Government and Democracy Education

Melanie Onn Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[John Slinger]

I wholeheartedly agree. It is critical that we educate our young people about the different tiers of government and the responsibilities of elected representatives within them.

I will touch briefly on the history of citizenship in our education system. Since 2002, citizenship has been a statutory foundation national curriculum subject at key stages 3 and 4. Luke Brown, a teacher at Lawrence Sheriff school in Rugby, told me:

“A big concern is the increasingly limited time given to Citizenship and, therefore, politics.”

Citizenship remains a non-statutory programme of study at key stages 1 and 2—or primary, to use the old parlance—where, as teachers tell me, a similar situation ensues, and other priorities all too often drown out citizenship. According to the 2018 Lords report, citizenship peaked between 2009 and 2011, and declined particularly under the last Government’s curriculum review in 2013. The report found that

“citizenship was never fully embedded into the education system”.

The same happened with other subjects that were, in my view, wrongly regarded by the previous Government as subsidiary. The English baccalaureate, introduced in 2010, did not include citizenship. Furthermore, there has been a substantial decline in the number of students studying the citizenship GCSE and the number of specialist teachers.

With our new Government’s curriculum review, we have a golden opportunity to put that right. Like all MPs, I make a big effort to visit as many primary and secondary schools as I can. The biggest privilege and—dare I say it?—challenge of being an MP is not speaking in Chambers like this one but answering questions from young people in schools. When I visit schools, I find that young people are generally interested in politics. For example, the children of Paddox primary school in my constituency were hugely excited about the competition that staff are running about politics, with the prize being a tour of Parliament. A constituent of mine, Ian Dewes, the CEO of the Odyssey Collaborative Trust, said that Parliament’s education team “were fantastic” and pointed out that such visits helped to

“break down class and social barriers.”

When children of Long Lawford primary school welcomed me and the early years Minister for a visit, it was clear that their teachers had educated them well about the political system. Those are exemplars of best practice, but they should be standard across the whole country.

I would be grateful to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister about how her Department will ensure a more coherent, better resourced system that gives these subjects the higher priority that they deserve. I hope, first, that she will consider confirming citizenship as a statutory subject in the national curriculum at all stages, not just key stages 3 and 4; as with literacy, the younger we start, the deeper the understanding. Secondly, will she provide guidance to all schools about what they are expected to teach and resources to do so, including lesson packs and training for non-specialist teachers? Thirdly, will she ensure coherence and common standards across the entire maintained sector? Fourthly, will she reform progress 8 to ensure that any new system of measuring schools gives the same value to citizenship as to other national curriculum foundation GCSE subjects? Finally, will she take action to incentivise the training of specialist citizenship teachers?

Another part of learning about government and democracy should, of course, be participating in it within school and the wider world, as other hon. Members have said.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

As part of UK Parliament Week, I visited Ormiston Maritime academy, John Whitgift academy and Phoenix Park academy, and what struck me is that young people are very engaged in their local community and raise really important issues that reflect the society they are experiencing. They have an awful lot to tell us about the kind of country they want to grow up in. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we can be more responsive in this place, it will give them a much greater connection to the changes they can make and the influence they can have on their local representatives?

[John Slinger]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend and thank her for that point. It is vital that we do everything we can in this place, and indeed in our constituencies, to listen to young people and empower them. We must not just listen to them but act on their concerns. Anything we can do, we must.

Primary and secondary schools that I have visited often run democratically elected school councils, which demonstrate to young people democracy in action and its role in enabling them to shape their environment. We must give our young people as many opportunities as possible to engage in that way. I will soon be holding a “pitch your policy” event in my constituency to encourage such engagement.

The importance of this topic cannot be overstated. We are fortunate to live in a secure but not invulnerable democracy. I met MPs from Moldova this week and asked about this topic, given the threats that their democratic system faces. They told me that it does feature in their curriculum and that they have school councils that are all about

“encouraging people to acknowledge their own power”.

These changes are about more than just a matter of curriculum rejuvenation, important though that is. If made, they can play a significant part in a democratic rejuvenation in our country. More broadly, to reinforce our system of democracy and government, we must have a campaign of education that goes far beyond our schools, with billboards, social media and mailshots.

I will end with some quotes from the most important people of all: young people. Austin Morris in year 11 said:

“Democracy isn’t just something we learn from a textbook; it’s a lesson we live every day at Rugby Free Secondary, where diverse voices, collaboration and fair decisions shape our school, and therefore shape the next generations of democratic society.”

A child from Paddox primary school said:

“Learning about democracy at school helps you to express your opinions and teaches you about wider topics related to what is going on in the world.”

Another said:

“It is also important to be able to have your voice heard in things that are important both at school and in the ‘real’ world.”

Another said:

“It is important for girls to vote in elections because they had to fight hard to get their vote in the first place.”

Finally—I like this one in particular—another said:

“If you don’t vote, you shouldn’t complain about things that happen because you didn’t use your democratic vote.”

I am sure that hon. Members will concur with that. Let us be inspired by those words and many others like them from schools up and down the country. Let us make sure that citizenship learning is a force that nourishes and defends our democratic system, and empowers our young people with the confidence to engage in it for the benefit of all.

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) on securing this timely debate on an incredibly important subject. He inspired us with his speech and the words of young people in particular. I know that education is a subject close to his heart, as he demonstrated clearly in his speech today. Having previously been a school governor and a trustee for Warwickshire Young Carers, I know that he shares our vision for ensuring that young people receive the right support to succeed in their education and to lead happy, healthy and productive lives.

I say that this debate is timely. It has been mentioned that we are celebrating UK Parliament Week this week, which is an incredible opportunity to get young people across the country to engage with Parliament and learn more about our democracy, our political system and how our country works. This Friday, I will be going to school assemblies across my constituency to speak to children about what I do as their MP and how they can engage in and shape their world. I am sure that many hon. Members will be doing the same. I had so many invites this year that it has been a real squeeze to fit them in. There are 35 schools from Newcastle upon Tyne North engaging in UK Parliament Week this year—I am not going to all of them—and it is fantastic that so many are getting involved.

From my own experience, some of the most powerful and persuasive engagement that I have had in my time in Parliament has come directly from children and young people in my constituency. I have lobbied previous Governments on their behalf on many different issues—the significance of now being on the receiving end of those requests is not lost on me. They have brilliant ideas that they express powerfully, so it is important that their voice is heard and their engagement supported.

[Melanie Onn]

The Minister is exactly right. In my visits so far this week, young people have raised serious and current issues, including knife crime, vaping and their impact on health. The idea that young people are divorced from the realities of society is not bearing out, but their connection with the political system is very separate. I am interested to hear her views on improving citizenship in schools.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The last Labour Government recognised the importance of citizenship and participation in our education system, which is why they introduced citizenship education to the national curriculum at key stages 3 and 4 for maintained schools. They set up a framework to prepare pupils to play an active part in society and a platform to discuss issues that are important to them, from conflict to poverty, climate change, crime and security in our society.

Although it is optional for primary schools—my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby raised that as a concern—they are supported by non-statutory programmes at key stages 1 and 2, and the teaching of democracy forms a central part of the citizenship curriculum. That requires that pupils are taught about parliamentary democracy, the key elements of the constitution of the United Kingdom, the power of Government, how citizens and Parliament can hold Government to account, and the different roles of the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary, and of course the free press. Pupils learn the skills of active citizenship through practical opportunities to address issues of concern to them and their wider community.

The Petersfield school in Hampshire and the Association for Citizenship Teaching delivered a joint parallel election project using real-life examples from the 2024 general election and involving nearly 30,000 students across 413 schools. It gave students hands-on experience of a democratic process—for example, asking them to work in teams to simulate election parties. It mirrored a real election, from analysing party manifestos to organising voter registration, holding hustings, holding elections and comparing the school results in the local constituency. Aside from that particular project, many schools will have engaged in the ’24 election in a similar way, which is fantastic.

It is right that schools have a statutory duty as part of a broad and balanced curriculum to promote pupils’ spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development. The 2014 guidance supports schools in delivering that requirement. It acknowledges that people might hold different views about what is right and what is wrong, but a school’s ethos and teaching should support the rule of English civil and criminal law, and that means embedding those fundamental values of democracy, rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect and tolerance of people of different faiths and beliefs.

Schools embed those values most successfully when they do it right across the breadth of their provision. Whether they are taught specifically as part of a curriculum, reflected in behaviour policies, reinforced in assemblies or deepened through engagement opportunities—for example, experiencing the democratic process—we know that real experience can help young people to develop, engage in and assume those values in their own lives.

High and rising school standards are at the heart of the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity. We know that is how we can deliver the best life chances for every child, but we also know that too many young people go through their whole school lives without developing the communication and critical thinking skills that are so important for them to develop that democratic engagement.

That is why we are delivering our manifesto commitment with the independent curriculum and assessment review, as already mentioned. It is a good opportunity to look at how we deliver a curriculum that ensures young people feel represented, and helps them to develop the knowledge and skills required to thrive as citizens throughout their life. The review will look at the key challenges to attainment for young people and the barriers holding them back from opportunities and life chances. In particular, it will look at breaking down barriers for those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged or those with special educational needs and disabilities.

The review has put out a call for evidence, which closes this Friday, so this is a good opportunity to encourage anyone with an interest in the issue to feed back as part of the review, because we are interested in views and we want to hear from as many people as possible. Anyone can also join live events on gov.uk and have their say in the curriculum and assessment process. Live events are being held around the country, so I encourage people to engage. The review will not decide what to recommend formally until after the call for evidence closes. An interim report will be produced in early 2025 and the final recommendations will be published in autumn 2025.

Generally speaking, schools have the flexibility to organise the content and delivery of their citizenship curriculum to meet the needs of their pupils. That might include a whole range of issues, ideas and materials, including challenging or controversial subjects, but they need to ensure political balance. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby made a specific point about the co-operative movement. Political movements and parties are not listed as part of the current citizenship curriculum, but schools can choose to talk about them as part of their democracy discussions.

The Department currently provides a range of support to the sector, particularly through the Educate Against Hate website, to help teachers discuss some of the really tricky issues. Support for curriculum delivery also comes from resources from the Oak National academy, which launched new curriculum sequences for secondary citizenship earlier this month. Obviously, there will be a full package of support in autumn 2025.

UK Parliament does fantastic work running educational tours for pupil, youth and community groups to see how Parliament works in action. It also produces resources, which can be downloaded or ordered for free and tailored to different age groups. This really is Christmas for UK Parliament. I thank staff for the work they do all year round, but particularly this week as we celebrate the level of engagement. I encourage all schools to engage and make use of the resources for young people.

On supporting the teaching workforce, the initial teacher training and early career framework sets out the entitlement of every trainee to get the necessary knowledge and skills. It is vital that teachers get support to do that important work of engaging and teaching young people about these issues.

I will take my hon. Friend’s comments on board, and I thank him again for bringing forward the debate. It is great that it happened in this week of all weeks. I also thank all hon. Members for their contributions. It is vital that pupils have a sound understanding of the fundamental values upon which our society is founded and operates, including democracy, and their relevance to the rights, responsibilities and opportunities of living in modern Britain.

Schools clearly have a critical role to play in supporting pupils to develop those skills and attitudes. We know that many schools really embed an understanding of democracy, but we also know that the curriculum and assessment review is an opportunity to see how we can do that even better. I will finish by thanking my hon. Friend again for his fantastic opening speech. In giving a voice to his constituents, he is clearly embedding democratic values within his local area. I am sure that every MP will take the opportunity to do the same during UK Parliament Week.

Question put and agreed to.

Apprenticeships and T-Levels

Melanie Onn Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Damian Hinds]

Indeed—the hon. Member is absolutely right. Part of the point of careers advice is knowing which course to take and which qualification to pursue. The panel that I mentioned found that if someone was considering a career in plumbing, for example, there were 33 different qualifications that they might seek to take. It also found that in general the various qualifications were not providing the skills needed; they had become divorced from the occupations they were meant to serve, with no requirement, or only a weak requirement, to meet employers’ needs in those occupations.

The panel’s report, which came out in April 2016, became a blueprint for a major upgrade of technical and vocational education in this country. The panel was determined to address both the productivity gap and very clearly also the social justice gap, whereby some young people were being left behind. I stress that although the report was a blueprint, it was also a “redprint”: the panel was chaired by the noble Lord Sainsbury, the distinguished Labour peer. The report called for “a fundamental shift”, with

“a coherent technical education option…from levels 2…to…5”.

There would be 15 clearly defined sector routes, covering 35 different career pathways. Three of those routes would be available only through an apprenticeship; the other 12 would be available either through an apprenticeship or a college track, and there would be common standards for both. Both the apprenticeship and college-based routes would result in

“the same or equivalent technical knowledge, skills and behaviours”

to take into the workplace. The report said that this path

“needs to be clearly delineated from the academic option, as they are designed for different purposes. But, at the same time, movement between the two must be possible…in either direction”.

The report also recommended expanding the then Institute for Apprenticeships into an Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, so as to cover both apprenticeship and college tracks. It added:

“Specifying the standards…is not a role for officials in central government but for professionals working in…occupations, supported by…education professionals.”

It recommended that there should be improvements to apprenticeships and a new, largely college-based qualification, which would become known as the T-level.

With T-levels, the knowledge, skills content and required behaviours are set not by somebody at the Department of Education but by employers. There is the core technical qualification, but there is also content in English, maths and digital. Crucially, there is a 45-day industrial placement. There are also more college hours than with traditional vocational qualifications and indeed more taught hours per week than for A-levels.

For the upgrade that we needed in our country, in both productivity and opportunities available to all young people, T-levels had to become the principal college-based option—not the only option, but the principal or main college-based vocational qualification. And the T-level could not be grafted on to a market that already had thousands of qualifications; there was an incumbency advantage and even commercial interests attached to some of those. It had to replace a number—a lot—of qualifications. Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, has been speaking about this quite recently.

The other thing that was always going to be difficult about T-levels was finding enough industry placements. Lord Sainsbury found that we might need up to 250,000 industry placements for 17-year-olds, and that, of course, is hard to achieve. We could say that it is too hard and give up, but if we did that we would be giving up on advancing our competitiveness.

The alternative is that we change culture in our country and say to companies that if they want to be a great success in their sector, and their sector to be a great success in our country, and our whole country to be a success in the world, we all have to invest both the resource and the time in the next generation.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

I do not disagree with the right hon. Member on that point; I just wanted to highlight that in my constituency of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes there is an apprenticeship provider called CATCH. Local businesses have come together to invest in a brand-new welding apprenticeship facility that will deliver 1,000 apprentices over the next few years. Is that the kind of partnership working that he envisages, which works well for local communities, young people and business?

[Damian Hinds]

I am sure it is. I will come to apprenticeships in a moment, but I was just talking about industry placements in T-levels.

From speaking to young people who are doing T-levels, colleagues will know that their most popular feature is probably the fact that young people get to do a real role in a real workplace. The placements are also popular with the employers that provide T-levels: first, the employers are investing in the next generation and helping develop all the things the lack of which they sometimes complain about—soft skills and workplace skills—and secondly, the placements are the most fantastic, longest-ever job interview, when employers get to see the people who may come and work in their company over an extended period. I appeal to Ministers to carry on the great work of shouting about T-levels and talking about these great opportunities and the upgrade they represent.

There were two big changes to apprenticeships. The first ensured that there were minimum standards. Previously, as colleagues will recall, some apprenticeships were so thin and flimsy that the apprentices did not know they were on one. After minimum standards came in, apprenticeships would last at least one year and involve at least 20% of time off the job. As with T-levels, there would be an end-point assessment, which would feature standards set by employers.

The second big change was the introduction of the apprenticeship levy. That has always been controversial with some employers, but it was there to do two things. First, it raises the funds needed to pay for a big upgrade in apprenticeship provision. Secondly, it deals with the free rider problem, with which we will all be familiar: some companies in a sector have always strongly invested in young people, but three years later those young people leave to work for another employer that can offer to pay more but has not made the investment in the first place. The apprenticeship levy deals directly with that free rider problem, as economists call it, so that every sizeable company contributes properly.

The new Government plan to change the scope of the levy and to introduce two new types of apprenticeship, which it is fair to say we do not know a huge amount about: foundation apprenticeships and shorter apprenticeships. There is an argument that we already make the word “apprenticeship” do a lot of work—it covers a wide spectrum. Arguably, there are three types of development of self and training, which have different needs: someone may be a career starter, career developer or career changer, and the specifications of the courses and qualifications are different. For example, a 50-year-old who is changing career does not need to learn as many things about what it is like to enter a workplace for the first time as an 18-year-old does. In truth, only one of those types of training is what a normal member of the public associates with the word “apprentice”: we think typically of people who are young and starting out on their working journey.

It is totally legitimate to look at changing what the levy covers, and it is good to refocus on young people—career starters. It is also reasonable to say that the levy could cover some things that are not apprenticeships, such as management development or traineeships, but there is huge value in maintaining integrity around what we mean by the word “apprenticeship”, and keeping a minimum length and quantity of college or off-work content.

Whatever the Government do with the levy, they need to find a way to deal with the free rider problem. The Government will always be lobbied by companies saying, “We should be able to use the levy for this, that and the other”, but if “this, that and the other” means training that they would have paid for anyway, then the levy will not have achieved its goal. It has to be something that creates a net increase in the amount of training and development available.

That brings me to Skills England. Now, Ministers like shiny new things, and some people will always lobby for things to change. A sweet spot is found in public policy when the two coincide: Ministers get lobbied to do something, and they think they have come up with a shiny new thing that sounds like it will achieve those ends. Skills England is one of those things; I am afraid that, without major design change, it is doomed to failure. I have no doubt that plenty of people who lobbied the Government when they were in opposition said, “We need a different approach to skills. We need to think about them across Government, take the long view, listen to employers, listen to young people and have an integrated approach.” The Government have come up with this thing called Skills England, which they think will do that.

Skills England will be the 13th new skills agency in five decades. If all it took to solve our skills and productivity problem was a change in the machinery of government, do the Government not think that one of the previous 12 might already have managed it? The instinct in difficult circumstances is to break glass and reach for a quango, but Skills England is not even a quango; it is nada—not quasi-autonomous, but a non-accountable departmental agency—and there is no reason to think it will be any better at working across Government, let alone across the economy, in solving these issues.

If the Government were serious about creating something new to join together the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade, the DFE and everybody else, they would put it in the Treasury or perhaps the Cabinet Office. They would not just make it part of the DFE management structure. Worse than that is the loss of independence compared with the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education.

There is legislation currently going through the other place that ostensibly creates Skills England, but it does no such thing. All it does is abolish the independent institute and move all of its powers into the Department for Education. The Secretary of State will now have responsibility for standards for T-levels. Imagine if that were the case for A-levels. If it is not all right for A-levels, why should it be all right for T-levels?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this debate on such a critical issue for our young people. Today, I want to highlight a major concern among college staff and students: the need for certainty about the potential defunding of BTECs in favour of T-levels.

For years, BTECs have served as a trusted form of level 3 qualification, providing students with practical and theoretical skills in a format that staff are experienced in delivering. I have heard from teachers about the pride and joy they take in teaching BTECs and watching their students thrive as they apply themselves to often very practical subjects. In many cases, it is the first time that those children have ever felt passionate about learning and excited to go further. It gives them the chance to finally start down the path—a path I imagine all of us in the Chamber want young people to take—towards realising their full potential. That is why so many are concerned about the replacement of BTECs with T-levels, and why I hope that the Government address those concerns when they publish the findings of their review of the policy next month.

I have heard from teachers who say they will struggle with the suggested rapid adoption of new course structures and unfamiliar theoretical components across the whole range of non-A-level subjects. Staff at South Thames Colleges Group, which serves many of my local students, have expressed concerns about how those sweeping changes will be implemented effectively. Currently, around 58 courses are at risk of being defunded.

[Melanie Onn]

Is some of the concern coming from colleges not also about the timing of those decisions? Franklin college in my constituency has said that the earlier it knows, the better it can plan. It is already receiving parents and young people in for open days for courses next year.

[Luke Taylor]

The hon. Lady makes a point so good that I will be getting to it shortly—I completely agree.

Staff worry about having to adapt their curricula to align with the new T-levels, which will involve updating course content, revising teaching methods and redesigning assessment strategies to meet the new required standards. There is no way to do that without enormous, time-consuming upheaval, which they will need as much notice as possible to prepare for. Teachers deserve a definitive answer on what will happen next.

It is not just teaching staff; students have been left in the dark, too. Approximately 380 students planning to enrol at a college in the South Thames Colleges Group are affected by the confusion surrounding the implementation of T-levels. Those currently completing GCSEs and planning for their post-16 education face uncertainty about what their courses will look like in September 2025. They fear the removal of the element of choice in the system.

BTECs formerly offered the option of a professional placement, but T-levels are geared specifically to placements. That leaves those who may not be academically suited to A-levels but do not wish to begin a T-level course, 20% of which is effectively a job, with no real support. On a visit to Carshalton college, I was told that there were 120 applicants for a diploma in childcare but only seven for a T-level in childcare. That could create a shortage in qualified staff coming through the system. The impact is felt disproportionately by those with special educational needs and disabilities, many of whom need extra support to explore their options before entering adult life, and for whom entry into the world of work may not be the right option so early in adulthood.

Nobody is denying the merit in reviewing periodically the way we train our young people for the future, but forcing students to choose exclusively between A-levels and T-levels could represent a narrowing of their options. I fear that this is a poorly managed top-down change for teachers to implement, and a gamble with the opportunities of a generation of young people who, let us not forget, have already had their education severely disrupted by the covid pandemic. With September 2025 rapidly approaching, I urge the Government to provide clarity to all those affected so both students and staff can plan for the change ahead. The Government must also think again, and give colleges and students flexibility to choose the appropriate qualifications for them and their communities.

Educational Opportunities

Melanie Onn Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on securing this important debate.

I want to take the opportunity to highlight an issue that affects the future of many children in our communities—the barriers to educational opportunities faced by children in kinship care. In my constituency, 450 children are living in kinship care, placing us in the top 10% in England and Wales. Those children being raised by relatives or close family friends often face significant challenges that can hinder their educational progress. Many have special educational needs or disabilities, including social, emotional and mental health issues. More than one in 10 have been diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder.

Those challenges mean that kinship children are much more likely than their peers to attend SEN schools. Kinship children in England alone are over three times more likely to have an EHCP than all other pupils. Despite their needs, kinship children often do not receive the same level of support as those in local authority care. The lack of support can leave them struggling to cope in the classroom and with their post-school opportunities, impacting their ability not only to learn but to thrive. Kinship carers want educators to be better trained to understand the unique challenges that kinship children face, and to provide the support that these children need throughout their lives. It is crucial that we address the barriers and ensure that kinship children receive the support they need to flourish in their educational journey, just to give them a fair crack of the whip. That means improving access to special educational services, providing targeted training for educators and recognising the unique challenges faced by kinship families. By doing so, we can create a more inclusive and supportive educational environment for all children, ensuring that, as we have said in our mission statement, every child, regardless of background or circumstances, has the opportunity to succeed.

I want to finish by asking the Minister a couple of questions, including whether the Government are considering taking any specific actions to support the children in kinship care and whether an assessment has been made of the gap in SEND provision disproportionately affecting children in kinship care.

Kinship Carers

Melanie Onn Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Alistair Strathern]

I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful point. He rightly highlights that financial support is a crucial part of the package that kinship carers need. I am really excited that the Government are finally bringing forward the £44 million needed to get on with the pilots. However, it is important that we do not just put an arm around kinship carers, but provide a wider range of therapeutic support and advice. Both financial and non-financial support will be crucial.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the £44 million and the 10 pilots are a groundbreaking initiative on the part of this Government—something that kinship care families have long awaited and campaigned for? This is just the start, but we cannot have everything that we might want right now.

[Alistair Strathern]

Absolutely. Since they took office, we have seen from the new Secretary of State, the Minister and the Government an urgency that, finally, is starting to meet the needs of the moment, and the needs of young people in kinship care and their carers. Whether it is making sure that we finally have a kinship care ambassador to actively champion the role of kinship carers and take to task local authorities that do not always provide the support they need, as some kinship carers in the room might be able to attest to; bringing forward statutory guidance and a framework to ensure that we have more in place to recognise the values of wider family networks in planning decisions for young people, and to do everything we can to remove the barriers to placing young people in kinship care; or—

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

I will not repeat what I have said—it still stands.

[Melanie Onn]

I congratulate the Minister on securing the DFE as a kinship-friendly employer. There are other employers in the country, such as John Lewis, B&Q and Card Factory, that have done amazing things around kinship care leave. Is any consideration being given to bringing some of those best practice examples together, so that we could roll out, through our Government structures, support to employers to become kinship-friendly?

[Janet Daby]

My hon. Friend makes a significant point. There is lots more that needs to be done in this space, and her point demonstrates that much more work is needed.

Special Educational Needs and Disabilities

Melanie Onn Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. We will be looking at the system as a whole, and at any legislation that needs to be amended or brought in to achieve our vision for an inclusive mainstem education that not only provides education for all children regardless of their special educational needs and disabilities, but provides specialist places for those with the most complex needs that cannot be met within mainstream education. We know the evidence shows that, where those needs are being met within the inclusive mainstream education system, the need for EHCPs is significantly reduced.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

Last year alone, my local authority of North East Lincolnshire spent £1.3 million sending 114 children out of area to special educational needs settings. Could the Minister reassure constituents across North East Lincolnshire and in my constituency of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes that the actions she is taking will not only support local authorities and reduce these additional costs, but provide the kind of education their children need closer to home?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend sets out very well the vision that we are seeking to achieve for all children. The purpose of all the changes we are making in our education system is to ensure that inclusive mainstream education is available to all children and that there are specialist places for children with the most complex needs.

Free Schools

Melanie Onn Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. I congratulate the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) on securing this important debate, and I look forward to reading her report.

It is fair to say that I wholeheartedly disagree with just about everything the hon. Lady said. Her comments about the concept of people getting a financial return from investing in local education establishments make me fearful. Education should not be considered as a business. The money-making, business and enterprise element of even the academies programme has served only to put additional pressure on schools and families. Parents have to finance so many of their children’s additional activities in the education environment. That simply did not happen to the same degree prior to the academisation programme.

I am delighted that Kavit, whom the hon. Lady mentioned, has had such an enriching educational experience, but I deeply believe that Kavit’s experience should be everyone’s experience, and that the responsibility for education lies not with a few well-meaning local residents or capable parents but with the state. It is our responsibility. We in this place should take responsibility for ensuring the very highest standards in our state education system. For that and many other reasons, which I will come to, I cannot understand the enthusiasm for the free schools programme. Some £15,000 more per primary school pupil and nearly £20,000 more per secondary school pupil goes into free schools compared with those in the state system. That is a ridiculous amount of money.

The hon. Lady talked about “undeniable success”. Sir Peter Lampl, who founded the Sutton Trust, said:

“Free schools were supposed to bring new and innovative providers into the education sector, to drive up standards and improve school choice. But as our research shows, very few are fulfilling that original purpose.”

Carole Willis, chief executive of the National Foundation for Educational Research, said that the Sutton Trust report

“shows that the government’s free schools programme has not been very successful at bringing innovation to the education system and encouraging more parents and teachers to set up new schools. What it does highlight is that those new free schools that are opening are increasingly set up and led by multi-academy trusts and are used as a way to meet rising pupil numbers. So, if the government is still committed to the programme’s original purpose then it should review and clarify the mission of free schools.”

Can it really be an undeniable success that a trust set up by a Conservative peer and former so-called policy supremo of David Cameron’s was given £340,000 for two free school projects that never even got off the ground? Is that really the definition of success for the education of our children? I do not think it is. The Floreat Education Academies Trust, which was founded by the now Health Minister, Lord O’Shaughnessy—I do not know whether that is still accurate—received cash to set up new primary schools in London, but the plans were abandoned in March 2018. Those primaries were among 44 free school projects that were cancelled without teaching a single pupil between 2013 and 2017. What an utter disgrace of a waste of taxpayers’ money. That money should be going to our kids in the education system now, not on the fanciful ideas of people sitting in the other House who cannot even deliver.

There simply is not enough scrutiny in the application process for free schools. I had the same concern about the level of accountability and transparency in academies, but free schools, particularly under the umbrella of multi-academy trusts, are increasingly becoming completely unaccountable and untransparent fiefdoms at the heart of our communities. There is nothing that local people can do to challenge them when they are failing. And what happens when they do fail, having had all that money put into them? The state picks up the pieces.

[Suella Braverman]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Melanie Onn]

I will not, because the hon. Lady had a good 20 minutes to set out her case. I am sure she will cover these things extensively in her report or in summing up at the end of the debate.

Cancelled schemes were given £8.7 million of funding by the Department for Education. That money has now been written off. It could have been used to help struggling state schools, or even to reward schools in the state system that are succeeding and excelling and that deserve to expand, rather than being funnelled into these local community projects run by well-meaning individuals. The idea that improved financial self-management will in any way resolve those problems is for the birds.

In Great Grimsby, we have been fully academised at secondary school level for about five years. Even in that academised system, there are concerns about the level of exclusions, temporary and permanent. Some schools—if they are in the wrong area—feel they are a dumping ground for other schools that cannot cope with the diverse needs of their student body. We have also seen an increase in provision through pupil referral units.

I went recently to Phoenix House pupil referral unit in my constituency. I saw young people who would have struggled in mainstream education—whether a free school, an academy trust or the comprehensive system—but who are now in an environment that works well for them. Where they might previously not have gone on to sit their GCSEs, they are now sitting them and engaging with their school community. They are forming friendships and respecting their local community. That school is going round begging for and borrowing facilities. It has a fantastic workshop where the kids can work on a car chassis, build it up from scratch and take it apart again. The school has to go to local scrapyards and car dealers to beg for things for that facility, yet we are wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds on free schools that often do not deliver for their pupils.

There are all kinds of statistics on the representation of young people in free schools who are eligible for free school meals, compared with those in academies, and that goes to the heart of the matter. If the Government really want to improve education, they should not turn the system even more into a marketplace. Education is not a marketplace; education is about the future of our young people and our country. We should give headteachers who are already in the system the flexibility offered to those in free schools to deliver well for their students, pupils and wider community, and we should properly fund them, rather than diverting cash to vanity projects that do not work for the local community. I therefore do not support the idea that we should introduce free schools all around the country.

Further Education Funding

Melanie Onn Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

rose—

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend is always a great champion of these things, and he is absolutely right. Colleges can certainly help themselves by attracting great employers to offer apprenticeships, and we can help them by introducing some of the employers if need be.

[Melanie Onn]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the restrictions on FE funding have directly damaged the ability of colleges to recruit very specialist skills at the highest level, such as in engineering, meaning that vacancies exist for long periods and that colleges are often cutting short those types of course?

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Lady has brilliantly anticipated a line in my speech, and I agree with her.

Special Educational Needs

Melanie Onn Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered SEN support in schools.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, I think for the first time. Before discussing the policy that I wish to address, I will take a moment to emphasise why special educational needs support in schools is such an important topic. I secured the debate because of a number of constituency cases that have come through my surgery. Constituents raised the issue with me and brought me to the point at which I felt the need to discuss it in Westminster Hall. I will not talk specifically about constituency cases, because I want to speak to the wider issue, which affects not just cities such as York but the whole country. That is reflected in the number of Members attending the debate this morning.

I will touch on the importance of SEN and why it is worth taking the time to ensure that the system of support works for all children with SEN. Our starting point should therefore be to see SEN as something that informs mainstream education policy, rather than a specialist area relating to a minority of pupils. More than 1.2 million pupils in England—that is 14.6%—have an identified special educational need, of whom 250,000, or one in five, have either a statement of SEN or an education, health and care plan in place. We should also be conscious of the fact that the SEN of many more students are likely to remain unidentified. For me, that is the wider issue of real concern.

New research by Professor Lucinda Platt at the London School of Economics and Dr Sam Parsons of University College London has helped to inform us about the short, medium and long-term effects on people’s lives of being identified with SEN at school. While the findings are alarming, they serve to underline the obligation on us all to ensure that the next generation of children do not experience their special educational needs as something that impacts negatively on their prospects at school and future life chances.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this incredibly important debate. SEN support has an impact on children throughout my constituency. I am outraged on their behalf and that of their parents when I hear that some students who have an EHCP are left without any education, some for up to a year, or just having it for an hour a week. He mentioned the long-term impact of an SEN diagnosis and schools that cannot cope with the needs of those children, and that is incredibly important. I look forward to hearing him expand a little on that.

[Julian Sturdy]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. Members will mention different examples of constituency cases in the debate, which shows that this is a wide issue. However, I completely accept the point that it is about not just diagnosis but the next steps. I will come on to that, and I will put a few questions to the Minister. I hope that she will be able to respond to them accordingly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Sturdy]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, which I accept, and it is certainly what I have seen in the evidence before me. I will develop this further, but the wider point is about schools and local authorities actually identifying all children with SEN—if they identified them all, there might be a financial impact on those specific schools. For me, that is the wider concern in the process.

The study by LSE and UCL found that children with SEN at school are three times more likely than their peers to lack a close friend and to experience bullying most days. Sadly, problems experienced at school have long-term consequences, and the study found that by the time those children are young adults, those with SEN are nearly twice as likely to see friends only once or twice a year and to feel that they have no one to listen to their problems. There is also an impact on relationships and family life in middle age. Adults who had SEN at school are four times as likely to be single and twice as likely not to have children.

The report also suggests that the pressure that children with SEN face at school to perform socially and academically is having a detrimental impact on their long-term mental health and wellbeing. They are twice as likely as their non-SEN peers to feel that life’s problems are too much. There is also a significant concern that a disproportionate number of those caught up in the criminal justice system have a special educational need—the relevant studies find that they represent between 25% and 50% of offenders. All that is extremely alarming.

Addressing the disparity in outcomes for SEN children has been a priority of successive Governments of all political persuasions and colours. There is evidence that policy changes have made a positive impact on the lives of a new generation of SEN children. The reforms brought in by the Children and Families Act 2014, and the introduction of education, health and care plans—touched on already by hon. Members—were welcomed as positive step towards providing more reliable and individually tailored support for those with the greatest needs.

Last week the Government talked about creating 37 new SEN schools. Although I welcome the 3,400 extra high-quality school places that could be created, I am not convinced that will address the need for early intervention in mainstream schools, as other hon. Members have mentioned. It is possible that will further contribute to the social marginalisation of SEN children.

[Melanie Onn]

What does the hon. Gentleman think about the role of teaching assistants in schools? For children with SEN or EHCPs, one of the fundamental support mechanisms in school is teaching assistants, but their numbers have been drastically reduced; they are often the first to lose their jobs when there is restructuring and school budget cuts.

[Julian Sturdy]

The hon. Lady makes an important intervention. Teaching assistants and teachers have a huge role to play—I will touch on that later in my speech—because it is about spotting SEN at an early age. If we can tackle it at the beginning, it will be easier to tailor support for those children. The first port of call has to be teachers and teaching assistants at school.

The Government’s announcement last year that they would invest an additional £365 million from 2018 to 2021 is to be welcomed. However, I am not convinced that funding alone can address the disparities that children with SEN face. Far-reaching policy changes are required. The first of those that I want to touch on is exams. By far the largest query that I receive from constituents in relation to SEN is about assessment concessions—extra time in exams. Although I understand that the recent move towards an exam-based system in schools, from the perspective of academic rigour, is probably the right way to go, I am concerned that has had the undesirable side effect of limiting the potential of SEN students.

Constituents tell me time and again that their children’s two biggest problems in exams are the anxiety that they inevitably generate and the unfair concentration on one small aspect of that child’s ability: namely, the ability to memorise facts. The GCSE religious studies exam includes a requirement to learn 64 quotations. I do not think I could do that; perhaps a number of Members could, but it would be beyond my ability. The GCSE physics exam requires the ability to memorise 24 formulae—I might find that slightly easier.

The default response to the disadvantages that SEN students face in exams is to offer extra time, but no amount of extra time will address the fact that exams as a means of assessment are intrinsically unsuitable for some types of students and learners. The solution has to be to revisit the place of coursework, which once made up 40% to 50% of GCSE assessment. Coursework does not discriminate against SEN children with high cognitive ability but for whom memorising facts does not come that easily. Coursework has the additional benefit of alleviating the anxiety of one assessment and spreading the pressure throughout the year, rather than concentrating on the examination period.

Education

Melanie Onn Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I rise to speak as the ambassador for youth drug charity Mentor UK. One of the most important steps we have not talked about so far today is the regulations that will make drugs education mandatory in all primary and secondary schools.

Drug usage permeates society, and it can have a devastating effect on our communities and young people. Children can be exposed to parents’ drug usage, be exploited by criminal gangs through county lines and, ultimately, end up developing life-ruining habits. It is critical that young people know the effects of drugs so that they can rationalise and understand abnormal behaviours related to drug usage and be aware of all the risks, such as addiction and long-term health effects, before they end up taking drugs themselves. Unfortunately, the effect of cuts has been to limit our schools’ ability to train teachers to deliver comprehensive drugs education, and to drive them away from these added-value lessons in favour of core performance-targeted subjects, so there has been a lack of the frequent, high-quality, early drugs education that is sorely needed.

According to charities such as VolteFace, there are a few steps the Government could take to improve the guidance further and make drugs education better across the whole country. Schools should start to build and develop drug programmes—with pupils, parents and local partners such as the police, substance misuse services and youth community hubs—that take local and personal vulnerabilities into account. These sessions should not be one-offs, but the guidance does not stipulate how often these lessons should be delivered, which means that schools could still provide basic lessons as long as they tick the boxes relating to what children should be taught by the end of primary and secondary school. This should be clarified in the guidance to mandate for yearly comprehensive drugs education, with an expansion of what is expected of this education. For example, the current guidance does not stipulate the need to teach awareness of child criminal exploitation, which could be vital in preventing children from falling into extremely dangerous situations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Melanie Onn Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

On the first point, we are spending more than any other G7 nation bar the United States in per capita funding for state primary and secondary education, but there are particular cost pressures in the system. We were discussing high needs earlier, and we do need to address that particular set of pressures. There are others as well, such as the way we go about purchasing and so on, and some of the costs that are particularly rising. I want to reassure my right hon. Friend that we are looking at all of those factors.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)]

I am pleased to confirm that we are providing £24 million of supplementary funding to local authorities to enable them fully to fund maintained nursery schools for 2019-20. Last week marked National Apprenticeship Week, celebrating apprenticeships and their positive impact on people, businesses and the economy. We have recently confirmed plans for reforms to the relationships and sex education and the health education curricula, to be implemented in schools from September 2020, so that children can be taught about mental and physical wellbeing, as well as about online safety, subject of course to parliamentary approval.

[Melanie Onn]

For how many more years can my Great Grimsby constituents expect Great Coates and Scartho state-maintained nursery schools to remain open?

[Damian Hinds]

As I said earlier, we recognise the particular place that maintained nurseries have in our system. They often provide additional, high-quality services, which we value. Work is ongoing to assess that value and of course we will make announcements about future spending as part of the spending review.