Education, Skills and Training

Debate between Michelle Donelan and John Pugh

Wednesday 25th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Donelan]

I am delighted by my hon. Friend’s excellent point. We do indeed need to make sure that we are supporting all businesses. Bakers, plumbers, electricians and so on are the backbone of our economy, and very important to constituencies like ours.

The Government are rightly pushing ahead with ensuring that education is rigorous and that students get the key skills and core skills that they need in the workplace. I fully support this, and I would never, ever suggest that it is anything but a robust and clear plan. However, the push towards the EBacc in its current form threatens to undermine the progress being made and does not address the stigma against design and technology and engineering. I hope that the new education Bill will address this. I would like the vastly improved, highly academic, highly scientific design and technology GCSE that we now have to include the option of a science element. There is huge support for this within the business community, who are crying out for change. Let me be clear: this would not represent a U-turn on policy but would be a minor change to strengthen, improve and safeguard the Ebacc. Given the scientific and academic nature of the new design and technology GCSE, which this Government have invested heavily in and done a great deal of work on, there will be no outcry from other vocational subjects, because this is a totally different matter.

There is also a precedent with computer science, which was introduced to the EBacc because of shortages in the field. Yet that does not make a lot of sense when the shortages in design and technology, manufacturing and engineering are far greater than those in the digital industries.

What I am proposing is that design and technology be included as a science-based option, just like computer science, but that there should be an either/or choice so that students can pick between the two. That would ensure that it does not water down the EBacc or its academic rigour; instead, it would enhance it. It would also enhance the status of the excellent route into research, development, design and manufacturing provided by design and technology, as well as highlight that this Government have yet again listened to the business community and acknowledged the needs of our future economy.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

That is an excellent suggestion, but does the hon. Lady agree that there is an overlap between design and technology and IT, and that that might be affected by her proposal?

Term-time Leave

Debate between Michelle Donelan and John Pugh

Monday 26th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

I echo the gratitude expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for introducing a debate that carries the British public with it. There is considerable support for his opinion among my constituents —the issue cropped up regularly on doorsteps during the election and has reached me subsequently in correspondence and in surgeries.

The existing situation is simply not fair. The changes in September allow headteachers to have discretion over emergency circumstances, but the term is subjective, so different schools judge those circumstances differently. One family in my constituency who had been through a traumatic time requested two weeks away together to get over their personal loss. They were not given that. In fact, they were fined, despite the fact that they promised, and did, keep up with their children’s primary school education while away. In other areas, I hear of cases where children were granted permission in similar circumstances. That seems unjust; it seems that in effect we have created a postcode lottery situation.

I have two primary concerns. First, why is so much money and administration being used to fine those parents who are not really neglecting their children’s education or enabling truancy? Should we not be targeting those resources on those actually abusing the system and damaging their children’s education and chances?

Secondly, the policy punishes servicemen such as those who work at MOD Corsham. They often work inflexibly and can be deployed during school holiday time; their leave periods may not align with the school holidays. It also punishes the hard-working families whom we were elected to represent, especially those on low incomes who simply cannot afford to go away during the holidays.

The Department stated that it is not denying any family a holiday, but the reality is different, because poorer families are denied that chance. For what? To stop them from travelling? We must not underestimate the value of travel. Different places, cultures, customs, activities and people all enrich and enhance a child’s education. They also enable children to be more tolerant and help produce well rounded individuals. We must ask ourselves whether that is also an educational objective. The issue is not just about grades.

I question the key argument the Department gave in its formal response to the petition, which was that taking children out of school during term time lowers attainment levels. That is true, but the figures used in the response were based on children who were absent for 15% to 20% of the time, or primary schoolchildren absent for 31 days. The petition does not suggest 15% to 20% absence; it discusses a period of just two weeks.

The figures indicate that less than two weeks’ absence can affect GCSE students, so surely it would be best to introduce changes just for primary schoolchildren. That would ensure that no time was taken during exam periods and when work is harder to catch up on. Primary school work can be done easily while away—it is easier to keep up. I do not suggest that children should be allowed to take two weeks off without parents ensuring that they keep up to date with their work, but I would like to see a much more flexible system.

To make our education system less rigid and more understanding would enhance the relationship with parents. Education relies on parents and guardians—in fact, they are vital. The current law creates a “them and us” mentality, which is the polar opposite of the ethos of “from school to home”, a partnership between parents and teachers. There needs to be much more trust and flexibility. We can introduce a change that is logical and fair, which could be just for primary school level. However, what we must not do is continue with a system that punishes hard-working families and alienates parents.

We must not also forget that this concept can easily be blown out of proportion. We are talking about two weeks to offer children, especially those from poorer backgrounds, an opportunity to have time with their families and be enriched.

[John Pugh]

The hon. Lady made a good point about 15% to 20% absence. Is she familiar with the DFE report that said:

“The proportions of pupils achieving the expected level stay relatively similar for increasing levels of absence due to authorised family holidays, religious observance and study leave”?

In other words, leave makes precious little difference when we are not talking about 15% to 20% absence.

[Michelle Donelan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. We need further studies on the value of travel and family time. We need to look at the reason for absence.

We must not blow the petition out of proportion. It is only about two weeks’ absence. That is two weeks to offer children, especially from poorer backgrounds, the opportunity to have time with their family and be enriched. As a member of the party that stands for hard-working families and opportunities, I see that proposal as not only the best thing to do, but the right thing to do.