Free Schools Policy
Baroness Walmsley Excerpts(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
I hope that I can give the noble Baroness some reassurance at least on her second point. The provisions which we will be discussing in the Academies Bill, particularly in regard to vulnerable children, and which will be delivered through the funding agreement and will give these children broadly the same protections as are delivered through maintained schools, will also have to be delivered by free schools, which will be set up as academies and governed by the same safeguards. A free school could not decide to take an approach towards vulnerable children—statemented children—that is different from the approach of any other kind of school.
On surplus places, it was recognised as long ago as the 2005 White Paper that one of the effects of the policy was that, in some places where there was not parental demand, there would be surplus places. The whole point of the policy is to try to create something new for parents where there are surplus places.
Baroness Walmsley
Will the new free schools be eligible for funding under the financial assistance provisions in Clause 1(2)(b) of the Academies Bill, which in turn looks to Section 14 of the Education Act 2002?
Perhaps I may also ask the Minister about the New Schools Network. Interested groups are directed by the website to contact the New Schools Network. Does the Department for Education have any contractual arrangement with the New Schools Network? Are there any alternatives for groups of people who wish to set up a new school, or do they have to go through that process? If so, are there any financial considerations that the House should know about?
Perhaps I may also press the Minister a little more on local authorities. Whenever a new school is set up, it will have an effect on other schools, as no school is an island. Will the Secretary of State publish the criteria for the weighting that will be given to various consultations with the local authority, and the points that the local authority makes to him when there is an application for a new school?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I shall respond to my noble friend’s questions in no particular order. The funding mechanism can apply to all academies; it could well apply to free schools. The point of having a grant rather than a seven-year funding arrangement is that, particularly with a free school, which is a new and untried school, the Secretary of State might not want to be bound into an agreement for seven years and might prefer something that gives him greater flexibility. The department has entered into a contractual arrangement with the New Schools Network to provide support and advice. I will happily send to the noble Baroness the letter that sets up that arrangement. Forgive me, but I have forgotten the third point.
Academies Bill [HL]
Baroness Walmsley Excerpts(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am not sure that I would say to the noble Lord that it would be totally a matter of chance. Fundamental to the Bill are trust and the principle of freedom. Throughout the Bill, we are seeking to be as enabling, permissive and as little prescriptive as possible. That principle would obtain also in our attitude to the question of governance. Our starting point would be that people wanting to set up these schools and exercise these freedoms would have a view as to what the most sensible membership of a governing body would be. The noble Lord will know from his experience that the best kind of governing body has a broadly drawn membership, bringing in expertise and experience from many areas. I am happy to discuss with him outside this debate whether there is anything further I can do.
Baroness Walmsley
Notwithstanding that my Amendment 82 in a later group deals with this very matter and I would like to talk about it then, does the Minister not agree that if a school is set up on the demand of, and by the organisation of, a group of parents, it seems a little strange to have only one of them as a governor?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am being helped by noble Lords opposite who know far more about this subject than I yet do, so I am grateful for their prompting. The proposal is that there should be at least one parent governor. In practice, if one were to draw up a list and look at what happens on the ground, one would find that academies tend to have varying numbers of parent governors, often many more than one. That is because academies have worked out for themselves that having those parents involved is a good thing. Parental involvement is a good principle. It is sometimes thought that academies are conspiracies against their local area and against local people, but I have seen no evidence of that whatever. In the academies that I have seen, it has been exactly the opposite. It would be wrong if I have given my noble friend the impression that I consider one parent is correct. The statutory requirement is for at least one, but in practice it would be many more than that. However, we will return to this debate later.
Picking up on that point, it is the Government's view that there should be broad representation on the governing body of academies. That is rightly a matter for academies. We are seeking not to be too prescriptive in setting down what those freedoms should be.
Free schools will have to have a fair and transparent admissions policy, just like other academies. They will have to provide places to pupils of different abilities drawn wholly or mainly from the local area and we would expect parent governors to reflect that intake. The arrangement for the election of parent governors will be set out in the articles of association of the academy company. It will make clear that the election of a parent governor should be by the parents or pupils attending the academy and, once elected, they will be appointed to the governing body of the academy trust.
On Amendment 33, moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas, I first apologise that we have not yet been able to circulate the model funding agreements. I want to do that as soon as possible. We are proposing to be able to circulate specifically the elements that deal with admissions, SEN and exclusions, which I know are of particular concern to many noble Lords. We will do that as soon as we can and I am sorry that we have not been able to do it in time for today.
On the question asked by my noble friend Lord Lucas about intervention powers, the Secretary of State has power to intervene when educational standards are in question, if health and safety is an issue, and where governance, including financial management, is at issue. Of course, parents can complain to the Secretary of State and ask him to intervene.
On the substance of Amendment 33, all academies are managed by an academy trust which, before it can enter the funding agreement with the Secretary of State, must have finalised and lodged at Companies House its governing documents, with the memorandum and articles of association which set out the governance arrangements and the governing body. That prompts me to respond to a question asked by my noble friend Lord Phillips. Because of the technical detail, I feel I should write to him to follow that point up.
In the case of outstanding schools converting, we will discuss and need to agree with the governing body of the converting school who will be responsible for establishing the academy trust and the proposed composition of the board of the governing trust. We envisage that the composition of the governing body of the trust may therefore be very similar to that of the governing body of the converting school. The effect of Amendments 2 and 3 would be to deny teachers, charities and parents the opportunity to set up new schools. It would be wrong to deny them that choice, which the previous Government themselves intended to give them and that the Conservative Party promised in its manifesto and restated in the coalition agreement.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, my Amendment 104 is in this group. I am not quite sure why Amendment 3A is in the group—I think that it should have been in a previous one—but the rest of the amendments are all about consultation. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that appropriate consultation, over a sufficient time, leads to good decision-making. The decision that schools have to make about conversion to academy status is terribly important, so I think that they should consult.
I have a few words to say about the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Morgan. I am not sure why they felt the need to include CRB checks in Amendment 4A. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that all those who had dealings with schools had to have CRB checks anyway. Indeed, I know a young teacher who does both paid and voluntary work in a number of schools and has had four CRB checks. I hope that the coalition Government will smooth out that totally unnecessary duplication. Also, surely the Government normally do due diligence on anyone with whom they intend to sign a contract, so I think that the second subsection in the amendment may be superfluous, too.
The main point of this debate is consultation. Of course schools should consult all the relevant people and provide them with the information that they need to be able to respond appropriately. To become an academy is an enormous change in the governance and funding of a school. Indeed, I think that it is very risky, as Clause 1(2)(b) and Clause 1(3)(b) give enormous power to the Secretary of State without any scrutiny by Parliament. Perhaps we will get that changed during the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House. We will discuss the merits of these arrangements later, but the fact remains that a school that becomes an academy under the Bill does so entirely at the whim of the Secretary of State, so it needs to be sure about the potential benefits of the change to the education that it provides to all the children in its locality.
Incidentally, I do not believe that these schools should be called “independent”, as they have been described. They will be totally dependent on the Secretary of State for their funding and the terms of their operation. My noble friend Lord Greaves referred to them as “autonomous”, which I believe is a better expression.
The difference between our amendment on consultation and those tabled by the Opposition is that we do not include the trade unions. I thought that I should explain why that is. Unions are national organisations, whereas we have proposed consulting local people or organisations that have a keen interest in the school. No national organisation can have a relevant view of the merits of the application of every individual school. The local people matter here and it is they who should be consulted.
That is especially true of the children. I have been in your Lordships’ House for 10 years. At the start, when the Labour Government brought legislation before us, we had to put down a lot of amendments about what I call the voice of the child. Gradually, the Government got the message and, I am glad to say, such provisions started to appear in Bills, so we did not need to put down those amendments. I hope that the Minister will take into account the fact that, when you consult children about things that affect them, you get better decision-making. I also hope that, if he cannot accept these amendments, he will at least put this in guidance, so that schools have to consult the appropriate people.
On the matter of the documents that should be sent out to the people who are being consulted, Amendments 101 and 102 are far too prescriptive. We would leave it to the schools to judge what material it is appropriate to send out. On these Benches we intended to add something much briefer and less prescriptive but it got lost and did not go down in the end. The period suggested for the consultation is six weeks by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and four weeks by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. However, the school will have to make the TUPE arrangements with staff, which requires 10 weeks and should not be during the school holidays. Schools will have to take a lot longer than four weeks, and so they should. I have already urged my right honourable friend Michael Gove to hasten slowly, and I shall do the same to my noble friend Lord Hill. That should be the watchword. The decision does not need to be fast but it needs to be right.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
I support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Royall. This is a very strange part of the Bill, and I am not sure what the rationale behind it is. The Bill purports to want to know the views of people in communities or schools where children’s lives are affected by what legislation says. However, it excludes from consultation at key points anybody outside the school. I wonder if this comes from the Government’s fears over what happened when they had ballots over grant-maintained schools. If so, I well understand that. That was a procedure that ended up causing terrible arguments and distrust between groups of people and communities who should have been working together. There is absolutely no way that I would want to return to that. Indeed, in my time at the department, we did not have ballots in that manner. I am sympathetic, but the Minister mentioned in the last debate that people are somehow suspicious of academies and free schools. There is no better way of making them more suspicious than to exclude them from being consulted. If the Minister accepts that that suspicion is already there, I am not sure why he wants to risk building it up by, as I say, excluding people from consultation.
I have two more points. When this issue was previously been raised in the course of the Bill, the Minister said that the previous Government did not have means of consulting anyway. Correct me if I am wrong, but the essential difference was that, under the legislation used by the previous Government, one school was closed and a new one was opened. The consultation took place as part of the school closure and opening. In the Bill, the conversion of a school—as far as I can see, there is no official closure and opening—excludes any consultation at all.
Finally, the amendments do not seek to take away from the Secretary of State the right to decide whether or not a school should be granted academy status. You might argue that they ought to, but they do not. I cannot see that they would delay any consideration. If I was the Secretary of State in this situation, I would want to put myself in a position where I took the community with me, just to give any new school the best possible start to its life. To load a school with potential suspicion when that need not be the case is really not acceptable. To accept amendments along these lines, if not in such detail, would be very good for any schools that become academies under this legislation.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, as has been the pattern today, we have had a good and lively debate, which has certainly given me food for thought as we go forward. Perhaps I may briefly restate the amendments.
Amendment 3A would change who the Secretary of State could enter into academy arrangements with from a person to an individual or organisation. This is an unnecessary amendment because in law, a “person” is taken to mean either an individual or an organisation.
Amendments 4A, 101 and 102 would require proper checks of any person who was party to academy arrangements and, with Amendment 104, require the governing body of a maintained school to consult certain persons listed in the amendments before applying to the Secretary of State for an academy order. These people would include pupils at school, parents, school staff, staff trade unions, relevant local authorities, other local schools who might be affected and any other person who it is appropriate to consult. It is important to be clear that current legislation does not address these issues. These would be additional legislative requirements that the noble Baroness is seeking to introduce, although I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, quite properly and fairly about the change in status; currently there would be an obligation to consult if the school was to close. The circumstances are different and she is right about that.
I will first respond to the broad thrust of what the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked—why the urgency? Why can we not take some time? That point was in some way echoed by my noble friend Lord Greaves. I know that I have made this point repeatedly, but part of the answer to the urgency question is that, five years ago, the Government of whom she was a member set out down this path. Five years later, we are still debating it and that represents another five years of children who have not been able to take advantage of some of these freedoms that I know her party, when in government, were keen to extend. In another part of the answer to the urgency question, I underline the point that we made in previous debates that our approach to this legislation is fundamentally permissive, rather than coercive. Simply by putting a flyer there and saying to schools, “Is anyone interested in this? Are these freedoms something of which you would like to avail yourselves?”, more than 1,750 schools have said that they would be interested. Thinking about the point that my noble friend Lady Perry made, that tells us something quite powerful about trust, which one always has to balance against our natural instinct to try to make sure that nothing goes wrong. One needs to listen to those who are clearly keen to get on and feel that there is a need for urgency. My starting point in this is not so much the question of why we need to move so rapidly as of what is preventing us getting our skates on.
I turn to a specific point which my noble friend Lady Walmsley has already picked up on. It is already part of our process to carry out full due-diligence checks on anyone who is party to a funding agreement, and regulations also require CRB checking of all governors. I, like many Members of the Committee, I suspect, have been CRB-checked more times than I care to remember—although not because there was a particular problem, I should make clear.
I was struck by the point that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made about drawing a distinction between the spirit of consultation and making it a legislative requirement. He gave examples of the difficulty of getting a satisfactory definition in the Bill within which everyone could operate—and which did not have the problem alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, of the old system of ballots, which caused acrimony—and which would not give people who, for particular reasons, might want to frustrate this policy the opportunity to do so. I think that there is broad acceptance on her side of the Committee that the policy is fundamentally good, and these are the detailed questions that we are working through. I was very persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, concerning the dangers of being overly legalistic. However, I also accept the point made by him and many other noble Lords on all sides of the House about the spirit of consultation. It is something that clearly one must take seriously.
We certainly expect schools, in deciding whether to make an application to convert, to discuss their intention with students, their parents and the local community. A point that has been well made by a number of Members of the Committee is that that is what happens already, and it would not make sense for a school not to do so. The governing body of any maintained school that is considering converting does, and will, include parent governors, staff governors and local authority governors. These governors will all be part of the decision-making process. Currently, the employer of a school’s staff would also need to conduct a TUPE consultation with all staff and the unions as part of the staff transfer process. On a small point of fact—I know that this point has been raised before—I say to my noble friend Lady Walmsley that there is not a minimum 10-week consultation period; the time is not specified in law but there would clearly have to be consultation with all staff and the unions as part of the process.
In response to a point about informal consultation that I think was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe—I hope I shall be forgiven if it was not her—I shall try to be brief as I know that supper beckons. The departmental website will make it absolutely clear that we expect teaching staff, other staff, parents, pupils and the local community to be consulted. The question with which we are grappling—the debate has grappled with it this evening—is how far this process needs to be formalised, with the risk that that might either slow it down or make the process acrimonious. Our view is that there are clear disadvantages—
Baroness Walmsley
Does my noble friend accept that if schools want to convert by September, that will give them quite a lot of time as long as they get on with it? However, if he does not want to put this into legislation, will he consider putting it in guidance and not just on the website?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am grateful to my noble friend. The point about whether schools will be able to convert in time for September has certainly been raised, and there has been a suggestion that the timetable has been politically driven. As I said before, our approach has been to put out the idea and be permissive. Some schools may well convert in time for September, which we think is perfectly possible, as my noble friend says, but other schools will no doubt take longer, and that is also fine.
In response to my noble friend’s more substantive point, which is where my argument was heading, having listened to this debate I recognise that we have to be as transparent as possible in this process. As I said, I recognise the points that have been made about the spirit of consultation, and I can say to the Committee that I am willing to take that thought back to the department and consider how best we can ensure that the conversion process carries the confidence of all interested parties—a point made forcefully this afternoon. On that point, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Academies Bill [HL]
Baroness Walmsley Excerpts(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, if I may—I have some amendments in this group. I should like to speak to Amendments 98, 136 and 177. I also intend to speak to Amendment 137 along with Amendment 98, as they go together. I apologise that with all the toing and froing with the groupings this morning, I did not notice that Amendment 137 had not been included in this group. However, I believe that I am able to speak to it all the same.
The purpose of Amendments 98 and 137 is to probe the application of the school governance procedures regulations 2003 to a resolution by the school governors to apply for academy status. The current regulations provide for special procedures for important governing body decisions about the future of a school—particularly ones such as this, which would lead to a decision by the local authority to discontinue supporting the school. The special procedures currently include a requirement that the decision cannot be delegated to a committee or individual, and the chair cannot direct that a period of notice shorter than seven days be given for a governing body meeting. Indeed, in certain cases, a second governing body meeting must be held within 28 days to confirm the original decision.
Therefore, can the Minister confirm that a decision to apply for academy status cannot be delegated to an individual governor or even a small committee of governors? Will the regulations require the local authority or parents to be informed of the date when the governing body proposes to make a decision? Should not the regulations be amended to this end if they do not already do so?
Amendment 136 is a different way of dealing with the same matter. Clause 5(9) disapplies current legislation. Conversely, if we remove subsection (9), as Amendment 136 does, the current situation regarding consultation, safeguards and time periods and so on regarding who can make the decisions remains.
Amendment 177 would insert a new clause that would extend to academies a current duty on the governing bodies of maintained schools in England to promote community cohesion in the discharging of their functions. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, touched on this in the earlier debate on consultation. I well recall our debates during the passage of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, which introduced a duty on all maintained schools in England to promote community cohesion and on Ofsted to report on the contributions that they make in this area. Both these duties have now commenced.
Governing bodies of existing new Labour academies are not subject to the same duty to promote community cohesion as applies to maintained schools, despite our protestations, as I recall, when the Bill went through your Lordships’ House, yet from September 2008 their contribution to community cohesion has been reported on by Ofsted. I think it is vital that the new academies are also required to promote community cohesion, especially where they are located in areas where the community is very diverse. This is particularly important given the concerns that academies may increase social division and inequality, rather than reduce them, which of course is the intention of the programme. That is not how we want academies to be. They should be part of, and serve, the local community.
On the question of new 16 to 19 providers, mentioned by the noble Baroness on the opposition Benches, I think that if an academy extends the age range which it intends to serve beyond that which it had when it first applied to be an academy, there may very well be a case for having to go back to the Secretary of State to renegotiate the terms of the academy agreement. Can the Minister let me know whether that is the Government’s intention? It would be a major change in the academy’s provision and the original consultations would no longer be legitimate.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I, too, have tabled amendments in this group—Amendments 116, 117, 119 and 129. Since this is the first time that I have spoken on this Bill, I welcome and congratulate the Minister on his position and the way in which he has hitherto dealt with the Bill. However, I cannot give the same welcome to the Bill itself. He needs to know that I have fairly fundamental objections to it, which may appear from time to time. It may have a rougher ride as we go forward.
It is true that I also had some reservations about the previous Government’s academies programme, contrary to the position of the Front Bench and other colleagues. However, it was very different—it was different in execution, although some would say that it was not that different in ambition. In execution, the Labour Government, with their fewer than 300 academies, recognised that there were failing schools, or at least schools that were underperforming in educational terms, and that there were areas of social deprivation, which was detrimentally affecting educational attainment. The Government used the academies as a way of compensating or intervening at the extreme end of special measures. That I can understand. In a sense, it was a comment on the failure of local authorities and the governing bodies that central government had to take them over. In general, I believe that the education of a community’s children ought to be the responsibility of the local authority elected for that community. It is only in very specialised and specialist cases that you would override that.
That is a political and an educational principle. It is an educational principle for reasons to which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has just referred. A change in the status and the relative resources and attention given to one school will have a knock-on effect on other schools. Sometimes it might be beneficial, but it will undoubtedly have a knock-on effect.
The record on Labour academies is mixed. Some have been very successful; some have improved, though it could be argued that they could have been improved by less drastic interventions; and some have failed or nearly failed. The case is not yet fully proven. To take away from local authorities the responsibility for educating their populations, which they have had for well over a century, is a very drastic move. In this short Bill we are changing the provision of education in this country.
This depends on initiatives being taken by the school and on the attitude of the Secretary of State to the application of the school. However, the ambition has been clearly laid out by the Minister and the Secretary of State. They want a large number of schools to opt out of local authority oversight. I say “oversight” and not “control” because local authorities have not managed schools for many years. They have supported schools and given them administrative support, help in specialist matters and special needs, and help in many other areas, but they have not managed the schools in the way which is sometimes implied by the criticism of the current system.
The Bill is taking a big step to remove the relationship between schools and the local authority. I appreciate that I am not going to be able to persuade the Government or the coalition—or at least most of the coalition—that this is the wrong way to go. But if we are to go down that road, it is essential to reassert the role of the local authority. We had a debate just before the break about consultation. I take some of the points from my noble friend Lord Adonis and others that to prescribe exact forms of consultation in primary legislation can lead you down difficult paths and that perhaps it is better covered by a code, guidance or, certainly, practice by the Secretary of State and those who are promoting academies and free schools.
The one bit of consultation that I do not believe you can escape is consultation with the local authority. The local authority might in some cases agree that it would be a good thing to have an academy. It would certainly have views on it and it would certainly have views that are informed by the impact on the rest of education in the area of its oversight. My first amendment is my ideal. Amendment 116 says that the local authorities should be consulted and should agree the proposals.
I appreciate that that is fairly close to cloud-cuckoo land, given the Government's intentions. In any case, if there was a disagreement between the local authorities and the Secretary of State, you would have to build in an arbitration process. I have therefore given the Government an alternative, which simply states that there is an obligation to consult the local authority.
Personally, I think that if that is not inserted in some form into the Bill, it will be greatly flawed. I suspect that it will make for a difficult ride in another place if local authorities are not written in, so I therefore strongly advise the Government that if they are to continue to go down that road, they ought at least to recognise the special role of local authorities in that respect.
I also take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, before the break, but perhaps the obligation to consult ought to be not on the party proposing the school but on the Secretary of State him or herself. At the end of the day, the Secretary of State will have to make the judgment and explain to Parliament whether an effective consultation has taken place, so I place the responsibility not on the proposers but on the Secretary of State. That makes sense.
My Amendment 119 goes further to state—in a sense, with the same motivation as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips—that there should be an assessment of the effect of taking a prospective academy out of local authority oversight on the rest of the educational provision in the area. Where it differs from the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and probably therefore avoids the objection of my noble friend Lord Adonis, is that it simply states that there should be an assessment. That assessment, or at least its conclusions, should probably be available publicly—although the amendment does not state that—but it still leaves the final judgment to the Secretary of State, whereas the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, would prescribe something that is difficult to define, as my noble friend said. Nevertheless, I think that the noble Lord and I are both on the same page here: before we move to approve an academy, an assessment needs to have been made as to the effect that will have on the total educational provision in the area.
I hope that the Government take some notice of the amendment. Personally, I find it very difficult that in the name of removing the burdens of red tape from head teachers and governing bodies, we move from a system of local authority oversight to one of centralised funding, centrally regulated. The red tape which has undoubtedly been imposed on the teaching profession by successive Governments over the past two or three decades has largely emanated from central government and their agencies, not from local government. The relationship with local government has been, by and large, constructive. We ought to maintain that. Even if we are going for change which some local authorities may approve of, there must be a vital role for local authorities in that process.
My final amendment simply gives some flexibility on timescale, so I will not go into it in great detail. The key point here is that local authorities must be present under the Bill to be consulted, engaged and involved, reflecting the impact of a decision on one school on the totality of education in their area.
Schools: Modern Languages
Baroness Walmsley Excerpts(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley
Given the continued need for more specialist teachers and the continued budgetary constraints, will the Minister join me in welcoming the British Council scheme which funds temporary cover for teachers to go away during term time, as well as their own time, to foreign countries to increase their language skills? Will he encourage other organisations to put their money into similar schemes?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I will be very interested to hear more about the British Council scheme; it sounds extremely good. I would like to talk to the noble Baroness about that and to see whether we could encourage other organisations into it.
Academies Bill [HL]
Baroness Walmsley Excerpts(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, when the academies programme was first introduced to this House by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, he said that the intention was to tackle underperformance in existing schools. While accepting that conversion to academies was not the only way in which the former Administration tried to tackle failing schools, I would point out that the evidence shows that academy status, as even the Minister accepted, is not a silver bullet. Some existing academies have done very well, but some have not. There has even been one that has returned to the local authority.
This Bill proposes types of academies very different from those which have gone before and few of them will get shiny new buildings like the majority of the existing 200. Since the letters were sent by the Secretary of State to heads, teachers and directors of children’s services—not to governors, noble Lords will notice—there has been both interest and concern. Parents, governors, councillors and officers of local authorities, and those representing the most vulnerable children, have asked many questions. I will comment on some of them in my remarks.
First, noble Lords may remember how we on these Benches—well, not on these Benches as we were over that side of the Chamber at that time, and now, as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, said on Thursday, we are travelling steerage—welcomed the power to innovate in relation to the curriculum and asked why all schools could not have it. We asked for the same powers for all schools when the specialist schools came along, and I am pleased to say that that has come to pass. We are not against this sort of freedom at all. We also, of course, welcomed extra spending on deprived children. Who would not?
However, in common with many of those who have expressed their worries over the past few weeks, we have a concern for the most deprived children. If the stated objective of this policy is to improve the education we offer to all children, improve equality and narrow the attainment gap—of course that is the objective—we must scrutinise the mechanisms of this structural change extremely carefully to ensure that such damage is not an unintended consequence of the policy, which is what this House is very good at.
We must look at the evidence of existing academies, since that is the only place we can look at the moment. Unfortunately, some of the evidence underpins the concerns, so we must learn from it. There is evidence that some of the existing academies have been selecting the children and parents, and not the other way around. That makes it easier for the academies to raise their overall exam results. We must ensure that this does not happen with the new tranche of academies. How will the Minister ensure that all the new academies will abide by the local admissions code as we are told that they will be obliged to do? Who will ensure that they do not exclude inconvenient students, thus obliging the local authority and other schools to pick up the pieces? Will he put a duty on the new academies to take children from across the demographic range in the local community? There is evidence that a mixed intake benefits all pupils in a school, so this is good educational practice.
There are serious concerns about the funding of the programme, which my noble friend Lady Sharp has addressed. But I am very concerned that the coalition Government’s promised pupil premium should not be used to top up the payments to the academies or to the local authorities if too much resource is directed towards the academies. The pupil premium is intended to enrich the education of children in all schools who come from deprived backgrounds and therefore need more help to reach their full potential. It should be on top of what is spent otherwise and was never intended to be used to underpin structural change in the school system. Will my noble friend assure me that that will not happen?
No school is obliged to apply for academy status. I would hope that any governing body considering applying should think very carefully about the real advantages of doing so. I would also hope, as advised by the National Governors Association, the Association of School and College Leaders and several of your Lordships today, that it would consult widely with pupils, parents, the local authority and the local community before taking this step, even though the Bill does not oblige it to consult anyone. This is good practice. I would prefer that governors should be obliged to make a positive case for becoming an academy as part of its application, outlining the benefits they foresee for all the children in their neighbourhood. That will take time, but there is no rush for outstanding schools. They are already providing a good education to their local children.
There is evidence that some academies have harmed other neighbourhood schools. Evidence has come from the NUT in the case of Sneyd Community School that the number of free school meals children at Walsall Academy decreased from 51 per cent in 2002 when the school first opened to 11 per cent in 2007, due entirely to selection. In the mean time, the FSM numbers in all the surrounding schools were much higher. The figure for Sneyd rose by 28 per cent in one year alone. This tells us that there must be a mechanism for ensuring that the admissions practices of the new academies do not allow them to unload all the more difficult children on to other schools. The new academies must be measured on how they help to improve the attainment of the most deprived and vulnerable children, not by the way they adjust their intake.
I am comforted by the words that say that schools must provide education for children of different abilities. But this must include the right proportion of children whose attainment to date has been poor. I am also comforted by Clause 1(6)(d), which states that schools should take children mainly from the local area. However, among many of the briefings that we have been sent in preparation for today, Save the Children has pointed out that there may be a problem with this if we want the most deprived children to have access to the best schools, which of course we do.
In the more affluent neighbourhoods, the cost of housing alone makes it impossible for certain children to access the local school. How does the Minister propose to deal with this? Will he consider putting something in the academy order to the effect that an academy must offer a number of places, perhaps by ballot, to children from more deprived areas not in the immediate vicinity of the school but within reach of it, and also to looked-after children, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who deserve a place in the best possible school?
I am also concerned about behaviour partnerships and exclusions. In the meeting which the Minister kindly arranged for us last Wednesday, it was mentioned that schools could be freed from certain obligations, such as taking part in the local behaviour partnership. I would be very concerned about that. Setting school against school is a very negative thing to do. There is currently a very healthy culture of collaboration among schools, which I would not want to lose. I welcome the expectation that academies should work with weaker local schools, but that should include managed exclusions.
This brings me to accountability. These schools may be independent, but they will receive millions of pounds of public money to educate our children on our behalf. They must be made accountable in a rigorous and appropriate way. By that, I do not mean simply by looking at their exam results. The Minister and the Secretary of State have mentioned their intention to review the league tables and Ofsted inspections. In a way, this Bill puts the cart before the horse, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, who suggested exactly that. I would feel more comfortable with the Bill if we had done these other two things properly first. However, we are where we are.
Perhaps I may say something about the curriculum. The Bill states that it must be “balanced and broadly based”. What does that mean? No doubt we will look at this further in Committee, but is there to be a core group of subjects to which all pupils will be entitled? Like the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I am concerned about whether this will include PSHE, or education for life, as I like to call it. I do hope so, since all children will have a future life and schools should be obliged to equip young people to make the most of it. What about child protection issues? We hear that Ofsted will concentrate on education, but we know that children do not learn well if they are distressed, threatened, abused in or out of school, or distracted by terrible issues in their home life. In other words, their welfare must be as paramount in schools tomorrow as it is today. Who will ensure that that happens? I am not convinced that Ofsted has ever done this well, so perhaps we now have the opportunity of giving the job to someone who understands the issues better.
I turn briefly to early-years education. Primary schools are to be allowed to become academies. Apart from a few all-through five to 18 schools, until now academies have had little experience of very young children. Of course, primary schools that apply will already have that experience, but how will their new curriculum freedoms link up with their obligation to follow the early-years foundation stage? Many of us think that this stage needs to be revised anyway. Do the Government have any plans to do that? How will the independence of academies impact on the successful integrated model of working with very young children?
I should like to ask about the duties and strategic controls that are to remain with local authorities. How can we sure that they will not be left with weakened levers with which to support non-academy schools? Will academies be expected to co-operate in times of crisis such as those of flood, fire or terrorism? How will the school improvement agenda be affected? Will academies that now become exempt charities still have a duty to provide community use for their facilities? Many local authorities such as Sutton and Richmond, along with other London boroughs, already struggle to find enough places for their own children when others come in from adjoining authorities. How will they be helped with this duty, which they will continue to have if many of the schools in which they currently find places opt out of their control? I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, that local authorities do not run schools now, or control the funding of schools, and yet they provide a valuable safety net and support services which the opting-out schools will have to provide for themselves.
By the way, I would remind my coalition partner Lord Blackwell that two-thirds of our schools are now found by Ofsted to be “good” or “outstanding”, so they should not be penalised. These services are of particular value to small schools, especially primary schools. I hope, therefore, that they will think hard before deciding whether they want or need the freedoms in this Bill. Finally, on that point, I should like to ask the Minister this. If a school wants the same curriculum freedoms as an academy without cutting itself loose from the support of its local authority, would it be able to do so?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the fine speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. We have had a full discussion on the Academies Bill, but it is one that leaves serious questions for the Government to answer, and I endorse what several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Puttnam, have said. We will need a goodly time in Committee in order for the Government to address all the issues that have been raised—and that is just by the government Benches themselves.
It is a pleasure to work on the first Bill for which the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Oareford, will be responsible, and I, too, congratulate him on his new role and his eloquent and inclusive speech. I pay tribute to the expertise on these issues that so many noble Lords have ably demonstrated and brought to bear on the Bill, and I must apologise for coming to the debate as someone not remotely qualified to be one such expert. However, I do come to it as someone who cares deeply about education. It is the key that unlocks talents and freedoms, enables people to escape poverty and deprivation, and ensures a successful economy and a healthy society. A fair society needs a fair education system. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Low, said about the challenges that persist, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, pointed out, we have to ratchet up our efforts. Notwithstanding the mistakes that some would say were made by the previous Government and which were cited by my noble friend Lord Puttnam, I am proud of our record and very proud of the achievements of my noble friend Lord Adonis, who was our pioneer on the academy programme.
However, I would argue that my noble friend’s vision has been corrupted in the current Bill, and I agree with much of what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln. I congratulate the Church of England on the forthcoming 200th anniversary of its provision of education. Like my noble friend, I believe that the Church of England provides an inclusive education, although I have some concerns that were also expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen, about the inclusiveness of some of our schools. I note, too, the concern around the Chamber about PSHE, and I would certainly like some responses from the noble Lord, Lord Hill, about its provision, which is extremely important.
Like many other noble Lords, I have visited some superb academies which have transformed the achievements, aspirations and lives of their pupils. I have not yet had the pleasure of visiting a Harris academy, but I can see that that is something that I have to do. I certainly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Peckham, on all that he has done. Academies have brought in extra money and expertise, and have improved buildings to ensure that the most disadvantaged pupils from the most disadvantaged communities get a better chance. I know that my noble friend Lady Whitaker, who is not in her place today, will be especially vigilant on the importance of design and the built environment, also mentioned by my noble friend Lady Morgan of Huyton.
The noble Lord, Lord James of Blackheath, spoke of the importance of motivation. I believe that good schools, be they academies or community schools, do motivate young people. That is why education and schools are so important. I note the views expressed by my noble friend Lady Howells about cultural differences and the importance of community cohesion. Of course, not all academies have succeeded, but the vast majority are a success story. So we are not opposed to academies. We celebrate their success, and as my noble friend said, we did want to expand their provision to coasting schools. However we are concerned about aspects of the Bill that we believe are, in effect, more of a return to the Conservative Party’s past policy of grant-maintained schools rather than building on our own policy. My noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley was right to point to the excellent work of some community schools but, like all schools, if they are failing they are doing a disservice to pupils and to the community. I shall read very carefully the speech of my noble friend and that of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, in relation to failing schools.
I shall briefly focus on five areas of concern: speed, centralisation, consultation, funding agreements and standards. First, on speed, I share the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, and others, and I trust that the Minister will pay heed to the “fallacy of composition” which was mentioned by the noble Lord; I like that phrase very much. I understand that any new Government are anxious to make their mark, demonstrate their readiness for action and signal those areas in which they want to make immediate headway. However, we do not need the “quickies” referred to by my noble friend Lord Griffiths; the pace of reform must not have a detrimental effect. The Bill raises so many unanswered questions and precipitates so much change which will have a fundamental impact on our education system, that the pace of reform as currently envisaged could do more harm than good. Indeed, one of the clauses in this short Bill is devoted to “Pre-commencement applications”, and that is testament to the unseemly and unsustainable rush that we are embarked on at present. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who said that it is a deceptively simple Bill. I believe that it is a complex Bill when you start delving into it.
The Liberal Democrats have always espoused the principle of local empowerment, and the Conservatives are now wedded to the idea of big society. However, as my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said in the debate on the loyal Address, while the coalition agreement proclaims radical devolution of power and greater autonomy to councils, the rhetoric and the reality are somewhat different. With this Academies Bill, local authorities will lose powers, lose influence and lose budgetary flexibility. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that this is entirely a bottom-up process. It might be a permissive Bill, but rather than the decentralising measure that we are led to believe it is, the Bill gives more power to the centre and more power to the Secretary of State. Only an order from the Secretary of State will be required to sanction a change. Rather than decisions being taken by local people and locally elected representatives who know the schools and the communities that they serve, decisions will ultimately be taken in Whitehall.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and others mentioned bureaucracy. As the number of academies grows exponentially, as the Government desire, the Secretary of State will have to create a central bureaucracy to deal with the decision-making. So perhaps we will have decentralisation and bureaucracy rather than the decentralisation envisaged. Indeed, the Minister of State for Children and Families, Sarah Teather, is on record as saying that the creation of 200 academies in 2006 would be a,
“thoroughly centralising measure that allows the Government to be the largest maintaining authority and have a veto that will effectively overrule local decision making of the kind of provision that people want”.
If that was the case for 200 academies, how can the creation of 2,000 or more not be an act of centralisation? I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how the Bill fits into the terms of the coalition agreement on the devolution of power and greater autonomy for councils.
Baroness Walmsley
I have listened carefully to what the noble Baroness has said. Does she agree that a decision by an individual school and its governors—and, one hopes, the parents whom the school has consulted—to apply to become an academy will be taken at a much more local level than even the local authority? It really is local decision-making.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, that is an interesting question. However, the key issue which the noble Baroness raises is that an application or decision made by a local school should be taken in tandem with the governors, the parents and the pupils. Currently the Bill does not provide for that element of consultation. We must, together, work on that.
I turn to the issue of consultation, which is linked to the role of local councils and the wider community—an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Under the Bill, the local authority will explicitly not be consulted on applications for schools to become academies; neither will parents nor the teaching and support staff nor the pupils. As other noble Lords have said, the role of parents must not and cannot be underestimated. I was peripherally involved with a proposal for an academy in Gloucester. A consultation was undertaken but parents, governors and pupils did not think that it was as thorough as it should have been. The result was frustration, sadness and ill-feeling—not the best start to the new life of a new school. A good school must have the confidence of the community that it serves. I would suggest that consultation is a prerequisite for confidence.
Many noble Lords and many organisations have raised issues relating to special educational needs, excluded pupils and children in care. They included the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and many others. That leads me to my fourth concern, on funding agreements. Funding agreements must enshrine fairness and cover compliance with SEN legislation and the school admissions code. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, pointed out, there are problems with the admissions code at the moment. That is why fairness must be enshrined in any new provision.
Several noble Lords spoke of two tiers. The Minister said that the Bill would not create a two-tier system. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, said that we do not have a two-tier system now, but a many-tier system. We should not create a situation whereby those schools with the greatest need receive the least resources. That is what we mean when we talk about a two-tier system.
The noble Lord, Lord James, said that we on this side of the House and perhaps others were trying to hold back good schools and excellence. That is not what we are trying to do—we want to ensure fair provision of resources. We want to ensure that special educational needs provision is properly planned, and we do not think that that is the case at the moment. If money that LEAs currently receive for SEN is gradually diminished while schools with the greatest SEN remain as mainstream schools, how will the strategic role of LEAs be maintained and the funding gap plugged? Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Baker, rightly said that LEAs play an invaluable role in relation to special educational needs. We must not demonise LEAs, which provide an invaluable function and ensure that many of the duties currently enshrined in legislation are delivered.
I turn finally to standards. The Bill deals with structural change but makes no mention of standards—although the Minister raised the question of standards in his opening speech. That is a further and fundamental difference between our policy for academies and the Bill that we are discussing today. Our programme was to drive up standards for the most disadvantaged pupils. The Bill will do nothing to assist that process. I agree with my noble friend Lady Morgan of Huyton, who said that strong intervention from the centre is necessary to drive forward and maintain high standards.
Most of the current academies which we established are thriving because of the quality of teaching and strong leadership. These factors, as many noble Lords have said, are the most important ones in a good school. There are some superb teachers and leaders in our schools. Under the proposals before the House today, there is a clear danger that teachers from the most challenging schools will be attracted by better conditions to teach in the outstanding schools which become academies, thereby exacerbating the problems in the schools with the most difficulties. I am sure that that is not the Government’s intention, but we must ensure that it does not happen.
Our academies were about improvement for all by means—at least initially—of improvement for the most disadvantaged. The Government’s academies are about improvement for a minority of pupils who are already the most advantaged. As the Sutton Trust said at the weekend, we must provide better education for the many, not the few, and for all children, not just the most privileged. I fundamentally disagree with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, about competition in education.
We shall seek in Committee to apply the perspective of the need to ensure a better education for the many. We shall aim to ensure that schools fully and properly reflect the social mix of the communities which they serve; that they fully and properly reflect the views of the local community and the local authority, as well as of parents, staff and governors; and that they fully and properly offer the most opportunity for most pupils. We shall seek to improve the Bill to improve educational standards, educational performance and education for all.