SEND Provision and Reform

John Glen Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

When addressing this subject, I think of the 16 years of surgeries I have had where parents have come in to explain their profound dissatisfaction with the way in which the evaluation of their child’s needs has been conducted. One of the most powerful examples was a constituent who came to me and said that their son has complex SEND needs, including: autism; ADHD; sensory processing disorder; demand avoidance; social, emotional and mental health; and severe anxiety and school trauma. They went on to tell me that for the last eight years, there had been a series of failings in dealing with their situation—an inadequate and inaccurate EHCP, and school placements and support failures—and then went on to tell me the enormous impact on their family.

I honestly believe that everyone in this place wants to get the right improvements to this broken system.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

Two of my constituents, Tom and Emily—they are brother and sister—got EHCPs after tribunal fairly early, because their parents were so robust. They then only got suitable schools after tribunal, against the will of the local authority, because their parents were so robust. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that any reforms to the process must be enforceable?

[John Glen]

I do, but I want to address the key point that I think we all have to acknowledge. Between 2014 and 2023, there was a 140% expansion in the number of EHCPs to well over half a million. In generating that volume of demand, Members in all parts of the House—no matter who is in government—have to be honest about whether, given the budgets we have, we can actually provide solutions that meet the needs of every individual child. We are all trying to make the case to achieve that, whether through EHCPs giving us the legal backstop, or moving to an individual support plan in a school-based solution.

I want us to recognise that, in defining needs so much more broadly, we have created such a demand and expectation of the state. We have to be real about what we can and cannot provide. This is very delicate territory, because we are always concerned that we will be accused of denying that the needs exist, but what concerns me is that we will set expectations that the school will set up an individual definition of provision and it will not be met in exactly the same way that we have seen with the challenges over the past decade. There is a central tension in the White Paper that, as we move from a rights-based system of statutory entitlements to a resource-led system, the situation will automatically improve.

It seems to me that the representatives of those with unmet SEND provision and the charities are concerned that having set expectations in our country that EHCPs are legally enforceable, there will be an enforceability gap. With the proposed ISPs, although parents might have the right to a plan, they will not have the legal right to the provision it contains. If we standardise things over individual needs and move to a situation where we have nationally determined fixed packages of support, we will risk getting into exactly the situation that we have reached in recent years.

[Cameron Thomas]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way once more. He is treading this compassionate tightrope very delicately. I have an organisation in my constituency called Children Lead The Way, which takes children who are struggling in the traditional setting outdoors, and some of those children are later able to go back into the school system. Rather than underdiagnosing, which, if we are not careful, might be the end result here, would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to accept that if we reconsider the settings, it is possible that children who are taken out of settings may later be reintroduced?

[John Glen]

Of course I do. This is where the problem is. If we move towards a standardised provision that is driven by central Government or a latest orthodoxy, we risk missing the flexibility that should and needs to exist on an individual basis.

There is a core point about which I am still uncomfortable. In a situation where, as in 2024-25, parents won 95% to 99% of tribunal cases, it appears that the system has defined needs that exist for which we cannot provide. We need to level with the country and with parents and say what we can provide and what we are actually unable to provide.

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[John Glen]

I will not have any more time, so I will not.

Let us not peddle a dishonesty by saying that we are going to deliver a perfect system. Frankly, we have got to the point where we need to look at the definitional parameters and get to a more honest conversation about how we are going to actually deal with this problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Coghlan]

I entirely agree. An under-resourced officer can still determine need, still issue an EHCP and still be transparent about what cannot yet be delivered. That, at least, is honest.

I know that many council officers do the right thing, but when a council officer commits misconduct that results in an avoidable death, why are they not criminally prosecuted? Here we are, with pervasive local authority law breaking, hundreds of children avoidably killing themselves, and a Government who plan to cut the rights that can save their lives.

[John Glen]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very moving and powerful speech, but is not the reality that if every single EHCP was properly diagnosed and the need expressed, it would impose an honest but unachievable burden on the state? Will he acknowledge that and address how we come to terms with it?

[Chris Coghlan]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention and I completely disagree. Think about the autistic boy I was talking about at the start of my speech. He has been out of school for seven years and his father has quit his job to look after him. We have lost a lifetime’s earnings from that person and we have the costs of social services. I am convinced that by the time we take all that into account, an effective system based on effective early intervention, rigorous accountability for local authorities and legally enforceable rights would, in the long run, be far cheaper than what we have today.

The public will ask Members of this House what they knew about this scandal of hundreds of children avoidably killing themselves while there are myths about over-diagnosis and everything else, when they knew it, and what they did about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

I should like to declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities and as the parent of a child with an EHCP. I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing the debate. This is a deeply important subject and, like many Members across the House, I have an inbox full of cases of SEND parents who are struggling under the current system. Let us be clear: it is absolutely broken.

There has been a lot of discussion about whether the current system, or indeed our society as a whole, has the ability to meet all presenting needs. I would like to clarify something: unmet need does not magically disappear. It does not just go away. It festers and grows, which is what we see under the current system. We see children’s needs not being met at the earliest opportunity and being met only when they reach an absolute crisis point. By and large, that is what happens, and we end up with a system that ultimately lets down children.

The need for SEND reform and the work that the Minister has undertaken on the White Paper goes to the heart of who we are as a party. Equitable and equal education for everyone goes to the heart of socialist, progressive politics, and that is who we are. It is crucial that a child is not excluded from receiving education on the same basis as their able-bodied peers just because they are disabled or have an additional need. It is completely unacceptable if that continues to happen to them. The system that we have is antagonistic and adversarial. It puts fight and struggle at the heart of what should be the norm for every parent: obtaining a decent education for their children.

I would like to speak to some of the concerns—I notice that I have a short amount of time left—around the White Paper, because some do remain. There needs to be accountability in the system. If it is going to work, parents, schools and councils have to trust that the system will work. Accountability is about understanding, if my child’s school—hypothetically and realistically—does not do what it is supposed to do, how I make the school do it and what recourse I have to ensure that it does so.

[John Glen]

If we now have a more sophisticated understanding of an individual’s need, and if the provision required to meet that need across society has reached a cost and breadth that is so significant, how do we provide for that given the finite budgets that exist?

[Jen Craft]

We provide for it by meeting need at the earliest opportunity. It is about addressing it before it reaches crisis point, unlike the situation we are in now. We would not do this for any other condition. We would not say, “There are too many people out there with cancer—we should stop diagnosing cancer.” It would not work like that. We do not turn around and say, “Too many people are presenting a need”—we meet it. Imagine if we addressed the education system as a whole like we address SEND education—as a problem to be solved and not an opportunity that exists to create young people who are willing, equipped and able to go out into the world and shape our future society and our world. Why do we not see that opportunity for SEND children, as we do for the wider school population?

Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund

John Glen Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests. First, I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this incredibly important debate about support for some of the most vulnerable children in this country. The adoption and special guardianship support fund, set up under the Conservative Government in 2015, has, for many years, provided much needed therapeutic support to adopted and special guardianship children who were previously in care.

I pay tribute to all the adoptive parents, foster carers and kinship carers out there who step up and welcome a child into their home: you are amazing, and I am humbled by the sacrifices you make and the love you give every day. I know it is not always easy. Some of these children, who have often suffered neglect, abuse and violence, have complex needs and can be challenging to care for. There will be days when it feels difficult and never-ending, when you feel alone and unsupported. But you keep going, and are continually there for your child, loving, protecting and supporting them. Given all that you do, in extremely difficult circumstances, the least that can be expected is a reasonable level of support from this Government for you and the child in your care.

The adoption and special guardianship support fund is an important part of that and, frankly, the way that cuts to the fund have been handled beggars belief. It is unacceptable to leave families for months on end without certainty about the funding they rely on and then, at the very last minute, to confirm a 40% cut to the therapy fund from £5,000 to £3,000, the removal of the entire amount for specialist assessment and the cessation of match funding for the most complex cases.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case, and I echo the sentiment that she has expressed so far. My constituent Sara Taylor came to me to make the case for the restoration of the fund. Her key point was that the economic and fiscal consequences, as Members across the House have said, are so obviously detrimental. If we do not spend the money on this, that means that the costs are displaced to society in other ways for the whole generation to come. Does my hon. Friend agree with that sentiment?

[Rebecca Paul]

My right hon. Friend is spot on. In a written statement, the Government said that

“we are in a challenging fiscal climate and are having to make tough but fair decisions across the public sector”.—[Official Report, 22 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 31WS.]

Minister, how is this fair? Of all the things that this Government could cut, they chose to cut funding to the most vulnerable of children. If they want to be fair, might I suggest that they look elsewhere for efficiencies? If they are looking for suggestions, they might want to cancel their plans to give away the Chagos islands while paying Mauritius £35 billion for the pleasure. Might that not be a more acceptable way to make savings? No one wants to see a Government balancing the books off the backs of the most vulnerable children in our communities.

This decision really is one of the most disappointing things I have seen from this Government. The fund is actually quite small in the scheme of things. These cuts do not move the dial on this country’s financial position in any meaningful way, so I am at a loss as to why the Government have proceeded in this manner. They could have protected it or even boosted it, but they have chosen to spread it more thinly.

Labour always talks a good game on supporting the most vulnerable, but actions speak louder than words. If the Government continue on this path, they need to take responsibility for this short-sighted decision and the impact that it will have. More children with special needs will not get what they need to flourish. That will put even more pressure on adoptive parents and kinship carers, who are already at breaking point. Ultimately, fewer people will put themselves forward to look after these children. That is an absolute tragedy, and one that will end up costing this country more in both human and financial terms, as my right hon. Friend has highlighted. Mark my words: we will see more of these children going back into care because of this Government’s cuts to the fund.

In a letter to the Education Secretary dated 22 July 2025, stakeholders including Adoption UK, Family Rights Group and Barnardo’s said:

“We have heard from families who are in complete crisis because of the abrupt changes that have taken place…including families who have…been torn apart.”

They continued:

“The thousands of adopted children and eligible children cared for under special guardianship or child arrangements orders, including kinship care, affected by delays and cuts to the Fund have faced unimaginable barriers in their first years of life. They are almost all care experienced and share a childhood characterised by trauma, loss and disruption. These are children who need more from their government, not less.”

In 2024-25, of the nearly 20,000 approved allocations of funding for therapeutic support, 9,000—or 46%—were for an amount of more than £3,000, which suggests that at least 9,000 children will be worse off following these cuts. I, too, have heard from many residents in my constituency, from across Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, who will be impacted by the cuts to this fund.

One story that really hit home is that of a couple who took out a special guardianship order on twins, both of whom had additional needs, significant trauma and attachment issues. When they were looked-after children, they were entitled to all the support they needed, so before taking out the SGO the couple rightly and responsibly sought reassurance that the SGO would not reduce the essential support that the twins were receiving. In typical fashion, they were putting the children first. They were promised that the funding would be there, so they went ahead, but that funding has now been reduced—a promise broken, a placement now at risk. How many SGOs or adoptions will now not go ahead because the support just will not be there afterwards?

I know that the Minister cares deeply about these children and this issue, and that it is likely that the Treasury has driven this decision. But I ask her, as part of this Labour Government and as someone who bears collective responsibility, to fight for these children, reconsider the decision to cut per-child funding, and reinstate both the £5,000 fair access limit and the £2,500 allowance for specialist assessment and match funding.

I was going to ask the Minister to provide the certainty needed by families about funding beyond March 2026 so that families can plan for future changes, but I am pleased to welcome her statement today on this matter. However, I ask her to provide more information on the planned public engagement process in the new year with respect to delivery of this fund, as it again creates unwelcome uncertainty. Just as families breathe a sigh of relief about securing next year’s funding, they have to hold their breath again about March 2027.

Finally, I again thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex for securing this debate. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the Government’s approach and ensure that our most vulnerable children get more from Government, not less. If a change in direction is not forthcoming, I fear that more children will remain in the care system, locked into poorer life outcomes, rather than being welcomed into warm, loving homes where they can flourish and thrive. There is still time for this Government to do the right thing for these children. We all implore them to do it.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

It is rare but very encouraging when a constituent comes into a surgery with some solutions. A couple of months ago, Elizabeth Cordle came into my surgery to talk about Corefulness, which is a series of short, simple, evidence-based exercise programmes to mature essential movement skills and help improve a child’s readiness to learn and break down barriers to learning. She is uncertain on how exactly it could be applied to assist with SEND, but she is absolutely clear that, through the national roll-out that she is leading, it has enormous potential. Will the Minister to engage with me and Elizabeth, so that as the strategy is being developed, we can examine whether that programme has a wider application?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I agree that we need to take a constructive and collaborative approach in how we improve outcomes for all children, and intervene in children’s lives to ensure their needs are met at the earliest stage possible. We will support schools to do that in any way we can. I would be more than happy to engage with the right hon. Gentleman on his constructive suggestion.

School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations

John Glen Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend tempts me down all sorts of paths, in ways that would anticipate the statement that is due later today, but he rightly states the importance of ensuring that teachers are recognised, valued and rewarded, that we have sufficient teachers, and that we have an attractive profession that bright people like Rosie want to join and contribute to. We will continue to work to deliver that for the children and schools in this country.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

One of the biggest drivers of satisfaction in any profession is settlements in line with inflation and expectations of inflation. Will the Minister assure the House that the settlement to be announced later today will take account of the fact that inflation is vastly higher than was anticipated when the settlement was reached?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am afraid that the right hon. Member will have to wait for the statement this afternoon. I appreciate that it is keenly anticipated. We are committed to ensuring that schools can deliver for children. That is our top priority.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Robert Halfon]

I am happy to meet MPs from Birmingham and any other area. The crucial aim behind the decision is to improve quality. Getting on the register is a competitive procurement process—everyone had to fulfil the same criteria. It is important to note that, from tomorrow, those that did not get on the register can reapply, so they may yet succeed.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

6. What steps she is taking to support and expand selective secondary education.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

15. What steps her Department is taking to support the expansion of grammar schools.

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

Under our national funding proposals, more money will follow students, particularly to schools that are educating pupils who are disadvantaged and from lower-income families. On the roll of one of the schools my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) has highlighted, 25% of the young people are on free school meals, whereas the proportion in the other school is less than 1%. That accounts for the majority of the difference.

[John Glen]

May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the grammar schools in my constituency, which face a cut of 3% in their funding under the proposed formula, despite a school up the road getting an increase of 11%? Will she examine how, within the absolutely necessary Treasury constraints, such inexplicable outcomes can be avoided? We must be sure that selective schools understand that the Government are fully on their side.

[Justine Greening]

As my hon. Friend points out, I do not get to write my own cheques and I have to live within my departmental budget. We are looking carefully at how to get the fair funding approach right. I agree that we have to make sure that similar children facing similar challenges and with similar needs are consistently funded, wherever in the UK they live, and of course we want to support successful schools.

School Funding

John Glen Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Michael Tomlinson]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who is right to highlight the unfairness. If there were a rhyme or reason or an explanation, and if it had been done on the basis of an index of deprivation, I could support it, but it is not. It is based on historical anomalies. That is why I wholeheartedly support the principle of fairer funding.

I want to make two points about the detail of the fairer funding. First, the schools that are right down at the bottom, in local authorities such as Poole and Dorset, should not, I suggest, see any reduction in funding. When I respond to the consultation, which I very much look forward to doing, I will make that point to the Minister.

My second point relates to grammar schools. I warmly welcome what the Government are doing in their move towards grammar schools, giving our parents a greater choice. We know that this is popular and that parents want to make the choice that is best for them and their children. I welcome the Government’s direction of travel, but it does seem odd that 103 out of 163 grammar schools appear to be losing out under this formula.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I echo all that my hon. Friend is saying. Similarly, in Wiltshire, we have seen a 2.6% increase, but the two grammar schools are the two out of the 10 schools in the constituency that are suffering, so this needs some further examination.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am grateful for that. I see the Minister for School Standards in his place and I know that he is listening carefully. I suggest that a delegation of Members of Parliament should go to see him—I know that, of all things, that will gladden his heart. He has been very receptive in the past, and I know that he will be again in the future. That is why I support not only the principle of fairer funding, but the fact that we have a chance at the second stage of the consultation running all the way up to 22 March. I see the Minister nodding, so I shall take it as an open invitation to come and knock on his door, with a delegation from the cathedral city of Salisbury and from Mid Dorset and North Poole. I greatly look forward to that meeting. The principle is right; let us now get the detail right.

Education and Social Mobility

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

For me, social mobility is one of the most fundamental objectives of an education system and a Government—it runs deep in my veins. Last week, I had to give a tribute to my father, who recently died of mesothelioma. Without his commitment to my education, as somebody who, like my mother, left school at 16, I would not have had the opportunity to break free from a pattern of manual work, work in service or growing plants, as he did.

Each morning when I leave my flat, I see a framed letter from King George VI in 1943 to my great-great-aunt Maud, who worked as a maid in Buckingham Palace. I regard the fact that, in three generations, members of my family can move from being maids to Members of Parliament as a function of the social mobility that should exist in our country. Before it is suggested that, somehow, being a Member of Parliament is the summit of human achievement, let me say that I certainly do not believe that that is the case.

What I do believe is that education is about choices. I want to address the core motivation that may exist in the minds of those who sought this debate—that grammar schools somehow restrict social mobility to a chosen few, consigning children who go to non-grammars to a future without such opportunities. It is my contention that education is not about the type of school, but about instilling a fundamental belief in the value of hard work. It is about access to high-quality teaching for all and about rigorous standards in education, whatever the type of school. It is also about parental support and encouragement—something we have not heard much about today.

My father passed his 11-plus and he got some O-levels, but whereas his parents fundamentally did not see the point of further study, his grandsons see a very different focus, as my sister and I try to take advantage of every learning opportunity. So let us conceive of education and social mobility not simply as a function of school type. Let us value the framework that surrounds school attendance—the teaching, resources and esteem.

I also want to challenge the notion of stigma—the belief that, if one does not pass the 11-plus, one is consigned to a different life trajectory. It is said by some that such a child is labelled a failure. That is not my experience, looking at the eight secondary schools in my constituency.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about 11 not being the cut-off point that defines a child’s future. Does he support the proposal, which some colleagues have referred to, that there should be multiple entry points into any new grammar schools?

[John Glen]

Absolutely. I totally welcome that point. I welcome the value that we see in university technical colleges, studio schools, academies and the range of other options that exist. There is a lot of mobility between those schools and a lot of transferring to grammar schools at sixth form.

It is wrong to suggest that we should have targets for where children go when they leave school—a target of a certain number going to university. We need to work hard in the House to generate parity of esteem for apprenticeships, higher-level apprenticeships, vocational education and all types of higher education. We should enable movement to these different settings at different stages.

The fact that so many of Salisbury’s young people go to the grammar schools for sixth form is testimony to the enduring quality of those schools’ academic A-level offer. However, the fact that other young people choose the excellent free sixth form is a reflection of how it provides for the diverse needs that grammars do not provide for and of how grammars do not suit all children.

We need to recognise that social mobility is achieved by embracing the broadest possible range of options, by encouraging specialisms and diversity and by valuing the widest context for learning for our young people.

Grammar and Faith Schools

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

One day I will have to get to Leicester, given that it had such a good football team and all the experiences that the right hon. Gentleman has highlighted. It is important for people of faith and atheists to learn about each other. That has to be the guiding light when we are talking about such schools and communities.

The Education Committee held an evidence-check session this morning because we believe in evidence, which must be the cornerstone of policy making. Of course, values matter too.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

My hon. Friend gathered valuable evidence from the excellence that he saw when he visited grammar schools in my constituency. Does he not recognise that that excellence across 163 schools is also valuable evidence from which we need to learn? We need to work out how we can magnify it across the country as a whole.

[Neil Carmichael]

I certainly did enjoy visiting the school in Salisbury and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that visit. It was exceptional; we talked about politics and highlighted the great work of a former Member of this House, the right hon. Sir Edward Heath. I was pleased to do that, especially given that we are now discussing Brexit so frequently.

Grammar schools are good schools, but the question we have to ask ourselves all the time is about all the other schools. That is at the heart of the matter. There are 3,500 secondary schools: what do we do about the 3,400 or so schools that we depend on for the vast majority of our teaching?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman). I send my best wishes to the Parliament choir for a successful concert.

In Trafford, part of which I represent, we already have a selective education system. All our schools perform very well, but that is despite selection, not because of it. Trafford’s success reflects excellent teaching, strong schools leadership, a culture of schools working together to support one another, and very good support from families and parents. I pay tribute to everyone—staff, students and the wider community—for the excellent results that Trafford achieves.

It is important to note, however, that selection at age 11 is not an unalloyed good for everyone, or even for the majority of our children. A few weeks ago, I went to meet the headteacher of one of our very successful non-selective girls’ schools—well, I guess it is selective, in that it is single-sex—and she talked about the challenges that she and her staff team face when girls who have failed the entrance examination for our local grammar schools arrive at her school, at the very young age of 11, demoralised and dispirited, believing that they are failures and have been written off.

That headteacher’s team do a tremendous job to recover the morale and confidence of those girls, who go on to perform extremely well, but I find it offensive that we should say to young children, “You are a failure”, on the basis of an inflexible and unsuitable examination that does not reflect the wider context of what is going on in children’s lives and what learning ought to be for. If we have a system in which only one in four of our children aged 11 are told they are successful and have potential, we are getting something very wrong.

As I say, the selective system does not perform well for all our children in Trafford, nor does it deal with the postcode lottery, which Ministers have said they want to address through their proposals. In Trafford, children from the richest wards are by far the most likely to be in Trafford’s grammar schools. Those from the poorest wards, largely concentrated in my constituency, are the least likely to be in grammar schools. In preparation for this debate, I saw a graph of the numbers, and the curve was startling and shocking: a tiny proportion of children in wards such as Bucklow-St Martins and Clifford in my constituency go to grammar school, compared with a much higher percentage of children from Hale and Bowdon, in the more prosperous parts of the borough.

[John Glen]

I always listen carefully to the hon. Lady, but is the issue not sometimes aspiration and getting applicants from a diverse range of backgrounds? If more from such backgrounds applied, could we not make some progress?

[Kate Green]

I will be very honest with the hon. Gentleman: I do not know. I just feel that a system that says to parents, “Don’t bother putting your child forward because they have no chance of succeeding,” is not a very good system either. What that headteacher told me gives the lie to what he suggests. She said that parents felt under pressure to put their child forward for the assessment even when they knew that they were unlikely to succeed. The disappointment is being compounded by a great deal of wasted effort and pain. He is right about the complexities around who applies and what happens when they do, but there is something very troubling about a graph that shows that only children from the richest parts of the borough have a high chance of entry into grammar schools. I suspect that their having supportive parents, and lots of assets in their home to support their learning through educational toys, reading, educational trips and leisure activities and so on, is the reason why they have a higher chance of getting into grammar schools. I do not negate what he says, but I strongly suspect that it is those wider social factors and family resources that dispose children from the richer parts of the boroughs to have a higher chance of entering grammar schools.

New Grammar Schools

John Glen Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

The fundamental premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question is wrong. This is absolutely not about going back to the past. Secondary moderns for many years did not even put their children through a single exam. Our school system has, thankfully, been reformed beyond all recognition since then, so the premise of his question is wrong. This is about improving standards for all children. He asked how we can help to make that happen. One way is by having good and outstanding schools playing more of a role and lifting other schools that can benefit from their experience and knowledge.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on excellence and education for all. I invite her to come and look at the mixed economy that exists in Salisbury, with grammar schools, university technical colleges, a free sixth form, local authority schools and a multi-academy trust forming shortly. I would like to place an emphasis on the dynamics between the different types of schools. In particular, grammar schools work with their neighbours nearby to raise standards across the board. The focus on the Progress 8 score—the progress made by every school—is surely where the emphasis needs to be placed.

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Collaboration and having good schools working with the broader family to raise overall attainment is important. Secondly, he is right that we should be looking to challenge schools on the progress of every single child. Part of the problem with the floor approach of getting children into GCSEs and achieving good A* to C grades was that it missed out on the often brilliant progress that schools make with children who are perhaps further back in their attainment. We should value that work, and that is the intention of Progress 8.

Term-time Holidays

John Glen Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend made that point better than I could have done.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Although I agree with the thrust of the Government’s response and their determination to raise standards, I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). When a number of schools have a high concentration of parents who work in the tourism industry and on relatively low pay, and when there has not been a significant enough change in the cost of holidays and there is no momentum around changes to term times, a number of factors come together. I urge the Minister to enter into more constructive dialogue about what can be done for regional economies where this issue will have a significant effect.

[Mr Gibb]

I am happy to enter into a constructive dialogue with my hon. Friend, and with my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). We have given academies discretion to set their own term dates, and I urge all hon. Members who represent areas with high levels of tourism to work with their schools, the local authority, and other local authorities, to find a way to set term dates that reflect the needs of their local communities.