There are around 150 Local Authorities in England, between them overseeing the work of approximately 28,000 schools. There is no set formula for how the authority should do this and the staffing structures, strategic plans, methodologies and quality of delivery varies wildly between them. Some LAs are highly respected by the schools in their jurisdiction, some are laughably poor, some authorities influence national policy, some have little impact beyond their own border (or indeed within it). As a school inspector, it is very easy to discern which sort of authority you are in. Just innocently utter the words "and the local authority?" at any point while talking with the Headteacher and you will know immediately by the look on their face.

For some reason, the South West of England seems to be blessed. Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and Devon LAs have all impressed me at some point for a variety of reasons. The Midlands is hit and miss, the North West often reflects a general distrust of councils and local government, London is barmy but with some shining stars.

Local Authorities used to appoint a Director of Education to drive forward their approach to working with schools, but in recent years this has generally morphed in to the irritatingly twee Director of Children's Services, to reflect the change made under then Secretary of State, Ed Balls, from the Department for Education and Skills to the Department for Children, Schools and Families. Of course, the very second the Tories walked through the door to Number 10 at the last election, the department was renamed Department for Education. Oh, how ill informed ministers love to tinker with the national education structure on a whim.

Within an LA, it is the norm that the Director for Education (or whatever) will earn a rather handsome six-figure salary in large authorities (they vary massively in size). I have no problem with this whatsoever in the case of a Director with real drive, vision and practical capabilities. But, and I will not be the only one, my goodness have I met some buffoons happily plodding along achieving next to nothing and pocketing the cash while they can. There is an old saying: Those who can't, teach. In education there are two other sayings that I can often see the reasoning behind: Those who can't teach, inspect. Those who can't be a Headteacher, be Director of Education.

When the Local Authority is good, it can be really good. They will recognize that their role is to be the critical friend, to be the support, to unburden schools so that they are freed up to do the important task of teaching children, to continually challenge lapse practice and put in place meaningful support at all levels. Many Local Authorities across England have such a reputation for excellence that they have been able to embrace a sense of entrepreneurship and sell their wares to neighbouring authorities, central government, the private sector and overseas. Not only does this bring in additional funding to the LA so that it can continue to invest and innovate, but it cultivates an environment of deep thinking and inspiration in its staff, making it a more rewarding place to work and in turn easier to recruit the best possible staff, thus creating a virtuous circle.

Sounds great, doesn't it?

Unfortunately, many of these authorities have not been able to work out how to cope with the recent cutbacks to local government funding and have misguidedly and shortsightedly decided to divest, losing a wealth of knowledge and expertise with the staff that they make redundant. The consequences of which are already becoming clear: standards will fall.

Some Local Authorities are not of the creative, forward thinking type at all. These are the authorities that conjure up the stereotype that inspectors, consultants and advisers are just a bunch of failed teachers or folk who could not hack it in the classroom. The fact is, and there is little point in denying it, that many are.

Some local authorities are sanctuaries for the unhinged, loopy or incompetent. But, of course, such is the cosiness of local government employment that you can be as stark raving mad as you like without any risk of losing your job. So, as though put out to pasture from the schools from which they came, scores of men and women in ill-fitting cords, checked shirts, shapeless frocks or aging suits, plod around the dusty corridors of county hall with the pressures of a real job long since lost in the memory.

This would all be fine if they were simply left to amuse themselves with crosswords and lovely cups of tea, but alas they are sent out in to the world of schools to irritate teachers.

This irritation can take many forms – they appear incredibly skilled at creating situations likely to make an otherwise calm teacher swing for them. Imagine, if you will, it is a Baker Day. One of the few days of the year that schools shut their doors to students in order to allow time for teachers to engage in some form of professional development. This is rare. It is rare to have time to stop and think, to work with colleagues, to grow as a teacher and learn new things. So they are precious. So why is it, then, that the dispossessed, the drunk and the lame that are the plodding local authority consultants pick these days to interfere at their most?

It is not my intention to put down LAs and their staff – I pointed out that many are wonderful – but I do wonder what their purpose will be in the brave new world of Academies, Free Schools, large federations, Teaching Schools and the privitisation of education. Where will these poor old luvvies go?

I anticipate that we are not too long off a national campaign to adopt a consultant. Can you home one?