Education and Adoption Bill

Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and hear her response to my noble friend Lord Blunkett’s maiden speech. It is a particular pleasure to be here to hear my noble friend’s maiden speech. They both have a long-standing and well-deserved reputation for promoting the well-being of children and young people over a long period.

The objective outlined by the Minister—that all children should be able to reach their potential and that education should play a transformative role in that where possible—is one that unites us all. I am sure that we start from consensus on that position. The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, identified that we all come here with our particular experiences as to why this is very important to us. For me it is because of my journey through life. I was born into a very large family living on a council estate. Were it not for parents who, although denied education themselves, saw very clearly its importance for their children, I would not have had the opportunities I have through education. I want the same for every child, including those born into circumstances like mine and that of my noble friend. We are coming to this from different experiences, but we are united around that objective.

The question we need to address is how best to achieve that and whether the Government have got it right in the Bill. My other experiences over the years, in local government, in university management and as a government Minister, have led me to change the view I started with as a young person in positions of authority —that, if you get the structures and systems right, all will be well—to a much more complex understanding. If you are to get sustained change, it is not really about the structure, but about the people delivering and the importance of collaboration. Sustained change means that people have to own that change and feel part of it. That is the seat of some of my concerns about the Bill.

Implicit in the Bill are some key assumptions. First, to achieve their objective, the Government need to extend the powers and reach of the Secretary of State and central government to intervene in schools directly, and to extend that reach to an as yet relatively undefined category of “coasting” schools. Secondly, the Government need to take away the ability of local government, governing bodies and parents to be involved in and consulted about the future of schools that might be eligible for improvement. Thirdly, the only way to improvement is conversion to a sponsored academy. Taken together, those three elements lay bare the Government’s belief that the way forward is central government control and universal academies—an approach that is neither sustainable nor effective—as opposed to the collaborative and supportive approach that I will refer to, and which has actually been shown to work.

I will touch on those three assumptions. First, the Bill proposes to extend the powers and reach of the Secretary of State way beyond the current position: they will be able directly to issue warning notices to schools, to prevent local authorities doing so, to stop local authorities from intervening, to determine how intervention will be implemented, and so on. Precisely what evidence is there that those powers are necessary? The Minister mentioned that local authorities already have the power to intervene. I know that many of them do not yet do so, and I agree with him that they should, but the Secretary of State can direct them to intervene. The Secretary of State can set up an improvement board across the whole of an authority and chair it herself, if she wants to, which I did as a Minister on a number of occasions. I therefore question why extra powers are needed to put the grit into the system that the Minister wants to achieve.

I reflect on the marked contrast between the approach taken by the Department for Education towards local authorities and that taken by some other parts of government. I live in Greater Manchester, where there is now an agreement on considerable devolution of powers, responsibility and accountability from the Government to the combined authority. Such discussions are going on with other city regions in other parts of the country. Why is the opposite approach of cutting out local authorities and local communities being taken in education, when it seems that the flavour of the month in other parts of the Government is to recognise that the direction of travel now is in favour of devolution?

As I said, the second strand is to strip out the involvement of local authorities, governing bodies and parents in deciding the future of schools. Obviously, this is consequential on the powers being taken in the Bill for the Secretary of State to determine those issues. I reflect on the stark contrast between that approach and another that has been shown to work: the London Challenge, another innovation of my noble friend Lord Adonis, who is no longer in his place. The London Challenge was not a soft option in any shape or form. It was based on “stick” as well as “carrot”, but most importantly it was based on the evidence that for improvement to be sustained in the education system as a whole, not just in individual schools, the process has to be owned by all the protagonists—central government, local government, local authorities, governing bodies, schools and parents alike. It was based on the power of collaboration between families of schools. Schools were grouped in families according to common factors such as demographics and they worked together, and there was collaboration between central and local government. It set tough targets, provided the resource and support to meet them, showed absolutely remarkable improvements and transformed both the performance and reputation of London schools, so much so that we instituted similar challenges in the Black Country and Greater Manchester, but unfortunately these were axed in 2010 by the coalition Government.

On the third strand—that academisation is the only route to improvement—the Bill includes not only a power for the Secretary of State to make an academy order if a school is eligible for intervention; it imposes a duty on her to do so if a maintained school is eligible for intervention because it requires significant improvement or special measures. So it is clear that the Government believe that becoming an academy is the only route to improvement, and their goal is that every school should become an academy, as the Minister said. What evidence does he have from anywhere in the world that wholesale academisation throughout the whole of an education system produces the best possible outcomes for children? Although my Government established academies in underperforming schools in disadvantaged areas, we did so for two reasons: first, obviously, to improve the outcomes in those schools; but, secondly, to provide a beacon for schools throughout the system, whatever their type, showing how excellence could be achieved. It was always in our minds that diversity in the education system is as important as a mechanism for improving schools. I wonder how the Minister feels about this. He is taking this country into uncharted waters, for which there is no evidence, by making every single school an academy. It is one thing for central government to reach into 200, 300, 500 or 1,000 schools; but there is no evidence to suggest that making all schools—almost 15,000 schools—academies without any local connection or control from the centre will be effective, and it may cause other problems, particularly for parents.

If the Minister is so confident about the positive impact of universal academisation, including the involvement of academy chains, why are the powers of intervention for maintained schools as defined in the Bill not applied to academies? It is not good enough to say, as he and the Secretary of State have said, that they are governed by funding agreements, that the department intervenes in relation to those agreements, and that the situation with academies is completely different. It should not be different. The process should be transparent and should be the same as the one for maintained schools. Post-conversion inspections show that 8% of primary sponsored academies and 14% of secondaries are currently rated inadequate. The lack of transparency regarding how those inadequate and failing academies are being dealt with within the confines of the Department for Education, where we cannot know what is being said and what the outcome of those discussions are, does not build confidence among teachers and parents.

I have not touched on adoption because I wanted to focus on education. I look forward to discussing that issue in Committee. The stated intentions of the Bill are laudable, and we all support them, but the Government’s one-track approach of centralisation of control and universal academisation causes me great concern. I look forward to discussing that further in Committee.