Education and Adoption Bill

Debate between Bill Esterson and Tristram Hunt

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt]

This Bill gives an extraordinary amount of new powers to the Secretary of State, but the Government are asleep on the job. Why have they not acted on St Peter’s school or on the Woodard academy chain? We do not dispute that this Bill gives a great deal of power to the Secretary of State; we just do not think that she is competent to act on the powers that she has been granted. The whole purpose of this Bill is to narrow school improvement—effectively to reduce it to academisation.

As I have already argued, Labour supports academisation as one option for effective intervention in failing schools. The evidence of the sponsored academies programme is clear. We also accept the evidence from the Sutton Trust and others which shows that progress for disadvantaged pupils continues to be faster at those schools than it is at other schools. Had Labour won the general election—we can but dream—I would certainly have expected our new directors of school standards to force through conversions of failing maintained schools and be answerable for those decisions.

When scrutinising this legislation, we do not need to question whether some sponsored academies have a positive impact on progress, standards and achievement. We know that they do. The key question is: why would the Secretary of State constrain herself in clause 7 to this method alone—this one policy of academisation—for school improvement? The reality is that some of the fastest improving schools in the country are maintained schools, particularly in the primary sector. Schools such as the Wellfield Community School, which I was delighted to visit with my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), went from special measures to good without converting. The extraordinary Hartsholme Primary School in Lincoln jumped from special measures to outstanding. Indeed, between 2012 and 2014, Ofsted data show eight maintained schools going from special measures to outstanding and 201 maintained schools going from special measures to good.

Academisation is not always the answer. Post-conversion inspections show that 8% of primary sponsored academies and 14% of secondaries are currently rated inadequate. The best chains, such as Ark or United Learning, are an important architecture for spreading high standards, but chains such as Woodard and E-ACT show that poor performance and complacency are just as easily exported. Pupils at schools run by Prospect Academies Trust were wholly let down by this Government, and children under the Park View Academy Trust in Birmingham were, arguably, put in danger of radicalisation.

The Sutton Trust report shows that the variation between academy chains is “enormous”. It found that the rate of progress for disadvantaged children was lower than the average across all state schools in around one half of the larger academy chains. As was pointed out, the Education Committee report on the academy programme found that the evidence is not sufficient to draw conclusions on whether academies in themselves are a positive force for change.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I commend him for that. He has drawn attention to the fact that, in the report, it is very clear that the Labour academies were a success—the evidence has been taken over a long enough period to make that judgment. We should rightly praise the previous Labour Government for their intervention and their selective use of academies as a school improvement measure. We took evidence from the Charter School movement that suggested that only a small number of schools should convert at a time. Does he agree that one fundamental problem is that the Government have tried to change too many things at once within the education system and have converted too many academies?

Skills and Growth

Debate between Bill Esterson and Tristram Hunt

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt]

My hon. Friend is totally right. He has made the case in Dudley—and the same is true of Stoke-on-Trent—that we need many more young people to be doing level 3, 4 and 5 qualifications. I would like to see a much more amphibious relationship between our universities and apprenticeships, so that young people can move in and out of them and at each stage go up the value chain with the qualifications they need.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that each young person needs to be offered the right opportunity, whether it be vocational or academic, and that it should be about whatever is right for the individual? Does he share my concern that, under the last Government, there was a big increase in apprenticeships for older people, but not for 16 to 19-year-olds, and does he agree that we must target that latter group if we are to address the skills issue highlighted by his proposal?

[Tristram Hunt]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. I urge the Government to move on from playing the fatuous numbers game of highlighting 2 million or 3 million apprenticeships. They should think about the quality of the apprenticeships, rather than just re-badging Train to Gain. They should think about what these people are actually learning and focus on quality as much as quantity. At the moment we are not seeing that kind of focus from this Government. Indeed, the Government’s plan to solve the problem—Alice in Wonderland-like—is not to work to improve the quality of apprenticeships. The Skills Minister has said instead that they will establish in law that apprenticeships are equal to degrees, as if such statist hubris and a Whitehall edict will solve the problem.

I do not want to get bogged down in party political bickering. As an early sign of our bipartisan approach, I am willing here and now to support the Education Secretary’s new ministerial edict on stopping children swinging on their chairs, which follows on from her predecessor’s edict on having children run around playing fields as punishment—which I think she reversed. What is more, I am happy to endorse the Education Secretary’s appointment of Mr Tom Bennett as the anti-low-level classroom disruption tsar. Who knows? One day the Conservative party might think that teachers need to be trained and qualified to teach in a classroom, but we are not quite there yet.

We have far too unequal a distribution of skills, and our young people have poorer levels of literacy and numeracy compared with their older contemporaries. We need a serious shake-up of secondary education, to broaden the skills base and boost productivity, and so that it values what people can do alongside what they know and prepares young people for the rigours of the modern workplace by nurturing their character, resilience and wellbeing.