Technical and Further Education Bill

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Money resolution: House of Commons & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 14th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

I start by associating myself with the well-wishes for the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles).

The Opposition do not intend to oppose the Bill’s Second Reading, but many questions remain for the Government to answer during its passage. We accept that the provisions on insolvency are necessary, but their necessity is a sad reflection on the circumstances facing providers under this Government. Further education helps 4 million people a year, playing a vital role in giving our young people the skills they need and supporting older learners into retraining and learning new skills. Since 2010, however, the sector has suffered a real-terms budget cut of 14%. I am sure that the Secretary of State will have seen the National Audit Office report on “Overseeing financial sustainability in the further education sector” and will know that 110 colleges had recorded an operating deficit by 2013-14—more than double the number that had done so in 2010, when her party took office—and that the number of colleges judged by the Skills Funding Agency to have inadequate financial health has more than doubled. However, in the face of that financial crisis, the Government’s solution is not the investment that the sector needs, but is simply a way to sweeten the bitter pill of insolvency.

I needed a second chance at education, and many of my Opposition colleagues have experienced the transformative effect that technical and further education can have on young people’s lives and on learners at all stages in their lives. That is why the Opposition see the Bill as a missed opportunity. Britain needs a highly skilled, highly trained workforce to succeed in the economy of the future, particularly following Brexit and given the productivity gap that we face.

[Rob Marris]

Does my hon. Friend share my bemusement at the Secretary of State standing before the House this afternoon extolling the transformational—that was the adjective she used—changes brought about by her Government and the previous coalition Government and extolling the high-quality work that has been done? Does my hon. Friend share my bemusement that, despite apparently hordes more skilled workers as a result of the changes introduced by this Government and the previous Government, this country’s productivity is still absolutely rubbish? If technical and further education were so fantastically transformed, productivity would have improved a whole lot, but it has not.

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree that this Government have done nothing to provide technical skills. Colleges have faced dramatic budget cuts. It is audacious for Ministers to stand at the Dispatch Box and say what they have done when they have failed. In fact, the Government included the word “technical” in the Bill only as an add-on—it was not there in the first place.

I would be the first to say that an excellent academic education must be provided to all pupils from all backgrounds, but given that many will not go to university, other educational routes remain vital. That is why it is so important that further education is put on a sustainable financial footing. It is not too late for the Government to do that and to bring forward the changes that the sector needs. Next week, the Chancellor will stand at the Dispatch Box and deliver his first autumn statement. The Government could take that opportunity to ensure that the hundreds of millions of pounds that has been cut from the further education sector since 2010 are reinvested in colleges across Britain, in our future and in our best and most valuable asset: the people.

The Secretary of State could get the Chancellor to bring back the education maintenance allowance, which helped hundreds of thousands of young people from low and middle-income backgrounds to stay in education. The Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed that the EMA represented value for money for the taxpayer, boosted the rates of young people staying in education and improved attainment. I fear, however, that we will be left disappointed once again. After all, this Government have struggled to match warm words with policy when it comes to education.

[James Berry]

The hon. Lady is listing a litany of failures, but would she like to take this opportunity to welcome the massive boost in apprenticeships, which I am sure many of her constituents, like mine, have enjoyed?

[Angela Rayner]

I will come on to that, because although I welcome some of the Government’s proposals on the Institute for Apprenticeships, some of the substance is lacking—let’s be honest, it is not in the Bill. The Government have struggled to match their warm words, and were planning to push ahead with cuts to apprenticeship funding that would have been devastating to those in disadvantaged areas. It was only the concentrated opposition in this House, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), along with many other Labour Members, that forced the Government to do a U-turn.

[James Berry]

rose—

[Angela Rayner]

I will make progress and let the hon. Gentleman in again later.

Even then, the Government did not announce new investment, nor did they abandon the cuts. Instead, cuts of 40% have become cuts of 20%, and cuts of 50% have become cuts of 30%. So although we welcome the Institute for Apprenticeships, now to be renamed the “Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education”, we are concerned that changing the name is the extent of the progress made in the Bill. For example, there is no role for apprentices or learners on the institute’s board. First, the Government gave us an office for students with no students, and now we get an Institute for Apprenticeships with no apprentices. There is no inclusion of further education providers, colleges, universities, the relevant trade unions or local authorities either, and I cannot help but wonder whether anyone in the sector will actually be allowed on the board. Despite that, we have long welcomed the institute in principle, as the body to implement a plan to improve both the quality of apprenticeships, and access to and participation in them. We will now have the institute, but where is the plan? Why is there so little mention of the institute’s need for a strategy to promote participation among care leavers, learners from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, and learners with disabilities? Why have the Government not used the Bill as an opportunity to enshrine in law the recommendations of the Maynard review on apprenticeship accessibility? We simply know too little of the Government’s plans for what the institute will do, and how it will help providers and students in the years to come.

However, that is not really a surprise. After all, the Government do not seem to know what the capacity of the institute will be. In a recent written answer, the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills said:

“We are currently developing the detailed structure of the Institute for Apprenticeships, and therefore we are not yet able to set out initial staff numbers”.

So the Secretary of State and the Minister can come to this House with a Bill to set up this institute, but they cannot tell us how it will be structured, staffed or operated. We can only hope that the institute will fare better than every other body this Government have set up to help them deliver their policies in further education.

[Tristram Hunt]

Is my hon. Friend also aware that the Minister for School Standards, having said at the Dispatch Box that the royal college of teaching was up and running and had full Government support, has said in answer to my parliamentary questions that there have been no meetings with the Secretary of State, no meetings with Ministers of State, and no effective funding? The royal college of teaching is something we should all support in this House, and I would hope those on the Treasury Bench were behind it. [Interruption.] That is what the parliamentary answers said.

[Angela Rayner]

I will be interested to see what the Secretary of State has to say about that. I find it absolutely shocking—

[Rob Marris]

Shocking.

[Angela Rayner]

Absolutely shocking. We have seen the Skills Funding Agency lose nearly half of its staff since 2011, and we have seen continued and accelerating decline in the staffing of the National Apprenticeship Service and the UK Commission for Employment and Skills. Of course, all those bodies were threatened with further cuts under the “BIS 2020” project, which was overseen by McKinsey for the former Secretary of State. We found out about the details of that not from any ministerial statement, but through internal documents leaked to my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) in April. Perhaps the Secretary of State can take the opportunity today to clarify that that process is no longer ongoing, and what her plans are for the staffing of bodies transferred from the former Department.

Given that businesses will contribute to the apprenticeships programme through the levy, it would help if the Minister reassured them that they will not be short-changed or end up just paying in to cover for cuts rather than for a genuinely new and improved level of service. As welcome as the institute is, there is concern that it will not deliver if it is not resourced for the job. With all the challenges facing the further education sector today, with the hundreds of millions of pounds of funding lost, and with the sky-rocketing number of providers facing deficits or requiring direct intervention of the Government, now is the time for radical action to ensure that our further education sector is able to continue on a sustainable footing in years to come.

[James Berry]

The hon. Lady could at least welcome the apprenticeship levy, which her party considered so radical that it would not even include it on its platform for the last election.

[Angela Rayner]

It is always a pleasure to take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman. I will come on to that point.

I have no doubt that the Secretary of State read the same National Audit Office report that I did on the growing financial crisis in further education. It was that report that recommended the creation of an insolvency regime. That recommendation is in the Bill, but it would be alarming if that were the only response on offer. The Secretary of State seems to be aware that dozens of providers are reaching crisis point, but instead of deciding that something needs to be done about it, she seems to think that we should be helping that process along. While Labour Members call for investment, Government Members offer insolvency.

This Bill offered the Government an opportunity to improve the situation faced by providers and students. Instead, they seem content with managed decline. We should make no mistake that the decline of a sector that helps more than 4 million people every year will fail not only them, but the needs of our economy and society as a whole. For that reason, I urge the Secretary of State to look again at the opportunities that may have been missed in this Bill. We will not oppose the Bill tonight, but we will most certainly seek to improve it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I assure my hon. Friend that I am very conscious of the particular challenges that rural schools face. In fact, in the original first stage of consultation, the issues of sparsity and funding, and of looking at the percentages of children in schools, were on the table because they do matter. I am well aware of the issue, and we will try to do our best in the second stage of the consultation to ensure that the sorts of challenges that schools face and need funding for are met.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

Given the cuts that have already been outlined by Members, can the Secretary of State tell the House whether she has secured new funds from the Treasury to meet the spending commitments outlined in the Green Paper?

[Justine Greening]

The Green Paper outlined additional funding from the Treasury in relation to setting up new grammars. The hon. Lady will be aware that, at the same time as steadily bearing down on the huge deficit that the previous Labour Government left us, we have managed to protect the real-terms core funding for schools, but that is no thanks to the legacy of financial disaster that was handed over to us.

[Angela Rayner]

I believe the word that the Secretary of State was looking for was “no”. Perhaps she can tell us how much has been spent on trying to find any facts to support the Government’s policy of segregated schools. Spending public money on policy without any evidential basis is simply wasting it. When she last came to the House, she could not cite a single piece of evidence that the policy would improve social mobility. Has she found any since?

[Justine Greening]

A lot of what the hon. Lady says is incorrect. She will be well aware that a report by the Sutton Trust clearly set out the improved attainment of free school meal children, in particular in grammar schools. It is totally untenable for her to set out her concerns about grammar schools while resolutely being opposed to any kind of consultation document that looks at how we should reform them. We want to look at how we can reform grammar schools. The education system has changed beyond all recognition over recent years, and it is right that we now look at what role grammars can play in a 21st century education system.

Schools that work for Everyone

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

If I may, I would like to start by offering some advice to the Government:

“Stop your silly class war.”

[Interruption.] That reaction is very interesting, because it was not my advice but that of the last Prime Minister—who is still currently, I believe, the right hon. Member Witney—when asked about Tory MPs wanting to return to grammar schools. He went on to say:

“I think it is delusional to think that a policy of expanding a number of grammar schools is either a good idea, a sellable idea or even the right idea”.

He was the future once, but the current Prime Minister wants to hark back to the past. Where once, under Labour, we had “Education, education, education”, this Government’s mantra is “Segregation, segregation, segregation” .

Perhaps the Secretary of State can start by telling us when the Prime Minister told her what her education policy was going to be. When the Secretary of State came to this House last Thursday, she told us that there was nothing to announce. She said:

“we have not yet actually made any policy announcements; they will be made in due course.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 470.]

She assured us that she was looking into “a range of options”. Yet, lo and behold, just 24 hours later the Prime Minister unveiled their policy in full. Apparently it did not take that long to look at those options. This is not a surprise. The Prime Minister’s plan seems to be that we need grammars, secondary moderns and technical schools. This is a line taken directly from the Conservatives’ 1955 manifesto—hardly an education policy for the 21st century. Was the Secretary of State unaware of the Prime Minister’s speech or did she forget to tell the House—or perhaps the dog ate that bit of her answer?

Today’s statement is another sorry excuse, so I have some serious questions that the Secretary of State has yet to answer. Will she confirm that the new Prime Minister has absolutely no mandate for this policy? Not only was no such pledge in their manifesto, but the former Prime Minister, as Leader of the Opposition, promised precisely not to bring in new grammar schools. He said: “It is not something we would do if elected.” We will hold the Government to account, and the country will hold the Government to that promise.

When the Prime Minister’s predecessor was asked whether he would cave in to his Back Benchers over grammar schools, he said:

“I lead. I don’t follow my party; I lead them.”

He was able to do that for more than six years, but his successor has hardly managed six weeks.

It is not just the former Prime Minister who opposes the plans; the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) has said of the creation of new grammar schools:

“I believe that an increase in pupil segregation on the basis of academic selection would be…a distraction”

from the serious efforts to narrow the attainment gap.

The Conservative Chair of the Education Committee said last night:

“We have serious issues about social mobility…and I don’t think that having more grammar schools is going to help them.”

He went on to say:

“I think that the creaming off of the best is actually detrimental to the interests of the most.”

Will the Secretary of State now apologise for dismissing all opponents of her plans by placing dogma over pupils and opportunity? All the major research shows that where there are grammar schools today, access to them is limited to the most well-off. It also shows that educational attainment in grammar areas for those who fail to get into grammar schools is below the national average. Given the overwhelming academic evidence that grammars fail to improve the standards of the majority of children, what research is the Secretary of State basing her decision on, and will she lay it before this House?

Will the Secretary of State explain just how this policy is going to work? She seems to be saying not only that every new school can be a grammar, but that every existing school can convert to a grammar as well. I may be a comprehensive girl, but even I can see the flaw in thinking that it is possible to let every school in the country select through an exam. Will the Secretary of State tell us just how she will decide which schools will be allowed to segregate pupils and which will not?

We are told that the new grammars may be free schools, but free schools are not free to the taxpayer. How much of the schools budget will be put aside for these new grammar schools? Has the Secretary of State received any extra funding from the Treasury, or will it have to be taken from existing schools, which are already facing the first real-terms cut in decades?

Page 25 of the Government’s consultation document says that for schools to become grammars, one requirement that they may have to meet is to establish a new, non-selective secondary school, with capital and revenue costs paid by the Government. Perhaps the Secretary of State can reassure the House that that will be paid for by new funding arrangements that she has reached with the Treasury, rather than being squeezed out of school budgets that are facing a real-terms cut.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the shadow Secretary of State is bringing her remarks to a close. I have been generous, but she is a little over her time and I think she has either finished or is approaching her last sentence—a pithy one.

[Angela Rayner]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister promised on the steps of No. 10 to govern for the many and not the privileged few, and to be led by the evidence when making decisions, yet now we have a policy that is aimed at not just serving the privileged few, but entrenching that advantage over the rest of society. This is a disgraceful attack on opportunity and inclusion, and we will oppose it. I appeal to every single Member in this House to oppose it, too.

[Justine Greening]

I reiterate that this is the beginning of a consultation that sets out a debate that we need to have in our education system if we are going to make sure that we deliver on our manifesto commitment, which is to have an excellent school place available for every single child in our country. We set out very clearly that that would include more places at grammar schools.

The hon. Lady had nothing to say about how we can make independent schools play a stronger role in raising standards or how universities can play a stronger role in raising attainment. In spite of all the challenges and issues that she raises from a Labour perspective, it is worth pointing out that the leader of the Labour party, as I understand it, wants to scrap existing grammars. Is that correct? I cannot see a flicker of recognition of that policy from the Leader of the Opposition; perhaps he has been distracted over recent weeks.

In spite of all the challenges and issues that the Labour party raises over grammars, and in spite of the fact that the party was in power for 13 years, it took no steps when in government to ensure that grammars played a stronger role in raising attainment in their broader communities. What did we actually see under Labour in government? It was not education, education, education; it was grade inflation; children leaving school without even the most basic skills of reading, writing and adding up; a university system that had a cap on student numbers and aspiration; and youth unemployment that went up by the best part of 50%. We need no lectures from the Labour party on how to deliver opportunity for our young people.

If we are going to ensure that ours is a country where everybody can do their best, wherever they start, we have to be prepared at least to have a debate about how we will make that happen. It seems to me that the only distraction in this Chamber for the Labour party is, yet again, its own leadership contest. In the meantime, the ideas and the initiative to drive opportunity across Britain will come from Conservative Members.

New Grammar Schools

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

To ask the Secretary of State for Education to make a statement on the Government’s plans to lift the statutory ban on opening new grammar schools in England.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Justine Greening)]

As the Prime Minister has said, this Government are committed to building a country that works for everyone, not just the privileged few. We believe that every person should have the opportunity to fulfil their potential, no matter what their background or where they are from.

Education is at the heart of this ambition. We inherited a system from the Labour Government, however, where far too many children left school without the qualifications or the skills they needed to be successful in life. Our far-reaching reforms over the last six years have changed this, strengthening school leadership, improving standards of behaviour in our classrooms, ensuring children are taught to read more effectively and improving maths teaching in primary schools. As a result there are now 1.4 million more pupils in schools rated as good or outstanding than in 2010.

This means more young people are being given the opportunity to access better teaching and to maximise their potential. This is what we want for all children, and we are continuing our reforms so that every child can have the best possible start in life. It is why we are doubling free childcare to 30 hours for working parents of three and four-year-olds. As I said in July, on the issue of academic selection I am open-minded because we cannot rule anything out that could help us grow opportunity for all and give more people the chance to do well in life.

The landscape for schools has changed hugely in the last 10, 20, 30 years. We now have a whole variety of educational offers available. There will be no return to the simplistic binary choice of the past, where schools separate children into winners and losers, successes or failures. This Government want to focus on the future, to build on our success since 2010 and to create a truly 21st-century school system. However, we want a system that can cater for the talent and the abilities of every single child. To achieve that, we need a truly diverse range of schools and specialisms. We need more good schools in more areas of the country responding to the needs of every child, regardless of their background. We are looking at a range of options, and I expect any new proposals to focus on what we can do to help everyone to go as far as their individual talents and capacity for hard work can take them. Education policy to that end will be set in due course.

[Angela Rayner]

Wow! Despite that waffle, the cat is finally out of the bag. The Government have revealed their plans for new grammar schools in England, but not in this House—we did not even hear the word “grammar” just then. Instead, they did it through leaks to the press and at a private meeting of Conservative Members. So much for the one nation Government we were promised. Will the Secretary of State promise today that future such announcements will be made here so that we can give this policy the scrutiny it so badly needs?

Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us the evidence base for this policy today. Has she read the Institute for Fiscal Studies report “Entry into Grammar Schools in England”? If so, perhaps she remembers the conclusion:

“amongst high achievers, those who are eligible for”

free school meals

“or who live in poorer neighbourhoods are significantly less likely to go to a grammar school.”

The OECD and the Sutton Trust, and even the Government’s own social mobility tsar and their chief inspector of schools, have all cited the evidence against this policy. In Kent, where we have grammar schools, the attainment gap is far wider than it is elsewhere. So can the Secretary of State tell the House what evidence she has to support her belief that grammar schools will help disadvantaged children and close the attainment gap?

At a time when our schools are facing a crisis in teacher recruitment and retention, with thousands taught in super-size classes and schools facing real-term cuts to their budget for the first time in nearly two decades, pushing ahead with grammar schools shows a dangerous misunderstanding of the real issues facing our schools. What will the Secretary of State be doing to address the real problems facing our schools today?

The Prime Minister has said this policy is justified because we already have social selection. Quite how making things worse by bringing back grammar schools as a solution remains a mystery. Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us why she is not ensuring that all children get a decent education?

This policy will not help social mobility but will entrench inequality and disadvantage. It will be the lucky few who can afford the tuition who will get ahead and the disadvantaged who will be left behind—a policy for the few at the expense of the many. I was told that the Tories know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I do not even think they know that anymore.

Finally, the Prime Minister promised to lead a one nation Government. She said that her policy would be led by the evidence, and she claimed that she would govern for the disadvantaged, not the privileged few, yet this policy fails on every single count. It may be a new Prime Minister, but it is the same old nasty Tories.

[Justine Greening]

The first thing I would say to the hon. Lady is that we have not yet actually made any policy announcements; they will be made in due course. She has given a commentary on what I guess she presumes the policy announcement will be. I would encourage her to wait. Broadly, we are interested in increasing diversity and meeting parents’ desire for choice in having a school near to them that matches the needs of their child. We also want to see capacity built into the system, in two ways. We want more good schools near to children where they need them. There are too many parts of our country where, in spite of all the reforms we have made and the improvements in attainment that we have seen, there are still children who cannot get good enough access to a good school. We also want to build capacity by having some of our best schools work with other schools in the system to help collectively to raise attainment and standards as a whole. We want to see all parts of our education system, not just the school system but universities as well, playing a stronger, better role.

The hon. Lady asked about evidence. She quoted a report by the IFS that does mention free school meals. However, I must say that I do not understand her argument. She seems to be criticising the status quo while resolutely defending keeping it in place. It was really interesting listening to her, because, in many respects, the words echoed the voices that I heard in my childhood—people having a dogmatic debate about the education system while I studied in my local comprehensive entirely untouched by that ideological debate. What we want to do, and what we think this Parliament and the country should do, is to be prepared to look at the practical ways that we can improve attainment for our children, and to leave no stone unturned to do that.

Complaining about one aspect of our school system and then saying that we should not even have a debate about that element is, frankly, an untenable argument. It is, in essence, politics and dogma coming before pupils and opportunity. It is about Labour Members prioritising, as we can see today, an ideological debate, while Government Members want a debate about the practical steps we can take to tackle generational failure and schools that still are not delivering for children who live near to them. It would be wrong to discount how we can improve prospects for those children, especially the most disadvantaged, purely because of political dogma. If Labour Members are not willing to ask themselves these difficult questions, how can they possibly come up with any of the solutions?

We do believe that selection can play a role, and we think there is evidence to show that it does for many children in grammar schools—but anyhow, we need to leave no stone unturned. We will set out our policies for consultation in due course, and I am sure that hon. Members will want to debate them thoroughly after that.

Educational Performance: Boys

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I will try to be brief. I thank the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) for securing this debate on such an important topic. I will resist going where I was tempted to go with some of the comments that he made. As a white working-class girl, I would not want to stamp down a white working-class boy; we have to show solidarity.

Equality issues affect those from many backgrounds, but I will focus on what I believe to be the elephant in the room, which many Members have raised—class. Class is much more of a determining factor in this debate than gender, and it affects the issue disproportionately. I agree fully with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). All children have the right to a good-quality free education. All of us in this Chamber can agree on that.

I refer back to the comments made by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). Although I agree that fatherhood is important to the issue, healthy relationships are also important. That is why the Opposition want the Government to do more to equip young people by offering age-appropriate resilience and relationships education in all schools. Although boys from prosperous backgrounds dominate the very top of the attainment scale, there is growing concern about boys performing poorly overall at school compared with girls. I thank the hon. Member for Lincoln for sharing with us his story about his gran. He and I also have that in common: I had a strong gran who pushed me forward.

Boys are more likely to have the worst results, drop out and leave education unskilled and poorly qualified, as the hon. Gentleman eloquently said. Some 38% of boys eligible for free school meals fall behind in early language and communication. That is nearly double the national average of 20%. In our increasingly unequal society, it is not surprising that class is still such a massive barrier to education attainment. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman agrees—other hon. Members alluded to it—that grammar schools are not the answer to the problem. We need to raise standards across the spectrum of schools.

I was moved by what the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) said as well. I did not know his back story, but I am pleased that he shared with us his own experiences as a white working-class boy. Like him, I fought tooth and nail to get where I am today, and I had key social levers to help me that have now been, sadly, asset-stripped away by this Government.

Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan), spoke at length about the importance of early years, which is absolutely right. I focus in my closing remarks on asking what the Government will do to invest in good early years education, because it is not happening at the moment; the funding is being cut. We know that funding from central Government is important in early-years intervention services, and that the cuts will have a massive impact on boys and girls from working-class backgrounds. What steps will the Government take to raise the aspirations and self-belief of students from poorer backgrounds, particularly boys?

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Minister of State, you have ample time to answer the debate: more than 10 minutes.

[The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)]

Well, let me get on with it, Mr Walker. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) on securing this important debate. It has been an excellent and pacy debate, with excellent speeches on both sides of the Chamber, particularly the passionate speech, based on personal experience, of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), the thoughtful speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Telford (Lucy Allan) and for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond), and other speeches that I will refer to in a moment.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) have so clearly set out, there are still far too many young people—boys and girls—who are held back by their background and circumstances and who leave school without the basic building blocks for a successful future. The Government are determined to tackle those issues. Tackling educational inequality means raising the bar, setting the highest expectations for all pupils at every stage and raising standards so that every school can deliver a world-class education.

We have already made enormous strides. More than 1.4 million more pupils are now being taught in schools judged good or outstanding by Ofsted than in 2010. Once again, this year’s A-level and GCSE results are testimony to the hard work of thousands of pupils and teachers. But while it is right that we celebrate those achievements, we must also recognise that there are groups of pupils for whom the chances of achieving good GCSEs and A-levels are simply too low.

Tackling the inequality driven by socio-economic background is a key priority for the Government, as is tackling the inequality driven by gender. Whichever way we read the data, they show that girls outperform boys at all educational stages in most areas of the curriculum. In 2015, there was a gap of nearly 16 percentage points between girls and boys judged to be achieving a good level of development at the end of the early years foundation stage: 74.3% for girls and 58.6% for boys. The gap persists at primary school in most, but not all, subjects.

In 2015, while boys’ and girls’ performance in mathematics was consistent—87% of boys and girls achieving level 4 or higher in the key stage 2 maths assessment—a significantly higher percentage of girls than boys achieved the expected standard in reading, writing and grammar, punctuation and spelling. In reading, writing and maths, 83% of all girls achieved at least the expected standard, compared with 77% of boys.

By the time pupils reach the end of key stage 4 at secondary school, the gender gap in attainment has increased. Girls outperform boys across all major curriculum subjects, although the size of the gap varies considerably by subject. For example, in 2015, girls only just outperformed boys in maths and individual sciences, but in English the gap was nearly 15 percentage points, and in the most commonly studied languages—French, German and Spanish—it was around 10 percentage points. Girls remain more likely than boys to be entered for the English baccalaureate: in 2015, more than 43% of girls studied the suite of English baccalaureate qualifying subjects, compared with 34% of boys. More girls than boys achieved it, too: 29% of girls, compared with around 19% of boys.

The cumulative impact of low prior attainment during primary and secondary school is likely to be one of the main factors influencing the slightly lower proportion of boys progressing to a sustained college or sixth form at 16 and the slightly higher likelihood that boys will be not in education, employment or training at the same age. In England, young women are 36% more likely to apply to university than young men; the difference in application rates between them is the highest on record.

It is important to note, however, that gender gaps are a common occurrence internationally, as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) pointed out. They are in favour of girls in reading, in favour of boys in mathematics but mixed in science. According to the most recent PISA study—the programme for international student assessment, conducted by the OECD—the reading ability of girls is higher than that of boys in every country.

On average across OECD countries, 15-year-old girls are around a year ahead of boys—38 PISA points. The size of that gap is narrower in England: our girls outperform boys by 24 PISA points. The gender gap in maths is reversed—boys do better—and is not as large: 11 PISA points, or four months of education, across the OECD. In fact, boys only scored significantly better than girls in 27 out of 65 countries, and the gender gap remains in favour of girls in Jordan, Qatar, Thailand, Malaysia and Iceland, as I think the hon. Lady referred to. The size of the gap is similar in England to the average across all OECD countries, which is 13 PISA points.

What are the drivers of boys’ under-achievement? I listened very carefully to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South. While there is a plethora of data to show where and by how much girls do better than boys in education, there is only limited evidence that explains precisely why boys do not perform as well as girls. There is no shortage of theories, but many of them are not supported by robust research evidence. For example, it has been argued that boys naturally prefer examinations and girls prefer coursework, so boys may have been disadvantaged by the move from exam-based assessments to GCSEs, which place a greater emphasis on coursework. In fact, the attainment of girls at the end of secondary school was already improving before the introduction of GCSEs, and subsequent reductions in the weighting of the coursework component of GCSEs have had little impact on gender attainment patterns.

Another view, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln referred to, is that the performance of boys is held back by the lack of male teachers in schools, particularly during the primary phase. He is right to point out that there is a huge disparity in the numbers of men and women teaching in primary schools, but studies that have looked for correlation between teacher gender and pupil attainment have mostly found no relationship of improved attainment when boys are taught by male teachers—although that does not mean we do not want to address the imbalance in the gender of primary school teachers.

The research evidence does suggest that the behaviour and attitudes of boys and girls towards school and academic study tend to differ in a number of ways—my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South referred to some of those. Pupil-level factors appear to play an important role in the gender attainment gap. We know that there are some schools in which pupil attainment is high and the gap between girls and boys is small or non-existent. Those schools tend to be characterised by a positive attitude to study, high expectations of all pupils, high-quality teaching and classroom management, and close tracking of individual pupils’ achievement.

As the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden so passionately and ably pointed out, academies in the Harris Federation in her constituency are improving educational standards for pupils from poorer backgrounds because they adopt those attitudes to education. I have not yet seen evidence of the gap closing, because I do not have the data, but if the hon. Lady has them, or if I can get them from Dan Moynihan, it would be interesting to see the extent to which the Harris Federation’s approach to education is having an impact on the gender gap.

It is important not to generalise. It is simply not true that all boys do badly and that all girls do well. For example, white British girls who are eligible for free school meals generally do much worse than white British boys who are not. Indeed, there is clear evidence that poverty is a much bigger predictor of poor educational attainment than gender, as the shadow Education Secretary pointed out. While gender imposes a relatively consistent educational performance gap across all ethnic groups, the impact is compounded significantly by deprivation. As the Prime Minister noted in her inaugural speech, the chances of going to university are extremely low for white working-class boys. In 2015, fewer than one in four white British boys eligible for free school meals achieved five A* to C grades at GCSE, including English and maths, compared with more than 56% of non-disadvantaged white British boys.

The question is: how are we tackling educational underachievement? The Government’s approach is to set high expectations for what all pupils will achieve by introducing an ambitious and stretching national curriculum and world-class qualifications. To deliver such reforms, we are building a school-led, self-improving education system, characterised by high levels of autonomy and strong accountability arrangements, through which the characteristics of high-performing schools, such as those referred to by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, can be shared and embedded across the whole system.

We want all pupils to secure the basics in literacy and numeracy by the end of primary school, and we have set higher standards in those areas of the curriculum. We have embedded the teaching of phonics in key stage 1, which we know is the most effective way of teaching reading for all children, and we are providing catch-up funding to secondary schools to support those pupils who do not achieve the expected standard at 11. As a result, 120,000 more six-year-olds are on track to become fluent readers. Our introduction of the English baccalaureate sets a strong expectation that all pupils will receive a rigorous academic education that prepares them for adult life and success in our modern economy. We have made clear our aim that, by 2020, the vast majority of pupils, boys and girls alike, will take those facilitating subjects as part of a well-rounded education that opens the door to education and employment.

Our new performance accountability measures are also intended to drive up attainment across the board. Secondary school performance tables now report on pupils’ progress from the end of primary school to the end of secondary school, as well as their GCSE attainment. The new measures, known as progress 8 and attainment 8, will encourage schools to focus their attention on the progress and attainment of every pupil, not just those at or near the borderline of a particular performance threshold.

Looking beyond the curriculum, our commitment to character education seeks to ensure that all pupils develop the essential qualities of resilience, perseverance and self-control, all of which are critical for success in both education and adult life.

[Angela Rayner]

In the spirit of this debate, and bearing in mind what is happening in the media, does the Minister believe that grammar schools will help with his aspirations or make things harder?

[Mr Gibb]

The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have been clear that we need to build a country that works for everyone. We are looking at a range of options to allow more children to go to a school that helps them to rise as far as their talents will take them. We will, of course, say more in due course, as policy is developed under the new Secretary of State.

Our vision for a self-improving school system is fast becoming a reality. Our growing network of teaching schools and multi-academy trusts is ensuring that institutions can collaborate and receive the support they need to raise standards. We are working hard to create a sustainable and diverse succession plan of high-quality school leaders and headteachers, and our expansion of the highly successful Teach First programme—

School Funding

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right that we want to strike a balance between moving rapidly towards a fairer funding formula while at the same time making sure we do so in a way that allows time not only for the details of that formula to be debated, because they will have a big impact on how it works effectively, but for local authorities, and indeed schools, to understand the changes and then prepare. That is the balance that I have tried to strike today.

I also want to act responsibly by ensuring that we do not rush into making changes without being fully sighted of their ramifications. I know that the debates in Parliament on the fair funding formula have resulted in long-standing frustration, and I am committed to resolving that, but I want to be sure that we do this effectively so that we do not have to revisit it because we have not got it right the first time.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

This Government’s attitude to school funding is woeful. Talk about last minute! Schools are struggling to cope with a 5% funding shortfall as a result of the Chancellor’s decision to increase national insurance and teachers’ pension contributions. Does the Secretary of State not recognise that pupil numbers are rising and that the shortage of teachers is growing? Will she put money into helping schools in the new formula? Only this Government could have the audacity to deliver real-terms cuts to school budgets across the country and claim that it represented fair funding. Will the Secretary of State publish in the Library of the House the amount that each local authority has received under the existing funding formula and the amount that it will receive following today’s announcement?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Lady has asked a range of questions. In summary, I have made it clear in my written statement today that no authority will lose funding either for schools or for high needs. This will enable us to give authorities a firm foundation on which to start planning for next year. The reality is that we have seen funding for schools and across education rising. This has been one of the areas that this Government and the coalition Government have sought to protect, and that has been evidenced in the results. We now have 1.4 million more children in good or outstanding schools, and we want that progress to continue.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Angela Rayner Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to her place, and I look forward to having constructive dialogue with her in the future.

We have heard many passionate and expert contributions. The hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), who chairs the Education Committee, said that he has found himself with an unexpectedly large portfolio. It is safe to say that I know that feeling. On that note, as my party’s spokesperson on equality, as well as on education, I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) in urging the Government to make the necessary changes to ensure that loans are Sharia-compliant immediately. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to her idea of amending existing legislation instead of making the change in this Bill.

We have spoken a lot about aspiration and supporting the next generation. I cannot help thinking about this evening’s news about my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). She has been a real friend to me and has been very supportive for many years, both inside and outside this House. She has told many women from backgrounds similar to mine, “Always stand up and reach for your dreams—you can achieve them.” I pay tribute to her.

On the subject of legislative changes, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) raised concerns that the office for students will be able to revoke Acts of Parliament and royal charters that establish universities. I hope that the Minister will think again on that.

It was great to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), who highlighted her career as a scientist, on which I congratulate her, and the need—we have heard this many times today—for the right funding and investment for science. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) also made an excellent contribution and spoke of the need for a technical revolution. I hope that the Minister will respond to his proposal for a duty to collaborate.

We also heard from a new Back Bencher, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). We heard from him quite a lot. He did not like the length of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), but perhaps that was because it lasted longer than his leadership bid. More seriously, he said that universities must be a safe place for Jewish students. As the shadow equalities spokesperson, I am in total agreement with him.

The right hon. Gentleman also said that he feared that Labour Front Benchers were no longer committed to extending opportunities to enable all young people to access further and higher education. I reassure him and others that we share that ambition. We all agree that no one should be denied the opportunity to study on the basis of their income, background, class, race or gender.

The question is whether the Bill meets that ambition. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) was clear that the Bill introduces unnecessary risks at a time of uncertainty. He also frightened me to death, and I am sure many others, with the prospect of a Donald J. Trump university.

Sadly, we regard the Bill as a missed opportunity that will set back the cause of equal access rather than advance it, expanding a higher education free market where profit takes precedence.

First, let us follow the money and look at maintenance grants and tuition fees. University education in England and Wales is already out of reach for many people from low and even middle-income families. The hon. Member for Stroud praised the German economy, but he will also be aware that in 2014 the last of the German states abolished tuition fees in public universities. The Sutton Trust, which campaigns for greater social mobility, has shown that many British students finish university with debts in excess of £50,000. The IFS has said that students will be repaying these debts until they are well into their 50s.

The Bill will directly lead to the uncapping of fees at high-performing universities, and it will effectively introduce a two-tier system of higher education. The best universities will become more expensive and therefore less accessible, at a time when the proportion of low-income students at many top universities is already falling. Quite simply, it is a tax on aspiration. The Government’s equality impact assessment demonstrated the impact on already under-represented groups in higher education. It found that female, disabled, black, Asian and minority ethnic students, as well as mature students, would be disproportionately worse off.

The Secretary of State has made a great deal of the fact that more students from disadvantaged backgrounds are accessing higher education, but she conveniently ignored the figures highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—happy birthday, by the way—which showed that the percentage of disadvantaged pupils admitted by seven of the 24 Russell Group universities, including Oxford and Cambridge, fell over the last decade. At the same time, pupils from private schools are still two and a half times more likely than their state school equivalents to enter a leading university. The Government will perpetuate and extend that by enshrining this two-tier system in the Bill. They are slamming the door of opportunity in the face of young people who have high aspirations and the talent to fulfil them.

I listened carefully to the words of the new Prime Minister on the steps of Downing Street just a few days ago:

“If you’re a white, working-class boy, you’re less likely than anybody else in Britain to go to university. If you’re at a state school, you’re less likely to reach the top professions than if you’re educated privately.”

Yet this Bill does nothing to increase social mobility or to create the one nation Britain that she promised. We will judge her Government by actions, not words.

Then we come to the proposals in the Bill to expand the market for private providers, who are in the education sector primarily to make a profit. The Government appear ideologically committed to marketising higher education by promoting competition and introducing for-profit providers. They have taken a similar approach with schools, and I have yet to see any positive impact. This new profit-driven approach is a real threat to academic quality and standards at a time, post-Brexit, when it is even more critical to maintain and enhance the quality and reputation of Britain’s universities, as has been said by many Members from across the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). Experience from countries such as the USA and Sweden demonstrates that private providers too often seek to compromise quality for the sake of profit.

I am deeply concerned about the impact of the proposals on the terms and conditions of staff. There is already an unacceptable gender pay gap in the higher education sector, alongside the growing use of zero-hours, temporary and insecure contracts. I fear that the Bill will make matters even worse as employers seek to cut costs in order to produce profits.

Similarly, removing the limit on student numbers for university title is likely to lead to an increase in the number of smaller institutions. Perhaps that is the Government’s intention, but there is a concern that the new smaller institutions may be more likely to cut corners when it comes to resources, student-staff ratios, student support and attracting the best academic staff. What safeguards will the Government provide to prevent that from happening? There are many examples of poor-quality private colleges, particularly those that cater for overseas students, failing to provide high-quality courses. The Government must learn the lessons of those market failures and build in proper oversight and regulation to guarantee quality.

The Bill will also reform the research council and funding system, but we believe that that is poorly timed and likely to be ineffective. Brexit has already put the funding of academic research in the UK into a prolonged period of uncertainty.

Because of the time, I will cut my comments short. I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) about Horizon 2020 funding, and it is vital that we ensure confidence in our research sector.

It pains me to say it, but this Bill fails to give our young people a chance to soar. It blocks their path not because they lack ability or aptitude, but because they lack the necessary income or background. The Bill promotes a market-driven, two-tier higher education system in which too many of the brightest and the best will be consigned to second best.

On the steps of Downing Street, the Prime Minister promised:

“When it comes to opportunity, we won’t entrench the advantages of the fortunate few. We will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you.”

This Bill does not live up to that promise. Let us hold the Prime Minister to her words, and reject her Bill.

Early Years Development and School-Readiness

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I hope to be brief so that I can give the Minister time to respond to the fantastic contributions that have been made. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) on securing the debate and thank him for his kind words about our friend Jo in his opening comments. I concur with many of his comments, and particularly his recommendations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) made stark comments regarding the one in five children who still live in poverty. I pay tribute to him for his work in tackling that issue. The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) was passionate in her commitment to ensure that the problems of school-readiness and the early years are tackled. As she said, those are growing problems, especially in rural areas. The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) reminded us that we must continue to consider all children, including those who live under devolved Administrations.

Getting a good start in life should not be a privilege; it is every child’s right. I have documented how my mum could not read or write. I was one of those children who did not see a book before going into education, so I can personally say how important early intervention prior to school is. I am also proud that I was a recipient of wraparound services such as Sure Start when I was a young mum, and I concur with the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Bootle (Peter Dowd) about that. Those services gave me and many of my friends much-needed support and a hand up in difficult times. The Labour Government were a trailblazer for early years intervention, and Sure Start is one of Labour’s greatest legacies.

Unfortunately, however, under the current Government, childcare and early years services have been left chronically underfunded. Early intervention services are failing to reach those most in need. Families with young children have borne the brunt of unfair Government cuts, and that looks set to continue in the near future.

My hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Julie Cooper) and for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) made important contributions about the importance of the early years—that critical time before the age of six. The early years are not only about childcare but about ensuring quality education, which is crucial. We need a bigger vision for early education and childcare. Our kids deserve the best early intervention services that are the envy of the world. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) talked about some of his fantastic work before coming to this place and about the importance of library services—he helped set up a library scheme.

When will the Government commit the funds and resources required to match the universal acknowledgement, which we have heard today, of the benefits of the early years system? The Government response to Munro was fine words but no action. Will the Minister explain why the Government did not commit to a statutory duty on local authorities? One in three of the families who were promised free extended childcare by the Government before the last election are now set to miss out, as a result of the Government failing to make their sums add up. That was starkly illustrated in the pilot area of York, where not one childcare provider out of 30 was willing to take up the additional 15 hours due to the pitiful payment of £3.95 per hour.

My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) spoke passionately about the closure of services in her constituency. Why were Labour programmes scrapped, such as the graduate leader fund, which supported graduates to work in private and voluntary nursery and childcare settings, and the requirement for Sure Start children’s centres in the most disadvantaged areas?

In addition, real-terms spending per child on early education has fallen. There are 763 fewer Sure Start centres, child trust funds are ending, and maternity grants are being cut. Every child deserves an education that enables them to flourish in childhood and sets them up for life in Britain and the world. Early intervention is key to closing the life chances gap that exists for too many young people in constituencies such as mine.

The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) reminded us of the importance of play in the family setting for learning and development. The first 1,000 days of a child’s life are crucial. What are the Government doing to recognise the importance of putting access to high-quality early education at the heart of Britain’s mission to tackle inequality? Today, 3.7 million children are growing up in poverty in the UK, costing the Government about £29 billion a year.

Parental income can have a profound effect on the educational attainment and long-term life chances of millions of children. Family income remains the most significant factor in a child’s success in education. Will the Minister at least acknowledge that changing child poverty targets could mean that thousands of children are forgotten, missed or left behind?

If we want to tackle poverty and build a truly productive economy, we need to look at how to make life easier for ordinary working families and help parents get back to work. The Government should be looking at how to ease the burden on working people and create a system of world-class early years provision. I am afraid their policies are doing just the opposite. Investing now in the essential formative years of a child’s life will be an investment in our country’s future.

SATs Results

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that every child deserves an excellent education which enables them to grow and thrive; notes that the Government has published figures showing that a lower proportion of children were meeting the expected standard at the end of Key Stage 2 overall in 2016 than in 2015; further notes that, as a result, in 2016 47 percent of children will be told that they have not reached the expected standard in at least one of their SATs papers; regrets that the Secretary of State for Education has pushed ahead with chaotic and confusing reforms which mean that thousands of children will be unnecessarily labelled as failures, and that the Secretary of State is steadily losing the confidence of teachers; and calls on the Government urgently to review primary assessment and the 2016 SATs results and to clarify that these will not be used for measuring and judging school performance.

The 2016 key stage 2 standard assessment tests, which assess children in reading, writing, spelling, grammar, punctuation and maths, are the first to assess the new primary national curriculum, which was introduced in 2014. The Government claim that they have raised expectations for pupils at the end of key stage 2, but those at the chalk-face—primary school teachers and school leaders—say that the expected standard for SATs has been set at a level that is beyond the reach of the majority of children.

Our children are being set up to fail. Almost half of England’s 11-year-olds will now go on to secondary school, having been told by this Government that they are failures. However, the real failures are this Government, particularly the current Secretary of State for Education who pushed ahead with this flawed system despite all the warnings from the education profession that the primary assessment system was not fit for purpose.

Under this Government, children who fail to meet the totally unrealistic expected target at the end of key stage 2—47% of children—will be required to resit these tests in future. School leaders were told yesterday that the catch-up funding for secondary schools will not increase despite the rise in the number of pupils deemed to be below the expected standard. For these pupils, the first year at big school—and all the excitement and anticipation that it should bring—will instead become an anxious replay of drilling for tests in English and maths, which they sat in primary school. I can only imagine the impact on those young lives—to have to go through it all again, to feel a failure, to see their friends getting on when they should be looking ahead to new challenges and new opportunities.

I remember being told that I would never amount to anything, but look at me now. I want—teachers want—every child to know that they are amazing. I want an education system that helps every child realise their full potential.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The hon. Lady may remember that under the last Labour Government we had such a system. It was fantastic. Every child was told that they were succeeding. It was just that when we looked at the international league tables, we went down, down and down. We had grade inflation. Whatever her critique of SATs results this year, does she not agree that we must have high standards and we must maintain those standards over time; otherwise we will go back to those days under Labour when we let down the future of young people by pretending that they were successful when, in fact, they were not?

[Angela Rayner]

I remember that under Labour we had Sure Start, we had Every Child Matters, we had new schools, we had teachers in the profession, we had people and children feeling that they were happy. At present we have teachers taking unprecedented industrial action and leaving the profession at record rates, so I take no lectures from those on the Government Benches regarding the current situation.

The Opposition recognise that ongoing assessment and consistent testing in schools is extremely important to help teachers and parents support and provide new challenges for all children. Such tests can identify and close any gaps in knowledge so that all pupils can do well. But a proper assessment regime needs consistency and needs to be understood by all.

The Government have utterly failed to deliver on this. The current SATs tests go too far. The Secretary of State has chopped and changed too much. She has caused disruption and chaos in our schools and extra bureaucracy for our teachers. The key stage 2 assessments have been an unmitigated disaster and a nightmare for thousands of children, ending in disappointment and prolonged uncertainty. They also have serious consequences for thousands of schools because of the way this Government use them as part of the school accountability system.

KS2 SATs are used to rank schools in league tables. They are scrutinised by the Department for Education and regional schools commissioners, who form judgments on schools’ performance. Ofsted uses SATs results when forming its inspection judgments, and parents take them into account when choosing their children’s school. Schools’ reputations are heavily dependent on how their pupils perform in these tests.

The National Association of Head Teachers asked the Secretary of State not to publish the data, as she herself has conceded that it is not to be compared with that for previous years. The NAHT general secretary, Russell Hobby, said:

“Given the changes to SATs this year, and the mistakes we’ve seen, it is hard see how valuable this data will be to parents who want to understand how well a school is performing year on year or compared to other schools. But the government does love a league table, regardless of how accurate it may be.”

Worryingly, the schools commissioners are already using the provisional results from these tests to identify those schools to which they can apply their extensive legal powers to force them into academy status on the spurious grounds that they are failing, coasting or underperforming.

Does all this remind us of anything—children who are judged failures at an early age, being separated from their primary school classmates; schools which are being wrongly condemned as second class? That sounds to me like the dark days of the 11-plus, with children branded failures before they have even reached their teens and separated from their classmates, with all the stigma that that can bring. Many adults today still recount the lasting effects that that had on them.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I have to confess that I myself am one such failure—of the 12-plus system. However, does the hon. Lady agree with any form of testing? If so, what type of testing would she bring forward?

[Angela Rayner]

I made it quite clear in my opening remarks that the Opposition recognise the need for testing, but it is the chaotic way in which the Secretary of State has brought in the new key stage 2 SATs that is damaging and that potentially makes people feel a failure. Given what the hon. Gentleman has just said, I am sure he recognises that the 11-plus and 12-plus caused uncertainty and that feeling of failure. I remember how I felt when I was branded a failure, and these things do not help our young people today.

The Government seem hellbent on bringing back the 11-plus through the back door. They can deny that, but the evidence is right in front of us: children are being selected on the basis of muddle-headed tests into two separate groups—winners and losers, successes and failures—and their primary schools are being branded in exactly the same way. It is the 11-plus by any other name.

The tests do not give a rounded picture of the work of individual pupils or their schools. I could not put things any better than Mrs Jane Grecic, the headteacher of Lansbury Bridge School in St Helen’s, who wrote to one of her 11-year-old pupils, Ben, about his SATs results. Ben is autistic, and Mrs Grecic congratulated him on his fabulous progress, writing:

“these tests only measure a little bit of you and your abilities…Ben…is made up of many other skills and talents that we at Lansbury Bridge see and measure in other ways…These tests do not measure…Your artistic talents…Your ability to work in a team…Your growing independence…Your kindness…Your ability to express your opinion…Your abilities in sport…Your ability to make and keep friends…Your ability to discuss and evaluate your own progress…Your design and building talents…Your musical ability”.

This fine headteacher concludes:

“we are so pleased that all of these different talents and abilities make you the special person you are and these are all of the things we measure to reassure us that you are always making progress and continuing to develop as a lovely bright young man. Well done Ben, we are very proud of you.”

I am sure the whole House will join me in congratulating young Ben on his development at the tender age of 11 and, indeed, his headteacher, on showing in very real, human terms how these test results should in no way make a child feel they are not developing well.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a persuasive case. Does she agree that we should be encouraging children and giving them confidence, particularly in areas such as mine, where there are high levels of deprivation, and where children are told by many people that they cannot achieve or go far in life? These things add to that, and we should be encouraging our children and giving them confidence, not discouraging them.

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we have to heed the concerns of the professionals. It is a real tragedy when we set children up to fail. The Government need to work with the profession to make sure this year’s mistakes are not repeated and to build a system that works better for children, parents and schools. These results do not reflect the dedication of teachers and the many extra hours they have worked to ensure that all children can fulfil their potential, despite the turmoil caused by the Secretary of State’s chaotic and confusing reforms.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Is the shadow Secretary of State aware of the real danger of children leaving primary school and heading to secondary school without adequate maths and English? Once they have done that, there is only a one in nine chance they will cover the ground necessary for them to develop into proper adults. Is that not a serious matter, and should it not at least be addressed through some form of knowledge about outcomes?

[Angela Rayner]

I am only too aware of that, because I failed my GCSEs—I did not get grades A to C. We had a well-attended Westminster Hall debate about early years intervention and it is important that we put the structures in place to help children, not make them feel like failures through our own failures.

These SATs undermine the morale of our dedicated primary teachers, who have battled against the odds to prepare children for tests they knew were inappropriate while trying to protect them from their worst consequences. They could result in thousands more schools being forced to become academies. They do not reflect the hard work of children with special educational needs or those for whom English is an additional language. These tests are designed to measure what children cannot do, not what they can do. Nor do they measure the many ways in which our children learn to develop and succeed every day of their young lives.

The impact of these SATs on children is best illustrated by their parents. Rachel McCollin from Birmingham says:

“My son is tired, stressed and paranoid that he’s going to fail—I can’t wait for this week to be over.”

Katharine Lee from Bath says:

“My son hardly slept on Sunday night and was a nervous wreck on Monday morning, despite us telling him that these tests are not the be-all and end-all. It’s way too much pressure at 11.”

We have already forced the Government into a U-turn on forced academisation, but they are using these results to compel even more academisation through the back door. It is hardly surprising that teachers and school leaders have lost confidence in the Secretary of State and her education policies. Guidance arrived late and changed frequently. Test papers were leaked and the design of tests was poor. Preparation for the SATs had a negative impact on children’s access to a broad and balanced curriculum. Ninety per cent. of teachers thought that this year’s changes had had a negative impact on children’s experience at school. Teachers spoke of demoralisation, demotivation, and physical and mental distress. This is a damning indictment of the Secretary of State’s performance. She has been entrusted with the future of our children and the future of our country, and she has failed; we do not need any test to see that.

School Penalty Fines and Authorised Absence

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. Many Members have spoken in this important and relevant debate, which, as the hon. Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) said, has revealed that the Government have got it all in a bit of a mess. Nearly 200,000 signatures on the petition is not to be sniffed at, and those concerns deserve to be heard, and heard they have been in the many contributions Members have made.

The current situation is confused and confusing, as the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) outlined in his opening remarks. The only thing that is clear is that the Government acted with the best of intentions in 2013 when they changed the legislation. As their answer to the online petition reveals, they did so to try and correct the

“widespread misconception that parents were entitled to take their children on holiday during term-time.”

The Government argue that such a misconception had taken hold because headteachers had previously been allowed to grant up to 10 days’ leave for special circumstances.

The Government decided to come down hard. The result, as their response to the petition illustrates, has been fairly decisive: the number of persistent absentees is down by up to 40%; 6 million fewer school days have been lost; and pupils are missing fewer days at school today than they did in 2010 and are therefore receiving less interruption to their education. There are other results: £5.6 million was paid out by the public in fines last year, which was a 267% increase; 90,000 parents have been fined; and a High Court case has been lost, with possible Supreme Court hearings looming. Parents have no real certainty on where they stand. No wonder there is confusion, but let me make it clear that the Opposition support the Government’s attitude to school attendance. All the evidence shows that regular attendance at school helps ensure our children reach their full potential and can make their way in the world as adults. Indeed, education is the only available path out of the poverty and low aspiration that affects too many of our young people these days.

The hon. Member for North Devon made it absolutely clear that he is seeking to be helpful and that parents, teachers and heads across the country have expressed real concerns. As he stated—I agree with him—we need common sense and clarity, especially around the reaction of Ofsted. I hope the Minister will clarify that important point in his response. Despite the hon. Member for North Devon being an old-fashioned Tory guy, I am pleased and reassured that the Conservatives have clarified that they do not intend to go back to Dickensian times and stick kids up chimneys.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) made some excellent points on how good education is vital for good attainment. She reminded us of the huge effort made by Nottingham City Council and many councils up and down the country to ensure that we have high attendance. They are worried that all their hard work could be lost without urgent clarity from the Government regarding the recent case.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) expressed concerns about a case in his constituency and made a point on what “regular attendance” means. I hope Mr Platt’s daughter has had a good sports day and that she may represent us in the Olympics in the future.

School brings consistency and routine. Every day of school missed can affect a pupil’s chances of developing as well as their classmates, of passing their exams and of gaining good qualifications with which to build their young lives. Seven million parents know the benefits of regular attendance. After all, schools are in session for just 190 out of 365 days a year.

[Mr Andrew Turner]

The problem is that the hon. Lady is talking generally, but we are talking individually. If she can, she needs to explain the proposal for individual heads, not for the 7 million pupils in the whole country.

[Angela Rayner]

I make it absolutely clear—Members have already done so—that headteachers have discretion where there are exceptional circumstances. Headteachers have the power and discretion to sanction absences. The difficulty is the definition of exceptional circumstances, as we heard in some of the contributions. According to the proposer of the petition, a cancer diagnosis apparently does not constitute exceptional circumstances, which is deeply regrettable. I sincerely hope that that incident is as rare as parents taking their children on unauthorised absences.

[Michelle Donelan]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is preposterous to say, in an era when we trust so much responsibility day in, day out to our headteachers and teachers to look after children and ensure that their wellbeing is safeguarded and their educational needs are met, that we cannot trust those very same people to make a decision or call whether an absence is in the child’s best interests, based on their age, stage of education and other absences throughout the year? Does it not perhaps go so far as to patronise the teaching professions?

[Angela Rayner]

We have to weigh that against the evidence that says that every day lost through a child’s absence can have a significant impact on their education. The Government’s response has to be to set guidelines, but headteachers and the community of course have an obligation as part of that. That is still within the remit and powers of the current legislation.

[Steve Double]

The hon. Lady makes the point that every day a child is absent from school affects its education, but the reason for the absence should be taken into consideration. If the child is absent but participating in something that is fundamentally going to be good for their wellbeing and development as a person, that could be beneficial to their overall education and not necessarily always detrimental.

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Gentleman makes a compelling case. There are various reasons why children could be absent from school. From today’s contributions, one of the compelling reasons why people have said they would like to be able to take their children out of school is the motivation of parents to take their children on a family holiday. I completely understand and sympathise with that situation. I have been a parent for many years, and prior to coming to this House, I was on a low income. I understand and feel their frustration at the rise in cost—in some instances it is an increase of as much as 150%. That makes most holidays unaffordable for most hard-working families.

Like other Members, I want the Minister to tell us what talks are under way to work with the travel industry to try to mitigate the cost of holidays for families who have already withstood austerity and are living on the breadline.

I also understand the concern about the level of the fines. If the fine is not paid, the parent can be prosecuted and fined up to £2,500. They can also receive a community order or even be jailed for up to three months, so I share the concerns that many Members have raised.

Following the High Court’s ruling in favour of Mr Jon Platt, the Government have made it clear that they are now considering changing the legislation and strengthening the statutory guidance given to schools and local authorities. We welcome any attempts to clear up any confusion and to remove the doubt and uncertainty about the legal position as we await a final decision on Mr Platt’s case. In the meantime, no one should be in any doubt that parents must ensure their children go to school. This is non-negotiable. Only schools can authorise absence. They have discretion in exceptional circumstances and they will hopefully use that wisely. The vast majority of parents accept that, and they accept that in a decent, law-abiding society, where our children are the country’s most precious asset, sending their children to school is the right thing to do.