Ministers will tomorrow officially announce help for the headteachers of the most challenging schools and efforts to improve teaching in the lowest-performing schools.
In all the outrage at so-called "failing" schools having a 50-day deadline to turn themselves around or face being merged, closed or turned into academies, it's worth noting that ministers first mentioned this in the Guardian in February.
It hasn't been sprung on heads at the last minute and the 638 schools where less than 30% of children get the target of five A* to C grade GCSEs (including English and maths) have had more than 50 days to improve.
That's not to say it's going to be easy for them. In fact, it seems unreasonable that schools and the teachers who are doing so much in difficult circumstances are still labelled failing and told to improve or else. And the government's insistence that new teachers take a masters degree is unlikely to bring about a revolution in standards, at least not in the short term.
Are targets for GCSE performance even appropriate to judge standards? Prof Sir Michael Barber, who spoke at the 1994 Group dinner on Friday night, certainly thinks so.
The former head and founder of the prime minister's delivery unit and member of the government's new advisory group - the National Council for Educational Excellence - said targets focused attention and motivated schools to do better.
To this there was audible grumbling around the room and a direct question about Goodhart's Law: when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
Should schools be given more time to improve? Can a school judged to be failing at the start of the month really be expected to turn around by the end of this term? Is closure, merger or being turned into an academy the only solution?
