Education Bill

Baroness Sharp of Guildford Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I would like to follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to make one very brief point. On my way to my brief point I will say that I very much support apprenticeships and the apprenticeships programme, and what this Government are doing to ramp that up, so I very much support the amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Layard.

I do not know quite how the Government intend to respond to that, but the brief point I will make is to express the hope that if the Government are on the way to resisting or qualifying the amendment in any way, I hope that they will not do anything that will detract from the priority category status of the apprenticeship offer, which is in legislation, for students with learning difficulties and disabilities in the age group 19 to 24. I think that the Government have recognised that members of this group sometimes take a little longer to reach the point when they can appropriately embark on an apprenticeship. With that in view, they have accepted that it is appropriate to make a priority offer to this group in a somewhat later age category. I hope that they will be able to give assurances that the offer to that age group of students is still in place.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

My Lords, I, too, have a great deal of sympathy with this set of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Young, spoke to us about the unemployment statistics and the difficulties that young people in particular have in gaining apprenticeships at the moment. We have seen an extremely satisfactory increase in the number of apprenticeships over the past few years, but they have predominantly been in the older, 19-plus category. There is considerable difficulty for younger people. Employers are less anxious to take on young people. Indeed, those who go into apprenticeships are, on the whole, those who have already been employed by the same people—they move into an apprenticeship with the firm that they are already with.

We have had some discussion of the Select Committee report that was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. I think I remember that report saying that apprenticeship is the most satisfactory route into a career for a young person who does not go through university. It is an extremely satisfying and satisfactory way of teaching young people, and for them to learn not only a skill but about jobs and living, and the world of work. It is therefore very important indeed that we should support the apprenticeships. In the current situation with the recession, can my noble friend Lord Henley tell us what the Government’s response is to the Wolf report’s suggestions that there should be some incentive to employers, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, in taking on young apprentices? We talk about it being demand-led but in some circumstances demand needs a little nudging. Are the Government inclined to nudge demand in this way?

[Lord Monks]

My Lords, speaking as an apprentice Member of the House, I also support these amendments to help the Government to meet the objectives that they have set themselves. My noble friend Lord Young complimented the Government on those. There are tough, ambitious targets and there is money being provided. The resources are there but we are short of the means to carry through the action necessary to meet the targets. These amendments are part of the story that can at least fill the gap.

Apprenticeship, as my noble friend Lord Young said, has been in intensive care for a long time. When he was going down to British Telecom, 40 per cent-plus of boys leaving school at the minimum age were apprentices. Unfortunately, it was only 5 per cent of girls. That was 40 years or so ago but then the system collapsed. Traditional industries shrank, the new industries did not want the practice at all and employers poached rather than trained. With a little more money, they took staff from the employers who did train. The original attempt to stop that was the Conservative Government’s Industrial Training Act and a levy grant mechanism, but the system did not stand up against that pressure. With the higher education expansion a little later and perhaps some faults in apprenticeship itself—being time-serving rather than competence-based—the whole thing shook and not much was left.

The result is pretty disastrous for Britain in terms of low productivity and a poor record in this area compared with some similar countries. It is much worse than anything in the higher education field. I was in Sweden recently looking at apprenticeships. Apprentices there are required to be able to speak a foreign language by the time they have completed their apprenticeships. Certainly, they are required to be competent in English and are now encouraged to become competent in German or French as well. Some of them are becoming competent in Chinese. This is a moving target and we are well behind. Reference has been made to the educational problems of some of the young people who we are trying to squeeze into the opportunities available.

I welcome the priority that the Government are giving to this matter but we need more ways of ensuring that progress will be made. I have been a big supporter of Investors in People from its inception. It is odd that its website does not refer to apprenticeships and that they are not a central feature of that website. We should be spreading this concept into newer occupations. As the noble Baroness has just said, this is a very good method of learning for people who do not feel comfortable with the traditional academic route. I hope that the Minister will give a sympathetic response to this group of amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

First, I thank the Minister for his letter to my noble friend Lady Hughes. Our amendment concerns the raising of the participation age. The Minister's letter, as I think he will realise when I explain my reasoning, addressed one part of our amendment: namely, the date by which that might happen. It did not address the other part of it, which states that Part 1 of the Education and Skills Act should come into force on that day. We feel that we have had only a partial response so far. I hope that as the discussion goes on we will be able to explore the matter further.

Just to be clear about Clause 71, which, as I say, concerns the

“Duty to participate in education or training”,

and raises the training participation age, the relevant part of Part 1 of the Act sets out the duties: to whom the duty should apply, what the duty meant and the duties on schools and employers, for example, to promote and enable attendance. Clause 71, if left unamended, would enable the delay of the introduction of a supporting infrastructure to help young people stay in education and training, such as the duty on maintained schools to promote good attendance and duties on parents of 16 and 17 year-olds. It would also enable a delay of any penalties associated with non-compliance. We are concerned about the message that this would send to young people, to parents and to local authorities about quite how serious the Government are about raising the participation age.

Ours is a probing amendment. We chose the date of 1 January 2012 as the one on which all relevant provisions of the ESA 2008 should come into force, but another date may of course be more appropriate. Perhaps the Minister will say that there is a more appropriate date. What is important is not the date but that when that duty to participate is introduced, the infrastructure comes into force at the same time. Without this amendment we would be in the curious position whereby, for example, a 17 year-old would have a duty to be in education or training while there may not be the adequate support to enable them to do so—and there would be no consequence for the person if she or he did not comply.

In Committee in the Commons, Nick Gibb said:

“We aspire to achieve full participation, but without enforcement”.—[Official Report, Commons, Education Bill Committee, 5/4/11; col. 957.]

We have grappled with the question of enforcement and we recognise the problems of potentially criminalising young people. However, it is important that the right mechanisms are in place—the right pushes as well as the right pulls—to enable young people to participate. This amendment would ensure that the requirements relating to the supporting infrastructure for this duty come into force at the same time as the duty to participate.

To be clear, what the Education and Skills Act says may not be in force at the same time if our amendment is not passed are sections, for example, covering duties on schools and local authorities to support the rise in participation age and the duty on local authorities to identify people who are NEETs. It covers a duty to provide information to ensure compliance and attendance; for example, the duty on an institution to notify the local authority that they have evidence that a young person is not complying with their duty to participate. It covers an obligation upon employers to make appropriate arrangements for young people to continue attending courses while in employment. It also provides for parenting orders or contracts to be put in place where a young person is not compliant.

To re-emphasise the point, our amendment is simple but what we are keen to see happen is that Part 1 of the Education and Skills Act is implemented in its totality. It is not about the date per se but about making sure that we have all the ducks lined up so that when we announce the raising of the participation age, it can be delivered effectively.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

My Lords, we will be withdrawing Amendments 145B, 145C and 145E. However, we have some sympathy with the point just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. If the 2008 Act is narrowed down merely to Sections 1 to 10, there are some real problems as that leaves out the whole infrastructure which supports the raising of the participation age. The following sections are about not just criminal penalties but providing the infrastructure and giving young people the duty to participate. We need to back that up by the means to help them participate, so we very much support the noble Baroness on that point.

Education Bill

Baroness Sharp of Guildford Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, under Clause 43, the Secretary of State will be given new powers to intervene directly and to move quickly—much more swiftly than hitherto—to close schools. In response to that proposed new power, I shall move Amendment 122ZC.

Currently, the Secretary of State can direct the closure of a school only if it has already been categorised by Ofsted in its independent inspection as requiring special measures. Clause 43 will allow the Secretary of State to step in and close schools on the basis not of an independent, standardised assessment but of any judgment that he comes to that that route of closure is required. Under subsection (3), he will be able also to direct a local authority to issue a performance standards and safety warning notice where it has decided against it. Then, when a warning notice has been given for whatever reason, and the school has not complied, the school will automatically become eligible for intervention and it will be open for the Secretary of State to close it.

Closures of schools could therefore be triggered in this way by the Secretary of State, and not on the basis of an independent assessment by Ofsted. That is a serious extension of power. Closing a school is a nuclear option and has serious implications for parents and an area. The provision would also mean a transferring of schools into academy status by diktat of the Secretary of State without the normal processes having been gone through. I shall explain shortly what I mean by that.

Will the Minister set out his thinking on how closures allowed under the clause would take place and how they would contribute to increasing standards and meeting parents’ and pupils’ needs? Under what circumstances would the Secretary of State step in to close a school that was not in special measures rather than, as is the case at the moment, help drive improvements in the school as a first option? How would such closures that the Secretary of State could simply enforce enable a local authority, for instance, to plan strategically to meet pupil place needs?

As noble Lords may gather from our amendment, which is different from those that will be moved by Liberal Democrats, we do not have a particular problem with the power contained in the clause giving the Secretary of State the power to direct a local authority as there may be circumstances in which local authorities are or have been slow to act in relation to schools where improvements are required. However, we do have a problem with the uncircumscribed and unfettered power of the Secretary of State himself to close a school, and there are two reasons for that. First, there is an issue of principle relating to such a serious option in an area; that if a school is not in special measures, it is right that parents, teachers and locally interested parties are able to play a part in determining what happens to it. There ought also to be an independent assessment by Ofsted on the need for that option. Secondly, I question whether the clause is something of a Trojan horse to accelerate the establishment of academies. The clause, coupled with Clause 36 on the establishment of new schools and the presumption in the Bill that any new school will be an academy, will mean that where, outside an Ofsted inspection and the conclusion of special measures, the Secretary of State decides to close a school—he can do so for a whole variety of reasons—the new school that takes its place will, by default, be an academy. It will not have to go through the normal processes that schools are now required to go through to become academies. It is conceivable that even some relatively well-performing schools could be required to close by the Secretary of State.

I would therefore be grateful if, in addition to dealing with the points I raised earlier, the Minister could reassure us on this point. Will he set out the vision for the future education system and say whether the Government see a place for maintained schools in that? Is it the case that this provision and Clause 36, and the presumption that all new schools will be academies, are designed to ensure that the Secretary of State can accelerate the establishment of academies, irrespective of the views of parents and teachers, by closing schools directly himself and then reopening them as academies?

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

My Lords, I, too, want to speak to Amendments 122A and 122B. Clause 43 gives the Secretary of State powers to intervene and close schools that are in special measures. That widens the powers of intervention to schools causing concern. Subsection (3) strengthens the Secretary of State’s powers so that where a local authority, having been directed to consider set performance standards and to issue a safety warning notice, has decided not to do so, the Secretary of State may direct the local authority to give such a warning notice. If such a warning notice is issued to a school and it fails to comply, it immediately makes itself eligible for intervention. As the noble Baroness explained, that may well mean that it is closed and an academy is opened in its place. Under the Education and Inspections Act 2006, the warning notice gives the school the right to ask the chief inspector whether the warning notice is justified and the chief inspector may confirm it or otherwise.

Our problem with the subsection is the degree to which it removes all discretion from local authorities. The problem is that a local authority is asked to consider whether to give a warning notice and to set performance standards. If, having looked at the school, it decides that other measures might be more appropriate and it therefore does not issue a warning notice or the appropriate performance standard, the Secretary of State may now just peremptorily intervene. At a time when the Government are anxious to try to devolve responsibilities—the Localism Bill is going through the main Chamber today—it is against the whole spirit of localism that the Secretary of State should be given these somewhat draconian powers.

Amendment 122B is to some extent a probing amendment. It suggests that we want to know, if academies fail in the same way as some schools fail, whether they have to obey the same rules as maintained schools have to. Is it appropriate that there should be intervention in exactly the same way and that they might be closed down? If they are closed down, the obvious solution would be for the local authority to have the power to step in and open a maintained school in its place—a sort of quid pro quo for the shutting down of a maintained school and the opening of an academy. Here we would have the equal and opposite effect. We would like to know a little more about what happens if an academy fails.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, none of us wants to see underperforming schools letting down pupils year after year. To answer the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, it is to tackle that entrenched underperformance in certain areas that we are keen to take these measures, which are similar to measures that the previous Government intended to take. We know that out of the 200 worst performing primary schools in the country, over half have been below the floor standard for over 10 years, and 112 of the 200 worst performing primaries are in local authorities that have never issued a warning notice. I know that the previous Government were keen to tackle underperformance, and so are we.

Our starting point would certainly be that underperformance should ideally be addressed by locally developed and agreed solutions, and we are seeing more and more examples of local authorities working with the Government and schools to come up with agreed sponsored-academy solutions. Where there is consistent underperformance, however, and the school and local authority seem unable or unwilling to tackle it, we think that the Secretary of State needs to be able to intervene. This is an urgent and important issue so we intend, subject to the passage of the Bill, to commence the provision on Royal Assent.

The Secretary of State already has a range of intervention powers. Where schools are eligible for intervention—because they have failed to comply with a warning notice or have been judged to require special measures or to require significant improvement by Ofsted—the Secretary of State can appoint additional governors, impose an interim executive board or make an academy order. The Secretary of State can also require the closure of a school in special measures and direct a local authority to consider issuing a warning notice. It is these two powers that the previous Government’s Children, Schools and Families Act sought to extend, and which Clause 43 of this Bill also seeks to extend.

We believe that there is an inconsistency in the current law that means that one intervention option, directing closure, is available only for schools in the Ofsted category of special measures. Where the Secretary of State needs to intervene, he should be able to choose a form of intervention that is most appropriate for the circumstances. If he chooses to direct closure, he has a duty to consult, including with the local authority and the school, and he will have to take account of the views expressed in reaching a fair and reasonable decision.

Warning notices are a well established legal tool for addressing underperformance. They can help schools to recognise and address their problems or, if the school is not capable of addressing the action, they can enable further intervention by either the local authority or the Secretary of State. However, it is the case that local authorities use their power to issue warning notices inconsistently. Two-thirds of them have never issued a warning notice at all. That is why the Secretary of State needs to be able to direct the local authority to issue a warning notice: so that they can be used where they are necessary, as opposed to being dependent on the practice of the local authority. However, we accept that there need to be checks and balances. Therefore, we have included a provision giving the governing body a right to appeal to Ofsted against a direction to issue a warning notice. It would remain the case that the Secretary of State would first have to direct a local authority to consider giving a warning notice. It is only if the local authority decided not to do so that the Secretary of State, having considered the reasons given by the local authority, could then direct it to issue a warning notice, subject to that check of the appeal to Ofsted.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

122BZA: Schedule 12, page 90, line 17, leave out paragraph 3

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 122BZB, 122BZC and 122BAA. These four amendments fall into two groups, which are about linked but separate issues. I shall start by speaking to Amendments 122BZA and 122BAA and shall then move on to the other two. Both these amendments propose that we do not delete the duty on further education colleges and sixth-form colleges to promote the well-being of their local area.

I have put forward these amendments because I am currently leading a commission of inquiry promoted by NIACE, the National Institute of Adult and Continuing Education, the AOC, the Association of Colleges, and the 157 Group of large further education colleges to look into the role of colleges in their communities. This follows directly from last November’s two White Papers on skills—Skills for Sustainable Growth and the accompanying strategy document. Both these White Papers proposed a considerable freeing-up of colleges from the micro-management of the Learning and Skills Council, and this is now embodied in many of the amendments to Schedule 12.

The aim is essentially to free colleges to take their own decisions. There is particular emphasis on their working for and in partnership with local employers on the one hand and individual students on the other, and on making sure that they meet the needs of these two groups. However, the White Papers also refer to colleges meeting the needs of their local communities. Implicit in the deregulation is that the needs of employers, individuals and local communities vary from area to area and, therefore, that what is required also varies from area to area. My job in chairing the commission of inquiry is to put a bit of flesh on what the notion of serving the local community might mean for such colleges. We published an interim report in July and our final report is due in November. The outcome of our inquiries has been to highlight the potential of further education colleges to play a vital role within their communities in all kinds of ways.

For example, the provision of youth activities might be seen as important in relation to the riots that we saw this summer. Some colleges link up with local authorities to provide imaginative and extensive youth activities, ranging from sport and motor mechanics to drop-in clubs. These bring young people into the college to see the facilities and use the canteen. They then learn that the college is not such a frightening place. The evaluation of these experiments is that they have been very positive in reducing the number of local NEETs, drug-taking and youth crime. Likewise, in some areas colleges play a major part in outreach activities for ethnic minorities. They provide English classes for speakers of other languages, parenting, home-making and cookery classes, and classes in basic numeracy and literacy. These lead to other college courses and often to higher qualifications, so that many people in these communities move from being dependent on welfare benefits to sometimes quite substantial jobs.

On a different tack, some colleges run consultancies for small and medium-sized businesses, helping them with business planning, financial management and even a limited amount of R&D. The activities vary from community to community, depending on local needs. Many are run in partnership with other organisations. We have coined the phrase “colleges as a dynamic nucleus within their communities”. They are proactive, forming partnerships and companies and leading consortia. The Minister of State for Skills and Further Education, Mr John Hayes, is anxious to see colleges pursue this role, particularly in disadvantaged communities, to provide a focus for regeneration and generate a sense of pride in their local communities. Therefore, from the point of view of my commission, I am very anxious that this duty to promote well-being in a local area should remain. The best of our colleges do it already but it is very useful that there should be a statutory obligation to promote well-being to put pressure on those colleges that do not. I know that the Association of Colleges took the view that any good college would do it. Yes, good colleges do it, but it is those that do not that we want to put pressure on.

I turn now to Amendments 122BZB and 122BZC, which concern a different issue. The passage of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Learning and Children Act 2009, with which many of us around the Table were involved, established sixth-form colleges as separate entities. On examining the Act, the Office for National Statistics decided that both sixth-form colleges and further education colleges had been wrongly classified back in 1992 as being part of the non-profit sector, rather than as public sector institutions, and that the right classification for them was as public sector institutions. The deciding factor was that it is the Secretary of State who ultimately agrees and sets their articles of governance and has the right to dissolve them. If further education colleges are, however, classed as public sector, they will be required to obey all kind of Treasury rules about managing their finances. This effectively stops them from doing all the enterprising things—like setting up subsidiary companies and forming partnerships in their communities—that I would like to see them doing, in order to satisfy my remit in leading this commission, and in order to get things moving after that. The Office for National Statistics is sympathetic to this, and has allowed time for the legislation to be amended in this Bill, so that further educational colleges remain, as they have been, classed as non-profit institutions. The purpose of these two amendments is to have a shot at doing this, by helping to change their status.

Amendment 122BZB is about altering the articles of governance. The present legislation gives the Secretary of State—in the form of the Skills Funding Agency, the appropriate authority—powers to modify the articles of governance. The amendment shifts the ultimate decision-making power to the corporation itself, and makes the SFA’s role merely that of having to be consulted. Likewise, Amendment 122BZC places the ultimate decision on winding up the corporation on the corporation itself, although the Secretary of State, through the SFA, may have considerable influence on that decision, not least in refusing funds.

I am aware that these two amendments are not sufficient in themselves. My aim was to get this issue on to the agenda, because I am anxious that colleges should have the power to go ahead and be entrepreneurial in their own right. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

First, my Lords, we accept the Government amendments which have been tabled. As the Minister set out in his letter to me, they correct what ended up being an unintentional consequence of previous legislation, as it affected voluntary sixth-form colleges. On the presumption that these amendments have been the subject of consultation with the Catholic Education Service, which raised the concerns in the first place, if it is now content with the proposed changes, we echo that contentment.

Secondly, going back to the intent of the changes set out in Schedule 12, I have a number of concerns which I want to share with noble Lords today. First, on the issue of promoting economic and social well-being in their areas, I agree with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—there is a strong argument for sixth-form and FE colleges to play a role in their wider communities, and to link with local youth services. I was very interested in her concept of colleges as a dynamic nucleus in the community, a concept which I think is worth exploring. As she identified, one of the lessons of the recent riots is surely that those areas with the strongest embedded youth provision, providing positive alternatives to gang culture—something in which colleges can play a part—can be the most resilient to unrest and destruction, as they were over the summer. FE colleges have worked hard in recent years to develop robust partnerships with employers in their areas, knowing the local employment market, and tuning the curriculum offers to the needs of local employers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, says, a number of them already do that, but if we start to remove this provision of promoting economic and social well-being, there is a danger that we will be sending the wrong message: rather than encouraging that development, it will become a licence for colleges to turn inward and insular again, instead of embracing that new role.

Furthermore, on acquiring land and borrowing money by using existing property as collateral, while I would not claim to be an expert on the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was raising, I do have concerns about some of the provisions set out in Schedule 12. I am concerned about the consequences of some of these new freedoms. It is not absolutely clear to me where the demand for this is coming from. It seems to me that the managers of FE colleges have many skills, but intervening in money markets is probably not one of them. My fear is that some well meaning college leaders will quickly find themselves out of their depth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Sharp for moving this amendment and for the work that she is doing on leading her commission. She brings a lot of experience to this debate. Central to our reform of the education and skills system, as the Committee know, is our belief that we should trust professionals. That is just as true for colleges as it is for schools. We all know the excellent work done by colleges as independent institutions, and my noble friend gave a number of excellent examples of colleges being dynamic nuclei, as I think the plural is, and being entrepreneurial. We know that last year’s Ofsted annual report showed that sixth-form colleges are the highest performing sector in providing further education, so we want them and FE to have greater freedom to build on their track record and raise achievement still further.

As well as some non-legislative changes that we are making, such as simplifying the 16-to-19 funding system, the Bill aims to remove the kind of unnecessary regulation that we believe holds colleges back from deciding how to manage their own affairs. That includes things like removing the power to direct a college to consider disciplinary action against a member of staff, reducing the restrictions on sixth-form colleges’ ability to form or invest in a company or removing the duty on colleges in England to have regard to guidance on consultation with students and employers.

In response to the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, regarding the capability of FE to manage borrowing and investments, I think that in some ways her questions highlighted a difference between us. Our starting point is that colleges are responsible, high-performing institutions, and we do not think that there is a reason to believe that they will borrow more money just because they no longer need to consult the relevant funding body. We expect them to take steps to ensure that their borrowings are proportionate to their business, as well as affordable. The financial health of a college should be the responsibility of its governing body. However, there are safeguards of the sort that the noble Baroness was seeking. Both the Financial Memorandum and the Financial Planning Handbook set out the mechanisms to ensure the continuing viability of their institutions, the conditions of borrowing, and the controls and monitoring arrangements in place to protect public money and the interests of students.

As my noble friend Lady Sharp argued, colleges make an extremely important contribution to the social and economic needs of their local communities. They do it in many of the ways that she outlined, and they also do it through the education they provide, the skills with which they equip young people, the jobs they create and through their links with local businesses, for example. Therefore, I think that the question is: given that they are doing this, do they need to have a legal duty to do so? The provision to remove the duty has been welcomed by the sector, including the Association of Colleges and the Sixth Form Colleges’ Forum, and we think that it is recognition of the trust that we have placed on the ability of institutions to take well-informed, rational decisions without the need for there to be too much direction from government.

The other amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Sharp raise the question of freedoms that FE colleges have. The intention behind her amendments is to remove the Secretary of State’s powers to modify a further education corporation’s instrument and articles of government and to place a condition on the Secretary of State to secure the consent of the corporation’s governing body before making an order to dissolve the corporation. My noble friend mentioned two phrases to which I always respond in a Pavlovian way. She referred to Treasury rules and wanting to encourage FE colleges to be enterprising. I am sympathetic to the intention behind these amendments as the Government are committed to trying to reduce the level of external control. Her amendments raise an important issue. It is one that I am very happy to take away and consider further before Report. Perhaps we could discuss that further.

So regards the Government’s amendments, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, was kind enough to make the point that in effect we are trying to do what the previous Government attempted, but did not have the opportunity, to do. The aim of the amendments is to reinstate the statutory safeguards relating to voluntary sixth-form colleges. I provided information in the letter that I sent to noble Lords on 13 July. As the noble Baroness said, it was the Government’s view that legislation should reflect the distinct constitutional position of voluntary sixth-form colleges, and they confirmed that they would look to reinstate those protections through legislation. We agree with that view and, through these amendments, we seek to reinstate the statutory position. This includes ensuring consultation with all persons who may appoint or nominate foundation governors before the Secretary of State exercises his intervention powers. It will include consultation with the bishop where the bishop appoints or nominates foundation governors. To answer the noble Baroness’s question, I think that it reflects the concerns of the CES—a point about which she asked me.

So far as concerns the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, moved on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, we are keen to place accountability for student performance and an institution’s own improvement firmly within that institution. Therefore, the Bill seeks to replace the current complex intervention arrangements, which involve both the YPLA and local authorities, with simpler arrangements where the Secretary of State has reserve powers of intervention. We are lucky to have a high performing college sector and we foresee these powers being used very rarely. These arrangements and the role of the Secretary of State have been welcomed by the Association of Colleges.

I hope that noble Lords will agree that the provisions contained in Schedule 12 and proposed in the government amendments are necessary to support the continued success of the college sector. They will ensure that providers are free to deliver high-quality education. They replace the current, complex arrangements for intervention in colleges with reserved powers and ensure that legislation recognises the specific governance and constitutional arrangements of voluntary sixth-form colleges.

As I said, I will pursue further the points made by my noble friend Lady Sharp. With that in mind, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for his sympathetic reply to the amendments. I am sorry that we have not had a little more movement on the amendment concerning well-being. Although in some senses, as my noble friend says, it is unnecessary, because a lot of colleges are doing it and I know that the Association of Colleges and the sixth-form college group welcome that, my point was that it helps to reinforce the issue. However, that is a background issue.

To pursue the other, rather esoteric issue, I know that the team in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is working hard on it, and I hope that we can get some changes to the Bill that will satisfy both the Treasury and the Office for National Statistics. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 122BZA withdrawn.

Education Bill

Baroness Sharp of Guildford Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

I would like just to say a few words on these amendments. Like others in the Room, I have been a governor in one form or another for the past 20 or 30 years. I have hesitations about some of the proposals, particularly those from the noble Lord, Lord Knight. While I support entirely the notion of student governors, will those who propose the notion—particularly my noble friend Lady Walmsley—say whether this is to apply to primary schools as well as secondary schools? What about infant schools? Is it to apply to small village primary schools, which are in effect just infant schools?

[Baroness Walmsley]

All secondary schools should have student governors. There is a role for younger children perhaps to be associate governors on the governing bodies of their primary school. These various categories of governors can be viewed in different ways. The staff governor and the student governor need to be there because they have a very particular perspective, whereas the local authority governor, who appears in the Minister’s amendment, is modified by the Minister’s other amendment, Amendment 113C, which allows schools to choose a local authority governor with the skills that they require. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Knight, that schools should have a governing body with a set of skills that are appropriate to them, and these government amendments allow that.

To return to my noble friend’s question, in the case of children and staff it is not so much the skills as the perspective that they bring which matters. That is why there is a role for children even younger than 11 on the governing body, although perhaps not as a full governor.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

Thank you. That clarifies the position as far as I am concerned.

[Lord Touhig]

In my part of the world we found that the primary school council was a very good conduit into the school governing body.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

Certainly student councils are an important thing to encourage, but some younger students in particular would find it rather intimidating to come on to the full governing body.

I find the question of the separation of powers very interesting. The head has been a full member on all the governing bodies that I have sat on, and I have not sat on one with this separation of power. The proposals by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, worry me a little. I played a seminal role in getting parent-governors agreed back in the 1970s in London, where the ILEA was the first authority to have parent-governors and I led the London campaign for the advancement of state education. There was a need for governors to be seen as links to the local community.

Many London governing boards had managing boards for a whole cluster of schools. We found this appalling. You had the same group of governors attending governing boards for every school and basically rubber-stamping the heads’ notions. The notion of a separate governing board for each school became an important part of what we as parents wanted. The notion that the governors were critical friends of the head and helped both to support and criticise the head was very important. Because the local authority was more important than it is now, the separation of powers was perhaps less so than now seems to be the case.

I would be sad to see two things disappear. One is the notion of the board of governors providing in some sense a link between the local community and the school. Second would be the loss of the notion of the critical friend, so that you become just a scrutineer. I would also be sad to see large managing boards for groups of schools.

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred to how the word “representative” has crept into the discussion. As far as I can see—I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm this—there is no intention that anyone elected, appointed or nominated to a governing body should be a representative of a particular group. They are nominated by a group but their main function is as a member of the governing body, and that should remain the priority.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds]

My Lords, I want to add my voice to the concern about Clause 39 and particularly to support Amendment 114A. I have a rather more positive view of Ofsted than most noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. It seems to me that on the vast majority of occasions the Ofsted inspection is extremely valuable, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said earlier. While there are undoubtedly some exceptions to that, an effective and good inspection system is in operation.

I was particularly moved to intervene by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, that this might be used as a way of, in some way, exempting faith schools from the inspection process. I want to make it quite clear that I at any rate would not want faith schools to be exempted from the inspection process in any way. I hope the Minister will confirm that there is no intention of doing that. The vast majority of faith schools are maintained schools and wish to remain so. Where some of them wish to become academies it is not in any way to avoid being part of an inspection system. Certainly I have never heard in the debates over academies of any school indicating, either overtly or covertly, that one of things it wanted to do was to evade the inspection system.

I believe the inspection system to be extremely important, not simply for local authorities—though certainly for them—but also for diocesan boards of education, both Roman Catholic and Anglican. They too work with schools through the Ofsted process and through that inspection and it is of considerable value in discussing, helping and encouraging the schools. I hope the Minister can assure me that there is no intention of exempting faith schools here and that he will say where academies stand in all of this discussion.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

My Lords, I would just like briefly to say that I have some sympathy with this set of amendments and in particular to draw attention to the fact that Clause 41 applies these provisions to colleges as Clause 39 applies them to schools. We are all very well aware of how important school leaders are and that a head and a college principal can make all the difference. When they move on to take another job or to retire, a school or a college can go downhill extremely quickly. One needs to have some form of trigger for an inspection in these circumstances; something equivalent to Amendment 114 put forward by my noble friend Lady Perry might be appropriate for colleges as well as for schools. Alternatively, if we move on to Clause 42—I think it is that clause, but it may be further on—local authorities are given the responsibility for taking action when schools are causing concern. They might well have the responsibility for triggering an inspection.

We all probably welcome the slightly more light-handed form of inspection outlined in Clause 40, but at the same time there are dangers with total exemption of the outstanding ones. We are aware that what is outstanding one year can fall very quickly.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, I support the position of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, in particular. Like him, I would take some persuading to support exempting schools.

I can understand the Government’s probable motivation: they believe that schools should be freed up from unnecessary burdens of inspection. The trend over the past few years has certainly been to lessen the burden of Ofsted inspections and the use of self-evaluation has been relatively successful in that regard. I am sure that the Government and the Minister would not for a second want anyone thinking that they do not think that schools should be accountable and that accountability is an important element of parental choice. Certainly, throughout our perennial debates on testing and tables as the drivers of choice—and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bew, for his reviews around SATS at primary level—the mantra trotted out was that parents should not only look at the test results and the ranking tables, because those were put together by newspapers and, anyway, the Government do not rank schools, but at Ofsted inspections and other sources of information. An Ofsted inspection is always in the line that you have to take when talking about these issues. Yet if a school becomes exempt, all you can rely on is that data.

As the Government move towards opening up and publishing more and more data about schools, a richer picture can perhaps be formed. However, if the Minister were to persuade me that through better, more rigorous and richer publishing of data, we could get to the point of exempting outstanding schools, he would have to further persuade me that there are satisfactory forms of data. The data should relate not only to the achievement of pupils, the quality of teaching and the quality of leadership—difficult as some of those proxies might be in data terms—but to behaviour and safety. Are there good proxies for child safety, the subject of the amendment that I support from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley; are there good proxies for,

“the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at the school”?

All these items should be covered in a chief inspector’s report on a school. The only way in which you could possibly justify exempting a school is by coming up with accurate proxies in data form for all of the measures that the Government say should be covered in an Ofsted report under Clause 40.

As I said earlier and as others have said during this debate, schools do go backwards—and sometimes they go backwards fairly quickly. People can be tempted and attracted by exempt schools. In some of the conversations that I have had with head teachers who are four or five years from retirement, they have said, “I have had my last Ofsted inspection so now I can do what I like”. That will free people up to innovate and to ignore the Schools Minister in the other place. When Nick Gibb goes on about synthetic phonics and prescribing what kind of text books to use, they can say, “Well, it does not really matter. I do not have to do that because I am not going to be inspected on it. As long as my results are all right and I carry on being outstanding, I can ignore Nick Gibb”. That is quite a persuasive argument but, in the end, it is not good enough and we need that accountability through inspection.

I want to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, half way on her interesting amendment. When I talk to head teachers now about Ofsted—which they do not admire without criticism—they tell me that they would like a much greater feeling that the people doing the inspection are head teachers who are currently in the workforce. Their worry is that the people who come round are sometimes a little out-of-date in terms of what is going on. There is a lot to be gained from peer review—from heads inspecting other heads. One of the most successful forms of school improvement that we have at the moment is the national leaders of education, who perform that kind of peer review function in respect of school improvement.

There might be a middle way—I will not call it a third way because that may confuse people—of having lighter touch inspections, still as Ofsted inspections, but, by and large, being carried out by head teachers inspecting each other. They would not inspect schools that they know or have an association with, because that independence would have to be there. That might enable Ofsted to carry out its own burden of inspection in a relatively lean way in terms of cost, yet still give the accountability which parents and those of us who have to care about the spending of public money need. In the end, that is very important.

Schools: Funding Reform

Baroness Sharp of Guildford Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I hope that noble Lords who have been subjected to me talking about academies would say that I have always been very quick to make clear the huge contribution that the previous Government made to academies. I have said from the beginning, although this might not always be an altogether welcome message for those on the Benches opposite, that I see my job as trying to build on what the previous Government did and what they intended to do in 2005. We are taking that forward; I am very clear about that. I am also very clear about Building Schools for the Future, having met a lot of the schools, children and heads who were involved with it. I absolutely share the previous Government’s intention to improve the building estate. I know what they were trying to do, and I understand why they did it, so I am sorry if the noble Baroness felt that the Statement was mean-spirited.

We did not mention funding for the UTCs in the Statement, but the noble Baroness will know that the Chancellor found some more money in the Budget to—I hope—double to 24 the number that we were aiming for in the lifetime of this Parliament. That is in place, and is not affected by anything that we have announced today. Given that these are new institutions, I guess that by definition the pot for dilapidation is not going to be relevant to them. As she will know from her conversations with FE colleges, there is a lot of support for them. We have had a large number of applications, which we are considering, and we will in due course make announcements on those which I will be very happy to share with her.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

May I press the Minister a little further? Where does the pupil premium fit into these proposals? As I understand it, there will be an allowance for deprivation and so forth on top of the basic amount, and I assume that that is where the pupil premium will come in. However, given that the local schools forum will still play a part in allocating resources at a local level, how can schools be guaranteed that they will actually get the money that they need from the pupil premium?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

That is an extremely good question. Our approach to the pupil premium has consistently been to put it on top of other funding that is made available so that people can see very clearly where it sits and will over time be able to calculate its effect as we build it up. Our intention is that it will continue to be identified separately and go to schools, which over time will report on and account for the purposes to which it is spent.

Education Bill

Baroness Sharp of Guildford Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I recall articles published in Scientific American and New Scientist not so long ago which looked at chess grandmasters. The articles identified that they had spent so much of their lives playing chess that they had become geniuses in the chess arena and suggested that genius derived from people spending an awful lot of time doing whatever they were most passionately interested in. I should be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that, for example, a young man who is passionate about science can have the opportunity to study science at playtime and after school, and that the staff within the labs will make the equipment available for him to use. I should like an assurance that, where young people are passionate about using their hands or whatever, there will be the necessary flexibility and resource in schools for them to follow their passion and spend a lot of time doing it.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

My Lords, I endorse the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, about the need for innovation in this area and, in particular, for linking up with local universities and perhaps local colleges. That is very important.

While we are talking about other areas—the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, mentioned children being brilliant at other things—perhaps I may get in a plug for something that will be happening in this country in October. I refer to the World Skills Competition, at which those who are brilliant at doing all kinds of things with their hands and so on will be exhibiting their skills. It is the skills Olympics. I hope that a number of Members of this House will go to ExCeL to see the exhibition.

Education Bill

Baroness Sharp of Guildford Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

Amendment 85A and Amendment 86B, in my name and that of my noble friend, relate to Clause 24. Among other things, the clause transfers some of the functions of the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency to the Secretary of State—principally, those functions to do with the approval of attainment targets and the development of the national curriculum and supporting materials. Having already debated the demise of a number of non-departmental public bodies and outside agencies in the course of the Bill, noble Lords may think that, among the many important issues concerning us, it is not a priority to take up this issue with the Government. This is not simply about saving another quango. It is important to understand what the process will be for changing the national curriculum if the QCDA or some other similar, independent body does not exist—as will be the case if Clause 24 is approved unamended.

The argument deployed in the other place in support of the abolition of the QCDA was that, to quote Nick Gibb,

“responsibility for the curriculum has always rested with the Secretary of State, both under the previous Administration and this, and nothing is changing as far as that is concerned. The QCDA simply acted on behalf of Government in advising and helping to design the curriculum and, as such, no functions are transferring from the QCDA to the Department”.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Bill Committee, 24/3/11; col. 642.]

This is a partial and one-sided claim. Most importantly, it fails to acknowledge the very important element of independence and transparency, if not to the final decision which the Secretary of State of the day will take but to the process of review, and of recommendation and advice to the Secretary of State that ought in my view to precede any changes to the curriculum. There has in fact been an unbroken history of statutory advisory bodies on such matters since the Board of Education Act 1899. The first specific statutory NDPB to advise on the curriculum and assessment was established under the Education Reform Act 1988. Since then, this role has been continued by one such body or another—and for good reasons.

In 1988, in the debate on the establishment of that first statutory non-departmental body, one of the most respected educationists of the 20th century, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, drew an analogy with the role of the national curriculum in Germany in 1935 in establishing Nazism. This may be an overly dramatic analogy for the House of Lords in 2011, but the independence of advice on curriculum and assessment has always been an important point of principle for this House in its debates. Current Ministers are prepared to change or influence the curriculum without the transparency of that independent advice or evidence. For example, noble Lords may be aware of the systematic change that has occurred in the guidance to primary schools, in which every reference in the text to “phonics”, introduced by the previous Government, has, without discussion, been changed to “synthetic phonics”. Also, the Government’s unilateral introduction of the prescriptive EBacc shows unusual levels of willingness to interfere.

This clause opens the door to any future Secretary of State directly to change the national curriculum in a way that is either politically motivated or, more likely, implements the pet theories or hobby horses of Ministers. Again, there is concern that we are already beginning to witness that, with views being expressed that, for example, history should be about the rote learning of Kings and Queens and their dates, and in the view of the current Minister for Schools that education should principally be about core knowledge—and core knowledge as he defines it. I am not saying that those are not valid views—they may indeed be valid—but they are contested by a wide range of views in the profession. That contest and debate about what is important ought to be transparent during any process of review.

Amendments 85A and 85B would try to ensure that the Secretary of State must demonstrate that the process of review of the national curriculum is independent of government. That would provide assurance to parents and pupils about the content of the curriculum. Amendment 86 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who cannot be here today, would require an advisory board to ensure some independence. In their amendment, they are trying to reach the same point.

The department issued a statement which, I suspect, was meant to allay our fears, but it compounds them. Although the Secretary of State of the day will make the final decisions about the national curriculum, what matters is the process of consultation and review—its comprehensiveness, impartiality, scope, transparency, the independence of the analysis of the responses, and the recommendations then made to the Secretary of State, who may or may not accept them. Unless the process of reviewing consultation is independently conducted so that people can be assured that it is comprehensive and takes into account all the views, and that someone independent of government is trying to make sense of it to formulate an analysis and recommendation, then following the demise of the QCA with no other body taking its place, all that I have mentioned would be under the control of the Secretary of State and civil servants. They would decide who to consult, which evidence was reported publicly and the conclusions to be drawn—and all potentially supporting the decisions that the Secretary of State originally wanted to make.

I contend that that cannot be right. Whether it is the QCDA or another body, surely an independent body must be in charge of the process of consultation. The results will then rightly be handed to the Secretary of State of the day, who will make the decision and be accountable for them. It is important that everyone—all of us and the parents and public— can see the basis on which those important decisions are made.

I will draw another analogy. It occurred to me whether we would ever think about doing this as regards health. I wonder whether, if there were a review of the best and most effective treatments for cancer, we would contemplate giving the whole process to the Secretary of State and to officials in the department, rather than to a representative body of professionals and others to form an independent evaluation of the efficacy of treatments and make recommendations to the Secretary of State. We so easily seem to slip into the assumption that with education we can do things that we would not dream of doing with other professional bodies. This point has been raised before. I ask the Minister to comment in his summing up on the points I have made, but also to explain how the Government can justify this degree of control over this process by an elected politician. I beg to move Amendment 85A.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

I have been asked by my noble friend Lady Walmsley to speak in support of Amendment 86, which is in her name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. By laying this amendment, we wish to reiterate the importance of the Secretary of State having the benefit of independent advice on changes in the national curriculum. This picks up the points which have just been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes.

My noble friend Lady Walmsley is very grateful indeed to the Bill team who have briefed her about the processes taking place, and above all about the transparency that currently exists between the Secretary of State and the QCDA, and the fact that these will remain under the new proposals. However, the note that the team provided says:

“Following the passage of the Education Bill, the Secretary of State will remain responsible for making proposals to change the national curriculum and will still be able to ask another body to advise him if he wishes to do so”.

It is the phrase “if he wishes to do so” that bothers us from the Liberal Democrat stance. We would like to ensure that the Secretary of State always takes advice from experts on these matters. As we heard last Monday, the curriculum is vital, and other countries are not as fixated as we are on what exactly is taught. The high level of prescription in this country goes somewhat counter to the claims that teachers are trusted as professionals. In other countries, the design of the curriculum is very different from the one that seems to be emerging in this country when we look at the remit for the expert panel which are to advise the Secretary of State.

In Singapore, for example, core values are emphasised. These are self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship management, and responsible decision-taking. One cannot imagine all of this being delivered without the compulsory teaching of life skills, and indeed if we look in detail, this is exactly what we find: at the core are things like health education, PSHE, citizenship, global awareness and physical education. Surrounding these are knowledge skills—which include languages—maths and science, and, lastly, humanities and the arts.

In New Zealand, the key competencies are critical thinking and problem solving, using languages, symbols and texts, managing self and relating to others. In Australia, there are three core interrelated strands which include heath and physical education, personal and interpersonal development and citizenship interwoven with subject knowledge and cross-curricular skills. Indeed, thinking processes are included in nearly all these curriculums, and these are three very successful education systems which I think we can learn from.

However, none of these issues seems to emerge in the remit for the expert review panel; it mainly talks about knowledge and facts. We would like to know how the panel’s remit has been arrived at. The note from the Bill team says that the remit is always very important, and we can well believe that. But looking at it, we rather doubt whether what comes out will be anything like the curriculum of those very successful countries. This is one reason why this particular amendment has been put forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Elton]

I shall speak, if I may, to Amendments 86E and 86F, about the age at which careers advice is made available. When teaching in a secondary school myself, I remember the agonies associated with seeing how early children had to choose which subjects to specialise in. All I would ask is that the Minister should bear in mind the advisability of having careers advice available early in the year when the first choice of specialism is forced on children.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

I want to intervene briefly on this. I should declare an interest as, like the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, I am a member of the Skills Commission which recommended the development of an all-age careers service. I welcome the fact that the Government have moved in that direction. Currently, two problems arise. One is the rundown of the current service, particularly in light of the squeeze on local government finances and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wall, pointed out, the reduction of money devoted to this service by the Department for Education; £7 million is a miserable sum and far too little. There is also the problem of transition, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.

Another problem is the shortage of professionals in this area. Not only have people trained to deliver careers guidance left the profession, but not enough people have been properly trained to provide the new service. One thing that the Government might do to show their earnest in setting up the new service would be to establish a crash course in training careers advisers. They are graduates who do a one-year master’s course to qualify and they are desperately needed. As I said, we have the transition problem from 2011-12; let us grab this opportunity and invest in the service as required. That would show the Government’s willingness to support it; they would be putting their money where their mouth is, so to speak. I realise that the question of money is very difficult.

[Lord Morris of Handsworth]

My Lords, I, too, support the group of amendments so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I support them because as a group they correct a number of the anomalies inherent in Clause 27. The amendments are consistent with good learning and with the frequency of provision. Face-to-face opportunity to discuss career needs is of very high value, and the Bill is deficient in this area. We recognise the important contribution that trained and qualified professionals can make.

Of course, when a person chooses to have career advice, it is because they are uncertain of their direction of travel. The whole purpose of it is to examine the options and alternatives available with professionals who are honest, who test one’s capability and who advise. There are many people who start out wanting to take an academic route, and who finish up taking the vocational option, or vice versa: that is the benefit of career advice. I fail to see how you will get that interaction and that positive two-way challenge—because it can be a challenge—under what is proposed. What is being proposed is an all-age careers service. I have no difficulty with that as a principle. Indeed, I believe that the Careers Service should and can extend throughout one’s working life. That happens in industry, where managers and senior professionals are supported with personal trainers from time to time, who provide career advice on whether to continue or change direction. This is why the online provision is deficient, because it does not provide the opportunity for challenge and interaction. As with so many of the education proposals which are emerging, we get a lot of promises but some degree of under delivery. I see this career provision of the Bill as fitting that area of concern: much is promised, but little substance is delivered when it is tested.

The fact is that the people who will be denied the opportunity for face-to-face career advice are actually the people who may need it most. Not every child has access to the internet; indeed, in some parts of the country, that is for technical reasons, not just real poverty. That is adding to the reality of digital poverty from which some communities suffer disadvantage.

Careers advice is vital. You must get advice, you must challenge the provider and the provider must interact with your good self. What is so worrying about this aspect of the Bill is that, to the best of my knowledge, no one has seen the careers service as broken, deficient or not meeting the needs of students. All my experience is that career advisers care about what they offer and deliver.

The Secretary of State is taking away the duty to provide and replacing it with a duty to provide access. That is a fundamental shift in the culture, the duty and responsibility of the service. There is no way at this or any point that anyone can be certain that what is proposed will lead to better advice. Local authorities, who have that duty, will not be in the driving seat in procuring professionals to provide better advice but merely carrying through what is decreed by governing boards and the school. The bond between school, local authority and governing bodies will be broken when the all-age career advice service online becomes the norm.

Education Bill

Baroness Sharp of Guildford Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood]

My Lords, I will be brief and, I hope, to the point; I want to record my support for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Knight. The TTA, followed by the TDA, were like a breath of fresh air in teacher recruitment. We have had a problem for many years and what they did—the figures bear this out—suggest that this amendment probes well and accurately.

A number of years ago, I took a group of Malaysian senior politicians and administrators to visit these organisations. It was embarrassing to see how much they appreciated what was being achieved in the agency—they were facing some of the same problems.

I have one question for the Minister. If this goes, would the Government be prepared to put down measures against which we can assess the impact of this policy? In other words, if the numbers of teachers drop, or the quality, will Ministers put their hands up and say, “We got this wrong”? But if there is a rise, fine—perhaps we will put our hands up and say, “Yes, we got it wrong”.

This will be a constant refrain from me, I am afraid. We need targets from the Government that change policies.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

I have quite a lot of sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Knight. As others have said, the TDA has achieved a great deal. We changed its name from the TDA to the TTA about three or four years ago because it was to deal not just with teacher training but with continuing professional development. That is extremely important.

I worry about the degree to which the Department for Education can undertake all the tasks that it is taking unto itself. This is set up as an agency, to some extent at arm’s length from the Government; it has a very particular function to fulfil, and has fulfilled it very well. One of the areas where we as a coalition want to see expansion of recruitment is through Teach First. It has been doing a lot to bring in many extremely good young graduates into teaching. But it cannot do everything, and it does not propose to. We still need something like the TDA, and I worry that the department is being landed with so many tasks that it will not be able to take on this one as well.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I echo a number of the points that have been made and emphasise the question back to the Minister. It appears as though the numbers of teachers being recruited has dipped. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, that we need robust statistics in this area, but it also appears that there is a correlation with the stopping of intensive marketing. I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s analysis. Does he recognise that there is a correlation between those two facts? Where does he think that the impetus for the encouragement of that new generation of teachers will come from?

That brings me on to my second point. I do not understand where the demand for this change has come from. We had a very good and effective organisation that was delivering, yet it feels as if we have to be seen to be abandoning anything that happened before and starting again for the sake of it. I am sure that the Minister will have a different view, but it feels as if we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Thirdly, I am sure that the Minister will say that some elements of the TDA’s functions will be transferred to the new Teaching Agency, although my understanding is that the marketing element will not be. In his letter to us, he says that it is a complex task and requires sensitive handling. He has made himself an enormously big problem, which did not exist in the first place. I do not understand why such an upheaval is really necessary. Perhaps the Minister will answer that point as well.

Education Bill

Baroness Sharp of Guildford Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Listowel]

Can I trouble the Minister just a little further? I was grateful for his response about ensuring that there is a high-quality mentor for trainees. If he had a little bit of time to drop me a note on how the mentors will be selected—both for the teachers in initial teacher training and for those in the qualified teacher year—I would be grateful to him for that.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

I, too, apologise for intervening at this point, but there is one issue on which I would be grateful to have a little bit of clarification. My noble friend the Minister talked about the substantial changes that are being made in teacher training provision. The biggest change is the switch from training teachers in ITT settings, within a higher education environment, to training teachers within schools. Am I right in thinking that there is no legislation—certainly there is nothing in the Bill—that covers that change? Does it require legislation?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I do not believe that legislation is required for that, but we will come on to that issue in a later group, where we have some specific amendments on the role of the HEIs.

Education Bill

Baroness Sharp of Guildford Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and my noble friend Lady Whitaker. Several noble Lords touched on this question at Second Reading. I was particularly concerned to hear that there are 88,000 autistic school-age children in England. We should ask ourselves: who among us, if we had a child with special educational needs, would not want the co-operation of every agency and organisation to deliver the best we can for that child?

On Monday I was at the launch of a document, We’ve Got Great Expectations, produced by the National Autistic Society. Maria Miller, the DWP Minister, spoke at that event. She said that joined-up support from health, education and social services was needed. If it is needed, why are the Government removing this essential element—the requirement to co-operate? The cartoons on the front of the document have captions such as, “Support my child to succeed”, “Let’s work together”, “Help me, don’t doubt me”, and, as some of the parents I met said, “I can’t fight any more”. We all know of cases where parents have struggled to get the system to respond. Before I was elected to the other place, I was a councillor for 20 years. Time and again I went into council offices with a problem, only to be told, “Sorry, councillor, he falls through the net”. Who created the net? We did. Let us not make a bad net by damaging a very sensible policy and the duty to co-operate.

At Second Reading, I asked the Minister what evidence the Government have that the duty to co-operate does not work effectively. I appreciate, as will anyone who has been a Minister, that it is not always possible to answer every point. However, I did not get an answer on that occasion, so I tabled a Question the following day, which the Minister has kindly answered today. I asked what assessment the Government,

“have made of the effectiveness of the duty to co-operate in so far as education is concerned”.

The Minister’s reply, drafted by his officials, was:

“The findings of the Audit Commission’s report Are We There Yet? showed that before the duty to co-operate was extended, schools and colleges in most areas were engaging voluntarily as partners in local co-operation arrangements”.—[Official Report, 29/6/11; cols. WA 430-31.]

That report was published in 2008. I might be the son of a miner but I had to mine that report just to find any reference to co-operation. The only relevant sentence that I found—perhaps the Minister’s officials have found others—says:

“In most areas collaborative working has improved, but the new arrangements have yet to settle down”.

Is that the basis on which the Government will make this decision? In his Written Answer, the Minister went on to say:

“We are not convinced that the addition of schools and colleges to the list of statutory relevant partners, under Section 10 of the Children Act 2004, was … effective or appropriate”.—[Official Report, 29/6/11; col. WA 431.]

If it was not effective or appropriate, what do the Government think ought to be in its place to make it effective and appropriate? I asked a further Question about,

“what impact the removal of the ‘duty to co-operate’ will have on children with complex needs, such as autism, and their families”.— [Official Report, 27/6/11; col. WA 358.]

I have received a two-paragraph reply. I am a great admirer of the Minister and do not wish to be ungenerous to him, but that reply could have been two words: “no idea”.

The duty to co-operate under the Children Act has existed for only a year. It ought to be properly evaluated to see whether there are failures or good points. What key government policy is this duty to co-operate thwarting? What great thing over the horizon can the Government not do because the duty to co-operate exists? How many complaints have the Government received from organisations involved in the duty to co-operate, saying that it is so burdensome that they cannot fulfil it? This is a case on which the Government ought to think again. The strength of this House is that we can try to persuade Governments to think again if we feel that there is a failure.

I conclusion, I share with noble Lords some advice that my late mother gave me many years ago: “My son, in life you will find that sense is not common”. Common sense tells us that this duty to co-operate should remain. I hope the Government will be persuaded of that.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

My Lords, I should like briefly to say how much I endorse the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. My noble friend Lady Walmsley mentioned that we have spent some time congratulating the Government on introducing this provision and on making sure that schools were included in it. We are very sorry to see that the coalition is now going back on this particular duty.

I speak with a particular interest, as I am currently chairing a commission on colleges in their community. Further education colleges are mentioned here. One thing is becoming apparent from this; the commission is to develop the role that colleges can and do play within their communities. It is clear that the best of our colleges have enormous breadth of partnerships with all kinds of community organisations, which are currently promoting the well-being and development of those communities. They have in some senses a regeneration function, but they also have a function of promoting the well-being of the local community.

The Explanatory Notes say that these duties are being dropped so that these bodies will be able to decide for themselves how to engage in arrangements to improve well-being. I very much echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, in that we are not worried about those that link up naturally. The ones we are really worried about are those that do not bother to do it. Forming these partnerships and links is so important. Having it in statute here provides that extra push or reinforcement for what we want to see. It will be very sad indeed if we drop this duty.

[Baroness Ritchie of Brompton]

My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to make comments on the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Laming. I declare an interest as the chair of the Children and Young People Board of the Local Government Association. The Local Government Group very much supports the Government’s attempts to reduce bureaucracy that schools face. Our report, Local Freedom or Central Control, was launched last year. For that report we commissioned research that showed that in the past 10 years more than 1,000 pieces of legislation have been passed affecting schools. That means that there is a new piece of primary or secondary legislation every school day over that period. However, we do not necessarily see as excessive the burden on schools of co-operating with the local authority through children’s trusts. We do not believe that you can necessarily legislate for good partnership working, but many councils have found that the requirement on schools to co-operate with the children’s trusts is a helpful way in which to encourage them to participate.

In many cases, the removal of a statutory duty will not immediately lead schools to refuse to work in partnership with local councils. Good schools will want to continue with good partnerships with councils. However, we worry, when all the messages coming out of the department seem to encourage schools to become academies free from local authority control and become more autonomous, that the removal of this duty will provide the wrong signal about the importance of local partnership working to achieve the very best outcomes for local children, young people and their families.

I believe that safeguarding is a particular issue here. We think it is important that schools should continue to be given a very strong message that they must co-operate in local safeguarding arrangements, including the local safeguarding children boards.

Education: Academies Funding

Baroness Sharp of Guildford Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I am aware of the point to which the right reverend Prelate refers. As the circumstances have changed, they have clearly given rise to the issue that he mentions. Obviously we continue to keep those kinds of issues under review and to discuss them with individual sponsors.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

My Lords, where is the £400 million that was announced last week as going to the academies programme to be spent?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

Forgive me, my Lords, I am not sure about the £400 million to which my noble friend Lady Sharp refers. If I am being slow, perhaps my noble friend and I could have a word outside the Chamber and I will attempt to answer her question.