Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Nick Gibb and Chris Skidmore(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Gibb
No school will see a cut in funding in 2018-19 or 2019-20. Every single school in the country will see an increase in funding of at least half a per cent., and schools that have been historically underfunded in previous Labour Governments will see very significant rises in their school funding.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
My constituent Mahzia Hart was head of an outstanding multi-academy primary trust in Bath and north-east Somerset. In 2015, she resigned following bullying on social media, which resulted in false accusations that were investigated by the National College for Teaching and Leadership and which were subsequently dismissed. In January 2017, Mrs Hart took the National Union of Teachers to court for defamation and successfully won her case. Two months later, however, the NUT was able to refer Mrs Hart to the NCTL again. Will the Minister look into this case and investigate? How is it right that teachers’ lives can be made a misery by repeated malicious referrals to the NCTL, particularly by those who have a vested interest?
History: GCSE
Debate between Nick Gibb and Chris Skidmore(13 years, 2 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Skidmore
To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many mainstream comprehensive schools entered (a) no pupils, (b) fewer than five per cent. of pupils, (c) fewer than 10 per cent. of pupils and (d) fewer than 25 per cent. of pupils for GCSE history examinations in 2010.
[Official Report, 20 July 2011, Vol. 531, c. 1041W.]
Letter of correction from Nick Gibb:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on 20 July 2011. While the total number of mainstream comprehensive schools identified was correct, the answers to the individual components were not. The answer was produced using a spreadsheet that contained a summary of results for each school. The spreadsheet contained results for some schools that were suppressed due to small numbers of entries; the suppressed schools were not included in the analysis in error. In revising this analysis we have taken into account the suppressed information to provide an accurate answer.
The full answer given was as follows:
Mr Gibb
2,734 schools have been identified as being mainstream comprehensive.
(a) All of these schools entered pupils for GCSE history
(b) 17 had fewer than 5% of pupils entered for GCSE history
(c) 139 had fewer than 10% entered for GCSE history
(d) 1,031 schools had fewer than 25% of pupils entered for GCSE history in 2010.
The correct answer should have been:
Academies Bill [Lords]
Debate between Nick Gibb and Chris Skidmore(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gibb
We have allocated £50 million of funding from the harnessing technology fund to restart the standards and diversity fund, which was established in 2008 by the hon. Gentleman’s Government to promote new schools. That is the fund that will provide capital for free schools until 31 March 2011. It is quite clear that it does not come from the Building Schools for the Future fund.
New clause 5 would have an unintended consequence as a result of its wide scope. For example, it would prevent a school from being able to offer subsidies for the provision of school uniforms to pupils from low-income families, which I am sure is not something that Labour Members would want.
Chris Skidmore
New clause 5 mentions inducements to pupils, as my hon. Friend mentioned. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) also made a point on this subject. However, would the new clause not also affect the education maintenance allowance, which was a financial inducement introduced by the previous Government? I am sure he does not oppose that.
Mr Gibb
My hon. Friend makes his point in his own way, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Hartlepool will respond to it when he decides whether to press his amendment to a vote.
I want to clarify one point about the approval of new schools. A very strong evidential basis must be demonstrated, not one based on offering rewards. In order to ensure that places are of sufficient long-term quality and sustainability, not all applicants to this process will be successful. However, it is right that, where cases are properly made, we strongly support communities that want to establish new schools in order to improve choice for their own and other young people in their areas and to drive up standards across them.
Amendment 29 would amend the definition of what amounts to an additional school and the circumstances in which the Secretary of State would be required to take account of the impact of an additional school. Noble Lords in the other place raised concerns about circumstances in which a free school was partially new, but partially replacing an existing school—for example, where a school had a broader age range than the school that it had replaced. I can confirm that it is our policy to expect convertors to convert “as is”. Therefore, any school wishing to change its age range would need to follow either the relevant statutory procedures for prescribed alterations before conversion or the relevant administrative processes after conversion, rather than as part of the conversion process.