School Accountability and Intervention

Debate between Lord Hampton and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Thursday 6th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords—

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her recognition that this Statement represents the objective that, I believe, is shared across this House: to ensure that every child in every school is getting the very best opportunities to learn; and that, where there is a need to improve the provision being provided in a school, that happens as effectively and as quickly as possible. That is because every day that a child spends in a school that is not performing as well as it needs to is a day lost to that child at a crucial part of their life.

It is with that objective in mind, of course, that the Government outlined on Monday the consultation on the approach that will be taken to accountability, intervention and improvement, alongside the consultation being carried out by Ofsted on the revised inspection framework. The development of the report card will provide considerably more information, granularity and insight for parents in determining that most difficult of choices—where they want their child to go to school—and for the schools themselves and others to determine areas of improvement and where they need to see more work. As the noble Baroness said, one of the most important priorities is to able to intervene and improve schools as quickly as possible and appropriately. I will come to that in a moment.

The noble Baroness started with a reasonable barrage of statistics. I will do my best to respond to the suggestions that she made but I may well need to follow up some of those points subsequently in a letter. The first thing she said was that the number of pupils in underperforming schools was 500,000, not 300,000. To be clear, the figure of 300,000 was for those schools that are stuck in a period of persistent underperformance. This Government are unwilling to allow that consistent underperformance to continue and we have been clear that we need to have a wider range of improvement tools than has been the case previously.

The noble Baroness characterised the RISE teams as being within the department, but these are teams based in regions, made up of people who have enormous background in and experience of school improvement, many of whom come from multi-academy trusts and who are in a position both to support the turnaround of schools that are not performing adequately and to ensure that those schools that are not seeing improvements over a period of time are challenged and supported to make that improvement. To be clear, for those stuck schools, if, after two years of this targeted intervention, they were not improving, once again, the option of structural intervention and change would be considered.

What the Government are also proposing in this consultation is that up until September 2026, where schools would previously have been in categories of concern, where they are in what we might have thought of as special measures—in other words, where there is not the capacity of the leadership within the school to improve it—there will be immediate structural intervention, but where the leadership could enable that to change, they will be subject to immediate academisation. After September 2026, when we have the RISE teams fully up and running, for those schools where the leadership has the potential to change, we would expect the RISE teams to be focusing on and targeting them to make sure that there is improvement.

Of course, the reason for taking this more sophisticated approach to improvement is precisely because, while there is clearly evidence that being academised can lead to improvement, there is also evidence that in many cases, that can take too long, given the urgency of improving education for our children. Some 40% of academisations take more than a year to convert; 20% take more than two years. We cannot wait for those structural changes to happen, important and impactful though they might be. We need to ensure that children’s chances are improved as quickly as possible.

On the specific questions about the Ofsted consultation, it is important to emphasise that it is a consultation that builds on the Big Listen, which makes important recommendations; for example, about how the inspection will now focus, as noble Lords have said, on nine areas. This is a consultation, but I support the move from a single headline grade, where the emphasis was literally on a headline, which was of course very low in information for parents making that decision but very high stakes for schools, and very much did not encompass the nuance of where a school might be doing well, where it might be more challenged or where it might have exemplary practice that needed to be shared more widely. There is consultation on these areas, but I think the fact that they will now include absence, attendance and inclusion—to respond to the noble Lord’s point about the significance of ensuring that there are improvements around SEND, I think that partly covers that point—is important.

On the safeguarding point, I will write to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness about the specific questions about the proposals for follow-up visits. The noble Lord rightly mentioned the tragic death of Ruth Perry, and the campaigning work of her sister, Professor Julia Waters, has been important for ensuring that Ofsted thought carefully about the approach that it was taking. One of the issues highlighted there was the impact of the safeguarding measure on the overall headline grade. One of the reasons for the different approach to safeguarding that Ofsted is proposing is to avoid that position, where a failure on safeguarding would have the impact that it had in that particular case, while also recognising that it is important that schools are assessed on the basis of the quality of their safeguarding.

On the point about whether or not the Government should have a duty or a power to academise, we will of course have the opportunity, when the Bill comes from the other place, to look in detail at the intention of Clauses 43 and 44, and I look forward to doing that. I just push back against the noble Baroness’s suggestion that in some way or other there has been a pause in this Government’s commitment to intervening where necessary and to ensuring that all our schools are improved. In the case that both she and her right honourable friend in the other place identified, it is not as clear-cut as she says that there was a revocation of the decision to academise. In fact, that was a quite considerable change of circumstance in that particular case.

Let me respond to the point that the noble Lord made about the pressure on teachers. My experience as a teacher, having been on the receiving end of an Ofsted inspection, notwithstanding that it was some time ago, is that, yes, it is stressful, but no teacher wants to teach in a school that is not doing the best for its pupils, and having an improvement, inspection and accountability regime that ensures that teachers are able to successfully support the children who need it will be good for teachers, good for parents, good for schools—and, most importantly, good for children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very important point about teachers. In fact, probably less than an hour and a half ago, we were engaged in a discussion across the Dispatch Box about the significance of teachers. She is absolutely right. What I would say about these two consultations running side-by-side with respect to teachers really goes back to my final point in my previous response. I think it is valuable for teachers to have not just that headline grade that was previously the case with Ofsted, but the more granular understanding of where there are strengths within the school, where there are areas for improvement, where, as I said, there is exemplary practice that needs to be shared more widely—and, incidentally, how they can get access to that good practice in other areas, to improve their practice and their school.

My noble friend also makes an important point about training. We are as a Government working on how to not just recruit additional teachers but keep them in the classroom and ensure that they are able to improve and gain in competence and skill. That is why, in looking at and reviewing the national professional qualifications, we will want to consider those forms of training and opportunities for continuing professional development that will really focus on the areas that teachers need and that will make the most difference to the pupils they are teaching.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise—twice: once for being late for this debate and once for being a bit keen. Ofsted is a real problem, and there is quite a simple solution. A friend of mine, who is a teacher, told me a story. They were told, “Ofsted is coming tomorrow. The school will be open all night”. That is not a fair reflection of the school or the teachers. If Ofsted goes in twice, the first time is a snap inspection. It sits down with the leadership and talks through where they are going wrong and where they are going right. Nine months or a year later, Ofsted goes back, and that is the inspection that gets published. That takes the pressure off everybody and gives a fair result. Will the Minister reflect those ideas back to the consultation? I think they will listen more to her than to me.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Given the noble Lord’s background as a teacher, I am sure that Ofsted will listen to his response to the consultation, which I hope he will make. While I have some sympathy with the concerns of teachers about the arrival of Ofsted—having experienced it myself, as I have already said—I am not wholly convinced that students can afford to wait nine months between the preparatory conversation and the point at which some judgment is made. Frankly, if things are going wrong, it is important for students and parents that those are identified at the appropriate time, and, if things are going right, it is important that those are shared as widely as possible.

Children and Young People: Literacy

Debate between Lord Hampton and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very important point. Going back to the Little Moments Together campaign that I was talking about earlier, we have provided grant funding for early years voluntary and community sector partners, including the National Literacy Trust, to work with families on that campaign. As I said earlier to the noble Baroness, there are also ways in which we can look at the relationship with other organisations, particularly creative and arts organisations, to help to ensure that the joy of reading is available to all children, whatever their background.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I speak as a teacher and—

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

And the noble Lord will be marking my homework later.

The National Literacy Trust says that one in seven primary schools in the UK does not have a library, and in London it is one in four. It has a ready-made Libraries for Primaries campaign set up with Penguin. Will the Government think about sorting this out now?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As a fellow teacher, although from quite a long time ago, I can say that the noble Lord makes a very good point. It builds on the earlier point about how we can work alongside the National Literacy Trust and others, along with the Government’s reading framework, to make sure that schools know and have the information and best practice available to them to develop libraries if they do not have them, and to make the most of them if they do.

Primary Schools: Swimming Lessons

Debate between Lord Hampton and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very important point about the discrepancies in achievement in children’s swimming. He is absolutely right that if someone comes from a well-off background they are more than 80% likely to have fulfilled the requirement, whereas that goes down to a third for someone from a poorer background. As he also rightly says, there is a real difference depending on someone’s ethnic background. That is completely unsatisfactory.

Although work is ongoing through the Inclusion 2024 project to try to ensure that more children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, get access to swimming, the noble Lord is right that there is more we all need to do together, and across government, to ensure that children meet the required standard by the time they leave primary school. Furthermore, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, identified in her previous question, we need to ensure that they are also able to get the enjoyment and opportunities that come from being able to swim confidently.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a teacher. Swim England reports that, since 2011, almost 500 publicly accessible pools have closed, and that child drowning deaths have doubled in the last four years. Would the Minister agree that it is difficult to swim if you do not have a pool?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I strongly agree with the noble Lord. As he says, there are 500 fewer public-access swimming pools operational in England now than there were in 2010. Alongside that, there has been a 7% increase in the pay-per-swim cost in the last year. Whether in schools, where we need to make sure that teachers are supported with the skills to develop children’s basic swimming skills, or in the provision across our communities more widely, there is more we need to do to support swimming.

Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hampton and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, quite rightly, the noble Baronesses have raised the issue of how we can ensure continuity of provision while transferring functions under the auspices of this Bill.

I reflect that coming back 14 years—probably 16 years —after the last time when I was responsible for doing any government legislation directly, there are some important improvements in the way in which Governments are expected to lay out the impact of their legislation, with the development of impact assessments. Of course, such things also provide grist to the mill for those who look at them and say, “Well, you’ve identified that there is potential concern about delay, and that must mean that the delay is going to happen”. The point of an impact assessment is that it enables, quite rightly, the Government pre-emptively to identify potential risks that could result from the transfer of functions and property from IfATE to the Secretary of State and think about how those risks can be mitigated. We are confident that that they can be, so I hope I can provide noble Lords with some reassurance about that.

I should also like at the outset to repeat assurances that I provided to noble Lords at last week’s session. We will ensure that the practical transition of functions from IfATE to the Secretary of State will be designed so that standards or apprenticeship assessment plans that are in the process of preparation or approval at the point of transition will continue. Similarly, approval decisions for technical qualifications that are part way through the process will also continue. It is our intention that employers and other stakeholders and, as rightly identified by the noble Baronesses opposite, learners perceive no interruption. The transition scheme that is being developed will be designed to ensure the minimum possible disruption for stakeholders.

I note that Amendments 25 and 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to place on the Secretary of State a duty to lay before Parliament a report on the timetable for the creation of, respectively, endpoint assessment and new technical education qualifications. As the noble Baroness said, Amendment 24 seeks to place on the Secretary of State a duty to lay before Parliament, within six months of Royal Assent, a report on mechanisms for employers to apply for the approval of new technical education qualifications and to appeal the removal of approved status for existing technical qualifications.

Skills England will undertake ongoing engagement with employers and other key stakeholders to identify skills needs that are not being met through the existing suite of technical qualifications and apprenticeships. This engagement will help identify where new standards should be produced and where existing standards and/or apprenticeship assessment plans should be updated, ensuring that the system responds quickly. With that in mind, Amendment 25 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would, to some extent, frustrate the Bill in enabling more effective prioritisation of the preparation and updating of apprenticeship assessment plans. We intend for the functions transferred to the Secretary of State to focus on where there is greatest need for a new or updated plan, informed by feedback from employers and other key stakeholders.

We also anticipate that plans in development at the point at which the functions transfer will continue and be finalised by the Secretary of State. Standards approved by the Secretary of State will be published, as is the case in the current system, as the basis for new technical qualifications to be developed. Awarding bodies will then, as now, submit applications for new technical qualifications to be approved in line with standards and reflecting employer demand. IfATE is currently responsible for the approval of technical qualifications; its function is being transferred through this Bill. Responsibility for decisions on the withdrawal of approval from technical qualifications will also transfer through this Bill, which includes a duty to publish information about matters taken into account when deciding whether or not to withdraw approval.

We would argue that Amendment 26 is also unnecessary as it would duplicate existing transparency, which will occur as a matter of course through the Secretary of State’s routine engagement with Parliament and through the establishment of Skills England as an arm’s-length body. As I have outlined previously, Skills England will report on delivery in line with standard practice, including as set out in its framework document and in a manner consistent with other executive agencies.

I turn to Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Placing on the Secretary of State a requirement to report on mechanisms for employers to apply for the approval of new technical education qualifications and to appeal the removal of approved status for existing technical qualifications is unnecessary. It would give employers an additional role in the approval of technical qualifications, which would risk undermining their central focus on highlighting skills needs and, as appropriate, preparing standards that reflect those needs. Where there was clear evidence of continued employer demand, it would be unlikely in practice that approval status would be removed—unless, for example, other significant issues had been identified in relation to the successful delivery of the qualification.

I hope I have provided some assurance that we do not expect a delay due to the transfer of functions in this Bill. We have already put mitigations in place and we will, in relation to the approval of—and the withdrawal of approval of—technical qualifications, continue to follow the current arrangements.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

Before the Minister sits down, can I ask for a bit of clarification here? The Minister has described Skills England as an arm’s-length body a couple of times today. I apologise if everybody else knows this, but can you have an arm’s-length body within a department? I thought that the definition of an arm’s-length body was that you cannot.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, you can. There is a whole range of different types of arm’s-length bodies. Executive agencies are one such type. They are governed by a governance document—the framework document that I have previously described—and by a set of requirements and relationships that I would be happy to spell out for noble Lords.

Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hampton and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Committee stage
Thursday 21st November 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this group. I feel confident in thanking noble Lords, because I am confident that I am on strong ground on this one. I hope nobody proves me wrong.

In preparing to transfer functions from IfATE to the Secretary of State, an assessment of the current operation of the system was undertaken to identify any functions that should be amended rather than simply being transferred in their current form. In that consideration, the proposal for a relatively small change to Clause 6 came forward. Clause 6 amends the requirement to review technical education qualifications and standards, and apprenticeship assessment plans, at regular and published intervals, by removing the requirement to publish information about the intervals at which reviews will be conducted.

The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, argued, rightly, that there is a need for review. The point about this clause is that there is no change to the broader review requirement. The Secretary of State and Skills England will still be required to maintain arrangements to review approved technical education qualifications and standards, and apprenticeship assessment plans, with a view to determining whether they should be revised, be withdrawn or continue to be approved. I wholeheartedly agree with noble Lords who have said that that is an important function, and it is absolutely right that that duty should remain.

Removing the requirement to publish information about the intervals at which reviews will be conducted will allow Skills England to determine when reviews of technical education qualifications and more than 700 high-quality occupational standards and apprenticeship assessment plans should be carried out, based on need rather than a fixed review point, as is currently the case. Originally, IfATE expected to carry out reviews every three years but, with the proliferation of standards, assessment plans and technical education qualifications to review, it has been unable to do so; nor was it able to do this by undertaking reviews on a route-by-route basis. It has since adopted a more risk-based approach. The current approach, which fixes review points, has been too rigid and fails to recognise the differences in starts and achievement rates and rapid changes in skills needs; for example, where occupations evolve quickly.

Clause 6 will ensure that standards, technical education qualifications and apprenticeship assessment plans are kept up to date, coherent and relevant, and are reviewed appropriately. The amendment would remove a statutory obligation and provide the Secretary of State flexibility that is in line with the current risk-based approach taken by IfATE to determine whether a review should be prioritised; in other words, we believe that IfATE has arrived at the right, flexible position, but that would not be reflected without this legislative change. It recognises that flexibility is needed to take a targeted approach to administering the significant volume of reviews based on whether there are specific issues with the performance of the standard and how widely used it is, rather than on meeting an arbitrary timetable.

Without this clause, standards, technical education qualifications and apprenticeship assessment plans would need to be reviewed at published intervals, rather than based on need, preventing resources being deployed effectively to ensure that standards, technical education qualifications and apprenticeship assessment plans are kept relevant and up to date as required.

Amendment 16, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would remove the flexibility that we intend to create, and it would mean that the Secretary of State would be required to arrange for an independent third-party assessment for every new standard and assessment plan. Clause 7 amends the 2009 Act to substitute a requirement for independent third-party examination of all new standards and assessment plans with a discretionary power for the Secretary of State to make arrangements to do so. The default position will remain that the Secretary of State will make arrangements for independent third-party examination of new standards and assessment plans prior to their approval.

The clause will provide an alternative approach in certain circumstances where obtaining third-party examination is duplicative or not necessary. For example, the option not to arrange an independent third-party review might be deployed where employers place unequivocal high value in a professional body’s mandated qualification or key skills and behaviour learning outcomes, and where the occupational standard adopts that very closely, such as the CIPD and HR standards. In these cases, an external review would be nugatory.

In highly regulated occupations, such as the health sector, the regulatory requirements for occupational competence must be reflected in the occupational standard and assessment plan, and deviation from this is simply not possible. Again, the need for third-party review would be redundant.

Without Clause 7, examinations that do not improve standards and assessment plans but take time and resource to deliver would continue to be required. That would continue to place unnecessary burdens on those involved, slow down the process and make it excessively onerous.

For the reasons I have outlined, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, will feel able to withdraw his opposition to Clause 6 standing part of the Bill.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who took part in this short debate. It is always quite exciting to see the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, describe herself as baffled—in my short career here, I have not seen that yet. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and I talked about how there is no third-party examination and there is a conflict of interest. It looks like Skills England is not only marking its own homework but writing its own exams.

I did not join the Minister in her strength of feeling that she had got it absolutely right, because it is all based on need, but, again, who defines need? It is the Secretary of State. We are losing this clarity—this is a trust issue again. But I am sure that some conversations can be had between now and Report, so I withdraw my opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill.

Curriculum and Assessment Review

Debate between Lord Hampton and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Monday 18th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point about the breadth that we need in the teaching that goes on in our schools and in the skills, attributes and knowledge that young people have when they leave school to enter into life and into work, as I said. That is why this Government set up the curriculum and assessment review: to use the evidence being gained from the wider engagement to make recommendations about how we can improve on providing skills in all those areas, and particularly ensure that the curriculum supports students with special educational needs and those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to close some of the gaps in pupils’ learning.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a state secondary schoolteacher. Does the Minister agree that it is ridiculous that our children leave school now with a very good knowledge of the religions and their gods but cannot have a working knowledge of Microsoft Office?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I do not think it is strictly true that large numbers of young people do not have a working knowledge of important areas of digital skills and computing. Of course, increasing numbers of them take GCSEs and A-levels in computing, but the noble Lord makes an important point about it being important to have the necessary skills for life. The curriculum and assessment review will consider that, and this Government will take decisions on it when we receive that review.