Infant Class Sizes

Nick Gibb Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this important debate.

The ability of parents to send their children to a good local school and have them taught in suitably sized classes is something that the vast majority of British people would deem a pretty basic feature of life in the UK in the 21st century, but sadly in my constituency of Lewisham East it is becoming more and more difficult for families. During the last six years, competition for primary school places in Lewisham has been growing significantly, a phenomenon replicated across the whole of London. A rapidly rising birth rate, fewer people moving out, because of a broadly stagnant housing market, and high inward migration from the other parts of the British isles, as well as internationally, have all contributed to the need for more school places in the capital.

The present Government’s failure to adequately fund extra classrooms in areas with the greatest need means that many parents in Lewisham and London more widely are left wondering why public money is being spent on opening new schools in leafy areas of low demand when their own children are being squeezed into more and more crowded schools. In the last 13 years, the birth rate in Lewisham has increased by 32%. In real terms, that means that approximately 1,000 more babies were born in Lewisham last year than in the year 2001. Since 2008, Lewisham council has created nearly 3,000 more primary school places. The vast majority have been in temporary bulge classes—extra forms of entry, which then move up through the school as the children progress to their next academic year. Only 500 or so of the extra places have been in schools that have been permanently expanded. This is partly to do with funding, partly to do with very constrained school sites, and partly to do with the need to act quickly to meet the demand for extra spaces in the next academic year.

Classrooms have been put up on playgrounds, and music and art rooms have all but disappeared from schools in Lewisham, having been converted into much needed full-time teaching space. Some children inevitably find themselves being taught in classes with more pupils. The pressure on primary schools also means that an increasing number of children are being taught in schools a long way from home. Time and again, whether it be at my advice surgery or when I am out speaking to people on the doorstep, I meet parents who are really angry about their inability to get their son or daughter into a local school.

These are not “pushy parents” who are unrealistically limiting themselves to an over-subscribed outstanding school—although who could blame them if they were; more often than not, these are parents who would be happy to send their children to any one of five or six good local schools. The schools, however, are simply full up, so the children are allocated a place far from home, often involving multiple bus journeys in rush-hour traffic—no small feat in London, with small children in tow. The strain this places on family life can be considerable. I have repeatedly had women telling me that they may have to give up work in order to drop their children off at school. Sometimes siblings can be at different schools, miles apart. Many of my constituents do not have cars, so it can be almost a physical impossibility to get one child to one school and another child to another school on time.

I do not have children, but if I did I could not imagine that navigating long distances to get them to school at the ages of four or five is the sort of start to their education that I would want for them. I understand it when parents say that they want their children to be taught in small schools with small classes and close to home. I understand that, as a parent, one would want to feel confident that every teacher was able to know every child as an individual, to be able to monitor their progress and understand what they are good at or not so good at.

I know that parents do not want to have their children disappearing into a sea of faces at the back of a classroom, but this is the direction in which the current Government seem to be heading. That is not right—not right for the parents, not right for the children and not right for the school and the teachers who are trying to provide education in school buildings that are bursting at the seams. It is made worse by the fact that central Government funding for school places is not going to the areas that need it most.

How this Government can justify opening new schools in areas of low demand when they do not adequately fund the areas with the most pressure on school places is beyond me. Let us take London as an example. We know that the capital has a 42% share of the national demand for extra school places, yet receives a 36% share of basic needs funding. How do Ministers account for that? The money provided by central Government to my local authority of Lewisham to meet the rising demand for school places has quite simply been inadequate for the task.

I am grateful to the Minister for Schools for twice meeting me and the mayor of Lewisham over the last year to discuss the issue. He knows—and I hope to bring this to the attention of other Education Ministers—that the local authority of Lewisham has identified a £19.5 million shortfall if it is to meet all the demand for extra primary places up to 2016. I am aware that in the last round of funding allocations, the Government provided a 2% uplift to London local authorities. It was a helpful start, but even with this, the funding does not fully reflect the additional costs of expanding schools in the capital: there is fierce competition for land, site acquisition costs are higher, and even the costs of construction are higher in London. The Government need to look at the methodology they use for allocating funding. Assumptions in the funding formula about the percentage of permanent spaces created by local authorities recently have worked against local authorities such as Lewisham, where very few permanent expansions have taken place.

The Government also need to start thinking about the looming crisis affecting secondary places. My local authority has opened a brand-new secondary school in the last few years, but anticipates that it will need another by September 2017. Secondary schools do not come cheap, and they do not come quickly. Indeed, London councils have estimated that the capital needs a further £1 billion if it is to meet all need come 2016.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s speech. She has made some important points, but I should point out that the Government have delivered what they have been able to deliver. Between 2007 and 2011, under the last Government, allocation for basic need stood at about £25 million. Under the present Government, it has risen to £78 million, and a further £18 million has already been allocated to Lewisham for 2015-17. I shall be happy to discuss the issue further with the hon. Lady, because I know that she is sincere and passionate about it, but I hope that, in return, she will acknowledge that a total allocation of £96 million between 2011 and 2017 is a very significant sum in the current economic circumstances.

[Heidi Alexander]

I acknowledge that money has been spent; I am just not sure that it is keeping up with the scale of demand for extra places. I believe that there are fundamental questions to be answered about how the Government allocate resources, and how they plan to ensure that future generations can gain access to the education that they deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fabian Hamilton]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

We talk about choice, but we should recognise that surplus places are needed for that.

[Mr Gibb]

I went to a state school in Pudsey—Pudsey Bolton Royd school—for three weeks. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that between 2007 and 2011 the Labour Government gave £16 million to Leeds for basic need, whereas between 2011 and 2015—a similar period—this Government allocated £99 million? Can he explain why the figure between 2007 and 2011 was so small when there was already evidence of an increase in the birth rate?

[Fabian Hamilton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Of course I cannot explain that in detail, because I was not party to the decisions made at the time. What I can explain is that at that time there were falling rolls and a number of surplus places in the city of Leeds, and many of us argued with our own Government that in order to have true parental choice there must be surplus places and that inevitably the birth rate would go up.

I remember well Fir Tree primary school in my constituency. The local authority was controlled by the Conservatives and Lib Dems—it was a foretaste of the coalition that we have in government today, but in Leeds city council—and it decided to close that school. I was one of the many people who said, “Don’t close it, because it’s likely that we will have a rising birth rate”, which is exactly what has happened, and that debate is very current in that part of my constituency today.

I do not think that the issue of overcrowding in some of our schools is particularly related to the insistence on smaller class sizes; rather, it is related to the dogmatic insistence on the establishment of free schools, as many right hon. and hon. Members have already mentioned.

I hope that I will not upset my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State by saying this, but personally I am not opposed to free schools in principle. However, I am totally opposed to the funding for those schools being top-sliced from the budgets for local authority schools. That is appalling. Local authorities should plan school places; that should not be removed from local authorities. I have never understood the antipathy of those on the Government Benches to the idea of allowing local authorities the democratic accountability that they bring when they plan school places. It seems appalling that we have almost a free-for-all in the allocation of places.

Mill Field primary school is in the very deprived Chapeltown, Chapel Allerton part of Leeds North East. Its head teacher, Stephen Watkins, one of the most experienced primary heads in west Yorkshire, tells me that the rule on class size limits at key stage 1 is now “widely ignored”, mainly because local authorities cannot open new schools in response to local demand. He says that the decisions of independent review panels will often be to admit pupils in spite of the class size ceiling being a maximum of 30 pupils. The result is not only larger class sizes but a lot of primary schools that are now so large that they have many hundreds of children on their rolls.

According to the Office for National Statistics, more babies were born in 2011-12 than at any time since 1972, which means demand for primary school places is set to soar and put even more pressure on the system in 2015 and 2016. But what is the Government’s response? It is the creation of more free schools—schools that have little or no public scrutiny of their operations, at the expense of areas of high need, as highlighted by many Members. It is all very well to say that 500,000 new primary school places have been created under this Government, but what use are they if all of them, or at least very many, are in the wrong places? As always with the coalition, choice is greater for those who already have it but denied to those in greatest need.

It is interesting to look back at some of the statements made by the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) has already quoted this one, but I will quote it again to remind Members of what he said to the Yorkshire Post, of all newspapers, on 18 April 2008:

“A Conservative Government will give many more children access to the kind of education that is currently only available to the well-off: safe class rooms, talented and specialist teachers, access to the best curriculum and exams, and smaller schools with smaller class sizes with teachers who know the children’s names.”

He went on to say:

“The more we can get class sizes down, the better.”

So what went wrong? We now have more than five times as many primary schools with over 800 pupils in England than we had in 2010. According to the Office for National Statistics, three times more infants—93,665—are now taught in classes of over 30 pupils than in 2010. As a Leeds MP and former chair of the city’s education committee, it troubles me, as well as every parent in the city, that the number of infants in classes of over 30 pupils increased from 568 in January 2010 to 2,346 in January 2014—an increase of 313%. That is a poor testament to this Government’s oft-boasted commitment to our children’s education and a complete contradiction of the Prime Minister’s promise made in 2008, and many times since.

Sadly, it is not the Prime Minister or his Government who will suffer as a result of these broken promises but the thousands of young children whose educational opportunities will be reduced as a result of this failure—often those in the most deprived parts of our country who never had much opportunity to start with. The Secretary of State should hang her head in shame at the way in which these children have been let down by a Government who promised so much and have delivered so little.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I apologise for provoking my hon. Friend, but as I think I explained earlier, this is all part of the Secretary of State’s new policy on setting, in that the Lib Dems are set in a different group for this subject and are not allowed to participate in our discussions.

That pledge by the Prime Minister turned out to be worthless, so one would think, under the circumstances, that every sinew of ministerial effort at the Department for Education would be straining at the task of tackling this issue—that no distraction from the cause of meeting the challenge would be allowed and that scarce resources would be prioritised for the issue, with money spent on creating school places where there is a real need. But no, because according to the National Audit Office, two thirds of the places created in the Government’s pet free schools project have been created outside areas classed as having high or severe primary school need. The Government try to claim that the programme is tackling the shortage of places, but the very essence of the programme—a built-in design feature of the policy—is that the distribution of free schools is essentially random. The Department has received no applications to open primary free schools in half of all districts with high or severe forecast need for school places—not one. In fact, overall, only 38% of approved free schools are primary schools, while over 40% of them are secondary. Given that secondary schools are typically double the size of primary schools, despite the growth of “titan” ones under this Government, far more secondary school places are being created than primary school ones, which is where the greater need exists. As we have seen from the debate, there is an acute need. In other words, this Government’s insistence on ideology over pragmatism in opening new schools is producing the wrong kind of schools—secondary—in the wrong places. That is the very definition of policy failure.

Indeed, the National Audit Office found that 42 schools had opened in districts with no forecast need, with estimated capital costs of at least £241 million out of a projected total of £951 million for mainstream schools. That is not an accident. The Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton used to care passionately about class sizes. He told “Daily Politics” back in 2009 that it was important to get class sizes down,

“particularly at primary school level. This is really dramatic, how big our class sizes are compared with other countries.”

That is what he said in 2009, when there were 31,000 infant children in class sizes over 30; by January this year, that had risen to 93,000, which really is dramatic. Before the general election, the Minister told BBC London:

“A child can wander around corridors of a school anonymously because the teacher will not know the name and face of every child in the school. Smaller schools are much more intimate and it’s difficult for a child to be anonymous.”

Those are fine words, but the number of titan primary schools is soaring, with nearly five times the number of primary schools with over 800 pupils than in 2010. So much for intimate smaller schools as promised by the Minister.

What about this Minister’s views on trying to alleviate growing numbers by targeting the resources to areas where there is a shortage rather than a surplus of places? Here is what he said to “Attain Magazine” in spring 2010 about areas with surplus places:

“If it has surplus places beyond a certain figure, 10%, they will at the moment resist any new school coming in because they’ve got to fill these places first. But we’re saying that’s irrelevant”.

That was his attitude. “Irrelevant”—there we have it; it is not an accident. Instead of directing resources to where there is a shortage of places, more places are created where there is surplus of more than 10%. Why? Because right-wing ideology demands a market solution—creating an over-supply to drive out existing schools, rather than operate supportive and collaborative systems such as the highly successful London Challenge approach under Labour, which raised standards for all, and allow investment in new places to happen where those places are needed.

That is the ideology that lies at the root of the places crisis that we are seeing today, and the attempts to blame the last Labour Government are a smokescreen. The number of pupils in primary schools was falling between 2005 and 2010—it fell by 107,000—and the projections of increased numbers from the Office for National Statistics did not come until 2008-10. The last Government recognised that while overall numbers were falling at the time, in some areas, particularly in larger local authorities, more places would be needed. They provided core capital funding of £400 million a year from 2007-08 to 2010-11 to cover local growth in demand for places. Of course, the current Government never acknowledge that in their attempt to create a smokescreen about their role in the places crisis.

In addition, there was an annual “safety-valve” whereby local authorities, if they felt they needed it, could apply for additional funding to address exceptional growth. Until 2009, very few did, but in 2010-11, an extra £266 million was allocated to 36 authorities to provide primary places for September 2010 and 2011.

[Mr Gibb]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan]

I will let the Minister answer in his winding-up speech; I do not want to eat into his time.

That additional funding is never mentioned by Ministers seeking to deflect blame for their failure. In fact, in the last two years of the Labour Government, schools capital budgets were £4.08 billion and £4.44 billion; in the first two years of this Government, they were £3.62 billion and £3.1 billion—storing up huge issues for the future, with the main maintenance and repair budget also slashed. These cuts in capital make it all the more of a dereliction to direct funds away from areas in which places are needed. We will restore coherence to the system, and ensure that precious resources are spent where those places are needed. We will also end the ludicrous system whereby Ministers approve new schools and, in particular, new free schools, which is the Government’s current policy.

Members, including the Secretary of State, mentioned Falcons Sikh free school in Leicester. It was due to open at the weekend, but at the last second the Under-Secretary, Lord Nash, ditched it, leaving 70 pupils and their parents high and dry and uncertain about the future. How could circumstances arise in which, the weekend before a school was due to open, a Minister had to intervene to ensure that it did not do so? Where were the checks along the way? Why was the process allowed to reach that stage without the problem being picked up earlier? We need answers to those questions, because Falcons was exactly the sort of school that is supposed to be providing the places that we say are needed in our system.

What a shambolic and wasteful way to run a school system! We will restore local accountability through independent directors of school standards. We will stop the waste, and build for the future.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

We have had a very good debate, but I must admit that I was surprised by the Opposition’s choice of subject, because they do not come to this issue with clean hands. There has been a steady increase in the birth rate in this country since 2002. Between 2002 and 2010, there was a 22% increase in the annual birth rate. There were 120,000 more births in 2011 than there were in 2002. It should have been clear to the last Labour Government that that would translate into a need for more primary school places, but huge amounts of taxpayers’ money was devoted to rebuilding existing secondary schools in the Building Schools for the Future programme, and the Government cut 200,000 primary school places instead of creating more.

For that reason, one of the first decisions that the present Government had to make was to double the amount of money allocated to basic need capital—the money provided to increase the number of school places. Over the whole Parliament, that amounts to some £5 billion, and another £2.35 billion has already been announced for 2015-17. That is in addition to the £820 million that the Government are spending to create more than 70,000 new places through the targeted basic need programme, and in addition to the 250 free schools which have been opened since 2010 and are delivering more good-quality places in areas that need them. The £5 billion contrasts with the £1.9 billion that was spent by the previous Government over the same period—and I can tell the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) that that does include the £400 million per year over four years, the £60 million safety valve, and the emergency top-up of £250 million or £260 million which was allocated when the last Government began to realise that there was a problem.

This Government are committed to keeping infant class sizes at or below 30 children, but we want to do so in a way that will not split up twins or hinder our objective of giving the best possible start to children in care. No one takes seriously the irresponsible scare stories from Opposition Front Benchers, which are reflected in their motion and based on a deliberate misreading of census data. The truth is that a single snapshot taken on a Thursday in January will always reflect the fact that some schools bring classes together for assembly, PE, or other lessons such as drama and music. As the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) should know, it is simply wrong to claim that that means there are infant classes of 70. In fact, the average number of pupils in an infant class is 27.4. In primary schools as a whole, the proportion of pupils in very large classes of 35 or more has fallen since 2010, and since 2010, nearly 4,500 infant classes have been added to our school sector.

I listened very carefully to the shadow Education Secretary’s speech. It beggars belief because he talked about titan schools, yet the last Government were the past masters of creating titan schools, as they amalgamated schools because of the surplus places rule that required local authorities to remove surplus places even while it was clear, as the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) pointed out, that the birth rate was increasing and that in four or five years’ time those places would need to be recreated. What a waste, which is why this Government abolished the regulations that amount to the surplus places rule.

It was interesting to note, during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), the shadow Education Secretary’s sedentary intervention that pupils should have to go to schools that are unpopular and underperforming before a new school can be built. It is the quality of schools that matter, just as much as the quantity.

The shadow Education Secretary complains about the free school programme, but the 250 free schools have added 175,000 new school places, 72% of open mainstream free schools are in areas of basic need of school places and 74% of free schools opening this September are in areas of basic need. He should also know that half of open free schools are in the most deprived 30% of communities in the country. Free schools are opening up opportunities in areas where parents are unhappy with the standard of education on offer, and he should be supporting these proposals, as his party colleague the hon. Member for Darlington is doing in a pragmatic way. The shadow Education Secretary should also know that in his own local authority of Stoke-on-Trent the funding for new places under the last Labour Government, between 2007 and 2011, was £2.5 million, whereas under this Government it is £12.5 million.

I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), and I do understand the concerns she raised and the challenges some parents face in securing primary school places: the proportion of people nationally who achieve their first place is about 95.7%, but in Lewisham that figure is 75.5%, one of the lowest in the country, so I understand the concerns she is raising. That is why we have allocated capital of some £96 million to Lewisham to try to tackle that problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon raised important points about new developments and the need for new schools. He is right that the surplus places rule should not force parents to send their children to failing or underperforming schools which is why we abolished that rule, and he is also right to point out the importance of building schools more efficiently using standard designs. That has resulted in huge savings being made in constructing new schools compared with the wasteful Building Schools for the Future programme. We have cut the cost of construction of a new school by 40%, and he is right to point out that that will help in applications for school places. Some 92% of parents in Swindon got their first priority and 98% got one of their top three schools, so he is right to praise the local authority for what it has been doing.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) on his work, on the support he has given to raising education standards in Bedford and on his support for Bedford free school. Parents support the education standards of that school, the strong pastoral care and the exemplary behaviour delivered by its head teacher Mark Lehane and his staff.

[Pat Glass]

The Bedford free school is less than half full and is costing the taxpayer a great deal of money per pupil. That is the evidence the Select Committee on Education has received.

[Mr Gibb]

There are teething and transition issues as new schools are established and as they establish their reputations. That school was established in the face of fierce opposition from members of the hon. Lady’s party, against the wishes of the parents who send their children to the school. They are very happy with that school and its reputation will grow in the years ahead.

The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) raised again the myth of larger class sizes, and I again point out that the average infant class size is 27.4 and in primary schools as a whole the proportion of classes of over 35 has fallen since Labour left office. He seems also to have a very dogmatic view about the infant class size rule, so he would rather refuse to give priority to looked-after children or twins and send one twin off to another school, because otherwise the 30 class size rule would be breached. That is a harsh and uncaring approach and most parents would share our approach and not his.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) has been working hard in her constituency to help schools to tackle the increasing demand for primary places. I pay tribute to her for that important work and I am grateful for her welcome for the announcement of £2.35 billion for basic need over the next three years, giving local authorities the time and certainty to plan. Some £70 million of that money will go to Norfolk, bringing the total basic need capital in Norfolk to £83 million compared with just £22 million under the previous Labour Government.

The hon. Member for Leeds North East made a candid speech about the surplus places rule and about the fact it is short-termist to close schools when rolls are falling. If there is clear evidence that in a few years the rolls will rise again, it is better just to close a classroom, turn off the heating in that room and wait. He also talked about siblings not being able to attend the same school, but he should know that schools can give preference to siblings to avoid that problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) spoke interestingly about the Public Accounts Committee away day to Barking and Dagenham. I seem to recall that during my days on the Public Accounts Committee we had more interesting away days than those which the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) has selected for her Committee. My hon. Friend pointed out that pressures in that local authority area are very different from those in his constituency of Daventry, but that is why the Government have provided £148 million of capital for that very small part of east London. That is a staggering sum of money to tackle the real problems with places in that constituency.

I welcome the speech made by the hon. Member for Darlington and her pragmatic support for the free school in her constituency, in contrast to the views of her Front-Bench team. She said that she queried the Labour Whips’ briefing for this debate when she saw the reference to class sizes of 70 and she was right to do so, because it is absolutely wrong. As I said, it is a misinterpretation of the census figures taken on one particular day when in some schools circumstances have led them to amalgamate classes for that one day only. That does not mean that there are routinely classes of 70 in our schools in this country.

Action has been taken by this Government to create more good school places and local authorities are delivering. We have already seen an increase of 260,000 school places between 2010 and 2013, including 212,000 primary places, with more than 300,000 primary places in the pipeline for delivery by September 2015. We are working closely with the local authorities across the country facing the greatest pressures to support them in ensuring that every child is offered a local school place.

That is this Government’s record, taking urgent action to correct the school place deficit left by the Labour party in government, putting in money at a time when across Whitehall savings have had to be made to tackle the crisis of the budget deficit left by the Labour party in government. This is a Government who are raising academic standards in our schools, improving the quality of the curriculum and trust in the exam system, improving the way children are taught to read, improving their arithmetic and mathematics and improving standards of behaviour in our schools. This is a Government who are ambitious to make every parent’s local school a good school and who are preparing young people for life in modern Britain. That is our education plan; a clear plan and a plan that is delivering. The Opposition have no plan, no leadership, no clear sense of direction in their education policy. They are floundering in an area of policy that could not be more important to the long-term future of our economy—

[Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.