences' has risen. Truancy accounts for a fifth of all absences and, if one checks the relevant spreadsheet, we can see, unspoken, that 'unauthorised absences' increased by nearly ten percent between 2003/4 and 2004/5 (Excel spreadsheet).
The data indicates that in order to reach their targets for absenteeism local authorities have coerced those who follow the rules whilst neglecting the very individuals who may require help with their schooling. Another example of how bureaucracies set incentives for problems and then fail those who most need help.