Schools: Funding

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, without suggesting that the current funding formula is beyond improvement, the proposed national formula is another example of the Government’s centralist mindset. It is not the latest because, since this was announced, we have also had the White Paper on academisation. However, the national funding formula proposes to remove from head teachers the ability to have any say in the distribution of funding within their local area. Why does the Minister believe that civil servants are better placed, and know more, than head teachers about the funding needs of each area of the country?

[Lord Nash]

The simple fact is that we inherited a funding formula from the Labour Government which was incomprehensible and confusing and which, through centralist diktats, got more and more complicated. We have to simplify it.

Children: Maternal Care

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for initiating the debate. Perhaps he and I are the only two people in the Room who know that our titles are very closely associated—although maybe not in their level. Invergowrie is a village on the outskirts of Dundee, where I spent all but the first 18 months of my life. I have an affinity in that sense, if not with the noble Earl.

I should also say that my mother was a teacher. At that time, when female teachers got married they had to give up the job. That seems incredible these days. I am sure that that has brought a sharp intake of breath from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, but that is what happened. In that sense, what the noble Earl seeks happened in some way for some women because they were forced to give up what they had trained to do. They could take other employment, of course, but they could not follow their chosen vocation. I am obviously not advocating that and it is long in the past, but I certainly appreciate the noble Earl’s motivation in the debate. He introduced it in a manner that underlines his clear commitment to ensuring that every child has the best possible start in life. I hope he will forgive me if I say I will not comment on his fiscal proposals. As far as I am concerned there is quite enough in the education portfolio, so I will leave that to others.

As the parent of a child currently in reception, I can say from experience that I appreciate the benefit of the integrated approach to early learning and care promoted by the early years foundation stage framework. It provides a clear set of common principles and commitments for professionals to deliver quality early education and childcare experiences to all children. Some changes were made to the framework in 2014, which have strengthened standards for the learning, development and care of children from birth to the age of five, producing a uniformity that, in theory at least, offers all children the same opportunities. But, of course, I think we know that life is not like that.

There is no equality of opportunity for newborn babies. That is much to be regretted, because the first two years are crucial in shaping a child’s life chances. When a child is just 22 months old it can already be accurately predicted what her or his educational attainment will be at 22 years of age. The noble Earl said that studies reveal that a child’s emotional security develops in a more assured way through maternal bonding than in day centres or nurseries. I certainly agree that maternal—and, let us not underestimate it, paternal—bonding is essential from the minute the child draws its first breath. However, the extent to which bonding alone can sustain the crucial early development of a child depends to a great extent on the home environment to which the baby is introduced. That is where I part company with the noble Earl, because I am convinced that it is both unrealistic and, in most cases, unfair to expect the mother alone to keep the child at home and provide it with all the support that it needs in its first two years.

We have already heard the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, say that two-thirds of women either want or need to seek employment, but the reason I believe a mother needs support is that it may be her first child, in which case she is on a really steep learning curve, or if it is a subsequent child then, for obvious reasons, the time available to have sole responsibility for that child is limited, so she should seek support from a variety of sources. Not least among those is interaction with her contemporaries as mothers, in formal or informal group settings.

In 2010-11 report after report emphasised the enormous importance of early intervention, including the Tickell review of the early years and two reports by Graham Allen MP. At that time it seemed that a cross-party consensus was emerging to prioritise early intervention, but it seems that that soon evaporated, because the coalition Government began to cut early intervention budgets and poorer families have been suffering ever since. Hardest hit, in that sense, has been the network of Sure Start centres. When Sure Start was established by the Labour Government in 1998 the aim was to provide an accessible children’s centre in every community. Each centre would offer a wide range of high-quality services for families with children under the age of five. Sure Start was immediately popular and a network of some 3,500 centres was quickly established.

What was also established was that Sure Start works. There is comprehensive, independent evidence that it delivers quantifiable outcomes and that it is immensely popular with families. However, since 2010 funding has been cut by some 35% and over one-fifth of all children’s centres have now closed, meaning that Sure Start is approaching a point of no return. Last year the Government promised a consultation on the future of Sure Start. We still await this and I very much hope that the Minister can tell noble Lords today when it is likely to begin.

Sure Start was founded on the basis of extensive academic research. There is a plethora of evidence that demonstrates beyond doubt that Sure Start works. The national evaluation of Sure Start has been analysing the long-term development of 5,000 families who used Sure Start when their children were young. The evaluation has found clear evidence that children attending Sure Start centres are less likely to be overweight and more likely to be immunised; they have better social development and are less likely to offend in later life. Parents attending Sure Start centres provide more stable home environments and are more likely to move into work. It is a win-win situation for parents and children, yet the network is having to be dismantled.

Children’s centres have been found to be immensely popular with parents and evidence shows that they have been successful in reaching the parents who are likely to be the most disadvantaged. Also, the beneficial effects for parents persist at least two years after their last contact with Sure Start; often, social interventions do not have such a sustained impact. These findings have been reinforced by the children’s centre census produced annually by the charity 4Children. Its 2015 census found that, from 600 responses, 90% of parents reported that their children’s centre had a positive impact on their child and 83% reported that it had a positive impact on themselves. Tellingly, 80% reported that life would be harder for their family without their children’s centre.

It has been suggested by Government, or perhaps by some of those speaking on their behalf, that Sure Start is dominated by the sharp-elbowed middle classes. Evidence completely contradicts this. Independent Oxford University research in 2015 found that disadvantaged families use children’s centres for an average five months longer than more affluent families. This is because,

“the open-access, walk-in activities encouraged vulnerable families to take part because they did not feel there was a stigma attached to using the Centres”.

The Government have attempted to conceal some of the cuts that Sure Start has suffered. In 2011 the ring-fence established by the Labour Government was ended. In 2013 Sure Start funding was merged into local authorities’ general funding, and we all know what has since happened to that, most recently in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement and, indeed, in yesterday’s Budget. Last year the charity Barnardo’s called on the Government to act to stop the life being squeezed out of children’s centres as many local authorities face impossible stresses and strains on their budgets.

No doubt the Minister will note that the amount of free childcare for three and four year-olds is to be extended, which is an important step, even if it will perhaps not be quite as extensive as we were first led to believe. He will also refer to the fact that more children aged five are making good progress against the early years foundation stage profile, and that is, of course, to be welcomed. More children are reaching the expected level of development in maths and literacy as well as in the key areas of social and emotional development, physical development and language. That is all to be welcomed, but these are measurements of children at the age of five. The progress made by many of them could be much better and much more likely to be sustained if more of them had an early opportunity to benefit from the support provided in so many forms by children’s centres, whose value is widely appreciated. It is to be regretted that the Government do not appear to share that appreciation.

It surely goes without saying that maternal care is of prime importance to any child, but it must be enhanced by external influences: everything from health visitors to educational psychologists and the benefits of interacting with their contemporaries in a secure, welcoming setting. Children’s centres have a vital role to play in that, and I invite the Minister to acknowledge that.

Schools: Food Nutrition Standards

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

The noble Baroness raises an extremely good point. It is deeply concerning that many children seem to come to school not having eaten properly, which cannot help their concentration in school. We have funded a Magic Breakfast programme which has resulted in nearly 200 new schools in disadvantaged areas offering breakfast clubs. It is focused on areas where free school meals are 35% or more in the schools. The programme has been very successful and we are looking at it further.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, academies established prior to 2010 and those established from June 2014 have clauses in their funding agreements stating that their schools must comply with national food standards, but those academies established in the years in between do not have such clauses. Can the Minister explain that anomaly and inform noble Lords what he intends to do to end it?

[Lord Nash]

The noble Lord is absolutely right: academies opened between September 2010 and July 2014, of which there were 3,900, do not technically have to follow the school food standards. But those standards were introduced only a year ago. Over the last year, 1,400 of the schools have voluntarily signed up to them, and we are encouraging many more to do so. We believe that most academies follow a healthy eating strategy. Indeed, the School Food Plan authors said that some of the best food they found was in academies. We do not think it is necessary to legislate further.

Education and Adoption Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

3: At end insert—
“(c) a guide for parents; and(d) information on other matters to do with the powers and responsibilities of Regional Schools Commissioners as may be appropriate.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

Amendment 3 seeks to add two further requirements to the document on regional schools commissioners mentioned in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Since noble Lords considered the Bill on Report, the House of Commons Education Committee has published a report entitled The role of Regional Schools Commissioners, which was not exactly uncritical of the role of these commissioners and the manner in which they have operated since they came into being in September 2014. Indeed, the report contains a total of 24 recommendations, to which the Minister will, no doubt, respond in detail in due course. I hope his response will not be delayed for long and that he will accept and implement most, if not all, of the very thoughtful suggestions made after hearing evidence from a variety of sources—not least the Minister himself. I dare say he will regard the report as carrying a considerable amount of weight, given that it was produced by a committee which is chaired by a member of his party, which has an inbuilt majority on the committee.

It is striking that there remain so many questions about the precise role of the regional schools commissioners and in whose interests they operate. This means that a guide for parents, as suggested in Amendment 3, is a necessity. Ensuring parents understand who to hold accountable for their child’s experience at school and how to do so is vital, yet the Bill consistently treats parents with disdain. I have given examples before, but if a group of parents wants to break away from a maintained school and establish their own free school, they are welcomed with open arms by the Government and given every assistance, as well as considerable amounts of cash, to enable them to do so. Put simply, they are listened to and treated with respect. However, should another group of parents want their children’s maintained school to keep that status in the face of forced academisation, they are ignored, told the decision is nothing to do with them and that the change will take place no matter what they think. Put simply, they are not listened to and are effectively treated with contempt. So under the Bill, parents are denied the right to have a say when the school attended by their children is forced to become an academy. We have said on various occasions that consultation is appropriate for all parents if they want to take advantage of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord O'Shaughnessy (Con)]

My Lords, as we are dealing with this issue of regional schools commissioners, I thought it might be useful to share with the House a personal story giving our experience at Floreat Education Academies Trust, which I founded, of dealing with the regional schools commissioners and of their role in regulating the system as it stands today. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, chose the example of E-ACT, which has had some problems in recent times, but it is important to note that the regional schools commissioner system has helped to generate the changes that have happened—schools have been taken away from E-ACT. To me, that is an example of a system that is working to crack down on low quality rather than one that is not working.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

Does the noble Lord know whether E-ACT consulted the regional schools commissioner before it decided to scrap the governing bodies for the schools that it operates?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 2, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Hunt. Both concern the responsibilities and powers of regional schools commissioners. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, has proposed that the Secretary of State should be required to publish a document that would describe the powers and responsibilities of RSCs arising from the provisions in the Bill and other Acts of Parliament. Amendment 3 would extend this requirement to specify that the document must include a guide for parents and any other information to do with the powers and responsibilities of RSCs as may be appropriate.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for raising this issue once again, following the exchanges that he had with my noble friend Lady Evans on this matter on Report in this House. Since the last debate, he has also met officials from the Department for Education and he and I have had a number of exchanges on the matter. I hope that he has found these discussions helpful and has been reassured that the Government are committed to meeting the objectives of his amendment.

As my noble friend Lady Evans explained in the previous debate, RSCs are not defined in legislation: they are civil servants, and exercise only the powers and duties of the Secretary of State that he chooses to delegate to them. Accountability for the decisions made by RSCs rests with the Secretary of State, who remains fully accountable to Parliament. It is important to emphasise that the role of RSCs is very different from the role of local authorities. RSCs operate within a clearly defined framework, with the focus on monitoring and tackling educational underperformance in academies and free schools, approving new academies, advising on free school applications and approving changes to open academies, such as expansions or age-range changes.

To support these functions, RSCs also work to develop the sponsor market in their regions. Subject to the passage of the Bill, RSCs will also take on responsibility for formal intervention in underperforming maintained schools. RSCs carry out their functions within a national framework and individual decisions are made in accordance with the relevant legislation, academy funding agreement and/or published criteria.

Information on the work of RSCs is already publicly available. We have already set out the remit of our RSCs and the membership of each head teacher board, published registers of interest and made available the criteria for RSC decision-making. Academy funding agreements are publicly available, as are the criteria for other individual RSC decisions. For example, the criteria that RSCs use to assess schools applying to become academies are set out online in the guidance document, Convert to an Academy: Guide for Schools. Notes of board meetings that detail each decision made are also published on a monthly basis.

In addition, we have recently consulted publicly on revising the statutory Schools Causing Concern guidance that describes the responsibilities and powers delegated to RSCs resulting from the provisions in the Bill, and how they will be used in practice by RSCs to intervene in failing and coasting maintained schools and academies. Alongside this document the Government are also required, under the Academies Act 2010, to provide an annual report to Parliament on the expansion of the academy programme and the performance of academies during the year. This year’s report will include commentary on RSCs.

We recognise, however, that we need to go further. We acknowledge that RSCs are a new concept and that, as more schools become academies and the RSC remit expands, we need to clearly articulate the role, improve understanding of its responsibilities and increase transparency. Noble Lords will be reassured to hear that the new national schools commissioner, Sir David Carter, considers raising awareness, particularly among parents, as one of his top priorities and he made this clear in a Radio 4 interview last month.

As with any new system, we expect the level of awareness to increase over time, but to expedite this I am today making a clear commitment to the House that the Government will publish a full description of the RSC role and a guide to all RSC powers and responsibilities. We will ensure that this more detailed information is in understandable form, includes a succinct summary of the role and has clear links for the public to find more detailed information should they require it. We will make clear that this information is for parents and the sector.

The information will be published on the education pages of the government website, GOV.UK. This is the website where all government policies, publications, statistics and consultations are published. It is already used by parents to find information on matters such as school admissions, school performance and childcare. It is used extensively. In January of this year alone, there were nearly 1.3 million visitors to the education pages of GOV.UK. The website is designed for the public and is intended to be simple, clear and quick to find information. We will make sure that the information is collated and published in good time for the Bill coming into force. Furthermore, I assure noble Lords that we will keep the information up to date and revise it as necessary, following any changes to legislation or to RSCs’ non-statutory responsibilities.

Alongside publishing more detailed information, we recognise that it is equally important to ensure the public know where to find it. Once the new information is published, we will alert parent and governor groups such as the National Governors’ Association and the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations and encourage them to direct their members towards it. We will also publicise the information through the email which the Department for Education issues direct to schools at the start of every term and which sets out important changes. RSCs will also be carrying out a range of activities within their regions to improve awareness, to raise their profile and to ensure the sector understands and is prepared for the new legislation.

As the noble Lord has described, since we last debated this matter the Education Select Committee has published its report on the establishment of RSCs. While the committee welcomed the introduction of RSCs as a pragmatic approach to the expanding workload of academies oversight, the report also made a number of recommendations, including that the Government should reflect on the need to improve understanding of the role of RSCs. I assure noble Lords that the Government take this issue very seriously and will increase and improve the information available to the public on RSCs, with a particular focus on simplifying and improving the information for parents.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, referred to the situation in relation to E-ACT and parents. I can assure him that we regard the involvement of parents in education as crucial. The best way to do this is not necessarily through having two parents on a governing body. An equally good or better way may be to have parent forums. I understand that E-ACT has plans to do this and is meeting with Sir David Carter this week to discuss this further.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I certainly accept what the Minister is saying about parent forums, but why should that be to the exclusion of parent representatives from governing bodies? Can the two not exist equally well together?

[Lord Nash]

They can. They will have parents on their advisory boards and E-ACT is required, as are all multi-academy trusts if they do not have local governing bodies, to have two parents on their multi-academy trust board. So parents will still be intimately involved in decisions.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

Perhaps I may follow that up. That is two parents in a multi-academy chain board. E-ACT has been mentioned by me. As I understand it, it has 23 schools and one academy chain board. Out of all those schools, only two parents would have any kind of representation. They could not possibly be representative in any way of the views of the parents in 21 other schools.

[Lord Nash]

That is why, as I understand it, they will have advisory bodies, which will consist of parents. As I have said, the same point can be made about individual schools. Two parents cannot necessarily be representative of the body of parents, which is why a parents’ association may be a much better way of engaging with parents across a broader church.

I hope that, given the further explanations and reassurances I have been able to give in relation to information about the RSCs, the noble Lord will be assured that we are committed to improving understanding and increasing transparency relating to RSCs and will be content to withdraw his amendment.

Before I sit down, I would like to take this opportunity to put my wider thanks on the record for the careful consideration the Bill has received throughout this House. First, I thank my noble friends on the government Benches, in particular my noble friend Lady Evans, who has provided strong support and kept the Bill on track over the past few months. I also thank my noble friend Lady Perry for her continuing support and advice and my noble friend Lord Harris for his passionate words on Report about the difference that becoming a sponsored academy can make.

I also thank my noble friends Lord O’Shaughnessy and Lord True. I would particularly like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, for ensuring that the best interests of children are always at the forefront of all our considerations. Of course, I must pay tribute to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education who is committed to taking forward essential reforms to achieve real social justice for all children and young people.

I also particularly thank the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Storey, who have provided strong and thorough opposition alongside their colleagues the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Addington, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Pinnock. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris and Lady Hughes, for their contributions. While we may have crossed swords on many things, their challenges have been constructive and it has been clear throughout our debates that across the House we are united in our belief in the life-transforming power of education and in the desire to give every child the best start in life.

There have been very important contributions on this Bill from all sides. On the Cross Benches, I am grateful in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, for bringing his extensive knowledge and experience of our education system to bear on this Bill and to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for his considered comments and amendments on children in care and mental health issues. I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely for supporting the Government’s ambitions with the important role that church schools play in our education system.

I also thank the organisations that have engaged with the Bill and contributed to ensuring that its content will benefit children waiting to be adopted and pupils in our schools. In particular, I wish to thank the individual head teachers and MAT CEOs who freely gave up their time to share with Peers their experience of school improvement at the outset of the Bill entering this House. They have improved our understanding of the very real issues that the Bill seeks to address.

Finally, I would like to put on record my thanks to the officials from the Department for Education, the Bill team, in particular Louise Evans and Kayleigh Walker, the lawyers, including Caroline Chalmers, the policy officials and others who have worked on this Bill and helped to ensure the good progress we have made in this House.

As noble Lords will have heard me say previously, the Bill has one essential principle at its heart: that every child deserves an excellent education and a secure and loving home. This Bill is about social justice and about building a fairer society in which every child has the same opportunities to reach their potential regardless of their background. To ensure that adoption is always pursued when it is in the child’s best interests, we have recently announced increased funding totalling £200 million over the course of this Parliament to further develop regional adoption agencies, fund the interagency fee and extend the adoption support fund.

To achieve a world-class education system, we need a school system that consistently and universally delivers high academic standards. To help deliver that, this House has accepted an important amendment to the Bill to give more consistent and effective powers to regional schools commissioners when academies underperform. The amendments we have made, alongside the original Bill provisions to strengthen our ability to turn around failing and coasting maintained schools, mean that I am confident that the Bill leaves this House with the potential to ensure that many more children and young people will have the opportunity to make the best start and succeed in life. I commend it to the House.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I did not expect the Minister to make those remarks at this stage—I thought he would do it at the Bill do now pass stage. I would like to say a little more about my amendment on the question of regional schools commissioners. The Minister was kind enough to facilitate a meeting with the regional schools commissioner who covers the area in which I live. In a sense, that encapsulated one of the anomalies of regional schools commissioners—the way that they are divided geographically. The Education Select Committee report highlighted the fact that London is covered by three regional schools commissioners. The committee suggested that there should be a ninth commissioner for London, to mirror Ofsted regions, which is a very sensible suggestion. The fact that I live in a region that covers places as diverse as West Ham and Great Yarmouth suggests that there is room for improvement.

There is also room for improvement in the role of parents in education. That must be about the hundredth time I have mentioned it in our many hours of debate. I believe that the Government are plain wrong in trying to say that parents do not have a meaningful contribution to make—and not the token that the Minister recently mentioned of two parents on a board that covers 23 schools. Most parents care passionately about their child’s education. The fact that they have effectively been brushed aside by much of the Bill is unfortunate, to put it mildly. It is also grossly unfair. Many people who want to have that input are now going to be unable to do so. So even a parents’ guide to regional schools commissioners would be a step forward, to at least make sure that people know where to go and who to speak to when they have a complaint, and how to forward it. I regret that it has not been possible to get agreement. Perhaps we should await the Minister’s response to the Education Committee report; I do so with some interest. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 3 (to Amendment 2) withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I beg to move.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, we have now reached the point where this Bill must return to the other place. From these Benches we have to say that it is regrettable that it will take so little in terms of amendments with it. As has been outlined, it has many faults, and despite claims by both Ministers that it is all about rescuing children from underperforming schools, many noble Lords believe that there is rather more to it than that.

I should say that I do not doubt the bona fides of either Minister. The relish with which they have advanced their arguments during the Bill’s time in your Lordships’ House reflects their own backgrounds and motivation. I understand that the noble Baroness has a history in the free schools sector and that the noble Lord has a history in the academies sector, each with some success. If I may draw an analogy, to be handed this Bill is tantamount to a girl and boy being given the keys to the toy shop. It is clear that they are in their element, because it allows them to pursue their personal and particular priorities. But it has to be said that their priorities are not necessarily those of wider society, judging by the briefings we have had from a very wide range of organisations, all of whom I thank, and not to any significant extent those of the education professionals, all of whom also have as their raison d'être providing the best possible education for our children.

We have spent almost 24 hours in debate on this Bill—a full day. I wonder whether we might ask ourselves whether we might have put it to better use—some may say yes—and I am sure that we are now all ready to move on to other things. But before we do so, I want to thank the Bill team. We on these Benches have worked rather hard. On my behalf I pay tribute to my assistant, Molly Critchley, who did the heavy lifting when it came to negotiating over amendments. She did much more besides, and both I and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath are indebted to her for her tireless efforts. This is the first piece of legislation for which I have had Front-Bench responsibility and I have leaned much and often on the experienced shoulders of my colleague Lord Hunt, for which I am most grateful. Having leaned much, I like to think that I have now learned much—but I suppose time will tell.

I think I am correct in asserting that this is also the first Bill as a Front-Bencher for the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park. She has perhaps had a slightly tougher baptism than she might have hoped for, but through it all she has retained an upbeat manner and an ability to assure—or at least attempt to assure—those on these Benches that the Bill was much more benign than we believed.

The noble Lord, Lord Nash, and I have had—what shall I say?—our moments throughout those 24 hours. It seems that neither of us is ever going to convince the other of the veracity of our respective arguments, but at least we have given it our best shot. I have made a discovery about the noble Lord and, in spite of the fact that he has offered precious little in terms of concessions on the Bill, I am about to offer him one of my own. I think he and I have only two things in common. One is clearly membership of your Lordships’ House. The other, I have learned, is that we were born in the same year. I am not about to divulge the year, but we were born just five weeks apart—and that provides me with both good news and bad. The good news is that the Minister was born first. The bad news is that it does not show.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I take the opportunity once again to thank the Minister for being prepared to listen. There have been a number of changes—including changes of interpretation—to the Bill. I said to my colleagues at the beginning, “I am sure that Lord Nash will listen”, and he has done. This is a very small Bill, really. On the adoption side, I think real progress has been made.

On the school side, there are a few issues for me. The first is whether this is not just about the academisation programme and the slow strangulation of maintained schools and local education authorities. Maybe there is a much fairer way of achieving that. I recall the statement from the Chancellor that he wants all schools to become academies, and the same from the Prime Minister.

The second issue is that of parents. I have always believed that one of the hallmarks of a successful education system is that parents are at the heart of it. I think we said in Committee that if the school that your children go to is being closed, that is quite a traumatic occasion; you want to be involved in those discussions and to know the reasons and what is happening. To then be told that you are not even going to have a say on the new school or new academy sponsor is something that I am concerned about.

Another issue follows a couple of Questions that I tabled regarding the governing bodies of schools. Again, it seems bizarre that you can have academy trusts abolishing governing bodies. In maintained schools, of course, you have to have a governing body—quite rightly; parents are an important voice in a school—but in multi-academy trusts you can have one governing body for, say, 50-odd schools. In the Harris Academy chain there are now, I think, 52 schools. One governing body—which could be in another part of the country, for that matter—being the parental voice is really not good enough. It could be said—well-meaningly, I am sure—that parents’ associations are quite important. But many schools do not have parent associations; they tend to be, I have to say, in middle-class areas.

The area of schools commissioners is one that has vexed us for some time. Light needs to be shone on the work and there needs to be transparency, and I am delighted with the comments the Minister has made on that. It is a very important step forward.

Some of us have always believed that driving up standards in our schools is not about waving the proverbial big cane but about professionalism and trusting in the leadership of schools. One of my regrets from the coalition period was that we abolished the leadership academy. That was a great mistake. You need to make sure that the people you put as leaders of your school are of the highest calibre, quality and training. You have to have good leaders.

Secondly, it is all for nought if you do not have quality teachers. It is about ensuring that teachers are respected, highly trained and highly valued. It worries me that 40% of teachers leave in the first five years of their teaching. That is a very worrying trend. I hope that, now that the Bill is out of the way, we can do what the Minister is good at—listen and evolve policies or procedures that work for all our education services.

Education: English Baccalaureate

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for promoting the debate and for the persuasive way in which he introduced it.

Despite the views of most education professionals, the Government are determined to press ahead with their aim of having 90% of GCSE students take the EBacc by 2020. We understand that the driving force in this is the Minister of State for Schools, Mr Gibb, who seems to be in thrall to E.D. Hirsch and his theory of the core knowledge system, which above all is characterised by one word: inflexibility.

Labour is not opposed to the EBacc per se. We recognise its value and it is right that every student should have the opportunity to take all five EBacc subjects if they want to, but we do not believe that it should be compulsory. Forcing it on 90% of GCSE students is sensible for neither them nor the long-term needs of the economy. My noble friend Lady Morris said that this is about priorities. By imposing the full EBacc the Government are claiming that foreign languages, and history or geography, are inherently, and in all circumstances, of more value than non-EBacc subjects. If the Minister can point to the evidence to support that theory, I and many others with an interest in education would be eager to see it. It is certainly important to ensure that disadvantaged children are not left with a second-class education. EBacc subjects have a clear role to play in that. Every talented child should study as many of the core subjects as possible, and every encouragement should be given to them by schools and teachers.

We can all appreciate the essential nature of English, maths and science, but for modern and ancient languages, much less so. On history or geography, I must ask, why? The Minister may be interested to know that someone applying to study geography at Oxford University does not require an A-level in geography.

There are other things that should be an equal part of any student’s education. It can surely be argued that the arts and technology are just as important as modern languages, not least because, as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said, the creative industries are now such an important feature of our economy. We should not be sending a message to schools and young people that creative and technical subjects are not valued. A great deal has been written about the need to close the divide between academic and vocational education, but with the EBacc the Government are unequivocally promoting the superiority of the academic pathway.

There is also likely to be a major teacher-supply problem, not least in modern languages. Time prevents me from going into detail on that crucial issue, but the National Association of Head Teachers’ response to question 4 of the Government’s current consultation set it out with great and persuasive clarity.

Only 39% of students took the EBacc in the past academic year. Yet already there has been a significant effect on other subjects since 2010—most notably, on what I argue is the key subject of design and technology, for which there has been a 29% drop in take-up. The curriculum should not be driven by the needs of the minority who are going to the most selective universities. Every student should have elements of the EBacc subjects in their curriculum. Equally, they should have artistic and practical elements. Many of the essential work-related skills that the CBI says are in short supply may well be better developed in artistic and practical contexts.

Last week in the debate on adult educational skills, the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, stressed the Government’s promotion of the apprenticeship route as a valid alternative to university. The Government now allow FE colleges to recruit 14 to 16 year-olds directly, and are encouraging still more university technical colleges and studio schools, which will almost certainly not offer the EBacc. To say that these initiatives leave the Government’s position a little confused would be an understatement.

The EBacc adopts too narrow a definition of rigorous academic study. The progress 8 measure, as various noble Lords have said, offers a better balance. I urge the Minister to give more thought to the effects of the proposals before it is too late and today’s children pay the price.

Schools: Special Measures

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

Local authorities have been judged by Ofsted as being inadequate to run education. We are talking about two totally different things. We believe that we have set up a very effective system for intervening in schools that is working well.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that by forcing ever more schools to convert to academies, he is in effect making a rod for his own back? If the only role remaining for local authorities is to facilitate those conversions, in the period after that all responsibility for failing schools will fall on the Government, and Ministers will be forced to come to this House and explain to noble Lords why those schools are failing and what they are going to do about it.

[Lord Nash]

I hope that Ministers on this side of the House will never be frightened to come to this House and explain themselves. I conceive local authorities as being responsible for place planning, basic needs, admissions, safeguarding and SEN for the foreseeable future.

Education and Adoption Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

15C: Clause 7, page 6, line 5, leave out “must” and insert “may”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments emphasise the need for consultation before a school becomes an academy. Consultation already exists for schools that themselves decide to become academies, so these amendments seek to establish a level playing field for all schools and retain the requirement for consultation in all cases.

Amendment 15C is straightforward, allowing the Secretary of State discretion in the issuing of an academy order. Amendment 16 would insert a new Clause 7 into the Bill, which would remove the assumption that there is only one form of governance suitable for such schools, by requiring the regional schools commissioner to facilitate a local discussion about what is best for that school and the area that it serves.

Amendment 17 requires parents to be involved in discussions about the future of their children’s school, which is hardly a controversial proposal. However, I am not convinced that the Government appreciate the extent to which schools are deeply rooted in their communities. Parents should be allowed to be as fully engaged in decisions that affect their children’s education as they wish to be or have the time to be—but not just parents. Cutting short the process of academisation and removing any discussion with head teachers, teachers or support staff about either the decision to become an academy or the sponsor that might take over are ill-considered decisions likely to breed mistrust and resentment—and understandably so.

Consultation with those directly involved before a school becomes an academy is an essential part of community engagement and should not be removed. That was agreed by the previous Government after considerable debate in both Houses during the passage of the Academies Act 2010. Members of your Lordships’ House were influential at that time, insisting that consultation was built into the 2010 Act. It would be at best inconsistent if noble Lords did not support the same principle with respect to this Bill.

Section 5 of the Academies Act 2010 allows for consultation to take place before a maintained school is converted into an academy—as it should be. It may take time and it may not result in support for academisation, but that is basic democracy, which sometimes produces unwanted outcomes; on a personal level, 7 May this year springs to mind. Our Amendment 16A provides for the time allowed to be set out in regulations. In any case, inconvenience or even the potential thwarting of political motives is no reason to dispense with democracy, as the Minister is seemingly content to do. The Government say that this is about putting children above adults, a view echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood. I do not accept that. I believe that a lot of political dogma is involved in this, which is being put above the views and concerns of local stakeholders. It seems that no opposition will be tolerated. That is because underpinning the Government’s whole approach is the belief that maintained schools are, by definition, deemed to be failing. If they are not failing at this moment, they are coasting and it is only a matter of time before they too fail. For them, the logic of the Bill—I accept this much—is unchallengeable. Unfortunately for them, the facts get in the way of that one-size-fits-all conclusion. The Bill rests on the assumption that school improvement can be achieved only by turning a school into a sponsored academy, yet the evidence to support this view does not exist.

At the beginning of this month Ofsted published its annual report for 2014-15. The report demonstrated that conversion to academy status certainly does not result in guaranteed improvement, with 99 converter academy schools—23% of converter academies were inspected that year—declining to less than a “good” Ofsted judgment. Ofsted found that of the 277 stand-alone converter academies, 25% had declined from “good” or “outstanding” to “requires improvement” or “inadequate”. In addition, 21% of converter academies in multi-academy trusts had declined to “requires improvement” or “inadequate” from a previous judgment of “good” or “outstanding”. Ofsted also found that 75% of “good” local authority maintained schools remained “good” or improved to “outstanding” at their next inspection, compared to 74% of “good” academies.

I believe that Ministers need to take these figures on board and give them due consideration. Even rose-tinted spectacles cannot disguise the fact that academisation is simply not the silver bullet that they will it to be. If they will not heed Opposition Peers on this matter, surely they must listen to one of their own. I am not referring here to the noble Lord, Lord True, but to someone who I am certain he will know. Roy Perry is a Tory and a politician of some substance. He is leader of Hampshire Council, chair of the Local Government Association’s children and young people board, former Member of the European Parliament and father of a current MP. Responding to the Ofsted report, Councillor Perry said:

“It is extremely worrying that over the last three years only 37% of secondary schools have actually improved their Ofsted rating after becoming academies”.

He also said:

“Councils must be regarded as education improvement partners and be allowed to intervene early and use their vast experience, integrity and desire to improve the system.”

I referred in Committee to the Minister setting out his reasons for ruling out consultation. Recently the Secretary of State herself complained that campaigners could delay or overrule failing schools being improved by what she termed “education experts”, by obstructing the process by which academy sponsors take over running schools. I repeat that: “education experts”. I do not know how one would therefore describe those who manage and run maintained schools if they are not also “education experts”. I believe that it is an insult to them to be told that the only way their school can be improved is by bringing in outsiders who think they know better. As we have seen, very often they do not.

I have to say that the Secretary of State seems to have a bent for inflammatory language recently. I do not know whether noble Lords are aware that she was involved this morning in a rather bizarre activity; blogging on the Daily Telegraph website under the subtitle:

“If the House of Lords blocks the government’s education bill, it will leave millions of children stuck in failing schools, unable to reach their potential”.

That is arrant nonsense. There is no justification on the basis of logic or evidence which can substantiate such a statement. I understand it is party-political rhetoric, although noble Lords may regard it as unbecoming of someone holding the office of Secretary of State for Education. Interestingly, the comments in reply to her blog on the whole disagreed with her, so perhaps her initiative did not pay off. Perhaps that is not surprising given that she stated of your Lordships’ House:

“The Lords face deciding whether to back handing power to our best teachers and school leaders—a treasure chest of experts ready to improve underperforming schools—or leave schools without the vital support they need to get back on track to the level of excellence seen in many schools across the country”.

That language is very unhelpful.

Let us be clear: the Bill is not about school autonomy. Converter academies do get more autonomy, but the Bill is about sponsored academies, where a school is placed in a multi-academy trust and often has considerably less autonomy as a result. The question is why moving a school from the maintained sector to a multi-academy trust necessarily makes a difference or in any way gives heads more freedom.

Amendment 15C seeks to amend Clause 7, which represents an extraordinary departure from the normal processes of governmental decision-making. Under the clause, the Secretary of State is not allowed to make a decision. She seeks to bind herself to make an academy order, and nothing less. Surely there must be some flexibility in the system to allow the Secretary of State to reach a considered view, having looked beneath the assessment and heard what the stakeholders have to say. Of course in some cases there will be no opposition to academisation, and even where there is, having listened, the Secretary of State will arrive at her view, which may well be that academisation should go ahead. The amendment does not prevent her making such a decision; it simply stops it becoming automatic. No two schools are precisely the same, so why should there be the same outcome in all cases? It does not make sense either logically or in educational terms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

I shall speak to the amendments to Clauses 7 and 8, which seek to undermine the core intentions of the Bill. The Bill is focused on delivering a manifesto pledge, which is an essential part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that every child receives an excellent education that sets them up to succeed in modern Britain. That manifesto commitment was that we would ensure that any failing maintained school becomes a sponsored academy, to completely transform that school and its educational performance, as my noble friend Lord Harris has just outlined so eloquently and passionately. I pay tribute to the great work that he does in this area. That is why Clause 7 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to make an academy order in respect of any maintained school that Ofsted has judged to be inadequate. That duty means that there will be no question and no debate about this, which is why Clause 8 removes the requirement to consult on whether such a school should become a sponsored academy. It would be meaningless to consult when our manifesto was absolutely clear that failing maintained schools would become academies. That mandate means there is no question about what will happen, and no decision being made. It does not make sense therefore to consult on whether schools should or should not convert.

Amendment 15C fundamentally undermines our manifesto commitment to turn every failing maintained school into a sponsored academy, and we consider this amendment to be a breach of the Salisbury convention. As I have set out, I cannot accept the reintroduction of a statutory consultation process on whether a school should convert—a question that makes no sense in failing schools, when we have been so clear. The Bill puts children first, not the vested interests of adults who would seek to delay this action. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, for her strong and brave words in that regard. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, referred to a situation that was not a pretty sight some 30 years ago, and I assure her that, sadly, there have been plenty of not a pretty sights much more recently. My noble friend Lord True referred to some, as did my noble friend Lord Harris.

The noble Baroness also talked about the opportunity for representation when a school becomes rebrokered as a sponsor. This is a completely different situation. I attempted to explain to the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, that that is because of how funding agreements work, and we are trying to change funding agreements as little as possible, because no Government want to interfere with contracts entered into willingly between two parties any more than they have to.

The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, cross-referred the situation to the coasting schools situation, whereby a school may be able to improve on its own, and said that it was relevant to thinking again about whether one should make an academy order in relation to an inadequate school. This is a completely different situation. I have been very clear that the default position for a coasting school is not to become an academy, because the school may very well improve, as I am sure many will be able to, on their own or with limited help. But here we are talking about a school that is demonstrably failing and unable to sort itself out on its own. As I say, it is a quite different situation.

However, our position absolutely does not equate to a belief that parents should not have a right to know, or be involved in, changes that affect their child’s school. This is the matter that Amendment 17 is raising. My government Amendment 20 already proposes to require parents to be informed. When a school is required to become a sponsored academy, the sponsor would be under a duty to communicate to parents about their plans for improving the school. This would have to take place before the school converted into a sponsored academy. That amendment therefore already provides robust assurances to parents that they will be kept informed. However, going further and requiring parents to be engaged through formal consultation is just not appropriate. Consultation is overly formal and inflexible. Formal consultations can unintentionally raise the temperature of the debate, rather like when one gets lawyers involved in a divorce settlement, and too often can be used to create delays to the process.

Amendment 16A would prescribe a list of various additional parties who must be included in the consultation exercise. There are already provisions in legislation that will ensure these parties are informed about changes when a school is required to become a sponsored academy. Our proposed Clause 10 is already explicit that the governing body and local authority should work with the named sponsor. The governing body will include representation from parents, staff, the head teacher and the local authority, so those parties will all already be kept informed via that route. The local authority will be further, intimately involved in the detail of the transfer of the school to academy status. The existing TUPE process already ensures that, as a minimum, staff at the school who will be affected by the transfer of the school to the academy trust will always be notified about the transfer by their employer or the academy trust. Where the academy trust proposes any changes that affect the employees, there must be consultation about those. This means that there is already a legal obligation for staff to receive information about the academy trust and be consulted on any proposed changes to terms and conditions, prior to any academy conversion taking place, comparable to what my amendment now proposes to introduce for parents.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked whether regional schools commissioners would write to parents. We do not want to be that prescriptive. In many cases, it may well be best for the governing body to write to parents to invite them to come to a meeting with a sponsor because parents may be much more likely to listen to the governing body. I am very happy to discuss the precise contents of the Schools Causing Concern guidance with the noble Lord in that regard, and to discuss why it may not be appropriate to be too prescriptive.

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely for speaking in favour of my amendment on communication to parents, and I pay tribute to the great work that he does in Ely and across the country in education. Faith schools have an excellent track record on community cohesion. I attended only last week the Church of England’s Living Well Together conference, which brought together students, teachers, faith leaders and others to share ideas about how we live well together and promote peaceful coexistence. I was very impressed by what the Church of England is doing to promote these discussions within schools, and I would very much look to the church’s view on these matters and the appropriateness of our amendment on communicating with parents. I also take this opportunity to reiterate my assurances on how we will ensure the religious character of a faith school will be protected when any intervention is unnecessary, and I shall give more detail on that later on.

I cannot allow a formal consultation exercise to be introduced that requires governing bodies and local authorities to be given a say in whether a school causing concern should become a sponsored academy. We are talking about the same governing body and local authority that, as my noble friend Lord True remarked, has already allowed the school to fail, and not taken the necessary action to halt its decline at an earlier stage. Amendment 16A takes us back to a position that is more inflexible than the current process, and I hope all Peers will accept that that is a retrograde step and a step towards delay and inaction, which would undermine the fundamental principles behind the Bill.

Let us be clear: Amendment 15C would drive a coach and horses through the core purpose of the Bill, which is to turn failing schools into academies. That was a manifesto commitment, and therefore not only would the amendment fundamentally undermine the Bill but we consider that it would be a breach of the Salisbury convention, as I said earlier. Further, we do not consider Amendment 16A to be consequential to Amendment 15C. However, I have already shown that we are prepared to listen to the concerns raised about ensuring that parents are informed about what changes are being made to improve their child’s school, and that is why I have tabled government Amendment 20, to that effect. I hope noble Lords will agree that I have listened and achieved the right balance between responding to Peers’ valid concerns about parents having a right to know what is going on in their child’s school and not undermining the Bill’s core purpose, which is to ensure that there is no scope for delay in transforming every failing school. I hope noble Lords will recognise that the Bill is delivering a manifesto commitment. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate, with many speakers and many opinions—which can only be a healthy thing. I will be as quick as I can in picking up just one or two of the major points. My noble friend Lady Morris made the point that you need to make a very strong case for excluding parents in this situation, and that case has not been made.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that the consultation is not detailed. The amendment does not state exactly what it should include. The terms, including the time allowed, will be for the Secretary of State to set out in regulations. She will be obliged to take into account only the views expressed in that consultation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, made an important point, and I think that I owe her and other noble Lords an apology because I clearly did not make it evident in my remarks when moving the amendment that the alternative to academy status is not to do nothing and just carry on as before. That never was the case, and I very much hope it never would be. I would certainly never advocate it, but there are alternatives. Academy status is not the only alternative. For instance, the local authority has a role, a new head teacher can be brought in—which has been successful on other such occasions—and new governors can be appointed. Another successful school in the locality could take the school under its wing—again, there have been several examples of that having been done successfully, short of academisation. So the idea that it is one or the other is simply not true, and I am not for one moment advocating no action.

I think that parents at an underperforming school would be likely to want change—perhaps even to academy status. Who knows?

[Lord Nash]

The approach to trying to improve schools which the noble Lord has just referred to has been tried for years. Bringing in a supportive school from nearby to get the school better and then move off is not a permanent solution. We have seen this for many years in some of the schools to which that my noble friend Lord Harris referred. It is a temporary solution, a quick fix, and it does not work. Here, we are talking about a permanent solution under a sponsored academy arrangement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

That is the sort of doom and gloom we have come to associate with the Minister. I will write to him with examples of schools which have been successful in the longer term, when I get the opportunity. I was suggesting that parents at underperforming schools are in many cases likely to want changes, but you do not know whether they want changes until you ask them.

As a parent of a child at a maintained school, I would certainly want a say if that school were being forced to become an academy, but whether that was because it received an inadequate Ofsted judgment or because it was deemed to be coasting, I would take some responsibility. If it had been in those categories for two years and I had not known about it and had not banged on the head teacher’s door to say, “What are you doing to do about it?”, I would be responsible as well. So parents have responsibilities—but, equally, they have rights, and these rights should not be denied.

The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, talked about a black and white situation. That is what Amendment 16A seeks to avoid by introducing shades of grey where improvements can be made. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, suggested that the consultation did not need to be a plebiscite. That, too, is implicit in Amendment 16A, and it is not what is being suggested.

I welcome the fact that the schools that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned have been turned round, and I congratulate the trust on its achievements, but he might have mentioned that not all of his academies have enjoyed that success. On consultation, just because some parents in some schools will object is not a reason for no parents to have a say in any school.

[Lord Harris of Peckham]

Perhaps I may say that after two years, in every school we have taken over the lowest grade we have had is “good”. They were failing schools, and I consider that getting “good” in under two years and having 80% of our secondary schools “outstanding” already is a great result. Sir Dan Moynihan and our teachers have done a great job, and I am really proud of them.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

The noble Lord is entitled to be, and I was not denigrating him. I was merely saying that not all schools are of the same standard, which is to be expected.

I will not go into the manifesto issue. I am surprised that the Minister has raised it again. We dealt with it in Committee when I quoted the Conservative manifesto to him. It is very vague—to be kind to it—on this issue, and to mention the Salisbury convention just bewilders me. I return to the point that the noble Lord did not acknowledge that the Secretary of State would still retain the final word if consultation was introduced. I made that point earlier. The Minister does not seem to have grasped it, but I hope he will. He goes on about informing parents, not consulting them. There is such a difference between being informed, which is basically being told what is going to happen, and being consulted, which is being asked what is going to happen. They are well apart.

I am not going to repeat any further arguments. I believe that the right to consultation is a basic democratic right that every parent should expect. If the Secretary of State was forced by the wording of Clause 7 to make an academy order, consultation, even if it were permitted, would be meaningless. For that reason, Amendment 15C is necessary to allow the Secretary of State the necessary flexibility—and for that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

16A: Clause 8, page 6, line 25, at end insert—
“5ZA Consultation about conversion: schools issued with an Academy order
(1) If a school is issued with an Academy order under section 4(A1) or (1)(b), consultation must be held on whether conversion should take place.
(2) The consultation exercise must include—
(a) parents of children attending the school;(b) teachers and staff at the school;(c) governors at the school;(d) the relevant local authority;(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. (3) The terms of such consultation, including the minimum length of time that must be allowed, shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(4) After the close of the consultation, the Secretary of State must take into account the outcome of the consultation when deciding whether conversion is appropriate for the school.”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I beg to test the opinion of the House.

Education and Adoption Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

17A: Clause 10, page 7, line 28, at end insert—
“( ) In facilitating the conversion under subsection (1), the governing body must ensure that parents and staff of the school are fully informed of the steps being taken.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the fourth group of amendments today centres on the Government’s Amendment 20, which introduces the concept of communication with parents. I want to focus first on Amendment 17A,

This provision relates to a situation where the decision has been made on academisation. Not only has that decision been taken without any recourse to the local authority or the governors of the school but its implementation now becomes, at least in part, the responsibility of a local authority and the governing body. How perverse is that? The Government are saying to elected representatives, both councillors and governors, since many governors are elected by their peers: “This school has been deemed to be failing and we’re going to remove it from its current status and make it an academy. We’re not aware whether you want that to happen and frankly, we’re not interested because the regional schools commissioner and the local head teacher board have decided what’s best for you. But wait: we do, after all, have a role for you in this process because you, the local authority and the governing body of the school, are duty-bound not just to avoid impeding the conversion but actually to facilitate it”.

Clause 10 states that the duty of the local authority and the governing body includes,

“a duty to take all reasonable steps to facilitate the making of Academy arrangements with”,

the chosen sponsor. That sounds rather menacing. It is not at all clear what fate might await anyone or any organisation that defied the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister might enlighten us as to what sanctions he intends to bring to bear on those who decline to co-operate.

Our Amendment 17A would at least introduce a smidgen of involvement for one group directly affected by the decision: the parents. We heard in the Minister’s response to group 2 that the Government regard parents as, all too often, impediments to change. It goes without saying that a forced conversion would be likely to cause considerable anger and anguish among parents, who would demand to know the details and all the circumstances. At the very least they have a right to expect that, within the provisions of the Bill, they would be entitled to be fully informed of the steps to be taken. Given the Minister’s movement on the question of information being conveyed to parents, as contained in government Amendment 20, it is surely beyond peradventure that they will find it within themselves to accept Amendment 17A. If they do not, we may well need to test the opinion of the House.

Government Amendment 20 is to be welcomed, as far as it goes. The problem is that it simply does not go far enough. It is a nod in the direction of appreciating the need, at the very least, to let parents know what is to happen and who is going to make it happen, but it is no more than that. In the discussion that I had with the Minister last week, he certainly led me to believe that there would be a government amendment allowing parents to assess the plans of the proposed sponsor. The implication was that if the parents were not enamoured of them, another sponsor would be found. That is a considerable distance from the wording of the Government’s amendment. For that reason, it came to me personally as a disappointment.

As I stated in debate on group 2, there is a world of difference between communication and consultation. Communication involves merely telling people what you intend to do; consultation involves saying to people, in what is surely a much healthier situation: “Here are our plans. What do you think of them? Can they be improved? Do they have the right emphasis? Do you believe that they will result in the school’s performance improving, and quickly?”. But none of that will happen because, as we heard in relation to the amendments in group 2 on consultation, the Government refuse to ask people their opinion for fear of receiving a “No, thanks” in reply. It does not wash to use children as the cloak to cover the determination to keep out any dissenting voices—if I was to be accurate, any voices will be kept out, dissenting or otherwise.

The amendment requires only that, once the regional schools commissioner has identified an academy sponsor to take over a school that is eligible for intervention, the sponsor must communicate to parents information about their plans to improve the school. However, in his letter to Peers, the Minister said that further information about,

“what this should typically look like in practice”,

will be put into the Schools Causing Concern guidance. We await that guidance but there are no requirements in the amendment for the sponsor to put in specific details about what it plans to do, so that offers an escape clause for sponsors which do not wish to be troubled by meeting the parents concerned. It would be appropriate to ask why any sponsors worth their salt would need to be told to communicate with parents in any case, but it seems there must be some of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, if, as the noble Baroness said, she wants this to proceed as quickly as possible and something to be done about a school, I am rather mystified why in Grand Committee and, so far, on Report we have heard a whole series of amendments from the Liberal Democrats to delay and complicate the process. It seems that the words they say or put down on paper, and what they do, do not seem to match—but perhaps I am not understanding something.

Equally, I do not quite understand why, from the Front Bench opposite, we have the idea of a sunset clause saying we will get rid of all this in five years’ time. It is a funny way to go. I thought that in our democracy one was supposed to stand in a general election, put your plan to reverse the academy policy to the public and win the general election—or perhaps, on the basis of what we have been hearing on Report today, form a coalition with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

That is plan B.

[Lord True]

I am glad that the House has been informed of that and am sure that academies up and down the country will note that. But I think that the unelected House should probably leave it to the public to make that decision rather than putting in a sunset clause.

However, I did go with the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on one point. I welcome what my noble friend Lord Nash has done in introducing a clear duty to communicate information and, pari passu, it may be that perhaps there could be some assurance that that duty to communicate would apply in the case suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, where there is a move from one academy provider to another, even if it does not have to go into the Bill. But of course that is not what is in the amendments before us. The noble Lord had an opportunity to propose that amendment but did not.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, also said that any academy worth its salt would want to communicate with parents. However, frankly, any local authority worth its salt—whatever it thinks and whether it is in charge of a failing school or not—should want to facilitate the change. Why would any authority not wish to? But it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to put in this provision which, again, the noble Lord has not tried to take out, although he referred to it. If a local authority is not minded to assist—and I have heard a few not-very-willing voices opposite—it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to put in a reserve power.

My own view is that these amendments fail. The House discussed the issue of extensive consultation earlier and a full House took a decision on that matter. Could we not now just settle on the communication which has been promised to parents, welcome my noble friend Lord Nash’s amendment and proceed?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to government Amendment 20 concerning communication with parents, the opposition amendments on that and Amendment 27A.

Our amendment is all about ensuring that parents are informed about the action being taken to improve a school. I know that what any parent wants for their child is for them to attend a good school and for there to be quick, effective action if there is significant concern about that school. Where a school has failed, it is right that we take the action that we know will have the best possible impact on improving the school’s performance, and that we make sure that this happens as swiftly as possible. We are clear that becoming a sponsored academy will always be the solution for a school judged inadequate by Ofsted.

That does not, of course, mean that parents do not have a right to know what will happen in their child’s school. Once a sponsor has been identified for a failing school, it is already common practice for it to engage with parents about their plans for the school, ensuring that parents know what to expect and that they understand the process of converting from a local authority maintained school to an academy, and to give them the opportunity to share their views about the changes that the sponsor proposes to make.

We have tabled Amendment 20 to ensure that there is greater consistency for parents on this matter. The amendment will provide assurance that when under- performing maintained schools are becoming sponsored academies, parents will always be kept informed.

To support the amendment, we will also make changes to the Schools Causing Concern guidance to reflect the new requirement. We will use that guidance to provide more information about what the communication from sponsors could typically look like in practice; for instance, to suggest that sponsors might want to write to parents when they are first matched to the school to provide more information about them as sponsors—although, as we have heard, it might be appropriate in some cases for the governing body to make the first communication—to explain their ethos, what parents can expect to happen next, and hold meetings with parents to share information and answer questions. We think it more appropriate for this to be set out in guidance rather than in legislation, ensuring that sponsors have flexibility about precisely how they communicate with parents, to allow them to tailor their approach to the specific circumstances of the school.

We will also reflect the new requirement on sponsors in the notification letters that are sent to the school governing body, the head teacher, the local authority and, where appropriate, the trustees of a foundation school, the religious body responsible for the school, where it is one with a religious character, and to the sponsor itself where one has been identified, where a school is being required to become an academy. We will specify as standard in those letters that the sponsor identified by the RSC will communicate to parents information about its plans to improve the school. This will ensure that all parties are aware of the duty on sponsors.

I spoke earlier about the commitments we have made to ensure that parents are kept informed specifically when a school is coasting. As I committed earlier, we will use the Schools Causing Concern guidance and the notification that RSCs will send to the governing bodies of coasting schools to make very clear our expectation that governing bodies must inform parents when the school has been identified as coasting.

In the light of the amendment that I have tabled and the other commitments we have made to ensure that parents will be kept informed when their child’s school is eligible for intervention, I hope noble Lords will be in no doubt that we recognise the importance of ensuring that parents know what is happening in their child’s school, and will therefore support the government amendment.

Noble Lords have tabled Amendments 21, 22 and 23 to alter what I have proposed. Rather than requiring sponsors to communicate to parents about their plans to improve the school, the sponsor would be required to consult parents about their plans. As I have already set out, I cannot accept the reintroduction of a statutory consultation process. That absolutely does not equate, however, to a belief that parents should not have a right to know, or be involved in, changes that affect their child’s school. I believe that the sponsor, who will be responsible for transforming the school, should have the duty to communicate to parents. We know that sponsors already put a lot of effort into explaining the steps that have been taken. Our amendment will ensure that this will apply consistently.

We expect that in many cases, sponsors will want to go considerably further than the minimum requirement and seek views from parents about specific changes they intend to make to the school—for example, if they plan to change the name of the school or the school uniform, they may ask for suggestions, views or designs concerning their proposed options. However, requiring sponsors to engage with parents through formal consultation, which the amendments propose, is not appropriate. As I said, a formal consultation process is inflexible and in too many cases will unnecessarily raise the temperature of the debate. The arrangement that I have proposed is a much more appropriate approach and gives the sponsor flexibility to tailor its communications to parents to best suit the circumstances of that particular school.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked why this does not apply to academies. Amendment 20 addresses the specific concerns raised by noble Lords about the requirement for failing schools to become academies and to share information about the process involved when a local authority maintained school changes its status to an academy. In cases where an academy is moved to a new sponsor, I am happy to reassure the noble Lord that we will consider in our revisions to the Schools Causing Concern guidance how to make it clear that regional schools commissioners will ensure that parents are kept informed.

The noble Lord also asked what would happen if the sponsor fails to communicate with parents. The duty is clear: the sponsor must communicate to parents information about its plans to improve the school before it is converted to academy status. If the sponsor were to fail to comply, we would not enter a funding agreement with that sponsor in respect of that school, and would look for an alternative sponsor. I am very happy to place that on record, and I hope that that reassures the noble Lord.

Amendment 17A proposes a requirement for staff to be kept informed of the changes in a school being required to become a sponsored academy, in addition to parents. While parental engagement is clearly critical, communication with others is already guaranteed through existing legal provisions. Clause 10 is explicit that the governing body and local authority should work with the named sponsor. The governing body will include the head and representation from parents, staff and the local authority, so those parties will also be kept informed via that route. The local authority will be further intimately involved in the detail of the transfer process of the school to academy status.

Amendment 17A proposes that staff at the school should be included in communications from sponsors, but the existing TUPE process means that employees will be notified about the transfer by their employer or the academy trust. Where the academy trust proposes any changes which affect the employees, there must be consultation about them. This means that there is already a legal obligation for staff to receive information about the incoming academy trust and be consulted on any proposed changes to their terms and conditions prior to any academy conversion taking place. This is comparable to what my amendment now proposes to introduce for parents. It is unnecessary for staff to be additionally included in the new requirement, and therefore Amendment 17A is unnecessary.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

Before we leave this amendment, I asked in my opening remarks what would happen if local authorities or governors declined to co-operate. I am not necessarily talking about them being obstructive—just about them saying that they were not going to do anything. What would the Minister anticipate would be the response to that?

[Lord Nash]

I think we have the power to bring forward directions to the local authority and, eventually, I guess that we could go to court. But I shall write to the noble Lord to clarify that point.

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely for his supportive words about our Amendment 20. As I said, the Church of England is very skilled in community cohesion, and I take great comfort from his support for our proposals for communicating with parents. I also take this opportunity to say more about my assurances about how we will ensure that the religious character of a faith school will be protected when any interventions are necessary. The Government are firmly committed to enabling schools with a religious character to protect and sustain their ethos. There are already provisions in the law that ensure that, when a school with a religious character requires intervention, the religious character will be protected. When a faith school becomes an academy, it retains its religious character by virtue of Section 6 of the Academies Act 2010. The academy’s religious character is protected through provisions within the academy’s funding agreement with the Secretary of State and the academy trust’s articles of association.

When a Church of England school joins a non-faith led trust, we intend to insert the following within the trust’s articles of association: a faith object, which requires the trust to ensure that the Church of England character of the church school is maintained; an entrenchment clause that requires written consent of the diocese for changes to articles relating to the maintenance of the church school’s religious character—for example, those relating to the local governing body of the church school and appointment of staff; a requirement that members and trustees are appointed to provide proportionate diocesan representation on the MAT; and a requirement on the MAT to establish an LGB and for the creation of a scheme of delegation relating to the religious character of the school, agreed between the MAT and the diocese. The supplemental funding agreement for the church school will include a clause requiring the establishment of a governing body with the purpose of honouring the characteristics and ethos of the school. The master funding agreement for the MAT will also include a clause to prevent the MAT amending articles relating to the church school’s governing body and the scheme of delegation. A provision within the church supplemental agreement will ensure that the MAT cannot make amendments to the articles as they relate to the governing body of the church school without diocesan consent. This will agree the best academy solutions for any failing church schools, and we are reviewing and updating the non-statutory memoranda that set out the roles of dioceses and RSCs as they relate to the academy programme, to reflect the changes in this Bill and the wider evolving policy landscape. We expect that regional schools commissioners will work closely with dioceses. We will ensure that the RSCs will comply fully with the terms of the memoranda, and we support diocesan directors of education in upholding those terms.

Finally, Amendment 27 proposes that the education provisions of the Bill will be repealed after being in force for five years. The Government are focused on driving up standards of education in this country and giving children the best possible future. The Bill is an essential part of that; it will ensure we have the necessary powers to swiftly tackle underperformance, but it will also ensure that underperformance can be tackled whenever it occurs. It addresses not only schools that are failing right now, but will also ensure that any schools that slip in future will get the support and challenge they need to improve. The Government’s ambition is for every school to become an academy. Until the point when all schools have become academies, it will be necessary to have powers that allow swift and robust intervention in maintained schools that are causing concern, therefore it is right that we have the powers and duties introduced by the Bill for the foreseeable future.

What is in question here is a fundamental undermining of this Government’s commitment to drive up standards of education. It is not in the spirit of this House’s role to make legislation with a built-in expiry date, and I do not consider it necessary in this case. If and when we reach a point where all schools have become academies, we will of course consider what legislation it is necessary for us to repeal at that time. We will, anyway, review and report on the impact that these provisions are having through the academies annual report, which the Academies Act 2010 requires us to produce—or, if in five years’ time this House does not consider the provisions in this Bill necessary, as this amendment specifically anticipates, for whatever reason, this House should have a full and thorough debate on that matter in five years’ time. I do not want to see noble Lords tie our hands on this matter now through this clearly inflammatory amendment. Amendment 27 is not only unnecessary but not in keeping with the long-standing principles of this House, and I urge the noble Lord not to press it.

Following this debate, I hope that the noble Lords will appreciate that we have listened to concerns here and will support our government amendment and the right balance it achieves between decisive and clear action, while ensuring that parents are informed. I therefore hope that the noble Lords will support my amendment ensuring communication to parents and would urge the noble Lords not to press their other amendments.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive response. I would like to say a word or two about some of the other contributions. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, was here when I made my closing speech on the second group of amendments, but I think that I answered most of the points that she raised then. I shall briefly repeat them. The fundamental point is that doing nothing was not an option; it never has been and it has not been suggested. I outlined other possibilities at that time, and that remains our position. Secondly, we have not advocated a ballot, so it is not about having a vote on the matter. Thirdly, the emphasis, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, will be on convincing the parents that what is being proposed is in the best interests of the children. To me, that is always the best way forward, if possible. Finally, Amendment 23 says that the Secretary of State will have the final say by being obliged to “take into account” what has happened. I hope that that answers her points—it is not all or nothing.

I think that I heard the noble Lord, Lord True, correctly when he said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that in this democracy the people decide. That is exactly what we are calling for—but it seems that that does not happen with academisation.

The noble Lord, Lord Nash, said that parents have the right to know of and be involved in the plans. Involvement is a rather elastic concept, and what it means to one set of parents may not be what it means to another. I certainly appreciate the value of Amendment 20, as I said in my opening remarks, and parents will be pleased that they will at least, I imagine, be summoned to a meeting in the school hall, given a presentation and able to ask all sorts of questions, but there is no way for any rethink on the sponsor. That is the fundamental issue from my point of view. There may well be a number of reasons why the sponsor is deemed to be unfit as a result of what they say to the parents, but there is no way of dealing with that. That is a problem.

Education: English Baccalaureate

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I suspect that the Minister did not give us all the information. At A-level, although there has been a welcome increase in the number taking maths and science, what he did not tell the House was that the trend for increased numbers in those subjects significantly predates the introduction of the EBacc in 2010, and the pace of increase since then has actually slowed. Between 2002 and 2009, numbers in maths increased by 58%; since the introduction of the EBacc, they have increased by only a further 13%. In physics, between 2006 and 2010, numbers increased by 18%; since then, by 16%. The Minister also did not reveal that English and modern languages are also EBacc subjects, but take-up has fallen since 2010.

Last year, the director-general of the CBI said that,

“we have no debate at all about the 14-18 curriculum—only a debate about exams … we need curriculum reform, not just exam reform”.

Was not he right?

[Lord Nash]

I am delighted that the noble Lord supports our belief in the importance of those subjects.

Schools: Faith Schools

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

I would be delighted to expand on that as the right reverend Prelate mentions. We intend to insert within the articles of association a faith object, which requires the trust to ensure that the character of the church school is maintained. There will be an entrenchment clause, which requires written consent of the diocese for changes to the articles relating to the maintenance of the church school’s religious character—for instance, those relating to local governing bodies or the church’s power to appoint staff. There is a requirement that members and trustees are appointed to provide proportionate diocese representation on the MAT, and to establish a local governing body, and for the creation of a scheme of delegation relating to the religious character of the school agreed between the MAT and the diocese. This will be protected.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that the Minister will have time to answer this question from me. I am sure that he will be aware of media reports over the weekend concerning Highfield Humanities College in Blackpool, where parents were very concerned about its conversion to an academy by the Tauheedul Education Trust, which already runs 10 Muslim faith academies—yet only 2% of the pupils at Highfield are Muslim. Will the Minister provide an assurance that there will always be full parental and community consultation when an academy changes from not having a religious character to having one—and, indeed, when it changes between faiths?