Teaching Quality

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. There has always been a role for instructors coming into a school—for example, outside experts, lecturers and those who teach sport and music—and we would retain that. However, if someone is permanently in charge of the curriculum outcomes for young people in a class, it seems to me that as a minimum they should be of qualified teacher standard. There is no way that we will block the creativity and excellence coming into schools, but we want the best possible teachers, with minimum guarantees of teaching standards, to look after the education of our young people.

The Sutton Trust and the London School of Economics have concluded that if we raised the performance of the bottom 10% of teachers only to the average we would see a marked improvement in performance in our schools. That is especially the case when we consider that disadvantaged children suffer most from poor teaching. Without home support and social capital to fall back on, children from disadvantaged backgrounds suffer disproportionately from poor teaching.

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

The hon. Gentleman has been very generous in giving way and I am grateful to him for doing so. May I ask him at the very least to nuance his policy on non-qualified teachers? I do not know whether since the last debate, three months ago, he has sought evidence on the quality of non-QTS teachers in our schools. If he has, perhaps he could share it with the House. If he has not, will he at least undertake to carry out a piece of research to consider the quality of those teachers before putting in train a system that could ultimately lead to their removal, if not sacking, from the classroom?

[Tristram Hunt]

I thank the Chair of the Education Committee for his intervention, but I am always bemused by his blind spot on this policy. He makes a curious transition from being a rather inquiring, cerebral Chair of a Select Committee to being a rather more partisan figure when he sits up on the Back Benches pursuing party policy. I would welcome research from the Education Committee on the role of qualified teacher status nationally and internationally. I know that his Committee frequently travels to Finland and Singapore, so perhaps on his next trip he could do some research into that policy area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under Labour policy, no state school could poach an outstanding teacher from an independent school. It would put restrictions on getting the best teachers from the independent sector into the state sector, which makes no sense at all.

I know that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central has a passion for independent schools, having attended one, but he says that he also has a passion for what he calls the “forgotten 50%”—those pursuing vocational education. One problem with his policy is that if we were to implement it, we would be going against the Wolf report on vocational education, which his two predecessors accepted. It stated:

“Many schools believe that it is impossible to bring professionals in to demonstrate/teach even part of a course without requiring the presence of…salaried teaching staff”

or qualified teaching status.

“This further reduces the incidence of high quality vocational teaching, delivered to the standards that industries actually require.”

What happened to the forgotten 50% when the hon. Gentleman was coming up with his policy? He forgot about them.

This morning, Professor Alison Wolf appeared in front of the Select Committee on Education and said:

“I would be desperately sorry if the result of this…move”—

by Labour—

“was to actually make it harder, indeed impossible, to get vocational experts into the classrooms to teach their own subject and show their own expertise, because they are the ones who motivate. The fantastic vocational teaching that you see is done by people who have actually worked in the area, can talk to kids and know what is going to happen and know where it is taking them.”

A direct result of the hon. Gentleman’s policy is to knock one of the principal props of Alison Wolf’s report, which is improving the quality of vocational and technical education for the so-called forgotten 50%—and yet he does not care.

The hon. Gentleman should listen to someone who has been Education Secretary and knows exactly the importance of bringing in the maximum amount of talent and what helping working-class children involves. When the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) was on “This Week” in October 2013, he spoke to a musician, Nicola Benedetti, about the importance of securing music teachers who had real talent. He said:

“I think music is a specialist subject. My worry is that many children won’t have the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument. If you find someone who is a great musician but they can’t spend three years getting the proper teaching qualifications, I think you should use them.”

I agree with him.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

When we questioned Alison Wolf about this issue this morning I asked her about a study, which I suggested to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) should be carried out before such a policy is implanted. She said:

“I think it’s important to do that and particularly in respect of vocational courses. I remember a case where in Texas they did something similar and the main people who got sacked were, I am afraid, what they call shop-teachers.”

Is there a danger that we will take out those who are re-engaging people in the classroom, re-engaging children and helping them with vocational courses, if the Labour party does not, at the very least, commit to a piece of research before going ahead with this policy?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is right on both counts. First, the Opposition’s policy would be destructive of high-quality technical education, and secondly, there is not a single shred of academic evidence that could be adduced by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central in support of his policy.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the importance of continuous professional development, but he did not refer to the network of teaching schools that we have established and the brilliant work they are doing. He referred to the Prince’s Teaching Institute, but did not quote what its leader, Bernice McCabe, said this week when she thanked the Government for restoring the status and prestige of teachers, which had been undermined by the previous Labour Government. He made a comparison with what the General Medical Council does with the revalidation of doctors, but what he did not do while talking about professionalism, is his homework. The whole point is that many doctors, like many lawyers, are either self-employed or in partnerships. Where they are directly employed in the public sector under management in hospitals, those who run the hospitals perform the process of revalidation, exactly like headmasters do in schools. That is not by using an external body, but by doing it internally.

I am all for making sure we have employers who are capable of ensuring high-quality continuous professional development, but the truth is that we do have them—they are called head teachers. The hon. Gentleman’s policy does not trust head teachers sufficiently. He want to undermine their autonomy over whom they can hire and whom they can fire, and he wants to undermine their autonomy to choose the type of continuous professional development and evaluation that they believe is right for their teachers.

I know that when I talk about autonomy the hon. Gentleman will say, “Aha. There he is again. Gove is talking about structures, not standards.” Indeed, in his speech he said that he believes in standards not structures. Let me quote from a book called “A Journey”, written by a mutual friend of ours:

“We had come to power in 1997 saying it was “standards not structures” that mattered…This was fine as a piece of rhetoric; and positively beneficial as a piece of politics. Unfortunately, as I began to realise when experience started to shape our thinking, it was bunkum as a piece of policy. The whole point is that structures beget standards.”

How a service is configured affects outcomes. Of all the people qualified to teach Labour politicians how to run and reform public services, there is no one better than the author of those words: Tony Blair. That is why we are implementing Blairite progressive policies, but unfortunately, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central is taking his cue lines from the National Union of Teachers and the educational establishment. That is why everyone who believes in driving quality up, reforming education, and a progressive future for children should reject this nonsensical, ungrammatical and regressive motion.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. One hundred and forty years ago, Benjamin Disraeli said:

“Upon the education of the people of this country the fate of this country depends.”—[Official Report, 15 June 1874; Vol. 219, c. 1618.]

His words are as true today as they were at the time.

I am glad that the shadow Front-Bench team grasp the central importance of teacher quality to driving up standards in our schools. However, I doubt I am alone in feeling that today we are living through the parliamentary equivalent of groundhog day. Almost exactly three months ago, the Opposition secured a debate on this topic. The House will remember that during the course of that debate I challenged the shadow Secretary of State to supply the evidence showing that employing non-qualified teacher status teachers in our state schools was damaging children’s prospects, or to provide examples of head teachers who were taking on unqualified teachers just to save money or sticking them with low-achieving children. If that evidence was produced, we could then review the impact of non-QTS teachers on educational standards and consider, on that evidence, whether to outlaw them. There was no answer to my question.

Ahead of the speech made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), I was confident that he must have uncovered compelling new evidence on the importance of QTS—that he and his team must have been working through the night to provide devastating proof on why QTS is so vital, and why teachers without QTS should be forced out of a job. I challenged him on that again today and he had no answer.

When I asked the hon. Gentleman at least to consider conducting an inquiry to find evidence before making a decision, he suggested that I was partial because three months ago, and again today, I took issue with him on this matter. If I appeared aggressive in doing so, it was not because I sit on the Government Benches. I could list the issues on which I disagree with the Secretary of State and on which I am happy to challenge him in this House. However, when the Government are right and the Opposition are putting forward an irresponsible policy that is wrong, it is my duty to challenge it.

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for giving way. If there is an iron-clad link between possession of qualified teacher status and automatic success in pedagogy, why does the part of the country with the highest proportion of unqualified teachers, inner London, have the best state education, and why are two schools with 100% QTS teachers in Stoke-on-Trent in special measures?

[Mr Stuart]

I thank the Secretary of State. The point, if the shadow Secretary of State will listen, is that the evidence is anecdotal. To bring in such a change, if one believes in evidence-based policy making, the hon. Gentleman should do the work first, gather the evidence and make sure he is doing the right thing before outlawing these teachers.

Over the past 48 hours, I have asked any number of experts what studies have been conducted into the quality of QTS teachers as opposed to non-QTS teachers. I have spoken to the Education Committee Clerk to see whether the Committee is aware of any studies, to academic experts such as Alan Smithers at the university of Buckingham, an adviser to my Committee, to the Institute of Education and to Ofsted, but none could identify any empirical surveys in this area.

I turned, then, to the teaching profession itself and contacted the principals of several academies in Hull to hear about their experiences. I spoke to people such as Dr Cathy Taylor, the head of the Sirius academy, who told me that her school employed five teachers without QTS out of a total teaching strength of about 87. Those five include excellent teachers in art and maths, both of whom are completing their teaching qualifications, Members will be delighted to hear, but they also include specialists in ICT and salon services. The Sirius academy has a strong professional development programme, and Dr Taylor was clear that she would never employ more non-QTS staff than could be properly mentored within the school.

I also spoke to Andy Grace, the principal of the Boulevard academy. He does not employ non-QTS teachers on permanent contracts, but the academy employs peripatetic, non-QTS staff to provide expert tuition in fields such as sport, art and music, helping to stretch able students.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is calling for research into this subject, but he will remember that the Education Committee’s report, “Great Teachers”, urged the Government, as a matter of importance, to undertake such research. I am not aware of their having carried it out. Will he take this opportunity to repeat that request to the Secretary of State?

[Mr Stuart]

I would welcome such research, but the fundamental position of the Secretary of State is that, within a strong accountability system, we should trust head teachers. The number of non-QTS teachers is reducing. There are many fewer now than when Labour was in power, and the shadow Secretary of State’s refusal in successive debates to acknowledge that is mildly irritating. We have fewer of them and there is strong accountability, yet we keep hearing this proposal to get rid of them.

That point echoes the comments by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson):

“If you find someone who is a great musician but they can’t spend three years getting the proper teaching qualifications, I think you should use them”.

He gets it; it is a shame that the Opposition Front-Bench team do not appear to do so. When it comes to the evidence for their campaign, the Opposition are quieter than the library of a Trappist monastery.

Is the shadow Secretary of State in favour of evidence-based policy making? I know that he would not want to score political points if it were to hurt our children’s education. He has had three months since the last debate to find evidence that non-QTS teachers are damaging schooling. He has had three months to find evidence that moving a teacher without QTS to QTS on the job improves learning in their classes. Has he found any evidence? If so, where is it? Why does he not share it with us? If he could point us in the right direction, I am sure my Committee would be happy to pursue the matter. If unqualified teachers are doing harm, let us move fast to get rid of them.

[Tristram Hunt]

The Chairman of the Select Committee will know, from the work of Andreas Schleicher of the OECD, that data from the programme for international student assessment have made it clear that educational jurisdictions with the highest qualified teachers—from Finland and South Korea to Singapore and Shanghai—perform most effectively. Can he give us the evidence that unqualified teachers are the route to improving standards and closing the attainment gap?

[Mr Stuart]

Before teachers without QTS, whose number has reduced, are removed from the system, the shadow Secretary of State needs to show why that is a good idea. When Charles Parker, the chief executive of the Baker Dearing Trust, came before the Committee this morning, he said of people who taught in university technical colleges, including those with PhDs: “They’re amazing people, they are highly professional, but they may not be highly professional in the sense of being qualified teachers.” Before they are got rid of, let us check that there are not more good than bad; let us ensure that they are not doing good. If they are doing good and the hon. Gentleman gets rid of them, it will damage not just his conscience, but the education of the children whom he is duty bound to protect.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman has to make an impact in his new brief, and to secure his place in the shadow Cabinet. It cannot be easy having to mollify the resurgent left of his party, let alone the trade unions which bankroll almost every aspect of his party’s actions. However, I urge him not to put politics ahead of the evidence, and I know that he would not put ambition ahead of principle.

For those of us on the Back Benches who are trying to work out how best to improve educational opportunities for our constituents, this debate is bizarre, and I ask the shadow Secretary of State to change his policy.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Although when I was shadow Secretary of State I enjoyed working on a cross-party basis with the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), I have to say that his speech was unnecessarily partisan and did not add to the merits of this important debate.

This debate is about how we can both raise the quality of education and narrow the achievement gap. We have all welcomed the improvement in results, and, in particular, the fall in the number of schools that are below the floor target. That is of huge benefit to our society and our education system. However, the Demos report, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), is of great concern. It shows that if we take inner London out of the picture, we see a worsening position—a widening of the achievement gap between those from the richest backgrounds and those from the poorest—and that must be of concern to Members in all parts of the House.

How can we change the position? I think that the big challenge for all of us who have been engaged in education policy in the House, in government or in opposition, is to step back as politicians and policy makers, and to empower teachers and school leaders to lead that change. I welcome the motion, because it is about the profession leading change, and in my short speech I want to refer to some of the teaching pioneers who are already doing that.

The brilliant organisation Teaching Leaders is seeking to create the middle leaders of the future who can ensure that our schools improve, particularly those that serve the most deprived communities. ResearchED 2013 was set up as a grass-roots project by people who loved education and loved teaching, but felt detached from the education debate. They came together to create a national conference for teachers, researchers and others who were interested in how we inform the way in which we teach our children, in drawing out the best of policy theory and practice, and in finding out what works in the classroom. Then there is the long-standing and brilliant work of subject associations. When I was an Education Minister, I once went to the Geography Association’s Easter conference. Teachers were attending it voluntarily, during their Easter break, and were exchanging in a passionate way their interest in, and information about, their subject. That, I think, must be the way forward, but how can we best get to where we want to be?

There is a great deal of discussion about what happened under the last Government, but I think that we did some fantastic things to empower teachers. The Secretary of State mentioned Teach First. I am proud to have given Teach First the go-ahead when I was a Minister, 11 years ago. Its aim is to attract the best and the brightest graduates to teaching, and then to empower those teachers to use the latest research and evidence to inform their classroom practice. The sponsoring of academies was intended to ensure that the best teachers went into the schools that served the neighbourhoods with the greatest social and economic need. The London Challenge has succeeded in changing a position in which London schools were below the national average, to one in which London has the best-performing secondary schools in the country.

However, we also got some things wrong. Sometimes we were too centralist. We directed too much from Whitehall: there was too much of a “The Department knows best” approach. My former boss, Baroness Morris—Estelle Morris—said this week that the danger of such a centralised approach was that while the policy might be

“designed to empower teachers and raise the status of the profession, it was seen as being owned by the government and not by the profession itself.”

That is why I think that the movement initiated by the profession in favour of a royal college of teaching is vital, and deserves the cross-party commitment that it has attracted so far. I believe that it could represent a significant step forward for the teaching profession.

[Mr Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman expand on his thoughts about the college of teaching?

[Stephen Twigg]

I am grateful for the extra minute. That is what I was about to do.

It is absolutely right that the movement is independent of Government and independent of politics. I ask the Minister: if, and only if, the royal college comes to the Government to ask for financial help on start-up costs, will the Government consider providing that start-up support? We want something that is independent, but if it needs that help when it is getting set up, can they give it that support?

I want to make a point that I have made before and that is incredibly important. The countries that have been most successful in education have often forged a cross-party consensus and a wider consensus in society about education and its role. Look, for example, at Germany, and at the technical and vocational education system in Switzerland. Switzerland has a national centre for the use of evidence in education. A number of people, particularly John Dunford but also Baroness Morris, have put forward that idea, whose time has come. I called for it two years ago, when I used the title “Office for Educational Improvement” and the Secretary of State’s response was, “We already have such an office—it is called the Government.” I took that in good humour but I do not think that that is a good enough answer.

Part of the problem with education in this country, under successive Governments of different parties, is that the line between education and politics has been drawn in the wrong place. Politicians rightly decide how much money should be available, how it should be divided and the legal structure for education, but I do not think that politicians should get involved in the pedagogy and the curriculum. The professionals should lead on that and I believe that a centre for evidence could play a crucial role in delivering that. I welcome the opportunity today for a serious debate about how we enhance teacher professionalism, and promote greater continuing professional development and the opportunity for teachers themselves to lead that, but let us also say that evidence can play a much bigger role in education policy.

The morale of the teaching profession matters. It is undoubtedly the case—the Secretary of State needs to acknowledge this—that morale at the moment in school classrooms is low. Despite having this fantastic generation of teachers and results getting better, morale is low. He has to accept the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) that sometimes the Secretary of State’s rhetoric, in this place and outside, has contributed to that decline in morale. I hope that that is something that he can reconsider.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Skidmore]

According to the time frame I have seen in the media, it is possibly every three years. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could say how often the revalidation process should take place. We have 500,000 teachers in place; how many of them will have to go through the process, and how often? Who will administer the process? Will it be led by Ofsted or by head teachers? Surely revalidation happens all the time—that is the role of the school leadership team and the head teacher. Adding the process of revalidation simply adds extra bureaucracy. Would the hon. Gentleman make extra resources available to schools to continue the re-evaluation process? What will the paperwork look like? These are all valid questions to which teachers watching this debate need to know the answers.

The hon. Gentleman compares teacher revalidation with what happens with doctors and consultants, but consultants’ revalidation is very different from doctors’ revalidation. Will there be a revalidation process for head teachers and one for Ofsted inspectors? All these questions need to be considered. Will teachers who fail the process lose their qualified teacher status altogether? Will there be revalidation in the private sector?

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s explanation of validation, and hope he can continue for another minute.

[Chris Skidmore]

I much appreciate that intervention, which came right on time.

In this debate about QTS, it is important that we as a House and the public know exactly how revalidation—or “teacher MOTs” as the process has become popularly known in the papers—will operate. What is the time frame? What are the consequences of failing the revalidation? Will it take place within schools? If so, what is the point of all this? Is it simply to slap on a party policy? I am not against revalidation, because I believe that it already exists, as we have given the school leadership team and head teachers the power to lead.

The key point here is that we trust head teachers to be commanders, captains of their ships. The shadow Secretary of State looks at me scornfully. He clearly does not believe in giving head teachers the power to run their schools. If a head teacher wants to employ a teacher without QTS, I have no problem with that, because I trust that head teacher to make the right decision, and head teachers should have that power. That is the crux of this debate and why I will oppose the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It has been a good debate, although bizarrely one in which we have not been graced by the presence of the Government Minister responsible for teaching. Why is the Schools Minister not here? Is it an authorised or unauthorised absence? Will he be fined, as many parents are being fined around the country, for playing truant? We know that he is deeply conflicted about whether teachers in taxpayer-funded schools should be qualified. Last time we discussed the issue, I likened him to Odo the Shape-Shifter from “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine”, but now having dissolved back into his bucket he seems to have re-emerged as the Invisible Man. The truth is that we have a part-time Schools Minister who is absent because he is performing his other job in the Cabinet Office of trying to hold the coalition together. He should be here in the House, answering for his policies in the Commons—even if he does not agree with his own policies, which when we last checked appeared to be his position.

The Government once tried to convince us that they understood the importance of teaching—they even released a White Paper with that title—but everything that they have done in office has been about an ideological obsession with structures and an easy headline about numbers of academies and free schools. They have undermined and neglected the teaching profession, alienated hard-working qualified professional educators and sent the morale of the profession into the cellar.

Last year, a survey conducted by YouGov found that 55% of teachers described their morale as “low” or “very low”. That figure had risen from 42% in just eight months. Sixty-nine per cent. said their morale had declined since the 2010 general election. Only 5% thought that the Government’s impact on the education system had been positive.

It may be that, for some of the lunatic fringe that the Secretary of State has employed as special advisers, those figures are fine because in their view teachers are just Marxist troublemakers, but they could not be more wrong. When YouGov asked teachers their voting intentions at the last general election, 33% said they would vote Tory, 32% Labour, and 27% Lib Dem. Actually, teachers—I think I am the only member of either Front Bench in either House who used to be a school teacher—are a politically moderate, sometimes conservative group of swing voters. However, the Secretary of State has worked his magic on them with his advisers. That important group of middle-class swing voters now says in the latest poll on teacher voting intentions by YouGov that the support among teachers for the Conservatives is down from 33% to 16%, the support for Labour is up from 32% to 57%, and the Lib Dems—actually, if their Minister cannot be bothered to turn up, I cannot be bothered to read out the figure. Let us just say that they are now neck and neck with the Greens and behind UKIP.

Teacher morale matters. Teachers’ professional status matters. The OECD has said in its PISA reports that schools in countries with high teacher morale

“tend to achieve better results”.

Teacher morale matters, not just politically but, more importantly, for the education of our country’s children. So why does the Secretary of State not understand that, by undermining the profession with his “anyone can teach” dogma, he is undermining standards in exactly the same way as they were undermined in Sweden?

[Mr Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kevin Brennan]

Not at the moment.

We all remember the Secretary of State’s infatuation with the Swedish model. He even wrote about it in The Independent newspaper, under the headline “Michael Gove: We need a Swedish education system”. He was saying that we needed free schools—eventually to be run for profit, presumably, as in Sweden—and unqualified, low-paid teachers. His praise for Sweden was effusive. He went on to say that

“what has worked in Sweden can work here.”

We do not hear much about Sweden from him now. I think I can say, without fear of being accused by the statistics authority of abusing the PISA statistics—unlike the Secretary of State, who was rapped on the knuckles for doing so when talking about the PISA statistics for this country—that Sweden has plummeted down the PISA tables after pursuing the very reform programme that the Secretary of State is now adopting in this country, including the use of unqualified teachers. Perhaps the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), might like to look at that evidence with his Committee. Sweden is now as invisible in the Secretary of State’s speeches and articles as the Schools Minister is in this debate on teaching.

It would be helpful if the Government were willing to tell us what qualifications the teachers have in the schools that are causing concern. I have asked him about the Al-Madinah free school in Derby. On 16 October last year, in response to a parliamentary question about the qualifications held by teachers in free schools, I was told:

“Data on each qualification held by each teacher is not collected.”—[Official Report, 16 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 746W.]

I thought that that could not be right, so on 18 November 2013 I asked whether the Secretary of State would

“publish in anonymised form the qualifications held by each member of the teaching staff at the Al-Madinah Free School”

at the beginning of last September’s term. I was told:

“It would be inappropriate to publish any details until the Secretary of State for Education has concluded the next steps in this case.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 729W.]

On 6 January this year, when those next steps had been taken, I asked again for details of the qualifications. I was told that it would be “inappropriate” to publish any details of staff qualifications. On 14 January, I asked why it would be inappropriate, and received an answer simply repeating that it would be inappropriate to answer the question.

Lloyd George was once driving around north Wales and he stopped his car to ask a Welsh farmer for directions. He said, “Where am I?”, and the farmer replied, “You’re in your car.” That is exactly the method used by the Department for Education to answer parliamentary questions. The answers are short, accurate and tell us absolutely nothing that we did not already know. The Secretary of State said today that he was going to release that information, and I know that he will do so because he is a man of his word. I look forward to receiving that information tomorrow.

A YouGov poll has shown that 89% of parents do not want their child to attend a school whose teachers do not have professional teaching qualifications. Before the Secretary of State goes on again about unqualified teachers in the private sector, he might want to reflect on the fact that the latest Ofsted report shows that 13% of schools in the selective fee-paying sector were judged “inadequate”.

As our motion says, no school system can surpass the quality of its teachers. Before I finish, I want to turn briefly to the issue of the South Leeds academy. The Secretary of State has kindly passed to me the letter that he received yesterday, which he presumably solicited ahead of this debate. In the letter, the academy accepts that it placed the advert to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) has referred, but says that it was

“placed in error by a new and inexperienced clerical assistant”.

We accept that explanation. What it also says in that letter, which the Secretary of State did not highlight, is that the academy trust involved says that the School Partnership Trust Academies

“always seeks to employ teachers with qualified teaching status.”

It agrees with us, not with the Secretary of State. We should be employing teachers with qualified teacher status. He is wrong; we are right, and the SPTA agrees with us on that issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I am clear that the strength of guidance, inspiration and motivation needs to increase, and that the best place to get that motivation is from people who are in careers. We have inspirational apprentices such as Sara Underwood, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who explain the benefits of apprenticeships. I explain the benefits of apprenticeships, and it should be incumbent on all of us in the House to explain that opportunities are available to allow people to prosper.

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

4. What systems his Department has in place for management of failing academies and free schools.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

The Department monitors schools through scrutiny of performance data and Ofsted reports. All free schools are visited by an education adviser in the first and fourth term of opening. Concerns are investigated immediately. It is for an academy trust to ensure that appropriate action is taken to bring about rapid improvement. If it does not, we use the intervention powers in the funding agreement.

[Mr Stuart]

The recent action taken on Al-Madinah and the Discovery New School by Lord Nash, the Under-Secretary of State, followed his setting out in detail the requirements those schools had to follow in order to turn themselves around and required his personal supervision of those schools. What role will school commissioners have in future to ensure that we no longer have Ministers trying to run schools from a desk in Whitehall?

[Michael Gove]

Inevitably, we inherited a situation in which funding agreements were the principal method of ensuring that both academies and free schools acted in conformity with the principles that all of us would expect. We are not intending to abandon the principle that it should be for Ministers to sign and, if necessary, revisit funding agreements, but a new system of regional schools commissioners working to the Office of the Schools Commissioner can ensure that we have the local intelligence that we need in order to respond more quickly, and that there is a greater number of high-quality sponsors to help drive school improvement.

School Governing Bodies

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Ministerial Corrections

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am not sure that that is exactly how my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) put his point. It is down to Ofsted to identify weak governing-body performance. Ultimately, it is the decision of either the Secretary of State or the local authority to replace that governing body with an interim executive board, should it not be doing what it is meant to be doing.

[Official Report, 5 December 2013, Vol. 571, c. 350-1WH.]

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister spell out how the powers of the Secretary of State and local authority to act if governance is failing differ between maintained schools and academies?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I will come to that point later in my comments, but in essence, the governing body in both cases can be replaced with an interim executive board.

[Official Report, 5 December 2013, Vol. 571, c. 352WH.]

Letter of correction from Elizabeth Truss:

Errors have been identified in the responses provided during the Westminster Hall debate on school governing bodies.

The correct responses should have been:

School Sport

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan—as the Ministers, my hon. Friends the Members for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), swap places—and to have secured the debate this afternoon, and to have colleagues from across the House who are members of the Select Committee joining me.

My Committee published our report, “School sport following London 2012: No more political football”, in July this year. As the first anniversary of the Olympic and Paralympic games approached, we wanted to hold a short inquiry into school sport. Both the 2012 games were an extraordinary display of sport’s potential to inspire, move and excite us. For young people watching, the achievements of the likes of Jessica Ennis, Mo Farah and David Weir were a tremendous example of what hard work and dedication can achieve, as well as a great advert for a healthy lifestyle.

The games represented a badly needed opportunity to turn the tide. For too many young people today, sport does not play a significant role in their lives. As a consequence, they are significantly less fit than previous generations. In November, American researchers published an ambitious new dataset, covering more than 25 million children across 28 countries. It showed that children today run a mile 90 seconds slower than their counterparts from 30 years ago. Closer to home, in this country, one in five children are now overweight or obese when they enter reception class. The figure rises to nearly one in three by the end of primary education. That gives some sense of the scale of the challenge that faces us as a nation.

We were delighted by the interest in our inquiry. Our online survey about sports provision in schools received more than 300 responses from teachers, while a similar survey of young people received nearly 800 replies. We also visited three schools in east London: Hallsville primary school and Curwen primary school in Newham; and Barking Abbey school, a sports specialist college for 11 to 18-year-olds.

What were our main conclusions about school sport? First, we concluded that just as the foundations for verbal literacy and numeracy are established in the primary years of school, so too must the foundations of “physical literacy” be established. School is the one place where all young people have access to sporting activities, and it is where a lifelong sporting habit can be formed and built upon, which should be a priority for every pupil.

The Government’s position on school sport, as outlined in December 2010, emphasised the role of competitive sport. However, many witnesses told us that a focus on competition discourages some children, particularly girls. The Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation has reported that as many as half of girls are currently put off being active by their experiences of PE and sport in school. It is not that schools should not offer competitive sport—far from it. They should offer both competitive and non-competitive sporting opportunities, to ensure that sport provision appeals and is accessible to all pupils.

Our second conclusion was about how school sport is delivered. Pupils’ opportunities to become involved in school sports are often limited by a lack of facilities. For example, we were concerned about the availability of accessible swimming pools, especially as a recent survey by the Amateur Swimming Association found that around half of children aged between 7 and 11 could not swim 25 metres. Think about that; it is a truly sobering statistic.

That issue could be tackled through partnerships between schools to promote the sharing of facilities and, where possible, by encouraging private schools to make their pools available to local state schools. However, fruitful co-operation between schools is not simply a question of sharing physical resources; it also involves co-operating to set up sporting events. School sport partnerships were highly regarded by many witnesses. Their main strength lay in the links and networks that they created, particularly between school sport and community sport—the clubs in the communities around schools.

Evidence suggests that the Government’s decision to end funding for SSPs has had a negative impact on young people’s opportunities to access competitive sport in school. The Smith Institute reports that a third of schools have experienced a decrease in school sports since the end of the ring-fenced funding for SSPs. In our report, we recommended that the Government should devise a new strategy for school sport, building on the many positive elements of the SSP model. Can the Minister provide us with an update today on whether the Government intend to take such a strategy forward and, if so, on when we can expect it?

Our third finding related to the quality of sport teaching in schools. Ofsted has found that PE teaching needs improvement in 30% of the primary schools that it visited, and as I said earlier, it is at primary level that we need to get high-quality sport teaching in place, to build the positive attitudes, habits and interests for lifelong sporting activity. Research by the Youth Sport Trust shows that many primary teachers lack the confidence and competence to deliver PE properly.

In particular, we were very concerned by the discovery that many mainstream schools are unable to provide sport for disabled children, who are too often sent to the library instead of participating in sport. Initial teacher training for primary school teachers should include a more substantial course on PE, including PE for children with disabilities or special needs. When the Minister responds, I would be grateful to him if he clarified what action he will take to ensure that new teachers receive the training that they need, particularly at primary level, to deliver the transformation that the figures that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech show is clearly required.

If all these things are to take place, the right funding framework needs to be in place. The fourth conclusion of our report was that the Government need to ensure that sustained funding is available for school sport. Successive Governments have failed to provide long-term stability in this area, and the coalition should avoid falling into the same trap. The SSPs, which I have already mentioned, were undeniably expensive, and it is worth remembering that the previous Labour Government’s plan was not that SSPs should continue; they had planned for SSPs to come to an end.

The Government now propose to introduce the primary sport premium, which was announced in March this year. We believe that this programme is correctly focused on the primary phase of education. However, it is due to last for only two years. That is simply not long enough for schools to develop lasting provision. If the primary sport premium is not extended, this very worthwhile idea risks becoming yet another short-term fix.

Must we wait for a major sports event to be hosted in this country before the then Government announce some short-term measure? Occasional attempts at pump-priming or, more cynically, headline grabbing, are simply not good enough. We are also concerned that head teachers lack simple guidance on using this funding in the best way to meet the needs of their pupils and staff. Will the Minister therefore promise to look into how funding can be arranged for the long term? Will he also tell us what progress has been made on providing detailed guidance for schools, so that they can make the most of the primary sport premium in the time that it has left?

Of course, improving school sport is not simply a question of funding. Our fifth finding was that schools need to be made more accountable for their PE and sport provision. That would prevent resources from being diverted to areas on which schools are measured and held to account. Schools are rightly strongly held to account for the outcomes of their pupils, but where something is not a central focus for the school, it will be put to the side, and that happens all too often with sport.

Until 2010, schools were required to report on the number of pupils who participated in at least two hours a week of PE or sport. We acknowledge criticisms that that measure did not capture information about the quality of pupil engagement—it was not perfect—but we are concerned that, without some measure of activity, schools are not fully accountable for whether their pupils receive a decent amount of exercise. At the moment, it is highly unlikely that a head teacher will find their job under threat because they have failed woefully to provide for their pupils’ physical needs, so they concentrate entirely on the academic. We therefore recommended that schools be required to report annually on their website the proportion of children involved in at least two hours of core PE each week. If the Minister has alternative proposals, we would like to hear them, but sport at the moment goes by the bye, and that cannot be allowed to continue.

Beyond the time spent on PE and sport, the need to monitor the quality of teaching and provision was a theme that ran through all the evidence that we received. The Youth Sport Trust told us about school games kitemarks, which have been introduced to measure the quality of provision in schools. Schools should be encouraged to achieve such quality marks, but they should check that the scheme that they enter is sufficiently rigorous and meaningful.

I have summarised our main recommendations. Five months on from our report, where do we stand? I confess to being rather disappointed. Although the Government response to our report was broadly supportive, it avoided committing to specific actions or a changed agenda. It did not address our concern about the need for a longer-term funding commitment—quite the contrary. Nor did Ministers make any conclusive statements about their plans to improve schools’ access to sport facilities. Regarding our concern that schools need to be more accountable for the quality and quantity of sport provided, the response implied satisfaction with current accountability structures. Like many Government Members and possibly Opposition Members, I do not want unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation, but in a schools system driven by the outcomes on which schools are measured and held to account, we must ensure that important factors such as sport do not lose out, as they do today.

The Government response is all the more disappointing because, last month, the House of Lords Committee on Olympic and Paralympic Legacy published a report that largely echoed our concerns. It found that an exclusive focus on competitive sport risks discouraging some children from participating. That may be controversial in the Daily Mail, but I do not think that it is controversial with anyone who has had any experience of working with different children. The Committee reported that the difference in participation between young people with a limiting disability and those without is “unacceptably stark”. Its report highlighted the need for teachers, particularly in primary schools, to have specific training and skills to teach PE, and it called on the Government to conduct a review of initial training for specialist PE teachers. Their lordships also identified the importance of co-operation between schools, particularly between primary and secondary schools.

There is, therefore, great consensus about what needs to happen and about what is at stake. This summer, Public Health England reported that 70% of young people do not undertake the recommended one hour’s physical activity each day. What we do to address that lies in our hands. Sport is important for all our children, not just future Olympic hopefuls. I am optimistic that London 2012 can have a long-term legacy, but we need to do more to ensure that the promise that the games would “inspire a generation” is honoured in fact, not just in words.

If that is to happen, there is a challenge for every part of the system. Schools need to offer competitive and non-competitive sporting opportunities to maximise participation. The Government need to commit to longer-term funding provision and to hold schools properly to account. Teachers need to be properly trained, so they are confident in delivering high-quality PE and school sport. That is not rocket science, but it will require sustained funding, focus and ministerial support. In other words, it will require precisely the qualities that made the London Olympics such a success and that could now revitalise sport in our schools if Ministers take this opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Alan.

I congratulate the Select Committee on its excellent investigation into school sport. The report is important. It is very sad that we are having this debate. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), set out the case powerfully, and I pay tribute to him for his comments. There was a great festival of sport in 2012. After winning the bid in 2005, we talked a great deal about the need to build a legacy by using the opportunity to inspire a generation. Sadly, the foundation on which we should have been inspiring that generation—the structure through which we delivered school sport—was taken away. I commend the Select Committee on what it has done.

Modesty forbids me from commending the report published by the Smith Institute, which the Chair mentioned, because I edited it and wrote the foreword. A number of eminent people wrote essays in the report on how we should structure the future of school and community sport to try to put right what has clearly gone horribly wrong.

We have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), and from the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), and there is broad consensus that school sport partnerships worked, that wider benefits come from people being involved in sport, and that there is a need for a long-term, coherent plan to take us forward on sports. That consensus is evident in the report and in the comments made today. It is worth considering the history, because the Government’s thinking has been inconsistent for some time.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

School sport partnerships were a characteristically very expensive and temporary arrangement by the previous Government, so it is not as if this Government have dismantled a long-term vision and framework. We have moved from one expensive and patchy system to another. Successive Governments have failed to provide the long-term framework and vision that we need.

[Clive Efford]

I am reluctant to differ with the hon. Gentleman, but school sport partnerships were in place for some time and had a major effect on participation in sport. I would accept his point if we had moved smoothly from one system to the other, but that is not what happened.

Prior to the general election, the then shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), who is now Health Secretary, and the then shadow Sports Minister, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), produced a document, “Extending Opportunities: A Conservative policy paper on sport.” Two things were mentioned in relation to school sports. First:

“The school environment provides the majority of children with their first experiences of sport. This experience is likely to govern their approach to sport for the rest of their lives.”

The document goes on to address the contribution of school sport partnerships. On the same page, the document states that the Conservative party would:

“Re-examine Building Schools for the Future to see how sports provision can be enhanced.”

I mention that document because the sad thing is that as soon as the Government came into office, both Building Schools for the Future, which, as the document recognises, improved school facilities, and the funding for school sport partnerships were taken away. That announcement was made in October 2010, and it was almost the kiss of death for two key elements of delivering sport in our schools. There is no doubt that Building Schools for the Future improved facilities in our schools; we could have used it to build a framework for delivering excellent sport provision, both competitive and non-competitive, in our schools. There was inconsistency between what the Government said before the election, and what they did after it.

It is also worth setting out what the school sport partnerships achieved, because in 2002 the PE and school sport survey highlighted that only one child in four was doing two hours of PE a week. Under the school sport partnerships, by 2007-08, the figure had increased to 90%. In fact, the success of school sport partnerships led in that year to steps being taken to introduce a target of three hours of PE a week, and the five-hour commitment meant that almost 55% of children were doing at least three hours of PE a week and were moving towards the five-hour commitment.

We set very challenging, but achievable, targets as a measure of our ambition. We wanted to get 2 million more people active and, by 2012, we wanted 60% of children to do five hours of PE a week during curriculum time and after school. Before the election, the then shadow Sports Minister said on Radio 5 Live that he thought it would be wrong to dismantle school sport partnerships after 13 years of work, and that his party would build on the partnerships. The Conservative party’s “Sport in schools” policy briefing note stated that schools would be

“free to enter as many or as few sports as they want, and there would be preliminary city and county heats, perhaps using the School Sport Partnerships infrastructure”.

Again, we see what the party went on to do.

The Conservative policy also states:

“We will also publish data about schools’ sports facilities and their provision of competitive sporting opportunities”.

In opposition, the Conservative party committed to introducing competitive sport in schools and went on and did it. The current Government built on the school games introduced by the previous Government, which is an excellent example of what can be achieved for sport in our schools, and I support what they have achieved, but as has been pointed out, the funding has a limited time scale, which makes me question whether it will exist in the long term. A consistent criticism—of both the previous and current Governments, I grant—is that what we need is some form of long-term planning. If the Government are to produce figures for participation in competitive sport, surely it follows that they should provide statistics on non-competitive sport, too, so that parents may have a clear idea of exactly what they can expect from physical and recreational activity provided to their children at school.

In 2010, money was taken away from the school sport partnerships with no consultation and no planning whatever. We have heard what Jonathan Edwards thought about that, and at the time many others were highly critical of what the Secretary of State for Education did without considering the consequences or putting anything else in place. That is a key point. The Secretary of State wrote to Baroness Campbell of Loughborough:

“I can confirm therefore that the Department will not continue to provide ring-fenced funding for school sport partnerships. I am also announcing that the Department is lifting, immediately, the many requirements of the previous Government's PE and Sport Strategy, so giving schools the clarity and freedom to concentrate on competitive school sport.”

He continued with a list:

“I am removing the need for schools to:

Plan and implement their part of a ‘five hour offer’”—

so the five-hour offer was off the agenda—

“Collect information about every pupil for an annual survey;”—

so we had no idea what was going on in schools—

“Deliver a range of new Government sport initiatives each year;”—

if we are trying to get uniformity of delivery across schools, why would one want that?—and

“Report termly to the Youth Sport Trust on various performance indicators”.

I might actually sympathise with that last one, because the Youth Sport Trust was heavy on data collection, but that does not justify the Government taking away all its funding and that of school sport partnerships in the way that they did. Everyone has said that the partnerships were a foundation on which we could have built. If things were wrong, we could have altered or reformed them to make them more effective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Timpson]

Absolutely. As in other areas of a child’s life—internet safety, for example—parental involvement and responsibility have to form part of the solution, so that whether children are in or out of school they get the same message. We have heard about some recent cases of over-exuberance among parents on the touchline, when perhaps they have taken that responsibility a little too far, but we want to see parents more involved in holding schools to account, as well as in helping the schools to deliver sport and PE, so that their children get the best opportunities.

That is one of the reasons why, as part of the sport premium, schools have to publish on their website how they are spending it and what impact it is having, so that parents can see for themselves, form judgments and ask questions about whether it is doing what it set out to do. In answer to another question from the hon. Member for Eltham, that would include competitive and non-competitive sport in that school—it is not only competitive sport that will be part of that transparency.

To dwell on the history is always an interesting exercise when discussing school sport. I do not wish to chastise the hon. Gentleman for wanting to return to many of those issues, but it would be healthier for our children if we concentrated on the future and on where we can find joint enterprise to build on some fantastic work being done out there, spreading it more widely and making it more sustainable. That is why the cornerstone of our approach is the focus on improving provision in primary schools. I welcome the broad support for that both in this debate and more widely. Since September 2012, I have, with officials in the Department, spent a lot of time talking to head teachers, national governing bodies, Youth Sport Trust, Sport England, the Association for Physical Education and others, so as to understand where the money could have the greatest impact. The overwhelming consensus was that we should channel our energies towards the primary level.

That is why from autumn this year primary head teachers across the country have started to receive additional funding to improve the provision of PE and sport in their schools. The money is ring-fenced. The hon. Member for Eltham said that the Government’s philosophy is to give head teachers the freedom to spend money in the way they think is best for their pupils. This additional funding fulfils that objective, but the ring-fencing makes it clear how high a priority we place on ensuring that PE and sport in schools is of the highest possible calibre.

That is backed up by the fact that PE and sports provision is and will continue to be inspected by Ofsted, which is briefing all its inspectors on how to do that. There have also been changes to the school inspection handbook. I have seen for myself some of the section 5 inspection reports, in which far more prominence is already being given to the evaluation of how the school sport premium is being spent. I saw a report for a primary school in my own constituency that has clubbed together with other schools to bring in a full-time specialist PE teacher. The teacher spends one day a week in each of the four primary schools and on the fifth day goes to those pupils who need extra catch-up so that they can get to the level we all want to see.

My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) reminded us that the head teacher of a typical primary school will receive £9,250 to spend on sport provision between now and the summer term. The hon. Member for Sefton Central astutely observed that the premium has now been extended in the autumn statement to a third year, to include 2015-16. I do not for a minute want to suggest that my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Education Committee has not had his eye on the ball: to be absolutely fair to him, he attended the previous debate in this Chamber and the extension is in paragraph 2.164 of the autumn statement, so he is forgiven for failing on this occasion to have spotted such a hugely important announcement.

That announcement is an unequivocal demonstration of the importance that we attach to the embedding of school sport and PE in children’s lives. I am happy to repeat what I told the Select Committee: I want to keep pushing the issue within Government. Although it is often one of the most difficult exercises across Government, an important aspect of the cross-Government strategy on the issue has been pulling in funding and ongoing commitment from three Departments. I chair a regular ministerial group on school sport, which includes Youth Sport Trust, Sport England, the Association for Physical Education, Ofsted and others. There continues to be a joint commitment on funding and other resources.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Does the Minister think that the move of public health responsibility to local authorities might have a part to play in engendering a greater focus on youth sport and school sport in particular?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Graham Stuart]

This has been a great debate and an unusual one. We have ended with the Minister stating that he wants the model of the primary sport premium to be sustained as the Government’s objective. The Opposition spokesman has offered to work with the Minister, and the Minister has said how much he would welcome that—exactly the message that people involved in sport want to hear. We all collectively look forward to seeing a long-term approach to sport in our schools that turns around our children’s lives and ensures that the next generation is healthier, rather than less healthy, than the one that went before.

Question put and agreed to.

School Governing Bodies

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure and privilege to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Rosindell. It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon with the Minister and colleagues from the Select Committee on Education to discuss our report on the role of school governing bodies, which was published in July 2013. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister and other colleagues in the Chamber.

The 300,000 governors across the country perform an important job, and hon. Members on both sides of the House would want to send our thanks for the service that they perform in their communities. Holding schools to account for the quality of the education that they offer to pupils is a serious responsibility, and it is not all about external bodies; it is important that governors have the skills, self-confidence and ability to fulfil that role. Many governors offer outstanding advice and service, and they devote large amounts of time and expertise to monitoring and improving the schools in their charge.

By contrast, recent events at the Al-Madinah school in Derby underscore the importance of governance and the need for robust intervention when it is failing. The school’s chair of governors, Shazia Parveen, resigned in late October, and the remaining trustees finally resigned last month. Despite the shambles over which they had been presiding, the governors of the Al-Madinah school were under no obligation to resign; nor could they have been forced to do so under current regulations. That example is extreme and unusual, but I should be grateful to the Minister if she told us whether she thinks that the current situation is satisfactory, or whether changes need to be made to the regulatory framework to ensure that such people can be replaced sooner if they are clearly failing in their duties.

There is considerable variation in the quality of governance across different types of schools. The former chief inspector stated in Ofsted’s 2010-11 annual report that governance was good or outstanding in 71% of special schools and 64% of secondary schools, but only 55% of primary schools and just 53% of pupil referral units had such a rating, which is not acceptable.

School governance has recently been scrutinised by the Government. In September 2012, Ministers introduced regulations that provide greater flexibility to the governing bodies of maintained schools to reconstitute themselves, so that they may be smaller, with an emphasis on skills as opposed to prescribed constitutions. Those new regulations are most welcome.

During our inquiry, we found that schools are not making the most of the freedoms that they have. The envisaged process for strengthening governance has not necessarily happened in many areas, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on how the Government will encourage schools to make full use of the options available to them.

Our report makes a series recommendations that seek to improve the capacity, capability and profile of governing bodies. We said that the Government should study the effectiveness of governing bodies that are responsible for groups of schools, such as federations and academy trusts, and consider the optimum size for governing federations effectively.

Meanwhile, the recruitment and retention of governors continues to be a problem. Mike Cladingbowl of Ofsted told us that finding high-quality governors in all areas of the country represents

“a big and urgent national problem”.

We welcome the Government’s increased funding for the School Governors One-Stop Shop, which is the governor recruitment charity.

Our second recommendation is that the Government should work more closely with the CBI to recruit governors, as business is potentially an important source of capable governors. Will the Minister say something more about that? I know that the CBI is keen and is working with the Government. The CBI and other business groups are looking to get more involved. I would be interested to hear more from the Minister on that.

Linked to those issues is the fact that the barriers to recruitment must be removed. For example, the current legal requirement to give time off for the governors of maintained schools has not yet been extended to academy governors. That obvious oversight needs to be addressed. Last week, the CBI echoed our call for academy governors to receive time off to fulfil their duties. Will the Minister commit today that academy governors will be given the same time and opportunity to do their work as governors of maintained schools?

The third part of our inquiry concerns whether governors receive good training or, indeed, proper training at all. The Government told us that such training can be encouraged through Ofsted. Our report recommends that Ministers report back in due course on whether Ofsted’s intervention has been effective and, if it has not, reconsider making training mandatory for all governors.

We were also concerned by suggestions that few quality alternatives are emerging to the training that local authorities traditionally provide, which has been reduced in recent years. Ofsted and the Department for Education need to monitor the availability and quality of governor training, particularly in the context of greater academisation and reduced local authority services. If school governing bodies in the new context have even greater responsibility than under the old system, it is essential that the services to support those governing bodies and the training available to them are improved, rather than reduced, in quality and scope.

Ofsted has sharpened its focus on governance, which the Committee welcomes wholeheartedly. Part of Ofsted’s new approach, for example, is to provide a clear description within its inspection framework of the role and characteristics of high-quality governance.

We received evidence highlighting the importance of a good clerk to the success of a governing body. The evidence indicates that that should be a professional role, similar to a company secretary, and it is an important recommendation of our report. SGOSS may be ideally placed to take on the role of recruiting clerks, while simultaneously ensuring some sort of quality assurance. I would be grateful to learn whether—and if so, how—the Government intend to facilitate that process.

Clerks also need to be equipped with high-quality information and guidance. We are particularly concerned that the revised governors’ handbook, which contains less detailed guidance than the previous version, is aimed only at new governors. Will the Minister inform us of what steps, if any, have been taken to ensure that the revised handbook is relevant to governors of all levels of experience and acts as an easy access point for advice and guidance?

The fourth section of our report considers the problem of poorly performing governing bodies. We welcome the Government’s encouragement for governing bodies to undertake more self-evaluation and peer-to-peer review, using tools such as the all-party group on education governance and leadership’s 20 questions—I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) on his work on that all-party group—and other tools in the new governors’ handbook.

We also welcome Ofsted’s new data dashboard, which will help governing bodies to become more adept at using performance data effectively. It is important to note that, although the data dashboard provides an easier route to start grappling with such data, it is not the end of the road. One would hope that governors will use the data dashboard to get a feel for the issues and then delve more deeply into the data, to hold their schools effectively to account.

We remain concerned that current approaches to addressing underperformance and failure in governing bodies are insufficiently robust. Accordingly, we recommend more demanding appointment processes for the chairs of governors, accompanied by clear procedures for removing poorly performing chairs from office. We also recommend that time limits should be imposed for the implementation of interim executive boards.

We believe that Ofsted should explicitly recommend IEBs following an inspection, where deemed appropriate. If Ofsted goes in to review a school and finds the school’s governance to be fundamentally wanting, it is appropriate that Ofsted should be able to recommend the speedy replacement of the governing body with an IEB.

Ministers should investigate why so many local authorities and, indeed, the Secretary of State for Education have been reluctant to use their powers of intervention where school governance is a concern. We ask the Government to clarify the role of local authorities in school improvement, as that function will provide an important challenge to schools between Ofsted inspections, the gaps between which can be quite long under the current regime.

As an adjunct to that, we considered the relationship between governing bodies and head teachers. In its 2011 report on school governance, Ofsted noted:

“Absolute clarity about the different roles and responsibilities of the headteacher and governors underpins the most effective governance.”

However, we heard evidence that schools face difficulties in managing that relationship properly. We recommend that existing regulatory and legislative requirements should be reviewed to ensure clarity on the proper division of strategic and operational functions between head teachers and governors.

The fifth and—you will be delighted to hear, Mr Rosindell—final part of the Committee’s report considered new models of governance. Academies define their own governance procedures, subject to approval by the Secretary of State. Such freedoms for academies have led to the evolution of new models of governance, from which lessons could be learned in many cases. Our report highlighted some confusion, however, about the accountability of some academy governance models, and we made three main recommendations. First, the Government should identify the roles of governors in the different types of academy. Secondly, the Government should explain how relevant local groups, including pupils, parents and staff, should have a voice in the business of the governing body and the running of the school. Thirdly, clarity should be provided on how decisions are made in academies, along with details of where to turn should concerns arise.

I have summarised the main findings of the Committee’s report. I am pleased that the Government agree with much of what we said, but with some notable exceptions. As I have explained, our report concluded that mandatory training for all governors should be introduced if Ofsted intervention is found to be ineffective. Regrettably, the Government response was adamant that good schools

“don’t need government to mandate training.”

Will the Minister reconsider that response if it becomes apparent that the standards of training remain unacceptably inconsistent between schools?

Likewise, we recommended that Ofsted should use its power and responsibility explicitly to recommend that a governing body be replaced by an interim executive board following an inadequate inspection. The Government said that they did

“not agree that there is a need for a new role for Ofsted here… Having Ofsted make specific recommendations on the proposed solution could blur the boundary of responsibilities between the Chief Inspector, the local authority and the Secretary of State.”

Does the Minister not accept that clear advice from Ofsted might be required to prompt some local authorities to take decisive action? The Secretary of State has seemed remarkably reluctant to act, even when the most obvious evidence of failure was present. The Government rejected the notion that the Secretary of State had held back from using his powers of intervention, although I would say that the evidence suggests the opposite.

We argued for more robust appointment processes for the chairs of governors, accompanied by clear procedures for removing poorly performing chairs from office. The Government agreed, but they have no plans to give governing bodies more power to remove elected governors, so the Committee finds itself only partially satisfied.

Our report demonstrated the importance of recruiting and retaining high-quality, effective governors. It simultaneously identified the challenges in achieving such a standard. I accept that the Department for Education’s work on governance is still in development, just as the wider educational landscape is still evolving, but a continued focus on governance will be important in years to come if we are to deliver better educational outcomes for the next generation. That is ever more important in what is now designed to be a self-improving, more autonomous school system. The challenge has been laid down, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael]

I assume my hon. Friend means parents on governing bodies, and I completely agree, as I have seen that behaviour myself. We should be making sure that governing bodies are truly accountable and responsible to the key stakeholders, who seem to me to be the parents. Having parents on the governing body is a great idea, but not as a specific group of parent governors—they should be people who happen to be governors and to have children. That is the way to look at the issue.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I fear my hon. Friend might be confused about interim executive boards. He seems to think that because the people on those boards are focused, dedicated, highly skilled and small in number, we can extrapolate from that the idea that all governing bodies everywhere should be small and similar in make-up to IEBs. That is simply not possible, given the weight of work required of governing bodies. That was the evidence we heard: as Professor Chris James of the university of Bath said, there is no statistical relationship between governing body effectiveness and governing body size or vacancies. I put it to my hon. Friend that there is no evidence for his view. If we could have astonishingly elite, small boards of dedicated people to put the time in, it might be a better system, but we do not have those people and they do not have the time.

[Neil Carmichael]

There are two points about the size of governing bodies. First, with a governing body of about 20, the influence of individuals is diluted. That applies to any committee system, including school governance. Secondly, it is not necessary to replicate exactly an interim executive board because that would be counter-productive. The word “interim” does not imply permanence, the word “executive” does not imply strategic decision making, and the word “board” is not commonly used in schools. The characteristics of IEBs and how they operate are important and we should think about how that might influence the way in which governing bodies will be shaped.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, on an entirely different brief from my previous one. I congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), and the hon. Members who serve on that Committee for this welcome contribution to a very important subject.

As the Chair of the Committee and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), have said, 300,000 volunteers serve on governing bodies—probably the largest group of volunteers working in a particular field in the whole country. I, too, pay tribute to them for the work that they do. Like a number of hon. Members in the debate, I had the opportunity to be a governor, not of a school but of a further education college, and I know how valuable that is. Hon. Members bring expertise and practical experience to the debate.

When Labour was in government, we gave greater responsibility to governing bodies. We reduced local authority interference in how governing bodies operate and made changes relating to their composition. We also started the academy programme—a targeted intervention to try to lift the performance of the worst-performing schools in the country, which were often in deprived areas, and to raise standards. Governing bodies played a very important role in that arena.

I want to take the opportunity to tell the Minister that what I have described is different from simply rebadging a school as an academy and expecting school improvement to happen automatically. It will not happen without effective interventions to try to improve standards, including having strong governance arrangements, encouraging the effective leadership and management of schools and ensuring proper accountability of governing bodies.

This report is therefore welcome and timely, particularly as we are seeing so much reform in the education system. There is so much change, including the proliferation of free schools and of course more academies, and we need to ensure that governing bodies play an effective role in this rapidly changing environment.

I shall focus on a number of the themes on which the Select Committee report makes recommendations. The Chair of the Select Committee, in particular, highlighted some of these points. First, the Select Committee recommended mandatory training for governors. This is a crucial issue. As I said, it is crucial in this time of change that we ensure proper accountability. At a time when local education authorities are losing powers of oversight and there is no clarity about what the role of a middle tier would be, it would be helpful for us to make sure that governing bodies play an important role in ensuring that accountability.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

On a point of clarification, we did not recommend that training should be mandatory. We said that that should be looked at again if it turns out that the input from Ofsted and other Government inputs do not lead to the improvement in training that we hope to see brought about in the system. That improvement would be brought about in a non-regulated way ideally.

[Rushanara Ali]

Okay; we are talking about non-regulatory training. The point is that appropriate training is vital. According to The Times Educational Supplement, 93% of the respondents to the joint survey said that this would be helpful; they supported training. That reinforces the Select Committee’s recommendation. The Government should examine the issue closely, genuinely to ensure that governors have the appropriate support and that schools get the kind of governing body that they need to respond to the challenges of running their institutions. Governors need to feel equipped and able to perform their role effectively and work towards building achievement and raising standards in schools. In the end, that is what motivates people in communities to take part in this work as volunteers. They give their time and make that contribution to see a transformation in their schools.

I therefore hope that the Minister will recognise the importance of training—other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North, highlighted this issue—and explain how the Government will seek to address the Select Committee recommendation and ensure that governing bodies get the training that they need. The National Governors Association has also given evidence and pushed for that recommendation to be implemented.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

The exemplars clearly do that. All of us will have seen schools taking on this role actively and ensuring that proper training is provided. I certainly benefited from training as a governor of a further education college. The charitable organisations that provide training to governors, not just of schools and colleges but of charities, charitable organisations and social enterprises, are vital. The question is about those schools that currently are not able or willing to provide training. How do we ensure that they step up and apply the appropriate mix of encouragement and pressure, to extend the training that is needed to get their governors to perform the kind of role that they need to perform?

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Does the hon. Lady agree that one way to encourage more training for governing bodies is to have clerks as professionals, facilitating, raising aspiration, sharing best practice and not being a member of staff from the head teacher’s department? Does she agree that the role of a clerk should become a professional role?

[Rushanara Ali]

I do, and I will come on to that point shortly, but before I deal with clerks, I want to focus on federations and multi-academy trusts. In their ideological drive to force schools into academy status regardless of the views of parents, governors and school communities, the Government have been ignoring the benefits of federations of schools as drivers of school improvement and as an opportunity for governing bodies to work more strategically. A number of hon. Members have highlighted the need to examine that area. In many cases, working together in that way—sometimes through co-operatives—can bring all the benefits for teaching and learning of a more strategic partnership, without unnecessary and sometimes painful organisational upheaval.

In my constituency, when schools have come together and worked together collaboratively—governing bodies, as well as teachers of different subjects—standards have been radically improved. We need to ensure that that happens and that the role of governing bodies is considered in that context. Will the Minister commit to supporting those local initiatives, rather than imposing models that are not necessarily fit for purpose or appropriate for local areas? Will she commit to giving groups of small schools that federate to improve outcomes the same sort of grants as multi-academy trusts receive?

On profile and recruitment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North and the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) pointed out, governors are fulfilling a vital role voluntarily. Recruitment is a major challenge in many areas, so we must take urgent action to ensure that employers can provide the flexibility—day release or time away from work—that their staff require to make a contribution. Particularly where we want to bring in expertise from professions that may be pressured, it is vital that employers support their staff to make a contribution as a governor.

When the previous Labour Government were in power, civil servants had the scope to take a few days’ leave for their work as school governors or in similar roles, with the permission of their employer. I hope that the Government will consider how that might be done appropriately, without burdening employers and recognising that the role of school governor is crucial and that people need to be given flexibility to fulfil it properly and effectively. I hope that the Minister will set out in her response how such measures might be introduced.

As the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness has said, the Education Committee highlighted the importance of having professional clerks. The National Governors Association is campaigning for their introduction and is disappointed that the Department for Education has not set out its intention to make that happen. I hope that the Minister will reconsider and support the Education Committee’s recommendation, which will be good news to the hon. Gentleman and to me.

On accountability, there is a worrying trend in the reforms introduced by the Secretary of State. We have observed in previous debates on governance that there was an unexploded ordnance in the system and the lack of accountability would result in scandals. As we have seen in the case of the Al-Madinah free school, the Kings science academy, Barnfield federation in Luton and others, there are real concerns, and we must ensure that such incidents do not occur again.

There is concern about several other schools, and we must make sure that the school governing bodies have the appropriate power. Where the governing bodies are at fault, the system must be effective enough to intervene to ensure that the relevant action is taken to address such problems. At a time of reform when there are concerns about accountability, we must ensure that school governing boards are properly held to account and given appropriate support if they have to take action against school management to improve matters, as happened in the examples that I have given.

Performance is clearly a major issue. A balance must be struck between attracting the best possible people and ensuring that they are rooted in their communities. Recently, the Secretary of State described governors as

“Local worthies who see being a governor as a badge of status not a job of work.”

I hope that the Minister will emphasise that we should not be using such language to refer to governors, who play a vital role. I hope that she recognises the important work done by governors, the need to support them to make their contribution and the need to improve their skills and capacities, so that they can continue to make a vital difference to our education system. I hope that she will take into consideration the questions that have been raised and the points that I have made and that she will take on board the importance of improving accountability and the status of governors in schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am not sure that that is exactly how my hon. Friend put his point. It is down to Ofsted to identify weak governing-body performance. Ultimately, it is the decision of either the Secretary of State or the local authority to replace that governing body with an interim executive board, should it not be doing what it is meant to be doing.[Official Report, 6 January 2014, Vol. 573, c. 1MC.]

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister spell out how the powers of the Secretary of State and local authority to act if governance is failing differ between maintained schools and academies?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I will come to that point later in my comments, but in essence, the governing body in both cases can be replaced with an interim executive board.

Many hon. Members commented on retaining and recruiting high-quality governors. It is clearly critical that governors have the right skills to do the job. We set out clearly in the governors’ handbook the important strategic nature of the governors’ role and, as I commented, we have cut back on rules and regulations that tie governors up in red tape They now have much more flexibility in the way they operate. The best governing bodies identify explicitly the skills and competencies they need and audit regularly the skills of their current members.

There was some debate this afternoon about the size of a governing body. The Government’s view is that the size of a governing body should be no greater than it needs to be to get the necessary skills, but the No. 1 thing is that it gets the right skills. Size is secondary to ensuring that the skills are in place to do the job. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) pointed out what can be done locally to recruit governors. I commend him for his activities in Calder Valley to promote the role of governors with employers. He lays out a lesson for many MPs about what they should do to promote the roles of governors in their local communities. We absolutely need to get the message across that the role is valuable and will help individuals in whatever career they decide to pursue.

We have given governing bodies the power to reconstitute themselves under a more flexible framework and to become smaller and more skills focused. We agree with the Committee that not enough governing bodies are using the flexibilities at the moment. We plan to consult on whether a move to reconstitution should be mandatory by September 2015, because we do not think that enough governing bodies are doing it at the moment. It will be interesting to see the results from that consultation.

The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) spoke extensively about training. I think we all agree that we want well trained governing bodies that are capable of exercising their role. We are keen for schools to use their budgets effectively. Ensuring that governors get the quality training they need is an effective way to do so. There might be a debate about how we achieve those objectives, but our view is that the outcomes of the Ofsted inspection process are the best way to make an assessment, rather than insisting on mandatory training, which can sometimes become a tick-box exercise. We want high-quality training and we want to know that, following that training, governors have the skills they need to do the job.

Developments in the level of training are needed, so in addition to expanding its training for chairs and aspiring chairs to offer 6,700 places by March 2015, early next year, the National College of Teaching and Leadership is launching specific training workshops for governors on understanding RAISEonline data, which my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal mentioned, driving financial efficiency in schools, and performance-related pay. Where we identify a gap in the training available, the NCTL is helping to provide it. We are continuing to expand the NCTL national leaders of governance programme, to mobilise outstanding chairs of governors to provide free peer-mentoring support for other chairs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) talked passionately about the need for the involvement of business in governing bodies, and I could not agree more. The Government are working with the Confederation of British Industry on a campaign to promote the role of employers in freeing up employees to get more involved in governing bodies, but the issue is broader than that and about more than governance. We need more business leaders in our classrooms working with children on specific subjects. That helps children to form high aspirations about the types of role they can go into. The new national curriculum is much more flexible and will enable more business involvement. We have seen some very good developments, for example, organisations such as Mykindacrowd facilitating the new computer curriculum that is coming in.

I also agree about the role of the professional clerk. NCTL is developing and will deliver a training programme for clerks. By 2015, it will have provided training for 2,000 highly skilled professional clerks, who have a vital role on the governing body.[Official Report, 6 January 2014, Vol. 573, c. 1MC.]

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Does the Minister feel that there needs to be regulatory change? We heard tales during our inquiry of the clerk of the governing body, whose role is to hold the head to account, being someone who works in the office of a headmaster. We felt that that was not the right situation. If changing it requires regulatory change, will she consider that?

[Elizabeth Truss]

As yet, we do not feel that that requires regulatory change, but if my hon. Friend has evidence of specific issues that have arisen, I will be interested to hear about them.

A number of points were raised about accountability. As the programme for international student assessment outcomes has shown this week, autonomy and accountability are two of the key drivers in any successful education system. Lord Nash told the Select Committee that he thought the Ofsted inspection framework was the sharpest tool in the box for improving the quality of governance. I certainly think that is true. Any school failure is a failure of governance. Interim executive boards can be an effective solution in certain schools to secure a step change in the schools’ performance, through a complete change in the school’s leadership and management. IEBs are not always necessary; sometimes the governing body can self-improve—ultimately, it is up to the local authority or the Secretary of State if the school is in an Ofsted category. Where individual governors are not pulling their weight, it is a matter for the chair of governors. We would like all chairs to have annual conversations to take stock with every member of the governing body. Ultimately, it is the chair’s responsibility to ensure that members of the governing body have the skills they need to do the job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Graham Stuart]

It has been a great pleasure to have this debate today. The Minister looks shocked and horrified at the prospect of my summing up, but I am sure she will survive. We have had contributions by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, and thoughtful ones at that. Many of them were from Members who not only sit on the Select Committee and hear the evidence we receive, but who, prior to that, spent many years on governing bodies themselves, trying to making a difference to schools.

In her response to the debate, the Minister said, “The future of schools is truly in governors’ hands.” The Government have made good progress in taking the role of governors seriously; I congratulate her on that. I and the other members of the Committee will be delighted that the Government will be working with the CBI, the School Governors’ One-Stop Shop and, I assume, the national college on a campaign to promote the role of governors, in order to attract more people to be governors and to make a difference by filling the empty places for governors that we have heard about.

I would not be doing my job if I did not chide the Minister on one thing, which concerns the legal requirement to release staff. At the moment, companies are obliged to release staff for maintained schools but not for academies. Now, either the Government think that that requirement is an over-regulation and it should be abolished, so that all schools are on the same playing field, or they should extend that to cover academies. I cannot see any case—intellectually or otherwise—for justifying an unlevel playing field, such as the situation we are in now. So I ask the Minister to look at that issue again.

I have one final point. My understanding, and it may well be incorrect, is that the Secretary of State does not have the power to appoint an interim executive board for an academy; they have the power only to rescind the funding agreement. However, I may be wrong about that. If it turns out that the Minister is incorrect, perhaps she could write to me, as Chair of the Select Committee, to clarify matters. That would be very helpful in ensuring that we are all on the same page on that issue.

It has been a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Rosindell, and we look forward to our next debate under Sir Alan Meale.

PISA Results

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He taxed me for demonstrating partisanship and indulging in personal attacks. I am glad that we had the opportunity to witness four minutes entirely free from those sins.

First, let me turn to the whole question of qualified teachers. It is the case that there are now fewer unqualified teachers in our schools than under Labour. In 2009, there were 17,400 unqualified teachers, in 2010, just before Labour left office, there were 17,800 and there are now only 14,800, a significant reduction. Indeed, those teachers who are now joining the profession are better qualified than ever before. In 2009, just before the Labour party lost office, only 61% of teachers had a 2:1 or better as their undergraduate degree. Under the coalition Government, the figure is 74%, which is a clear improvement that has been driven by the changes that we have introduced. It has been reinforced by the introduction of the school direct system, which I invited the hon. Gentleman to applaud and welcome—he declined to do so—and which has secured even more top graduates with a 2:1 or better, including a first, in our schools.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Sweden. Unfortunately, it is the case that in Sweden results have slid, but as I said earlier, not only do we need to grant greater autonomy, as has been done for school leaders in Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea and elsewhere, but we need a more rigorous system of accountability. We heard nothing from him on how we would improve accountability. There was no indication as to whether or not he supports, as he has indicated in the past, our English baccalaureate measure. There was no indication from him, as there has been in the past, as to whether or not he supports A-level reform, and there was no indication, as there has been in the past, that he believes in a rigorous academic curriculum for all. The terrible truth about the situation that we face in our schools is that Labour does not have a strong record to defend, and it does not have a strong policy to advance. That is why the coalition Government are committed to reform, and that is why, I am afraid, the hon. Gentleman must do better.

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

Today’s figures are extremely sobering. They are an indictment of the previous Government’s education policy. There was a massive investment in education, a huge effort was put into education, and we went nowhere. We need to hear from the Secretary of State how his reforms will ensure that in future years—probably not so early as three years from now, but six years from now—we see the change that we require. In particular, will he tell us what he can do to promote maths and science for girls, because we cannot have so many females left behind in this country?

[Michael Gove]

I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education for his wise words. He is absolutely right—there was a significant increase in investment and, as I mentioned in my statement, we have one of the most socially just systems of education funding in the developed world. However, we did not move forward as we should have done. My hon. Friend asks, of course, when we will see the fruits of our reform programme. As Andreas Schleicher of the OECD asked yesterday: is it too early on the basis of these results to judge the coalition reforms? Absolutely, we could not possibly judge the coalition Government on these results, he said. We are “moving from” ideas “to implementation”, and 2015 would be the very earliest.

My hon. Friend makes the vital point that we need to do more to promote mathematics and science. The English baccalaureate does that. The increased emphasis in many academies and free schools that have opened under the Government does that, but there is still more that we can do, and I shall meet representatives from higher education and our best schools just before Christmas to see what we can do to encourage more girls to do even better in mathematics and science.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, of course; we have looked all around the world. We are increasing the amount of mentoring to ensure that we have the best people, including employers, to inspire young people to go into careers that will enable them to reach their potential.

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

Research conducted last month as part of professions week found that, of the 1,200 14 to 19-year-olds surveyed, just 40% had received any form of careers advice or guidance in the past year. In the light of Ofsted’s damning report earlier this autumn, will the Minister assure the House that further steps will be taken to ensure that the transfer of the duty to schools leads to an improvement in careers advice and guidance?

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, we are clear that we are going to strengthen careers advice. Ofsted’s statement that it will look into the quality of the advice that is given will ensure that schools deliver appropriate high-quality careers advice. That advice needs to be of a high quality, and it must be delivered by people who understand how to inspire and mentor young people to enter careers that will interest them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) has been campaigning on this issue and I will be meeting him shortly. There is much to be said for supporting schools to ensure that defibrillators are in place. I want to work with the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole to do that in the most effective way.

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

T2. Last week, I was pleased to help launch “My Education”, a report produced by Teach First and Pearson, which surveyed 8,000 British teenagers on their education. The overwhelming majority said that more work experience and better careers advice would help them find the right future. Following that overwhelming response, can the Secretary of State assure us that the National Careers Service will be enabled to support the delivery of careers advice and guidance in schools to the betterment of our entire population?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is important to stress that we need to ensure more work experience opportunities for all young people, which is why we have changed how children are funded when they enter post-16 education to make it easier to offer the appropriate work experience. I also agree that we need to ensure that careers advice for young people is suitably inspiring and to see whether the National Careers Service or other institutions can help. In particular, it is important to work with businesses to ensure that young people have the opportunity to see and hear from the role models who will ensure they make the right choices in the future.

Qualified Teachers

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt]

This is about reducing the risk in the teaching system. This is about making sure we go up the value chain in terms of qualifications and teacher capacity.

As it has been raised, let me deal with the issue of non-qualified teachers in the private sector. First, figures from the Independent Schools Council show that 90% of those teaching in such schools have a teaching qualification and over 70% have qualified teacher status. Secondly, if head teachers in the private sector wish to employ teachers without QTS, that is their decision. But a Labour Government will demand a minimum standard of QTS for those teaching within the state system. As Secretary of State for Education, I am not going to allow for the deregulatory free-for-all which produces the likes of Al-Madinah.

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

Has the hon. Gentleman made any assessment of the quality of the teachers we are talking about here, who will be sacked after two years? There are fewer than there were when his party left office, we have a tightened-up the Ofsted regulation regime, and there is no place to hide on data and exam results, so I put it to him that a head teacher would employ a non-QTS teacher today only if they were above-average and were delivering a brilliant service to children in the classroom.

[Tristram Hunt]

When those teachers get into school, we want them to train up for QTS. This is simply about going up the improvement chain. It seems to me entirely uncontroversial.

Let me also stress that our plans do not affect the artists, the actor, the footballer, builder, business man or, dare I say it, historian—missing the more incisive quality of debate which a year 5 can provide—who comes into a class to inspire young people about their subjects. For those teachers holding that enormous responsibility for the learning outcomes of young people, however, we would expect, like Sir Michael Wilshaw, a minimum baseline qualification.

So let me return to the core of this motion: how do we deliver improvements in our schools system and close the attainment gap? The answer is great teaching. Part of that is strong leadership; part of that is the innovation that comes from Labour’s Teach First policy; part of that is autonomy; but it is also about further professional development: about stretching our teachers, about learning to improve at every turn.

Achieving QTS is not the whole answer. It does not in itself, as the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said, guarantee excellence. As the Secretary of State well knows, passing a driving test does not mean that all new drivers will avoid accidents, but this is not a reason to remove the requirement to pass a test. Removing the expectation of QTS means we endanger the status of the teaching profession at a time when we need to raise the status of teaching if we are to succeed in what the Prime Minister calls the global race. The countries with the most successful education systems are going up the value chain, not deskilling. They are raising the status of teaching, not opening the door to our classrooms to anyone who just wants to have a go.

We have brought this motion to the House because the Labour party is passionate about education. From the earliest days of Robert Owen and the co-operative movement, from our history in the mechanics institutes and the mutual improvement societies, from the Workers Educational Association to the trade union movement, academic and vocational excellence is engrained in the Labour movement’s DNA. So too with the Liberals: stretching back to the Forster Education Act, or the role of education in that positive vision of freedom enunciated by T. H. Green and L. T. Hobhouse, or John Maynard Keynes’s ambition for post-war cultural enrichment, social mobility and progress has been part of the Liberal creed. While the Tory Party supported King and class, our parties are parties of the word—of a belief in the liberating potential of education—which is why it is so depressing to see a once-progressive party sign up to this narrow vision of education: of deregulation, of dumbing-down and a lack of ambition for our schools.

Great teachers broaden horizons, motivate students, and help young people achieve their potential. It is time for the Liberal Democrats to show the parents, pupils and teachers of this country whose side they are on and to vote for their values this afternoon. In the Labour party, we have made our choice: professionalism not deregulation; a qualified teacher in every classroom. I commend this motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Graham Stuart]

May I correct my right hon. Friend, because the policy is worse than that? The net effect of this highly scrutinised system of sacking people who do not have QTS will be to take high-quality teachers who make such a difference to the lives of the poorest children out of the classroom. To maintain their living, these teachers will be sent to the independent sector, where doubtless they will educate the children of people such as the shadow Secretary of State.

[Michael Gove]

The Chairman of the Select Committee is right once again. This is a policy for generating unemployment for excellent teachers in the state sector and giving the wealthy—those who have the advantage of the cash that enables them to pay for an independent education—the freedom to benefit from them. It is also important to recognise that the freedom to employ whoever a head teacher believes to be important and capable of adding value to education is essential to the academies and free schools programme.

It is important that Opposition Members are not selective in their use of evidence when they talk about academies and free schools, because academic results are improving faster in sponsored academies than in other schools, and the longer schools have enjoyed academy freedoms, the better they have done. In sponsored academies, open for three years and taking advantage of the freedoms we have given them, the proportion of pupils who achieve five good GCSEs including English and maths has increased by an average of 12.1 percentage points. Over the same time, results in all state-funded schools have gone up, which is good, but only by 5.1 percentage points.

We are clearly seeing academies and free schools generating improved results for the students who need them most. More than that, free schools, overwhelmingly in the poorest areas, have been backed by Andrew Adonis and Tony Blair. Andrew Adonis said that free schools were essentially Labour’s invention and Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, backed them, saying that they were a great idea, explicitly because they were

“independent schools in the state sector”.

He backed them because they had all the freedoms of great independent schools, like University College school and others, to do the right thing for their students.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. When making decisions about education, one question matters above all others: how will this affect the quality of teaching? That is the prism through which every educational decision should be viewed. A great teacher can make the difference between a child muddling through, struggling or aiming high.

Research by Professor Eric Hanushek of Stanford university shows that during one year with a very effective maths teacher, pupils gained 40% more than they would have with a poor performer. The effects of high quality teaching are especially significant for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. Hanushek found that over a school year, these pupils gain one and a half years’ worth of learning with very effective teachers, compared with just half a year of learning with poorly performing teachers. So that is the prism through which we should look at these issues.

Before we make decisions in education, another approach is to make sure that we follow the evidence. What assessment has the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) made of the quality of teachers without qualified teacher status in the classrooms? He could shake his head when the Secretary of State was speaking, but inevitably people will be sacked from the classroom. We have heard these people come forward. The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head now, denying an obvious truth. Teachers without QTS will be sacked from the classroom if that policy is implemented. [Interruption.]

We have a rigorous Ofsted regime, tough exam results, mapping, peer review, departmental head review, head teacher review—a whole system of accountability to make sure that there is nowhere to hide for the teacher who is not performing. In that context a head teacher has gone out on a limb to recruit someone who is non-QTS. We know, as was not acknowledged by the hon. Gentleman, that the number of non-qualified teachers in the teaching profession has fallen. [Interruption]. We know that the number in free schools and academies as a percentage of those employed has fallen over the past three years. We therefore have a smaller number of teachers who have been through the threshing machine of that accountability system. If they are to have such a person working for them, head teachers will need to be sure that when the inspector comes they can point to exceptional performance. [Interruption.]

The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) who barracked and heckled the Secretary of State throughout his speech is attempting to do the same to me. Those teachers, who are necessarily strong and effective teachers, will be fired under his party’s policy. That is the central point.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

On the question of which teacher should be employed, we should not listen to the choices and the whims of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). We should speak to the head teachers, who hire and fire. They are in the best position to know which teachers are best for their school.

[Mr Stuart]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The shadow Secretary of State has come into post at exactly the same time as his party has lurched to the left, and he has inherited this policy. I put it to him, as someone who has taught in schools as a non-QTS teacher, who benefited from non-QTS teachers as a pupil and who has suggested in recent days that he might send his children to schools that have inspiring non-QTS teachers in place, that his heart really is not in this.

[Tristram Hunt]

There is a world of difference between an external speaker coming into a school to explain history, politics or geography and someone in charge of the learning outcomes of an entire class. I would have thought that the Chair of the Education Committee knew that.

[Mr Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman would not answer questions about the teacher who taught and inspired him, but he was more than just a visiting lecturer.

My children attend an independent school and have non-QTS teachers. I want to ensure that every school can access people who can inspire pupils within a system of accountability. If the shadow Secretary of State told me, “We’ve carried out an assessment and got the evidence, which shows that some head teachers are taking on unqualified teachers just to save money and sticking them in classrooms with low-ability children, which is letting them down”, I would be the first to congratulate him. I would say, “Yes, let’s look at the right policy response, but let’s not sack top teachers who happen to be non-QTS teachers if we can possibly help it.”

I would even accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument if he could show me, on any kind of evidence base, that widespread numbers of non-QTS teachers are letting down our kids. I put it to him, who has been in post for a matter of days, that there is no such evidence base. On the contrary, the evidence base shows that non-QTS teachers in state schools in some of our toughest neighbourhoods are inspirational. There are often teachers who have left the independent sector, where he went, where I went and where my children go, in order to try to make a contribution in state schools in challenging circumstances. Under the Opposition’s policy, if those people do not put themselves through the many hours required to pass QTS, they will be sacked. That is absolutely wrong. He should not deny the consequences of his policy: it will lead to the removal of outstanding teachers from state school classrooms. It will almost certainly see them turning up in independent schools, where they are needed least, rather than most. That is the central flaw in his argument, and I think that he sees it.

It is early days in the hon. Gentleman’s new post. I suggest that he has inherited a dreadful policy that is entirely against what he and I believe, which is that we should be transforming education for everyone in this country, and most of all for those from poorer homes who too often have been left behind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat Glass]

I recognise and respect that. I therefore expect to see the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Lobby with us tonight.

When the Deputy Prime Minister spoke at the weekend, he talked about schools being set free to set their own school holidays and the times of day when they open and close. Well, I have got news for him: maintained schools have always had that ability. They do not need to be a free school or an academy to do that, nor to employ unqualified teachers. Maintained schools have always had the ability to bring in non-QTS specialists. The person delivering the lesson at the front of the classroom does not need to be a qualified teacher, but the person who designs, differentiates and manages the curriculum, manages the lesson plans and is responsible for individual pupil assessment does need to be a qualified teacher. On that, I absolutely agree with the Secretary of State.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

rose—

[Pat Glass]

I am not going to give way any more because there is so little time.

The history of Labour in office and unqualified teachers shows that in the vast majority of cases, great non-QTS teachers went on to become qualified through the licensed or the classic routes. Government Members say that free schools and academies are now free to employ teachers who have a master’s degree or a doctorate, and is that not a good thing? I am not altogether sure about that. I have a master of science degree, but a working knowledge of maths and statistics does not make me a teacher. Without a bachelor of education degree I would not have the skills and knowledge to understand child development, the science of teaching and learning, how children learn, and classroom management and managing behaviour, or to identify the needs of children with special educational needs and how to meet them. I would not know about differentiation, delivering a programme of study across a range of abilities, or assessment—that is, knowing what a child can and cannot do, and what they need to do next. Important as those things are, I would also not have the credibility and trust of my professional colleagues, of parents, or, more importantly, of young people themselves. Pupils know very quickly who is qualified and who is not, and who is experienced and who is not, and that affects their behaviour and how they learn in the classroom.

The problem with this Government is that they think anybody can teach. I know from experience that as soon as we move away from the classroom it looks really easy, but it is not. Teachers are people who stand up in front of classrooms every day and deliver great lessons. I do not pretend to be a teacher in terms of that definition. Being qualified does not make a great teacher; it takes more than that. [Interruption.] I am glad that Government Members agree with me. As has been said, this is not necessarily about the qualification of teachers. Every teacher does not have to be qualified to deliver a great lesson, but surely good qualification is the basis of a state-run system. [Interruption.] Having anything else leaves our children open to—[Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend want to intervene?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Wright]

I would not say that PGCE is a necessity, despite the fact that I myself studied for it. I think there are lots of routes to qualified teacher status, all of which have different advantages and merits, but, crucially, it depends on the needs of the individual seeking that status.

On other forms of professional development, we should consider options such as enabling all teachers to build an individual professional portfolio, including the accredited continuing professional development courses they undertake, to progress and support their career in the classroom. The recently announced champions league proposal could get outstanding leaders into those schools that need them most from next year. That could be expanded in due course and applied to proven subject teachers looking for a new challenge.

As I have said, the Liberal Democrats welcome the innovation, creativity and diversity that the Government seek to introduce in the classroom, but we want minimum professional standards in our schools, too.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Wright]

No, I am coming to the end of my comments.

I would have welcomed the opportunity to support the amendment on the Order Paper. It would have given the House the opportunity to acknowledge the fact—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the former Labour Secretary of State for Education and Skills, said recently:

“If you find someone who is a great musician but they can’t spend three years getting the proper teaching qualifications, I think you should use them.”

Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I agree 100%. We need to be open and transparent about who has what qualifications and we must ensure that there is a rigorous and robust inspection regime, but the motion would exclude Stephen Hawking from even offering to teach a class. He would not be allowed to teach a—[Interruption.] He would not be allowed to teach because he would not have—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

The Government are a passionate supporter of small businesses. The fact that 4.9 million businesses exist—a record number—is partly a response to the improvement in the environment for small businesses, supported by LEPs and the skills system, which we have done so much to put in place.

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

Our LEP around the Humber is supporting and wants investment by Siemens in Hull. Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), will the Department do everything possible to talk to the EU about changing the rules that restrict the ability of the Green Investment Bank to invest in great projects such as that with Siemens, which are so important to our area?

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, of course. I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency. Many people raised the issue of Siemens, which would invest not only in the UK, but, through the supply chain, in many small businesses. I will look in detail at what he says.

Al-Madinah Free School

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laws]

The support of the Labour party for free schools did not last long, did it? I do not know how the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to come to the House. On Sunday he was going around television studios and saying that Labour was shifting its position on free schools. He said:

“We will keep those free schools going”.

Within the same set of Department for Education press cuttings in which he announced he was shifting his position in favour of free schools, we find a headline stating that Labour now plans to rein in free schools. It is complete and utter incoherence from the hon. Gentleman, and he should be ashamed.

Let me respond in detail to every single serious point the hon. Gentleman made—it will not take very long—and go back over what has happened in Al-Madinah school and the scrutiny to which it has been subjected. The school opened in September 2012. It had a pre-registration Ofsted report, as all such schools do—such a report is not sensational. In the report, Ofsted set down a number of requirements that it wanted met before the school opened. In advance of the school opening, the trust went through the requirements with the lead contact in the Department for Education. It produced certificates to show that it had done the safeguarding and first aid training, and a certificate—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State ought to listen to this. The school produced a certificate authorised by the director of planning and transportation at Derby city council saying that the building was fit for occupation. After that, the Department sent an adviser to the school two months after it opened, who saw the good progress that the school was making at that stage.

In July 2013, we became aware of concerns about equalities and management issues at the school and acted immediately on that. We established an Education Funding Agency financial investigation into the school and sent our advisers to it. We asked Ofsted to bring forward its inspection, which has now taken place. Prior to receiving that inspection, the Under-Secretary of State, Lord Nash, wrote to the school setting out precisely the actions that it will take, and making it clear that its funding will not continue unless it addresses those things.

If the shadow Secretary of State is so supportive of free schools, why does he not have the responsibility to put the failure of the school into context? Seventy-five per cent. of the free schools that have opened have been rated good or outstanding by Ofsted. That is a higher proportion than the proportion of local authority schools. We did not hear that from the hon. Gentleman.

On complacency, which I believe is the allegation the hon. Gentleman makes, may I remind him of the record of the Labour Government whom he defends? At the end of their period in office, 8% of schools in this country —more than 1,500—were rated as inadequate, many had been so for years, with no action. By focusing on one school in which the Government are taking action, the hon. Gentleman is failing schools in this country, including ones that failed under the Labour Government, when little action was taken.

People listening to these exchanges and to the hon. Gentleman, and reflecting on what he said on Sunday and how he has stood on his head today, will see nothing other than total and utter opportunism and shambles from Labour’s education policy.

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

The leaked Ofsted report states that

“the governors have failed the parents of this community who have placed their trust in them.”

Will Ministers intervene to replace the current board of governors with an interim executive board? Looking to the future, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that the training available to the governors of free schools properly equips them for that important role?

[Mr Laws]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman—the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education—that Lord Nash and I are taking decisive action to ensure that the school improves its leadership and governance. The hon. Gentleman will understand why I cannot go into all the details of that, although the clear requirements are set out in the letter Lord Nash wrote to the school on 8 October, which has been published.