Education and Adoption Bill

Baroness Morris of Yardley Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Blunkett on his maiden speech. It was a privilege to have been here. I have worked out that it is well over a decade since he and I spoke in the same education debate in one of the Chambers of these Houses of Parliament, so it is very good to have him by my side again. Speaking in front of your former boss is never easy—I know he will read Hansard—but I shall do my best.

I want to start on a note of agreement. Perhaps the main purpose of this Bill is to address what we call coasting schools, and I do not differ in my view that that needs to be done. I want to make sure that every child has a good chance and that every school succeeds, but there is a debate about how we define coasting. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, said, and have huge respect for him, but part of the problem is that the notion of coasting has that idea of lack of progress over time. He is right that the minute you start measuring between fixed points, you build in a delay in terms of actually doing something about it. I am sure that in Committee we will want to look at that definition. We all know the sort of school we are talking about, even though it might be difficult to define it. I have only one plea on this to the Minister. From what I have heard and read so far—he has mentioned this a number of times—this is partly about schools dropping below target. I remember, when I was in his job, that the coasting schools that worried me were those that were at 70% but that should have been at 90%. We need to be careful that we do not equate coasting with low attainment. That can certainly be true, but sometimes somewhere with 50% is not coasting and somewhere with 85% is coasting. The whole area of how we address that is quite critical.

I agree of course with the main objective of the Bill—to tackle coasting schools and ratchet up our wish to have every school improve. I also agree with the need to change. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, was right, although I am not sure he is right now. I remember the first school that went into Ofsted special measures, which I think was a primary in County Durham or somewhere up in the north of England. At that time teachers were very resistant to change, but I do not think that is the case now as much as it was. They were resistant, but when I go round schools now I can see that they faced up to the weaknesses in their own performance and that they want the best for children. They are just like us: they want every school to succeed and every child to have a decent chance. The problem now is working with them to work out what change is needed. Some resist, but not everyone.

That really takes us to the core of the Bill. My comments will be very much like those of a noble friend who spoke earlier because, when I look at what I think are the two core beliefs of the Bill, I do not think they deliver that objective, which we share. I accept the need for change, but I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, about whether the only change worth anything is a change to an academy. I want change and want to put pressure on schools. I am not satisfied with where we are, but I do not believe that moving to an academy is always the right way forward.

I follow the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in speaking. I love listening to him: it is like all my dreams coming true as somebody who cares about education and children. In the noble Lord, we have a man who has succeeded at running an academy chain, and I take my hat off to him for what he has achieved. We need to somehow replicate him. However, the truth is that not every academy chain is like the noble Lord’s. I do not want to go over the figures again, but the Minister has to face up to the fact that there is no evidence that academies are a one-size-fits-all solution to the problem of failing schools. We hear too infrequently in this Chamber the stories about non-academies that have done the same thing as academies. I could pull heartstrings about kids who have gone to Oxbridge, whose lives have been turned around and whose families will be different generation after generation because of what a school has done, where that school was a maintained comprehensive school. It does not matter. We know what our predecessors did not know: what matters is not the title on the door of the school but the quality of the teaching and the leadership that takes place in it, which can be found in maintained schools as well as in academies.

That is my problem with the Government’s approach. The importance of the Bill is that it takes us to that point of no return. This has been a long battle and a long debate but, when this Bill is passed, we really will be on the way to a fully academised system. That is dangerous, for all the reasons mentioned by my noble friend Lady Hughes. It is dangerous because we do not know what our world will look like under total academisation. I will not rehearse the figures, apart from one which, for me, is so important in making the Minister face up to the evidence which he seems to be ignoring and which his party is responsible for. The last big education Bill, which the Minister mentioned, introduced stand-alone academies. It was a very simple Bill: it was not about the tough end of the market or those schools that were failing kids or coasting, but about the easy end of the market. They were good or outstanding schools, and they were allowed to become stand-alone academies. Do you know what has happened in the five years since? One in seven of them has gone into the category of “requires improvement” or special measures.

When the Minister runs a department that has seen the consequences of his previous attempt to make every school an academy, how can he not face up to the fact that it does not work for everyone? That is my problem. It is not that I do not like academies—I will tell stories of academies. I want someone in government to tell the story of schools that are not academies but are doing well, because it matters. The fact that we have a Department for Education that is essentially a department for academies and a Minister for School Standards who is essentially a Minister for academies matters, because it creates the environment in which everyone else is trying to work. It focuses on structures, not standards, as we have heard. It is a false prospectus, because it seeks to guarantee magic success if you become an academy, and it is not relevant to or suitable for all people.

What really bothers me is that it drains the energy out of the school system. I go to a lot of schools, and they are focused on when the department is coming to get them to change to be an academy. You hear things like, “The department has phoned me. They are coming up to see me. Does it mean that they want us to become an academy?”. Schools see it as a field force for turning them into academies. That is not what the Department for Education is meant to be. It is meant to serve every child. It is meant to put as many resources and staff and as much money into maintained schools as academies. It is meant to go to maintained schools and say, “We will help you, and the solution may not be an academy”. That is not the sort of department that the Government are running, and it worries me stiff, because it is not the way to do things.

My worry with this area of policy is not that academies are wrong but that we have an Animal Farm situation where it is, “Academies good, everything else bad”. We know the end of the story in Animal Farm, and that worries me a great deal.

When the noble Lord introduced the Bill in the previous Parliament, he made it appear as though he could run all schools from Whitehall. He has realised that he cannot and that he was wrong, so he has introduced school commissioners. I register one point of concern about commissioners. They are run off their feet, their areas are too large, they are insufficiently resourced and they cannot do the job that is expected of them.

Let us understand what has happened. The Government have created a new tier of regional government: unelected, unaccountable, with no obligation to parents, answerable to nobody but the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and the department, but essentially regional government. When one of the main thrusts of academisation is to get local government out of the picture, I do not understand why the answer must be to impose regional government on the education system in the form of the commissioners. It is not about the individuals. I think that the noble Lord has picked some really good men and women to do the job; I take my hat off to them. In the long term, it is not an answer to the problems that he has himself caused by deciding that he could run everything from Whitehall.

As my noble friend Lady Hughes said, that is a nonsensical approach to devolution to local authorities. I tried to make a list. What we have had from this Government is that a local council can be trusted with the public health budget but not to nominate the members of an interim executive board for a school. A local authority can be given the whole of the skills budget, which is several million pounds, but it cannot open an order to close a school. A local authority can be trusted with the transport infrastructure for the region but is not allowed to talk to an academy sponsor without the permission of the Minister. I do not know where that is going because, if those local authorities are good enough to be the powerhouses of our country, they are good enough to do those things with our schools.

That point must be answered, because it is the third central weakness at the core of the report: one size fits all, from now on it is academies or nothing; regional commissioners taking over from the Government, insufficiently resourced with no accountability to anyone; and a total lack of faith in local authorities.

I respect the Minister greatly, but this is a “Me, me, me” Bill—“Only I can do it, only I can decide what the school should be”. It is scraping the barrel—“Only I can decide who can be a member of an interim executive board in Wigan”. How that message will build partnerships with the other people in the school system with whom the Minister and his team have to work, I fail to realise.

Let me finish on a positive note, as we agree on so much. We are the lucky generation. When the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who is not in his place at the moment, started school improvement—as I always say that he did—the department did not have the evidence about what works. We do. Three decades of successive Governments working on school improvement in partnership with schools and others has showed us what works. It is the quality of leadership, what happens in the classroom, high aspirations and good values. Nowhere in that evidence list does it say, “Every school needs to be an academy, and do not trust local authorities”.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Morris of Yardley Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords, I should like to comment on the parts of the gracious Speech that deal with education and children’s policy. In doing so I welcome some of the measures in the gracious Speech and other measures which the Government have indicated they will take forward in the coming months. I welcome the principle of extra childcare, although as we have heard today there are a lot of questions that need to be asked. The changes to the adoption process are well intentioned and will probably mean a better deal for more children. I certainly welcome the Government’s intention to continue with the pupil premium, and I hope that they will continue their work with vocational qualifications, where I think they had a good record in the last Parliament.

In particular in the debate today, I share with the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, the ambition to raise standards in schools. Whatever else may divide us, I do not doubt any noble Lord’s wish to make sure that every child receives a good-quality education and leaves school with the skills and attitudes they need to survive in the world, to contribute to society and to flourish. It is perhaps timely to recognise the progress that has been made. I always say that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, started the revolution way back in 1988. Since then it has been non-stop change. In that time we have seen every measure of success improve: twice as many children achieve five A to C grades, including in English and maths.

It also behoves us to remind ourselves that when we are talking about improvement, whatever we do here the real difference lies in the quality of the teaching and leadership in our schools. That is how we should measure the proposals that have been put forward. Anything politicians or Governments do must be judged by whether it is likely to improve the way head teachers lead schools and the way teachers teach.

I turn to the legislation on the extension of academies. This is important legislation, but let us be clear: it is not about whether individual academies are good schools. I could join the noble Lord, Lord Nash, in citing many academies that have done a good job and I have been delighted to visit many of them. I have seen the extra capacity that a sponsor brings. I have shared in the joy when schools have been turned around, and we can only rejoice that more children have more life chances. I could also give an equally long list of non-academy schools that have done exactly that.

However, I do not take away from the successful performance of many individual academies. The proposed Bill in the gracious Speech is not about that; it is about whether academies should spearhead the next stage of school improvement and in effect become the predominant school structure, particularly for secondary schools. The Bill is looking at an education system that is at a tipping point. More than half of our secondary schools are already academies, and the Bill will contain proposals to limit the right of people to object to schools changing to academy status. They are the very same parents who are being told in different legislation that they are the people who know best what is good for their children, but no doubt we will return to this during the passage of the legislation.

If we are to take that step and have academies spearhead all school improvement, which would be a pivotal step and a big moment in the development of education policy, the Government have to give evidence and assure us on three counts: first, that these schools deliver better results for more children than any other type of school; secondly, that it justifies the expenditure and human resource that will need to be put into making the transition; and, thirdly, that it does no harm to other already successful parts of the school system. Although I admire individual academy schools, I am not persuaded that any of those three criteria can be met. Despite the individual success stories, there is no evidence that the success of academies as a group justifies them being given the pre-eminent position in our education system that the Government suggest.

I put forward this evidence. Five years ago we passed legislation in this House that set up what were known as stand-alone academies: academies that were judged by Ofsted to be “good” or “outstanding” could convert very easily from maintained to academy status. One in seven of those schools was subsequently categorised as “requires improvement” or went into special measures. Ofsted has found that we do not just have a postcode lottery in maintained schools: more than eight out of 10 sponsor-led academies in London are “good” or “outstanding”; only just over three out of 10 are in the east of England. Academies have not got rid of that postcode lottery; whether you get a good school depends on where you go to school.

Although the Sutton Trust noted the very high performance of academy chains such as Harris and ARK, it concluded that most academy chains,

“are not achieving distinctive outcomes compared to mainstream schools”.

That is why the Select Committee that looked at academies and the evidence behind them concluded:

“Academisation is not always successful nor is it the only proven alternative for a struggling school”.

Quite frankly, there are still too many unanswerable questions and points of weakness in a school system that would be made up only of academies. Oversight of these schools by the Department for Education leaves a lot to be desired. It is still not clear what happens when an academy fails, and we have still not sorted out how much local authorities’ responsibility for standards is then matched with giving them powers to intervene in academies.

That is why I am worried about this Bill and why it will need very special attention when it comes to the House. Quite frankly, the Minister and his department have lost their ability to think critically about academies. The phrase “the emperor and his new clothes” comes to mind. I cannot ever recall seeing a Select Committee report where the responsible government department disengaged from the issue and the debate as much as the Department for Education did with the report on academies. In the words of the Select Committee,

“the DfE failed to address our terms of reference and instead presented a sustained paean of praise to the success of the policy”.

That is no way to develop policy on one of the most important services that we provide and that ensures for all of us the next generation that we would want.

The Government are making a mistake that many of their predecessors have made: they wish to find a school structure that can give all the answers to all the problems that we have. I have counted 17 different school structures since the end of the war in 1945; none has managed to deliver all the improvement that we want. I only wish it was that easy. I look forward to the debates on the Bills that have been in outlined in the gracious Speech when they are presented to the House of Lords. They will indeed cause debate, but there are many serious questions that the Government will need to answer.

Schools: Careers Guidance

Baroness Morris of Yardley Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd July 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for allowing us to have this debate. I did not realise that we had not had the opportunity to discuss the guidance, which is very important. I thank her for giving us that opportunity. There are problems with careers education guidance at the moment, and I want to say something about that, but let me be clear that there were problems with Connexions as well. We have not got it right for 20 years, so it is not a party-political point. Successive Governments just have not got this right, and I want to address why that might be the case.

One point that has not been said is that we all understand and know about the importance of careers education and guidance for everyone, but for no one more than the youngster trying to break away from the pattern of employment that their family has had for generation after generation. How it plays into that social mobility agenda and opportunity agenda is huge.

When I look at the guidance, I cannot argue with any single aspect of it. Having employer engagement is great; having employers in school is fantastic; work experience is wonderful; raising aspirations and showing people new visions is just what we want. It is right that schools should have a choice in who provides the services for the children in their care. I also like the encouragement that schools are getting to use destination information. When I look at the component parts that address the careers problem, I cannot argue against them. So why is it not working? That is what I really wanted to look at. In truth, the problem is that it does not hang together. Although all the elements are good and sound, every single one of them risks failing and is likely to fail in a considerable number of schools throughout this country.

If we take businesses, it is great that there is business involvement but, during my very early years of teaching, I used to be a careers teacher, and I can tell your Lordships that some of the most difficult classes I had were when I had an employer in who was not very good at talking to recalcitrant 14 year-old boys. So the notion that the minute you get employers in it is all wonderful is just not true. Our children get good-quality work experience, but if you are in an inner-city comprehensive school, trying to get that quality work experience with no external help for a cohort of 200 students a year is very difficult.

If we look at the structure of schools themselves, none of them do not care about what happens to their children but all the levers are against them doing the careers education and guidance right. It is not just that there is a history of saying that the best thing is to stay until the sixth form and go on to university, as has been said today. Schools carry that weight and history with them, but they are also rewarded for saying that. They are seen to be better schools because sixth forms mean more money and more pupil funding for that age range. All the incentives are for them not to send children into apprenticeships or down to the local college.

Children have to make a decision, but the areas of the curriculum where that used to be encouraged—PSHE and citizenship—are no longer there. The problem is that Ministers will always be able to give us examples of where there is really good practice. However, to be really honest, the chances of all those elements hanging together to provide universal careers provision across the country—of them being brought together by a school that puts it top of its priority list—are next to none. This cannot be a subject where some kids miss out. We have to be able to guarantee that it is available for everyone.

I want to look at something which I think is not often mentioned. I remember that when I was a young careers teacher, I always used to think that there were really three elements to it. You had to give the child information and aspiration—the tools to get some stuff into his or her head. You also had to give them the skill to assess their own strengths and where they were—what was and was not reasonable. But the most difficult thing was getting them to make the decision and, having made it, to stick with it for the rest of their school life. We sometimes underestimate how difficult it is, especially with some children, to equip them with the skills to make the decision and stick with it. I often think of this analogy: anyone who has been house hunting knows of the huge gap between really liking a house and saying, “Yes, I’ll buy it”. It is exactly the same thing as saying, “I really like that job. I wonder if I could do it”. But jumping in and staying with it for years, throughout the rest of your career, is very difficult.

I hope that I do not often say this, but I do not think that we have ever had anything as good as the careers service that we had in the 1980s, when I was teaching. Certainly in my area, which was Coventry, we were an exemplar. As a careers teacher, I taught careers guidance lessons, but we had, devolved from the Coventry careers service, a careers officer who was full time and two assistants. I pay tribute to Bill Grantham, who was our careers officer. So what the children had in our office was not just my skills as a teacher but his skills as a careers officer and those of his team.

It was he who gave the impartial advice; it was he who said, “Is that what you want to do? Well, this is how you need to go about it”. Most crucially, it was he who gave the school leadership and the teachers the confidence to put careers at the centre of what they did. We were not equipped to do it, but with him there, by our side, on our senior management team, we had the cohesion that is so often lacking. I hope that, on this occasion, learning some lessons from the past may stand us in good stead for the future.

Birmingham Schools

Baroness Morris of Yardley Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, may we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Bew?

[Lord Nash]

I can absolutely give the noble Lord that assurance.

[Baroness Morris of Yardley]

My Lords—

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, we have time. Perhaps we could hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, who has been trying to get in, and then come to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and then to the Liberal Democrats.

[Baroness Morris of Yardley]

I am most grateful. There is no doubt that the report makes very uncomfortable reading for everyone. All parts of the education system need to look at how they have performed and ask real questions about what has gone on in recent years. Beyond the no-notice inspections by Ofsted, I find the report more shallow than I would have expected. On no-notice Ofsted inspections, I would be amazed if the wool could be drawn over Ofsted’s eyes just by giving 24 or 48 hours’ notice. I am not convinced at all that merely sending Ofsted in with no notice will enable it to spot these things if it could not spot them with 24 or 48 hours’ notice.

The point I want to raise that has not been raised is that, while excusing no individual in these schools or the local authority, or anyone anywhere from the consequences of their actions, has not the Minister reflected that, in a way, government policies over the past five years have made this situation more likely, not less likely to happen? What we read in the report is the downside to some of the Government’s flagship policies: inviting parents to play a greater part in deciding the values and type of education their children receive; destroying many of the partnerships that meant that what one school did was visible to another; massively reducing local oversight of schools; encouraging teachers, often with no qualifications, to make up their own curriculum as they go along; and excusing outstanding schools from any inspection at all. Without saying that there is nothing to be gained by those policies, the fact is that the Government have made no allowance at all for coping with the downside of some of their key flagship policies. What is the Minister going to do about that now?

[Lord Nash]

It is true that in recent years, Ofsted has strengthened its inspection regime by recruiting inspectors who speak Arabic and Urdu and are trained in the various Islamic ideologies, but we have today announced many other actions that we will be taking in relation to those schools. I do not accept that it is as a result of recent government actions that these things have happened. The noble Baroness may believe that these things have suddenly turned around; they have in fact taken root in these schools over many years, particularly under the previous Government, but it is this Government who have dealt with those points.

Children and Families Bill

Baroness Morris of Yardley Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that parents have fought for years to get resources and what some might call justice for children with special educational needs. That is why the Bill is so important: it is a progressive piece of legislation that we can all be proud of. It will mean that, for the first time, local authorities have to spell out clearly and precisely what is available in their area and how that can be accessed. As we know, people with special educational needs will, for the first time, have a plan that joins up health, education and social care.

The giveaway is in the title: “local offer”. It is not a national offer but a local one. I suppose the Government could have said, “Nationally, we have decided that this is what you will do”, but I am quite sure that there would have been screams from local authorities that this was national government again dictating exactly what should happen. The local offer is important.

I was grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Low, in Committee but I still have grave concerns about creating a minimum requirement. We have seen what happened in care for the elderly: if you have a minimum requirement, councils under financial pressures jettison what they do not need to provide. If you have a minimum offer in terms of special educational needs, you will find that those authorities that my noble friend Lady Eaton so eloquently described, the ones that are progressive and look at new ideas, will say, “Well, if there are some savings to be made, we do not need to do that”. So I am not in favour of a minimum offer.

I am in favour of what the Government have reflected on and come back to at Report with Amendment 33C. Let us never underestimate the power of local people. If the local offer is not meeting the local requirement, you can bet that local people will say that they want something extra. Cases will make that happen. That is why the government amendment is so important. Let us celebrate where we are at so far, because it is important for children with special educational needs.

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments and, in particular, will comment on Amendments 30, 31, and 33D.

The amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Jones, which deal with the “expects to be” versus “which is” dilemma, just make sense, as I do not think that anyone here would not want parents to know what is being offered rather than what might be offered. The Government’s concern appears to be that something innovative might happen during the year that could be added to the offer, but the Minister might reflect that, if the offer was a living document so that it could be updated as an innovation came through, was proven to work, accepted as best practice and added to the local provision, in a digital age it would not be difficult to update the offer. The notion of “which is” gives far more certainty to users of the service than the words “expect to be”. In that respect, I very much support those amendments.

I just want to comment on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Low. I see both sides of this argument. We want local authorities to be free to innovate, to reach for the stars and to be the best they can, and we do not want the local offer in every local authority area to look exactly the same regardless of where you are in the country. Neither do we want to give permission to local authorities to go for a basic minimum standard. I accept the concerns laid out by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, but we are still left with a problem.

The code of practice talks a lot about the quantity that should be in the local offer. There is a whole list of things that the code of practice guarantees will be there. What is missing from the whole debate is something that guarantees quality. Amendment 33D attempts to do that, and I want the Minister to respond to it. None of us wants poor quality, and I do not think that we would be in politics and would certainly not be legislators if we did not know that we have to ensure quality. It does not happen by itself or through a free-for-all, and it will not happen if we just leave it to local authorities to do their best. We want more than that. Minimum standards are not in the amendment. I do not want to fetter those local authorities who will provide very well; I want to protect those people who live in areas where the local authority does not do very well. I am concerned about how we protect people against poor provision falling below those minimum standards.

Normally, government takes one of three actions. It leaves it to the market—the noble Lord, Lord Storey, mentioned just now that if people do not like it, they will complain and changes will be made. I do not think that that will happen with the local offer. The only way that the market usually works is if people are free to go elsewhere. Then the poor provision that they did not want withers on the vine, vanishes, closes down and gets off the playing field. That is not what we want here. We do not want a local offer to be squeezed out of the market so that people have to go over the local authority borders. I cannot see how the market works as a regulator of standards for the local offer.

Secondly, we inspect. That is another way to guarantee quality. I would be grateful if the Minister would give us an update on where the department is with Ofsted inspecting the local offer. In Committee, he undertook to write to me, and I must admit that I am not sure whether that letter has been sent; I have not seen it. I would accept it if the Government have decided to inspect the local offer to make sure that people are protected against poor provision.

If they do not want to do that, the next action is regulation. Amendment 33D, as tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Low, would put in regulation to protect people against poor standards. It really does not matter whether it is inspection or regulation—but I do not want it to be the market, which I think is where the Government are headed with this, because that will not work. We have to get the balance right between protecting people in areas where a local authority does not deliver the goods and leaving local authorities that are good, free to excel.

This is not just about safeguarding against low-quality provision: the Government should, equally, be incentivising innovation and high standards. If you only dampen down by inspecting, you will not get the high standards and innovation to which the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, referred. We have had so many decades of experience in the delivery of public services, and there are good ways of incentivising innovation, rewarding high standards and making sure that those high standards are spread to include everyone else. That is my ideal— to do both. I think that we will see the good quality provision in the local offer to which the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, referred, and that we will find ways of making sure that other local authorities know about it. Equally, for balance, we need something to set a basic standard below which local authorities’ local offer should not fall so that as regulators and legislators we can say that everybody, no matter where they live, is protected from a poor standard of provision. In that respect, I very much support the amendments that we are considering in this group.

[Baroness Wilkins (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, support all the amendments in this group. If the Bill really is to improve the position of families of children with SEN in their struggle to give their children the best start in life then it must provide some certainty. Assurances of the provision which a local authority expects to be available are useless if they turn out to be just warm words. Parents need to know what is available, and families must know that there is a benchmark below which standards are not allowed to fall.

Let us not forget that the vast majority of people who find themselves as the parent of a disabled child will have no previous knowledge of the world of special educational need. They will not know what services that their child might need should be available and will have no knowledge of the structure of provision or the standards that they should expect. They will have to learn all of this at a time of great stress and amid all the other demands of family and work life. On Amendment 25E, I particularly support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, on the importance of accountability regarding the local offer. As the Education Select Committee said, the importance of the local offer cannot be overestimated.

Given that Clause 30 relates to the local offer as an information offer and not to the actual provision contained in it, can the Minister explain exactly how local authorities will publish their response and what action they intend to take following parents’ comments about the local offer? How will that actually lead to improvements to the services being made? Unless the Minister agrees to move the Government’s Amendment 33C to Clause 27, what do the Government expect local authorities to do with comments from parents about service provision? Is there anything in the Bill to ensure that these comments will be fed into the review of service provision referred to in Clause 27? Moreover, will local authorities clearly explain to parents that they can comment on the local offer only as a source of information and not the provision itself?

As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, stated, the local offer will be relied upon by 1.4 million children with SEN, namely those without a statement or an EHC plan. Can the Minister therefore clarify, if the child does not have a plan and a local authority publishes a response and follow-up action which was unsatisfactory to parents, are there any further mechanisms in place to ensure that parents’ concerns are addressed?

By the Government’s own figures, the total cost to the taxpayer of parents taking cases to an SEN tribunal is more than £30 million a year. Given this substantial cost, is it not imperative that disputes between parents and local authorities are resolved at the earliest possible opportunity? Amendment 25E, which requires parents, local authorities and others to work together and develop an action plan, would enable this to happen, and I urge the Government to accept it.

Children and Families Bill

Baroness Morris of Yardley Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I do not know what the Minister is about to say, so it might not be necessary for me to speak. However, in case we are not entirely satisfied with the Minister’s response, I shall offer a few comments in support now.

We may be missing an opportunity here. There has been a great improvement in blended and online learning over the past few years. A decade ago, I should have been sceptical about an amendment such as this. I should have still wanted almost to squeeze these children into the traditional model of education, which is of course what many of them are rebelling against, and which has failed to meet the needs of many of them. Having visited places like Red Balloon and talked to people who have now become proficient in online and alternative ways of supporting these children, I think the time has come when we ought to acknowledge that it could provide a very important, successful form of education for children whom we have failed in the past. I might not have thought of its fitting into this Bill, but it is an ideal place to acknowledge the growing importance that online and alternative methods of learning are playing in our education system. We ought to seize that opportunity.

My second point is that this fits in with two important aspects of the Government’s education policy. The first is the change needed in the IT curriculum for children in formal education, which the Government have done well to acknowledge. In doing so, they seem to acknowledge that changes in IT and learning are here to stay, and that we need to seize ways—of which this is one—to acknowledge the importance of information technology and digital learning in our education system.

The second, more obvious, fit with government policy is that this is an alternative to mainstream education. Among all the alternative provision, such as free schools, about which I have serious concerns, I see this as finding a way to let innovative education play its part in the education of children—something that we are not good at doing. Whereas I am sceptical about a lot of the ways that the Government are finding to put that innovation into the system, I wish they would seize this. If they were to look seriously at this amendment and touch base, they might see in it, for some children with special educational needs who are rebelling against mainstream education, and for whom mainstream education has never done a decent job, something which holds the key.

I look to the Minister for an acknowledgement of that, and either for this to go in the Bill or for a strong message to go out that this is a good thing which we ought to do all we can to support. Trying to read the Minister’s mind before she has spoken is difficult, but I hope that she is going to be sympathetic, if not in accepting this amendment, in giving a really clear signal that this is good, welcome and deserving of maximum support.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I thank the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for highlighting this area. She has fought long and hard for those with ME, to whose situation she has made reference. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Nash clarified the Government’s position; that the majority of children and young people are best served by attending a mainstream institution. We had a key discussion on this earlier. We do, however, recognise that for some children and young people mainstream education is not appropriate, as both the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said. The education arranged for these individuals could indeed include the use of online provision as part of a blended package of support. Indeed, I understand that earlier this month, the Nisai Learning Hub was registered as an independent school that will provide alternative provision through a mixture of supported online and face-to-face learning.

Decisions on the use of such provision clearly need to take into account children’s and young people’s academic needs. It is also vital that their social and emotional development is supported, and that their health and safety are protected. Because of that, we believe that local authorities, mainstream institutions or special institutions should remain accountable for these decisions. However, to reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lord Nash in Committee, the provisions in this Bill do not prevent the use of alternative provision, including online and blended learning. I can reassure noble Lords that it can be included within an EHC plan, it can be funded by personal budgets and it can be part of the local offer used to support pupils without an EHC plan.

We appreciate that an underlying aim of these amendments is to highlight the benefits of online and blended learning for certain groups. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, made their case effectively and powerfully. We do not think that legislation is the appropriate vehicle to achieve this aim, but we shall reflect carefully on how the SEN code of practice and statutory guidance on alternative provision can better support informed decisions on this type of provision—decisions that are based on the best interests of the child or young person.

In doing so, we shall take into account the views of those groups facing particular barriers to mainstream education. The noble Countess highlighted some of these. To this end, I understand that my honourable friend the Minister for Children and Families has agreed to meet the noble Countess, Lady Mar, to hear experiences of the support needed for children and young people with ME. I hope that will be helpful to both sides. I should like to acknowledge the work of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, in supporting the cause of people with this condition.

I hope I have reassured the noble Countess and the noble Baroness that there is sufficient flexibility within the current arrangements to allow for the use of high-quality alternative provision, including online and blended learning, where it is in the best interests of a child or young person. Where there are restrictions, we believe that they offer vital safeguards in relation to the education, wider development and safety of pupils. We shall, however, look at how guidance can be improved so that decisions on the use of online provision are focused on the individual’s particular needs—that is at the heart of this. I therefore urge the noble Countess, Lady Mar, to withdraw her amendment.

Children and Families Bill

Baroness Morris of Yardley Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Young of Hornsey (CB)]

My Lords, I support my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss on this amendment, as I did in Grand Committee. I do not want to repeat what other noble Lords have said, but I support very much what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and my noble friend Lady Meacher said. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, said that she thought it would be restrictive to put these words back into the Bill. However, to urge people to have regard is perhaps not as restrictive as she thinks. The agencies from which I have received briefings and with which I have had round-table discussions, along with other discussions over a long period, also support the amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend.

That is not to say that everybody has a kind of purist, essentialist view on who should be adopting who, but to recognise that there are many other factors regarding black and mixed-race heritage children, and children with disabilities. Children with those kinds of backgrounds have experienced delays in the system for all kinds of reasons, not simply because of previous legislation. There are lots of different ways of supporting those children, too, which can be long-term. Fostering can provide long-term stability in lots of different ways. So, as I say, I support my noble and learned friend.

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 2 and should like to comment briefly. What is strange is that it seems we are all in agreement. On the substance of the matter, there is not as much disagreement in this debate as I thought there would be when the Bill was published, which is interesting. To some extent, what we seem to be debating this evening is: what is the best way in legislation to give that message to people whose lives will be affected by what we decide?

Children and Families Bill

Baroness Morris of Yardley Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

I listened very carefully to the Minister. I think we will all want to read his comments in Hansard because it was quite a technical response, although I appreciate that that was absolutely necessary. I have a query about the phrase “single point of access”, which I would not mind him expanding on.

A lot was said about the difficulties of parents in accessing more than one tribunal. That is right. Has the Minister reflected on the message it gives to those people we are asking to integrate a service? A lot of people doubt that that can happen and will not take the Government seriously on this. If you really want to change the culture of three separate public services, you must not give them an excuse not to make the change. Throughout the discussion of this Bill, we have said that it is not about passing a law but about changing the culture. Having such a pivotal part of the whole procedure still split into three separate parts is actually saying, “At the end of day, we could not do it. We wanted to integrate, but when it got to the tough bit, the bit about the appeal, we, the Government, could not do it”. The naysayers will say, “There you are. We told you it couldn’t be done”. I know it is not the Minister’s intention, but what will happen is that that will ripple down the system, and people will say there that there is another inconsistency in what the Government say and that they say one thing and then do a different thing. The bit of the process that is the Government’s responsibility is the appeal. If we cannot change government culture and get it integrated, we are undermining genuine attempts by the Government to change the culture further along the channel.

I was not clear about what the Minister said. He gave two responses. One was, “I really think this amendment is right, but I do not think it can be done”, and the other was, “I do not think this amendment is necessary”. I was not sure which side he came down on. It is important that we know that between now and Report because that will give those people who feel strongly about this an indication of where the campaigning needs to be done.

I end on this single point of access. I wonder whether the Minister was actually saying that he has a compromise that he might suggest on Report around something called a single point of access. I am sorry for the long intervention, but what we can expect on Report in terms of a direction of travel is important so that people who have put a lot of work into preparing these amendments will be able to marshal their arguments.

[Baroness Perry of Southwark (Con)]

I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Baroness said. It is true that the excitement of the Bill is in the bringing together of these three services, but the noble Baroness’s argument has not answered the Minister’s point about giving priority to SEN children over children who are very sick with cancer or other diseases. It is inherent in the system that that problem will remain. We cannot, just by will, say that bringing them all together will somehow stop there being a different route for SEN children from that for other children, and that point has to be answered.

Children and Families Bill

Baroness Morris of Yardley Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Massey’s Amendments 35 and 37. I will also speak to Amendment 36 in my name. Amendment 36 would grant control of the pupil premium to the virtual school head. It would ensure that virtual school heads are responsible for allocating the pupil premium to looked-after children.

Clause 9 is one of the few parts of the Bill that provides extra support for children in the care system. It amends Section 22 of the Children Act 1989 by introducing a duty upon every local authority to appoint an officer whose role will be to ensure the promotion of the educational achievement of looked-after children. The role is usually referred to as a “virtual school head teacher” or “virtual head”. The idea of the virtual head is not new. My noble friend Lady Massey referred to pilots; pilot schemes have been trialled in 11 local authority areas and have been shown to be extremely successful.

Why is this amendment necessary? Well, the most recent figures we have show that in 2011-12, just 14% of children looked after for at least one year achieved A* to C in GCSEs, including English and Maths. That compares with 58% of all children, so there is no doubt that children who have entered the care system, and who are likely to have experienced abuse or neglect before entry into care, need additional educational support. Once in care, the disruption that can be caused by a placement breakdown or move can also severely impact upon educational achievement.

As parents and grandparents, I am sure we all know that young people approaching their GCSEs have enough to contend with without needing to worry about whether they will be living in the same house when they take the exams. For many young people in care, this is a common reality. It is little wonder that their success rates in exams lag behind the norm. The original proposal to require local authorities to provide a virtual head was contained in the report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Looked after Children and Care Leavers, Education Matters in Care. At that time, the chairman of the all-party group was Edward Timpson MP, who is now the Children and Families Minister.

The all-party group went further. It also recommended that:

“Virtual School Heads should control the Pupil Premium”.

The pupil premium allows for a level of financial support for eligible children, which is currently about £600 per annum, to be used by their school. The all-party group report also noted that virtual heads have little control over how the pupil premium is spent and recommended that the system would be more effective if they were given control of this resource. As the present Children’s Minister recommended that these changes were necessary when he chaired the all-party group, I am sure that I am not alone in being a little disappointed that they are not included in the Bill.

The arguments in favour of their introduction remain and I hope that when we consider the Bill on Report, we will ensure that these provisions are properly made. The case for allowing the pupil premium to be controlled by the virtual school head seems to be supported by recent comments made by Ofsted’s chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw. He expressed concern that a significant minority of schools are struggling to show how their use of the premium is having any significant impact upon the attainment of those pupils it was intended to assist, so clearly there is an issue that Ofsted recognises. I hope that the Minister will see the wisdom of this amendment, and I look forward to his reply.

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group—in particular my noble friend Lord Touhig’s amendment—but I very much support the point made by my noble friend Lady Massey about the need to evaluate. That is a theme throughout the considerations of this Committee. It is not that nobody has thought of doing the right thing but that we have not been good enough in implementation and monitoring, and in amending what we do in the light of the evidence. That is why that amendment is important and is one that we should pursue.

My comments will be in particular about the pupil premium. It is a brilliant little idea. I admit that when I first looked at the Bill and when we were discussing it at Second Reading, I could not be against the notion of the virtual school head but it did not quite ring right with me. I was not against it but I was just not sure that it would have any impact. Perhaps those local authorities that have voluntarily carried it out and feel they own it will make a success of it. My worry was that once you made it statutory throughout the nation, it would become just a job to be done and a box to be ticked. It needed some sort of bite beneath it that would give it teeth and make sure that something happened. I did not raise this at Second Reading because I could not think of anything at the time, but I think that the pupil premium might be one of those things that means that schools and other places in the education system have to sit up and listen because there is a control of resource in someone else’s hands. That might just give the edge to this post, new as it is, as it starts its contribution to education.

There are perhaps one or two other reasons. My noble friend Lord Touhig was right to say that the evidence at the moment is that some schools are not spending the money to greatest effect. Many are, and there are now lots of things that will help them spend the pupil premium to great effect, such as the toolkit. A lot of good work is being done by Ofsted and a lot of people. My worry is that this could be one of the cases where the group of people on whom it is spent least effectively are those children who are looked after. They seem to miss out on every bit of the system. This gives us a chance to make sure that in this we actually give them a head start.

I envisage that those people who are virtual heads could build up a body of expertise and experience about how best to spend the pupil premium. In that way, they could be champions of spending quite a significant amount of money. I am sure that teachers throughout schools in all local authorities might then look to them for advice. I trust that they will do it carefully. I would sooner the amendment said “in partnership with schools” because I do not think it will work unless it is in partnership with schools. Perhaps after consideration here, if it were to be brought back on Report, my noble friend Lord Touhig and others might wish to reflect on that. However, it is a really good addition to what is basically a good idea—the virtual school head. Until this amendment, they ran the risk of not having any teeth to do their work.

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I am delighted by the cross-party support which Clause 9 has attracted. In spite of the modest progress in recent years in the attainment of looked-after children, progress is nowhere near what it needs to be. That is why we have decided to make the role of the virtual school head statutory, so that all local authorities are required to appoint a dedicated officer to discharge its duty to promote the educational achievement of the children it looks after.

Natasha Finlayson, of the Who Cares? Trust has said:

“Virtual school heads have been shown to have a positive effect on the attainment of young people in care”.

Ofsted’s thematic inspection of the role of virtual school heads published last year found that, where the role works well, it has a positive—some might go as far as to say transformative—effect. One of Ofsted’s key findings in that report referred to the very effective support virtual school heads provide. That support not only made a difference to children’s educational progress but often enhanced the stability of their placements and had a positive impact on their emotional well-being. Every inspection report of local authorities will in future, from November, include how virtual school heads are improving outcomes for looked-after children

On the aim of Amendment 36, I am sympathetic to the motivation of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. If we want to maximise the benefits of pupil premium funding it is right to expect the virtual school head to have a role. As looked-after children will attract a pupil premium plus of £1,900 in 2014-15, dialogue between schools and virtual school heads will be vital.

We have therefore signalled our plans to extend the role of the virtual school head to work with schools to manage the pupil premium plus and ensure that the money is spent on securing the best educational support for children in care. Discussions between the school and local authority on the content of a child’s personal education plan and how the pupil premium will be used to support meeting the needs set out in that plan are crucial. That is a message that we intend strongly to emphasise in guidance.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the role of the virtual school head in relation to care leavers. We know that their educational outcomes are not good enough compared to their peers and I recognise entirely how important it is that someone is there to support care leavers who are in, or who wish to return to, education. I can see therefore why there are calls to extend the role of the virtual school head to cover care leavers. In a number of local authorities, the virtual school head’s remit includes some overlap with care leaver services.

Although I share the objective of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, in the amendment, I believe that addressing the educational needs of care leavers will not necessarily be met by adding a new duty to Section 23B. Extending in statute the role of the virtual school head to care leavers too widely risks undermining the very reason we are making the role statutory: to redouble our efforts to narrow the intractable attainment gap between what looked-after children achieve compared to their peers. If we extend the role of the virtual school head, it would add significant burdens to the local authority and the person undertaking that role and would dilute the impact of the role. We do not wish to do that.

I do not wish to appear complacent on this point. Supporting care leavers to stay in education and training is vital. That is why we have extended local authority responsibilities to care leavers up to the age of 25, where they are in education and training.

Under its new inspection framework, Ofsted will be looking at the quality of care leavers’ services and whether they have access to appropriate education and employment opportunities, including work experience and apprenticeships. They are encouraged and supported to continue their education and training, including those aged 21 to 24. Care leavers are progressing well and achieving their full potential through life choices, either in their attainment in further and higher education or in their chosen career or occupation.

If we are changing legislation, we have to be really sure that the changes are for the better and we have to have evidence of impact. We know that the virtual school head has had an impact on looked-after children nationally, and we cannot risk diluting that. There are other ways to ensure that the support that care leavers get to continue their education and training takes place.

I hope that I have provided reassurances to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, of our commitment to improving outcomes for all looked-after children and care leavers, and that they will join me in welcoming our recent announcement on the pupil premium plus and withdraw their amendment.

Children and Families Bill

Baroness Morris of Yardley Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morris of Yardley]

My Lords, I will address Part 3 principally in this debate on Second Reading. However, I acknowledge that many of the other parts of the Bill offer a great deal and I look forward to discussing them in Committee, particularly after the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. I often find myself following her in these debates, and I think that this is the first time that I have agreed with almost everything she said, so perhaps this is a very different sort of Bill than we normally discuss.

I welcome this Bill and its intentions. I think that there are many good things in it. We make a lot of speeches about two things: raising educational standards and closing the gap. It is closing the gap that we have always found very difficult, and at the bottom of that gap are very many of the groups of children and young people whom we are trying to assist in the Bill. They are children who need to be looked after, children who have a disability, children who have a special educational need and children who have had difficulty in early family life. If we can get that right, we as a nation will do a great deal to achieve our larger educational aims of raising standards across the board. I therefore welcome this Bill.

A look at special educational needs and the statementing process is somewhat overdue, so I very much welcome this provision and, indeed, some of the details. I do not quite buy into this idea that it is a revolution or that it is a chance in a generation. I do not see it that way because, when you look at what is in the new education, health and care plans, they essentially are trying to do the same thing as statementing did but in a different way. That is happening because statementing did not work as well as we would have liked it to work. The players are still the same—the health authority, the schools, the education services, the care authorities and the parents. There is no new player in this mix. The plan comes at it in a different way to try to make it work.

What annoys me most about this is that it is about some very fundamental things in education: identifying a child’s strengths and weaknesses; setting objectives as to how they might improve and how their needs might be met; reviewing progress; and working with the family to do the best we can for the child. That is done every day in every school for children who do not have special educational needs. It is the nature of good teaching and the nature of a good school. What we fail to do, right across the parties and right across society, is to try to make that system work for children who have extra needs. For them, the co-ordination does not work, and they need it far more than many children without SEN. I see this as another step along the road in the journey to try to get better at delivering this. Nevertheless, we are far better than we used to be 20 or 30 years ago, so it is not always a bad story. If we do that, we can then perhaps get on to debating the things that we debate for children who do not have SEN, such as pedagogy, curriculum, and all those things that will raise standards.

If we are to get this right, we have to understand why integrated working has never happened before. Let us be clear: it has been open to the authorities and the powers that be to deliver what is in this Bill before this Bill arrived. If health, social care and education legislators had wanted to deliver a seamless service for children with special educational needs, they would have done it; and it is a shame that they have not done it. We are trying, all together as politicians, to find a legal structure to make it happen. I think what we can best hope for is a change of culture so that people actually say that it is a priority, that they want to make it happen and that they will roll up their sleeves and do it.

I think that, in the past, three things have gone wrong—or, rather, have been less than perfect. If this Bill helps those, it is a success; if not, it is not. One is the relationship between the different services as to whether they work. Too often in the past, education has had to beg the other services to take note. That is because the priorities have not been aligned and the budgets have not been aligned. Quite honestly, health and care professionals go to work without often thinking that SEN children are at the top of their priority list. A group of education officers go to work knowing that they are at the top of their priority list, and they have had a hell of a difficulty trying to get others to pay attention.

The second area that has not been right is responsibility and accountability. If you are not accountable for what you are meant to do, the chances are that you will not do it. The third thing has been resources. Quite honestly, we have raised expectations for children with special needs and their families that we would give them a tailor-made plan and deliver it, and it has not always happened. So, as we go through the Bill, my test for its success will be as follows. Does it make the relationships work more effectively? Does it put responsibility and accountability in the right place? Will the resources be there to make sure that we deliver?

There is a lot to welcome, particularly taking the plan to age 25 and the efforts to make the voice of the child stronger within this whole process. However, I will concentrate on some things that I want to look at as we go through the Bill that I think deserve further consideration. I either do not quite understand them or am against them—I have not quite made up my mind. Some have already been mentioned, such as the groups of children left out of the Bill, children with SEN, children with a disability but without a special educational need, and minimum standards for care plans—I will not say too much about that because it has been mentioned.

I will pick out two points that have not yet been mentioned. One is the qualification for SENCOs. I welcome that very much. I find it strange, given that we have just dropped the mandatory qualification for headship, that we are now putting in law a mandatory qualification for SENCOs. Nevertheless, I welcome it. It looks, to me, as though teachers teaching children with special educational needs will still be able to have no qualified teacher status at all. I do not understand, if we are making it a requirement for SENCOs to have two qualifications, why those who are teaching the very same children they are organising would be allowed to do so without QTS. Perhaps the Minister could comment on this.

My second point is about pre-school learning. This is the second time that this Government have dropped the requirement for a group of education providers to be inspected by Ofsted. I am a great admirer of Ofsted; I think it plays a good part. The first time this was done was with schools which had got outstanding Ofsted inspections. I did not agree with it but I could see the rationale behind it. I cannot see the rationale for some childminders not to be subject to Ofsted when we cannot guarantee their quality. Nevertheless, I welcome the broad thrust of this Bill and very much look forward to the debate that I suspect we will have in Committee.