Sure Start
Baroness Shephard of Northwold Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Agnew of Oulton
First, on funding generally, it is important to remind noble Lords of the opening comments in the IFS report executive summary, which state that we are now,
“one of the highest spenders on the under-5s in Europe”,
having lagged behind in the 1990s. So a great deal of progress has been made. We do take a holistic view, which is why we have put so much emphasis on supporting disadvantaged families with healthcare; that has enabled those families to get into work, which we know is one of the clearest ways to improve their prospects and quality of life.
The noble Lord asked about increasing the pupil premium. That will be a matter for the spending review, but we have done a lot in this area, including on the pupil premium that he mentioned. The introduction of the three year-old and four year-old offers gives 30 hours to families for the first time in history, and 340,000 children will benefit from that.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister comment on the need for Sure Start centres to be accessible? Clearly, if they are well targeted, they bring great help to children born in a disadvantaged area. Many of those areas are rural, however, and while it is one thing to provide accessible Sure Start help in closely populated urban areas, it is quite another to do so in rural areas, as I know my noble friend understands.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
The noble Baroness is quite right that the provision of services in rural areas is much more difficult. Again, we have taken the education route, which is why we have looked at the provision of childcare for the two year-old offer, from which nearly 750,000 children in the country have benefited. The take-up of that offer has gone up nearly every year since its introduction; we are now at a level of 72%.
Children and Social Work Bill [HL]
Baroness Shephard of Northwold Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, before I make my brief remarks in this debate, I would like to share with noble Lords the truly inspirational experience I had this morning, in connection with my non-pecuniary interest as a visiting professor at King’s College London, in its widening participation unit. Noble Lords will be aware of the truly shocking fact that only 8% of care leavers progress to a university place and that—even more shocking—only 1% progress to a place in a Russell group university. Wonderful work is being done at King’s to transform care leavers’ life chances, including bespoke introductory days for care leavers, individual e-mentoring and an option of 52 week-a-year accommodation with bursary assistance. I left that meeting elated by what I had learned and by the fact that the dedicated people there were looking to us, in this House, to use our opportunity, through this Bill, to make more improvements possible in the lives of these very disadvantaged young people.
I was expecting my elation to be a bit dashed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, because I felt that his amendment put a negative spin on a Bill that has otherwise been made very welcome in this House and elsewhere. In the event, his speech was balanced in welcoming parts of the Bill and drawing the attention of the House to constitutional concerns, on which the Minister today has sought to give us every assurance. Of course, I understand and share concerns about the drafting of Bills that come to this House—everybody feels that concern from time to time, perhaps especially people who were active in the other place decades ago, although that is possibly an unfair comment—but we are also concerned about inappropriate shifts of power from Parliament to the Executive. The Minister made it absolutely clear today that the Bill proposes only two new delegated powers, and one extension of an existing power, and that the Government have intended always to publish indicative draft regulations before those clauses are debated in Committee, which they should and will do. However, this House is so full of experts ready to bring their experience and knowledge to bear on a vital policy area. I was at the briefing and there was a lot of welcome for the new provisions. Ministers have demonstrated—they are arranging another briefing tomorrow—that they are ready to listen carefully to points made and take on board constructive improvements. It would be disappointing, but I do not think that it will happen, for us to spend a lot of time today focusing on constitutional matters when we could be getting the benefit of the expertise in this House in embracing, supporting and improving the Bill’s proposals.
I intend to address some of the policy issues in this Bill, and I declare my non-pecuniary interest as deputy chair of the social mobility commission. I shall address in particular the issues in the first part of the Bill, on looked-after children and care leavers. These young people are of especial interest to the commission, because their life chances are self-evidently hugely challenged in ways which we do not need to spell out here, because we all know. There were some 69,500 looked-after children in March last year, and 26,339 former care leavers aged 19, 20 or 21. Some 39% of those young people were not in education, employment or training. The Bill seeks to introduce a number of measures which, if put into force, could make a difference to their life chances.
The proposals in the Bill on corporate parenting, although their implementation at local level will be the actual measure of whether they work, should at the very least concentrate the collective minds of local authority departments and others to keep sight of the progress or otherwise of looked-after children and care leavers. Their needs are complex and by definition cross departmental responsibilities. If there is to be a more collaborative approach between agencies and other partners, there will be even more of a need to know who is responsible for each young person and accountable for their welfare. I understand that there is a successful approach to collective working in Trafford, and I hope very much we will hear more about this during the passage of the Bill.
The corporate parenting principles laid out in Clause 1 contain some ambitious proposals—in particular the fourth principle, which makes it clear that the authority will need to work closely with its partners to enable young people to,
“gain access to, and make the best use of, services provided by the local authority and its relevant partners”.
In other words, the successful co-operation of the various partners is implicit. This will be a real challenge for some local authorities and I hope that, as the Bill is debated here, we will hear more about the ways in which the new structures and arrangements will be monitored and measured. The fifth principle requires the local authority,
“to promote high aspirations, and seek to secure the best outcomes, for those … young people”.
These disadvantaged children are not always placed in the best local schools. Indeed, in my experience they can often be excluded and passed from school to school, like pass the parcel. That is precisely the opposite of what they most need, which is structure and the experience of sustained relationships provided by a good school. The new requirement in Clauses 5, 6 and 7 for the appointment of designated teachers with a responsibility for relevant pupils and for the strengthening of governing bodies’ role, provided it can be monitored—and that monitoring is key here as elsewhere—could make a real difference.
I very much welcome the requirement in Clause 2 obliging local authorities to publish information about the services they offer to care leavers relating to health and well-being, education and training, employment and accommodation and participation in society, which again makes collaboration between agencies explicit. Just as welcome is the notion that such services could be provided by employers and third-sector organisations. In this respect, I draw the attention of noble Lords to a project in Norwich, spearheaded by Chloe Smith, MP for Norwich North. The project is called Norwich for Jobs. It brought together local firms, the chamber of commerce, FE colleges and the jobcentre to get young people into local jobs and apprenticeships. Last week, Chloe Smith presented the project to the APPG on Social Mobility, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, is deputy chair, where it aroused great interest. She outlined plans to extend it to get the 60 or so neediest children—NEETs—into appropriate work or education, this time involving the inspirational work of ThinkForward Tomorrow’s People, about which I think we shall hear more from my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, who is in her place. Such projects could be facilitated by the new provisions in this part of the Bill, opening the way for properly supervised collaborative projects based locally, with local accountability, and involving a range of partners to focus help on these particularly needy young people.
Looked-after children, care leavers and care-experienced young people need clear structure, sustained and reliable help and, above all, the knowledge that there are people to turn to. We must not waste their potential, nor dash their hopes. This is quite a modest Bill, but it will help support their aspirations. The Bill should benefit from the expertise in this House in its passage through this House and, in turn, it deserves support today.
Education Institutions: Autonomy and Accountability
Baroness Shephard of Northwold Excerpts(10 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Perry on securing this debate and on the expert and typically penetrating way in which she introduced it. It is also a privilege to follow the right reverent Prelate, who comes fresh from Birmingham to tell us how it feels there right now, and with some gloriously practical suggestions. Even better, some of them are based on parables. There can be no argument about the fact that the more autonomy an institution has—whether it is a school, company, university or public body—the more likely it is to be successful.
That belief underpinned the introduction of local financial management and GM schools in the 1980s, from both of which far-reaching reforms the academies movement developed. Equally, it is beyond argument that all truly successful institutions, especially publicly funded ones, regard the establishment of clear, accessible lines of accountability between them and those they serve as a sine qua non. If you do not have those lines, you are not a success. There should, therefore, in theory, be no conflict between on the one hand the autonomy of educational institutions, and on the other the absolute clarity of the systems put into place to ensure their full accountability.
When local financial management was introduced in Norfolk schools in the late 1980s, school heads, until then accustomed to asking, and blaming, county hall for everything, realised that the buck would now stop with them. After some initial nervousness and after, together with their governors, appropriate and thorough training, the vast majority relished the extra responsibility and flexibility it gave them, especially as it was made crystal clear to the wider community that that local accountability was underpinned by the more general accountability of an elected local authority.
That was a halfway house between full LEA control and a step towards autonomy, and it was always intended to be transitional because the movement towards full schools autonomy was unstoppable. No one today is making the case to restore the role of LEAs. The 22,000 schools in England now include 2,500 academies and 174 free schools, with many more to come. The overwhelming majority of those academies and free schools are hugely successful, transforming their pupils’ life chances. The problems with the system, as we have seen in Birmingham and elsewhere, often boil down to a lack of appropriate oversight and an incomplete preparation of heads and governors for what autonomy and accountability actually mean in practice. We are once more in a transitional period.
I have a very simple definition of accountability, which I do not find an abstract concept; it is about knowing who to speak to if things go wrong, as I rather think the right reverend Prelate said. The government website on complaints guidance—which I assume applies to all schools, including academies and free schools—encourages parents first to raise matters of concern with the head. But what if he or she is the problem? Well, then you go to the members of the governing body. However, will you know or can you find out who they are without going through the head, and will they tell the head? Alternatively, you can contact the DfE direct, although that might be daunting for some. However, does the department now have the resources to deal with the volume of cases it receives in the Schools Complaints Unit, and how, practically speaking, are they dealt with? I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us the answers to both of these questions.
I think that LEAs’ roles are now limited to child protection cases, and Ofsted—which is in a way a long stop—can deal only with whole-school issues. I think I am right in saying that it cannot seek to resolve or establish cause for any individual complaint. There are now regionally based Ofsted offices; perhaps my noble friend can tell us what the role of those offices is and whether staff in them have systematic contact with local schools and a systematic report back.
I will give two examples of the accountability problem. A town council in Norfolk with no educational role at all has just called a public meeting in order to oblige the local academy trust to explain its policies and plans to parents and the public following the resignation of more than half the teaching staff and, I think, the head. There is undoubtedly an inside story here, and I do not know what it is, but there is no doubt that the children’s education is currently suffering from the uncertainty. In that case, although it is an isolated one, the situation does little to demonstrate an understanding of accountability within that particular academy system. These will be isolated examples. At another local academy, no fewer than 16 key members of staff have left, feeling unable to complain to the head or to the chair of governors because she, the chair, has been put in place by their employers, the academy chain. Now, that is not good. The students, parents and staff in the school do not know who to speak to. This is bad, but it is isolated and not at all like the pattern of overwhelmingly successful academies. In Birmingham, accusations of extremism in schools are serious enough. However, as serious, if not more so, are the allegations that complaints were made but the lack of a clear accountability system apparently made it impossible for them to be dealt with. I know that four or perhaps five investigations are now under way, so I will say no more about that because we shall all know more when those investigations have reported.
We are again in a transitional period. I spoke earlier of the training and oversight arrangements put into place to ensure the success of the 1980s schools reforms. Those simple principles are still relevant. Academies and free schools will transform our education system. The best academy chains already prepare staff and governors to be accountable. That work is being done and the experience is there. We do not need a nation-wide, one-size-fits-all solution, just to use all the clichés. What we need is reassurance that it is understood, no matter how humdrum it may be, that the preparation of heads, teachers and governors for ensuring the accountability of all our schools is as important as their academic performance.
Employment: Young People
Baroness Shephard of Northwold Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Shephard of Northwold
That this House takes note of the case for preparing young people for the world of work in order to realise their aspirations.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold
My Lords, I am honoured to move this Motion. I should declare two relevant interests. I chair the council of the Institute of Education and I am deputy chair of the Social Mobility Commission, set up by Government in January this year.
Noble Lords present need no persuading that education is one of the most important responsibilities of any Government. One of its key objectives must be to equip young people with the knowledge and skills to make them employable in a rapidly changing and increasingly complex labour market. The possession of these skills has never been more important than it is today. People without them can face a future with little prospect of improving their lives and realising their aspirations. In his most recent Ofsted report, the Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, points out that,
“a more equitable access to high quality statutory education is a fundamental precursor to an individual’s future education and training, employment, social mobility and economic prosperity”.
The key word is “equitable”.
There has been striking progress in schools’ performance over the past 20 years. In 1992, 38% of 16 year-olds achieved five or more GCSE passes at grades A to C. In 2012, the figure was over 80%, with 59% of pupils attaining grades A* to C in five subjects, including the absolutely essential maths and English. The development of academies by the previous Government and this one, building on the principle of GM schools established by the Government before that, has opened up the school system to new ideas and the very welcome involvement of business and the voluntary sector in school governance. Increased autonomy for heads has encouraged innovation and is helping to drive up standards. In March this year, three-quarters of schools inspected were found to be good or outstanding. The relentless emphasis on standards from Government and from Sir Michael Wilshaw leaves the system in no doubt about what is expected of it.
However, there is more, much more, to do, as the most recent Ofsted report, Access and Achievement, published on 20 June, makes clear. I said that the chief inspector’s use of the word “equitable” was of key importance. That is because in the UK children from the highest social class groups are three times more likely to go to university than those from the lowest social groups; and fewer than one in five degree entrants to the Russell group of universities—the major research universities—come from the four class groups that make up half the UK’s population. This gap needs to be closed, for the clear economic reason that in an increasingly competitive world we cannot as a nation afford to waste the potential of any of our citizens, not to mention the obvious social and moral reasons. Indeed, in the same report, while pointing out the success of school improvement initiatives such as City Challenge in urban areas, notably in London, Sir Michael highlights significant underachievement in some suburban areas, and from my perspective—which has always been a rural one—very significantly, also in some isolated rural and seaside areas. Here, the effects of isolation, deprivation of access and low expectation have been ignored by metropolitan thinking and policy-makers for far too long.
I do not have time today to explore the link between academic underachievement and material disadvantage, which is real and of great concern. The chief inspector takes a robust view in his report. He says:
“Deprivation does not determine destiny … poverty of expectations bears harder on educational achievement than material poverty—hard though that can be—and these expectations start in the home”.
He adds,
“as a society we have to create a culture of much higher expectations for young people, both in our homes and in our schools”.
Some may want to take issue with the robust and tough approach of the chief inspector. I will leave his view floating in the air for coming speakers. However, what is beyond argument is the importance of early-years education. Gaps in achievement are clearly established by the time children reach the age of five. The home learning environment is of great importance, but so is the quality of early-years professionals. That quality, too, can make a difference to children’s life chances. There has been an impressive improvement over the past three years in the standard of early-years provision. There needs to be more of it, and more effective targeting to help the most disadvantaged. The Government’s current programme is providing good-quality, part-time early education to 40% of the most needy two year-olds, alongside parenting support. That is pointing the way. There are good initiatives such as Books for Babies and Play and Learning Strategies. In this area the Government have made good progress and are set to make more.
Another area where there has been marked progress is in access to higher education. Successive Governments, including the present one, have given strong encouragement to universities to improve their outreach arrangements. The result today is that almost 50% of people up to the age of 30 are, or are becoming, graduates, compared with around 37% in 1997. Given the importance of graduate status for employment, as well as for people’s aspirations, that is a great advance.
It might surprise some noble Lords to learn of the progress made by my own university, Oxford, so frequently is it demonised by the media—and in the past by some politicians—as being elitist. Oxford now offers the most generous financial support of any university in the country to the poorest students. One in 10 of its United Kingdom undergraduates is from the lowest income band: that is, £16,000 a year or less. State school admissions to Oxford are in the majority. It holds more than 2,000 outreach events every year. It has appointed outreach staff for every county and city in the UK. Their job is to focus on schools with the smallest numbers of students going to Oxford. Interestingly, anecdotal evidence from some schools shows that teachers are sometimes depressing the aspirations of children who wish to go to Oxford or Cambridge. That of course is unacceptable, but at least we know about it. The work at Oxford extends to successful partnerships with individual schools, down to primary school level, and intensive work with teachers. Oxford’s successful summer schools have seen more than two-thirds of all participants applying to Oxford, with a success rate of double the average of all applicants.
However, if 50% of people can now look to graduate status to realise their aspirations, it means that 50% cannot. From 2015, all young people will be required to participate in learning until the age of 18. This is creeping up on us. It is not a raising of the school leaving age but a change in the required participation age. These young people will have to choose between a school or college sixth form, possibly—if they are very fortunate—a university training college or studio school, an FE college or an apprenticeship.
The Wolf review of 2011 identified a number of problems with the routes open to these young people. In the first place there is the most confusing mix possible of qualifications, identified by acronyms. Their pathways to employment are not always clear—if, indeed, they exist. Far too many FE courses offer no help with poor English or maths skills, the very ones most required by employers. There are perverse incentives for providers to recruit for the courses that get the most funding or performance points. Those of us engaged in these areas of public policy will not find this a new phenomenon. We have known about it for a long time, and those who make the policy should be up to spotting the difference.
There are not enough apprenticeships, of course, and much of the teaching in FE colleges has been found by Ofsted to be poor. In response, the Government have promised to create a further education commissioner with wide-ranging powers. I think my noble friend will be able to update us on that. Indeed, this person may already have been appointed. In any case, it is an extremely welcome move. The Government have also given much more attention to the importance of apprenticeships. However, the underlying problem is still employer demand. Most of the new apprenticeships have gone to people over 25, which was not the point. The Government could well consider creating more apprenticeships within government departments to set an example. Meanwhile, they might pay closer attention to the German model, which has served Germany well for many generations and which provides an aspirational route to employment.
We are looking here at the destinations for half of our school population. Much effort has been made to improve the routes for those aspiring to go to university. At least the same amount of effort now needs to be made for those who do not. Their choices should not be treated as second best. In all these areas, so vital to helping young people to prepare for the world of work and to realise their aspirations, there has been progress under this Government in a uniquely challenging climate of unprecedented change in the labour market and international competitiveness.
But—I am sure that my noble friend will have been waiting for the “but”, and it has come—there is one area, that of careers advice and guidance, where, in my view, policy has gone backwards. I personally find it more than obvious that, at a time when there is high youth unemployment, when the statutory participation age is being raised to 18, when the education and training routes between 16 and 19 are multiple and their outcomes are far from clear, and when we need to encourage aspiration and not muddle it, there is an urgent need to help young people to make the right choices. I find it hard to believe that the link between aspirations raised by improved educational standards and the need for unwasteful career choice appears to be ignored by the Government. According to the Government’s own National Careers Service, the cost to the economy of young people making wrong choices amounts to some £28 billion. That same National Careers Service revealed last week that only 1% of teenagers had actually used its helpline. Instead, the Government have chosen to transfer responsibility for careers guidance to schools, but without funding and apparently without statutory accountability. The young people worst affected by this move are inevitably, as always, the most disadvantaged.
No one wants a remote, state-run monolith to do this work. There is good practice in some schools and colleges. They are well placed to help, although only one in six increased its work in this area last year. There is excellent input from the voluntary sector—for example, Career Academies UK, the Prince’s Trust and Barnardo’s, which perceive the need—and, of course, from employers themselves, from academy chains and from other consortium arrangements. However, for the young people the result is random, and that is not good enough. At the very least, the Government should empower Ofsted to inspect all schools for statutory compliance in their careers work, thus ensuring transparency and accountability for a vital public service. I look forward to my noble friend’s response on this issue because, although it would be a small move, it would be a start. Without it, and despite the excellent progress in so many other policy areas, we risk stifling the very aspirations on which the future of our country depends.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold
My Lords, there are a few minutes left in which I can thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. There has certainly been no lack of advice or ideas for the Government, and a great deal of agreement across the board about what is necessary, what is admirable and what is less successful. That is often the case in the House of Lords, which is why it is such a useful source of advice for any Government.
There has been some welcome clarification from the Minister, not only about the Government’s plans for technical education, but also for greater accountability on the part of further education colleges. I was extremely pleased to hear that there are moves afoot to appoint the further education commissioner. The existence of a single person who is truly accountable and can speak for making improvements to the sector should help a great deal and be successful.
There has been a lot of unanimity over anxieties about the function of the careers service. It is not a disaster to have the function placed in schools—there is much inspiring and excellent work going on. What I do find difficult to understand is that apparently we will still not place on Ofsted the same statutory responsibility for inspecting this function as it has for other functions in a state-funded education service. While we often look across to the independent sector when we say what we expect of academies, it might be salutary also to look at the careers advice provision within the independent sector to see what is available across the board for young people in the state sector. It is not a good comparison at the moment. We need the reassurance of Ofsted that the careers service is not random.
My noble friend Lord Eccles has made great play of the importance of being random. If randomness has thrown him into the House of Lords not once but twice, it is a marvellous quality. However, we cannot expect that his application will always be as successful across the board and in every sphere as it obviously was when it had the result of him appearing twice in the House of Lords. I do not recommend it as a general principle when we look at the future prospects of our young people.
This has been a great debate and I thank all noble Lords, not least the Minister. This House should take note of the importance of preparing young people for the world of work in order to realise their aspirations.
Schools White Paper
Baroness Shephard of Northwold Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s comments, particularly about governance, which she and I have discussed at length. The NGA has repeatedly pointed out to us the importance of training for chairs of governors. As the noble Baroness rightly says, we hope to improve that training and to make it available through the National College. The White Paper also talks about the importance of trained clerks—another subject which I know is dear to the noble Baroness’s heart. We also talk in the White Paper about the option that schools will have to change their system of governance. Again, this is not a compulsory change; it is part of our permissive approach. Moving to smaller governing bodies that are more strategically focused with particular skills, rather than numerically prescribed, is also an option. I completely agree with the noble Baroness’s point about early intervention, and we must make sure that that persists.
The suggestion in the White Paper about a pilot is to see whether it would be possible, as the noble Baroness correctly identified, to give the budget and responsibility for excluded children to head teachers to address the perception of some that some schools parcel out difficult children and then wash their hands of them. Like a lot of these issues, this might not be straightforward. We need to see how it would work, which is why we are piloting it, but that is the thought behind that statement.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold
I congratulate my noble friend on the emphasis that the White Paper places on the importance of teachers, the training of teachers and support for teachers. I should say in response to some of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, that surely having the strongest possible teaching force must be the best way to help all children in all schools. I declare an interest; I am chairman of the council of the Institute of Education.
I have a couple more questions for my noble friend on school-based teacher training, which can be highly successful in the right school and with the right support. It is very expensive. Each Teach First graduate costs £38,000 to produce. Of course, schools have to be very well equipped and supported. I know that my noble friend is very enthusiastic about this and I, too, will be enthusiastic, provided I am reassured that the costs have been taken into account and that the schools that are chosen to do this important work will be supported and equipped. Is my noble friend in a position today to lift the curtain a bit on the balance that he sees between that school-based initial teacher training and the teacher training that will continue to take place in higher education institutions? Have I dreamt it, or will there be a Green Paper on those issues?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am grateful for the comments made by my noble friend. I know of her concerns for and experience in raising the quality of teacher training. There is not a huge amount more that I can say in a detailed response to her question, but I shall be very happy to continue that debate with her. In the White Paper, we are seeking to set the direction of travel. Basically, we think that the more experience trainees can have in a classroom—to learn from experienced teachers and great heads whom we hope will come through our teaching school idea, to have constructive feedback and to learn from the best in the profession—the better. That is the balance that we seek. I shall respond to her separately on the detail of those thoughts, if I may.