Academies Bill [HL]

Lord Northbourne Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Northbourne]

My Lords, I intend to be brief. I congratulate the Government on giving such a high priority to improving the quality of the nation’s less successful schools. I support their attempt to remove the heavy-handed burden of bureaucracy deriving from local government and Sanctuary Buildings, although I have to say I do not fancy their chances of success.

I want to draw attention to one or two issues concerned with this Bill that we will need to explore further in Committee. They relate entirely to the impact that the legislation may have on the children of disadvantaged and chaotic families. We have a duty to be concerned about the impact on those children, not only for the children themselves, but because children from disadvantaged backgrounds may well be disruptive in the classroom and impede the progress of other children in a school.

I have just five questions for the Minister, some of which he may wish to write to me about. My first two points relate to the proposal that academies should be set up by groups of parents. Experience in the independent sector—I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will support me in this—suggests that governing bodies comprising only the parents of children currently in the school tend to make decisions that will bring short-term advantage to their own children rather than make decisions on the basis of the long-term well-being of the school.

My second concern is that the proposed parent-controlled academies will founder on the same rocks as some of the original Sure Start projects. When the previous Government set up Sure Start, it seemed such an excellent idea. Noble Lords will remember that its aim was that severely disadvantaged families should be helped by making funds available to provide services, not on the basis of any preconceived government plan, but in response to the felt needs of the parents and communities concerned. Many Sure Start projects failed in that objective because they were hijacked by able and intelligent parents who were quick to see the potential of the scheme for their own children. They crowded out those in greatest need—the children of disadvantaged families whose parents had neither the time nor the will to become involved nor the ability to lead or organise the schemes. I fear that the same may happen with parent-controlled academies.

My next concern relates to Clause 1(6)(c), which imposes on academies an obligation for a mixed-ability intake. It states that the school must provide,

“education for pupils of different abilities”.

What does that mean? There are two very different factors that may define different abilities in a child—a child’s potential ability to engage and to succeed in school. The two are sometimes referred to as IQ and EQ. The first relates to the child’s potential ability to cope with the academic content of school life; the second relates to the child’s ability to cope with the social and emotional challenges of school life. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, spoke of children leaving school without hope. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, spoke of training and the need to motivate. Many children enter school without love, without hope and without the emotional, social and interpersonal skills that they need in order to be able to cope within the school community.

For children from disadvantaged families, their lack of emotional and interpersonal skills may be as or, indeed, more important than any other skills. The EQ of a school’s intake may also be critical to the whole school community, because children with low EQ scores tend, because they lack self-assurance, security and hope, to be disruptive and disengaged in school and therefore to hold back others.

Do the Government intend that all academies should be required to take some children with low EQ scores or with emotional or behavioural problems? If so, will those schools be given the resources to begin to address those children’s problems before they arrive in nursery or primary school? Almost all of those problems originate in the family and in the first five years of the child’s school life. The problems are sometimes very difficult to eradicate by the time that a child gets to secondary school.

Finally, I want to ask two questions about the PSHE and relationship education policy of this Government. The relevant clauses in the Children, Schools and Families Bill were lost in the wash-up, as noble Lords will remember. What is the Government policy on PSHE and sex and relationship education? I should explain that those questions are relevant to the Bill because if we are to have any hope of reducing the number of children damaged by disadvantaged and chaotic families, we must increase the number of young people—the number of potential parents, both mothers and fathers—who understand and accept the responsibilities of parenthood and the parenting needs of young children. One important tool to achieve that must be more and better compulsory PSHE and relationship education. I am sorry to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is not in her place to hear me say that.

Is it the Government’s policy to make PSHE and relationship education compulsory for older children, as was the policy of the previous Government? Is it the Government’s policy to develop guidelines for relationship education along the lines of the draft guidelines, which were subject to consultation that closed in April this year? I ask that because, although I believe in compulsory PSHE, I believe that the guidelines were seriously flawed. They failed to emphasise the importance for older children of education that refers them to the challenges and responsibilities of parenthood and which encourages them to think about the role, responsibilities and challenges—both for fathers and mothers—in preparing their child emotionally and socially for school and for life. What is the Government's position on PSHE and relationship education?