However, recognising the limitations of this approach, the Government has now introduced a new model to reform the public services. The idea is to balance pressures on the workforce from central government with pressures from patients and parents (more "choice and voice"), and pressures from the market (more competition among hospitals or schools). The bold claim is that this new approach will generate a cycle of "continuous improvement", transforming our public services into "self-improving" systems.

The new model is backed by an impressive list of 280 references to research which are used to legitimate a major change in policy. But does the evidence support the conclusions drawn by government?

In a study, a team of experts from the Institute of Education at London University checked the claims being made in education.

We concluded that the new model of reform was not supported by the evidence. At times, the Government document cited evidence selectively; at other times, it misread the literature or claimed that it was more positive than the original research.

It also drew conclusions from American or Swedish evidence which was not warranted, given the very different conditions of schools and colleges in the UK. In other places,
the evidence the Government used was old, or limited, or hotly
contested. In short, the
Government ushered in new policy and claimed it was evidence-based when it was not.

We want to commend New Labour for the very welcome improvements in education since 1997. Levels of investment have increased significantly. There are, for instance, 38,000 more teachers now compared to 10 years ago. But, equally, we conclude that, if the new model of change is not itself reformed, it may well prove to have unintended and even harmful consequences.

To take the impact of the literacy and numeracy strategies in primary schools as an example, we agree with the Government that they had some considerable success in their early days. But their influence on the achievement of pupils is now far
more modest.

Centrally-driven initiatives cannot sustain their impact over the long-term, not least because one policy follows another at a relentless rate. How are the efforts of teachers helped by receiving 459 documents from the Government on literacy alone in the years between 1997 and 2004? That's equivalent to a new policy document on literacy arriving in schools every single week.

Such constant pressure on staff does not build the kind of knowledge teachers need in order to address the often deep-seated problems some students have in learning to read.

On the impact of competition, we reviewed a very extensive literature and concluded that neither choice of school nor competition between schools have been shown to improve the attainment of students
in the UK. Moreover, outside London, choice of school is still quite limited in this country, with only one in five children benefiting from the right to choose.

On giving parents more voice in schools, we found that it is not a strong mechanism for change. Parents may not agree among themselves on what they want. Sometimes, when they are united, their voice may be loud, and their points argued successfully but still not listened to by government. City academies, for instance, have been imposed in some communities which have not asked for them.

The government model of reform also contains significant silences. There is no acknowledgement of the sheer complexity involved in trying to improve the quality of learning in the nation's schools and colleges.

England may be far too large to be subject to one centrally devised plan which pays so little regard to all the variation in regional and local conditions. To be successful, reforms need to balance more equally and harmoniously the priorities of government with the interests of local communities, parents, students and professionals.

It is easier to criticise than to make positive suggestions.

We would like to make three. First, we need a more moderate pace of change instead of all the macho talk from politicians of "quantum leaps" and "step changes".

Second, we need less central control and regulation and more involvement of teachers as full, active partners in the formation, evaluation and re-design of new policies.

Finally, we need to stop treating schools and colleges as if they were private businesses. They are first and foremost centres of teaching and learning. If all teachers and students were treated as confident lifelong learners, then our schools and colleges would be much more likely to succeed – educationally and financially.