Early Years Intervention

Lord Ouseley Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ouseley (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for introducing this debate and for the immense work that she has done over many decades for young people and children. It has been inspirational to all of us who have known the noble Baroness and her work for many years. I also thank all those who work with children. Many people across the country do tremendous work for our young people, particularly in their early years. In acknowledging that, it is important to understand the importance of that to the society in which we live.

Listening to this debate, I have been fascinated. I almost think that we are talking about children who are the same and are looking for the same outcomes. Although we have had a wide range of expert, fascinating and very important contributions, the most important contribution that links to what I want to say was made by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, who talked about language and communication in the broadest sense. The spoken word is so important in influencing attitudes and behaviour. I would say that if, as has been said in this debate, the predictor in the early years leads to the outcome in later years, when one thinks of someone like Ched Evans and what he is facing now, I should like to know what his early years were like. Upbringing in the early years may help us to understand how men behave towards women later in life.

I want to talk about what we are educating our children for, what the interventions are about and the society in which we live. When we talk about language and communication, in areas such as London where in parts we have 300 languages being spoken, the spoken word is very important in how we influence very fertile minds. Creating a future in which every child really matters, has a realistic prospect of genuine social mobility and well-being, achieves their full potential, and is equipped for a diverse, fair, less prejudiced and hateful society, is the outcome for which we are looking. That is the context in which we need to consider these interventions.

For me, three strands are interlinked. One is the role of the state and everything that has been spoken about in terms of health, education, housing and the environment, and how we achieve free or affordable childcare and support for the involvement and the work of voluntary organisations working with children and families. Support for families is very important and I offer my congratulations to the Government on the programme that they support for troubled families, led by Louise Casey, and the way in which it brings all those contributors together to help families break through the cycle of deprivation.

My primary points are about how we face up to the dangers of bias and prejudice in the home, in early years settings and in the wider society; how we are preparing our children to flourish in a diverse, fair and prejudice-free society; how we identify the extent of prejudice, bias and discrimination in our society and how it affects attitudes at all ages; and how we understand that early on children are adversely affected and influenced by biased opinions, views and attitudes. We know that the only time any of us is free of bias and prejudice is when we are born. Bias and prejudice comes from our parents, family members, friends, nursery and care settings, the media and wider society. All these things must be addressed as part of early interventions in order that in later life we have adults who can contribute to bringing about a fair and just society from which children will benefit in their early years.

All children matter in this context, not just those from deprived backgrounds. We all carry those biases which lead to discrimination. The early years are the most intensive period of learning. We want to influence attitudes most profoundly in the home and in the early years settings to make sure that our children have a beginning that, as far as possible, is influenced by positive attitudes. The opportunity to learn in settings with children from different backgrounds is the opportunity to learn about each other, with each other and from each other, and about oneself. Bearing in mind that I am now at the five-minute point, I will sit down.

Education Bill

Lord Ouseley Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Ouseley]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 118. To an extent, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has already said when introducing Amendment 120, in which two additional duties for Ofsteds are mentioned. I will try not to go over the arguments in support of that. I am concerned that the Minister indicated that the framework is, among other things, to give a lighter touch to the work of Ofsted. That in itself worries me to the extent that a lighter touch has proved disastrous—perhaps I am wrong, as the Minister is nodding.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I hope I would have said that what we hope to get from boiling it down is a sharper focus, not a lighter touch.

[Lord Ouseley]

That is helpful, and I thank the Minister. I will refer not to a lighter touch, but if in fact the sharper focus is to lighten the burdens of the chief inspector and narrow the focus, however sharply, then the way we are trying to address this worries me. I used “lighter touch” because I heard those words used by the Minister—it may have been in a different context. However, a lighter touch is associated historically with the FSA which, as we saw, led to the disaster which we are all still suffering from.

One of the additions that we seek to make here to provide protection to all pupils in our schools, as associated with the Equality Act 2010, is because a lighter touch has been so light that it has been almost totally ineffective. I worry when I hear about a lighter touch because that Act was predicated on a White Paper that talked about light-touch regulation, which does not work. Light-touch inspection does not work either, although I agree with it being sharply focused. However, in this case we have heard of the variation in the quality of inspection reports over the years. I have experience of seeing some of those reports and how they have either impacted on the way in which people have responded to the needs of children within those schools or avoided saying things that have to be said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. We are in rather strange circumstances. We have agreed to complete this important group of amendments but we need to finish by 4.30. Perhaps we could make our contributions as succinct as possible in order that the noble Baroness and I have a chance to wind up.

[Lord Ouseley]

Thank you very much. I acknowledge what the noble Baroness has said, and I am about to conclude. However, I have not made many interventions in Committee and I intend to speak as fully as I can while being as brief as I think is reasonable.

The protected characteristics under the Education Act 2000 provide us with a basis to enable some of the other amendments in this area to address this issue. The amendments will need to remain as explicit as they are here if we are to do justice to what we want to see achieved, through inspection reports, in addressing the range of educational needs across all different groups of children. It is particularly important that we include those characteristics and enable, as part of any follow up, the guidance that the chief inspector should have.

When we consider groups on the basis of race, it is easy enough for a report to be blunt in the way in which it states that it has dealt with the issue of race and ethnicity. However, if you look across the whole range, groups such as Traveller and Gypsy children are very often excluded when inspections are taking place and the report does not relate explicitly and specifically to those groups which are underachieving, and the quality of education that is being inspected in the school tends not to address those particular needs.

Bearing in mind the time factor, I conclude by asking the Minister to explain why, when looking at the range of needs, the sharp focus is restricted to only two categories. Why is not this comprehensive amendment—which enables a broadening of the categories while maintaining a sharp focus—an appropriate way forward?

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, and I hope that she brings her amendment back on Report.

As we discussed on the previous group of amendments, the research I have been doing for the Localism Bill about how neighbourhood planning works within cities, and mostly within London, has drawn the comment from a number of the people involved that one of the principal problems they face is the actions of faith schools, in this case the very small ones—I am certainly not referring to the favourite cause of the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy—both Christian and other denominations, which seem intent on focusing communities around themselves rather than reaching out more widely. That certainly relates to the point about community cohesion which the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, raised and which was the subject of long debates in 2006.

On the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Boswell of Aynho, I merely say that it is a well known problem that secondary schools take the prospectuses of FE colleges and others, lock them in the head’s cupboard and say that that is their duty to their pupils. This needs to be looked at, at least occasionally.

Education Bill

Lord Ouseley Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Ouseley]

My Lords, my name is associated with Amendment 41, which adds a provision to,

“direct that the pupil be reinstated”.

Much has already been said and I shall try to not repeat it and to be brief. My real concern is that we are talking about relatively small numbers of children with regard to reinstatement. There surely cannot be an argument that it adds to the bureaucracy. The Government clearly want to reduce the burdens on schools and heads. I cannot see the logic of why we are removing opportunities for appeal and reinstatement. That is why I support Amendment 41 and all that I have heard.

This is what concerns me most. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said about the processes for ensuring that we look after the needs of each child—educational, social, cultural and emotional—as part of a process of trying to avoid getting to the point of exclusion. That is an indication of what schools do, and they did it so successfully in the case of the school of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that there was no exclusion. There are other schools like that and we are not talking about a problem that will wreck the school system if reinstatement occurs, especially as it occurs so infrequently.

What I am worried about is the labelling of groups of young people who are to be excluded. An important part of the process is the management of moves from one school to another and involves all the groups to which we have referred in this debate—those with special educational needs and poor backgrounds, black and ethnic-minority children, looked-after children and those who are in receipt of free school meals. They are the most vulnerable children. In the process that leads to exclusion, even if appeal is reached, it is those who have the power and who have already labelled these young people who still call the shots. Even when reinstatement takes place, we have already accepted that it is not necessarily in the best interests of that child to go back to the school from which he or she has been excluded. However, the inclusion of a natural justice element that demonstrates that fairness has occurred and that exclusion is not justified is an important part of our natural justice process, and we should ensure that we retain it.

It is important to get answers to some of the questions that have been asked. We need the information that would justify preventing the possibility of reinstatement. No basis for that argument has been put forward, and perhaps the Minister can provide the evidence that would justify the Government’s proposal and improve the processes.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, having listened to the arguments I have a great deal of sympathy with all these amendments. As noble Lords have already heard, the National Governors’ Association is broadly sympathetic. It has been stressed that we are talking about thoroughly disadvantaged children, the majority from the SEND group. The fact that it is a relatively small number has been drawn to our attention. I put my name to Amendment 43; I did not speak to it because the noble Lord, Lord Storey, had played out exactly what it said when we discussed it last week. That spells out all the areas that need to be gone through, particularly that the child concerned is able to understand the information that they are given. Combining that with the fact that there is a pilot scheme around the country, if it is ultimately decided via the process in the Bill that that is not the best place for the child, the cost of placing them in another school must be borne by the school itself. That is possibly how to meet that objective. We are talking about a small number of children who are pretty much all disadvantaged anyhow. It should be for the school with the right training and up-skilling of teachers to get it right in most cases, but that will not be appropriate in every case. Let us look at this alternative, and see whether there is an answer there.

Education Bill

Lord Ouseley Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

In that case, we would expect the panel to ask for such an assessment if it has been made.

We then turn to the amendments that require an automatic trigger to initiate an assessment when a child has been given a certain number of fixed-period exclusions. Whereas I hope that I have set out our thinking on the importance of good early assessment, we are reluctant to set in legislation such an automatic link, tying assessment to a set number of fixed-period exclusions. The approach that we have set out in the Green Paper can achieve the same objective, and multiagency assessments should take account of all special educational needs, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which was the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who is no longer in his place. I will follow up with him his specific points.

We then considered amendments that require certain conditions regarding special educational needs to be met before a pupil could be permanently excluded. For example, the governing body would have to consider a report from the special educational needs co-ordinator, the SENCO, before excluding a child; or a school could not exclude a child with special educational needs without showing that it had made attempts to address those needs.

Governing bodies must take account of relevant information pertaining to the child when considering exclusion. They already have a duty to secure as far as they can that special educational provision is made for those pupils with special education needs, and I will be happy to ensure that future versions of guidance make it explicit that they should take account of information relating to the child’s special educational needs, if any, in this situation. That is currently implicit in the guidance, but in view of the proportion of excluded pupils who have special educational needs, I accept that we should make a more explicit reference in future guidance.

I would hesitate to be so prescriptive as to say that there must be a report from the school’s special educational needs co-ordinator. In many cases, I agree that the SENCO may well be the appropriate source of information, but I would rather limit guidance to the principle that the governing body should take account of information that relates to the child’s special educational needs but allow it some flexibility on the question of from whom that advice should come.

With regard to whether a school should be able to exclude a pupil without demonstrating the attempts that it had made to meet his or her needs, I hope that what I have said will have demonstrated to noble Lords that we are committed to ensuring that children’s needs are assessed early. We would wish governing bodies to consider what their school had done to assist the child, and that should be a factor in their decision.

However, to say that a school could never exclude a child if it had done too little to meet his or her needs would be a step too far. To take an extreme case, if a child whose needs had not been suitably addressed was guilty of a serious assault on another child or a member of staff, exclusion may well be the most appropriate action for the sake of other pupils and staff. We would then want action taken to address that child’s needs so that they could better participate in education, but that would be after the exclusion rather than instead of it.

In terms of the part played by the special educational needs expert in the review panel process, noble Lords will know that we made a commitment in the other place to include provision in the regulations to give parents the right to ask for a special educational needs expert to attend the panel. It will be for the parents to determine whether they believe the SEN expert is required, irrespective of whether the school or local authority has identified any special needs. Given that, I am not convinced that there is a pressing need to include a reference to this in the Bill.

We will ensure that parents are made aware of their right to ask for the presence of such an expert. After the passage of the Bill, we will consult on regulations and guidance, and I have asked officials to consult local authorities, schools, parents’ representatives and others on how we can best ensure that parents are made aware of their rights.

I move on to Amendment 43, spoken to by my noble friend Lady Walmsley. The principle that the pupil’s views should be heard during the exclusions process is very much one that I support. More generally, the Government are committed to ensuring that children and young people’s views are listened to and respected. I can confirm that we will work with children’s organisations to revise the current statutory guidance to set out clearly the legal obligations that apply to schools in relation to consultation with pupils.

Through guidance, we have encouraged the involvement, where appropriate, of pupils at all stages of the exclusions process—subject to their age and understanding. This begins at the start of the process. The guidance says that before excluding a pupil, the head teacher should inform him of the reasons for the intended exclusion, the length of the exclusion, if for a fixed period, and give the pupil a chance to have his say.

The section of the guidance that covers appeal panels states that pupils under 18 should be encouraged to attend hearings and speak on their own behalf if they wish to do so, subject to them being able to understand the process. We will need to revise the guidance in the light of the changes to panels proposed in this Bill. I can reassure noble Lords that we will keep similar messages in the revised guidance. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that this guidance does not merely pay lip service to young people’s participation but actively encourages it. This guidance was prepared under the previous Government, but that principle is one that we support.

It is important that a pupil should have the right to his or her say in this way, and we want schools and review panels to listen to them. However, that is rather different from making more formal representations, and we believe that parents should have that more formal role. However, we do not want to rule out further changes in future. We have taken note of the views of those who want to extend children’s rights in this area, and we are willing to consider how such arrangements could work. Noble Lords may have seen in the SEN and disability Green Paper that we are planning to run pilots where children will have a right of appeal to the first-tier tribunal for all tribunal hearings. I ought to make clear the distinction between the trials of the new approach to exclusions and these pilots, which focus not on exclusions but on how young people could appeal directly to the first-tier tribunal on all the issues for which the tribunal is responsible.

The pilots will test in a couple of areas of the country whether this approach can work. They cannot begin until we have modified primary legislation, which would not be until 2012 to 2013 at the earliest. But we will use those trials, assuming that we get the legislative go-ahead, to inform our future policies in these areas.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, mentioned an important point about Ofsted. I support the principle behind this amendment that a review panel should be ready to highlight concerns and bring them to the attention of Ofsted or other relevant bodies, but I would not go as far as directing Ofsted to inspect the school. But a review panel would be able to write to Ofsted, or to the Secretary of State, expressing its concerns, and suggesting that an inspection might be useful. I believe that an independent appeal panel could do that now, although I do not know if it has ever happened. I think it would be useful for us to refer to that possibility in guidance so that review panels consider the option of making a reference to Ofsted. I am therefore grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for raising the issue.

Before I finish I would like briefly to speak to government Amendment 60, which is in my name. It replaces the wording of “exclusion appeal panel” with “exclusion review panel” in Section 31A of the Local Government Act 1974. This is a consequential amendment and should have been included in Schedule 1, but was overlooked when the Bill was drafted, for which I apologise.

We have had a broad set of amendments and debate. I hope that I have been able to provide some reassurance generally about our approach and some specific further reassurance, as well as some more information. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Ouseley]

I make a small intervention on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Howells. The Minister has not responded to the point that she made on the issue of race and ethnicity. If the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, was here now he might be able to confirm the issue to which he referred—the high percentage of 72 per cent of SENs in prison. There is also clear disproportionality associated with that, within the context of colour discrimination, as it affects black young boys in exclusions and in custody, black young boys experiencing stop and search, as well as black young boys’ DNA being on data registers. Those are all contributory factors that lead back into issues of behaviour in schools, which we have to address.

We cannot have a debate and a consideration of these provisions and the subsequent ones without recognising the issue of colour discrimination. It would be helpful if the Minister could say before he concludes what efforts he will make to have discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, and others, about the arrangements to put together guidance and the provisions dealing with assessments before exclusion, which would be helpful to reduce the disproportionality that exists.