Secondary Education: Ellesmere Port

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

The quality of education in my constituency is of huge importance to me; I am sure that the quality of education is of importance to every hon. Member. I passionately believe that good education is key to opening up opportunities in life, particularly in places such as Ellesmere Port, where in parts of the town, significant challenges face our young people. Such challenges mean that we cannot afford to have anything but the best. When I have seen what I believe to be consistent underachievement in our schools, I have not been reticent in demanding change. I want to reach a point where Ellesmere Port’s three secondary schools offer excellent education, so that parents in the town feel they have a genuine choice about where to send their children, and feel confident that whatever school they choose, their children will receive a quality education that will enable them to make the most of their talents.

One of the first things any parent will consider when choosing their child’s future school is its Ofsted ratings, and I will spend the majority of my time this evening addressing the experiences of two local secondary schools with Ofsted. Those two schools are the Whitby High School and Ellesmere Port Catholic High School. They both received Ofsted inspections last year within a few days of one another, and they were given ratings of “requires improvement”, and “inadequate”. To say that was something of a surprise is an understatement, as both schools are well regarded locally. The Catholic high school went from “inadequate” in 2013, to “good” two years later, after the appointment of the current head, Mrs Vile. That prompted the then chief inspector of schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, to say of her:

“Exceptional teachers have transformed schools that not so long ago were in desperate straits.”

In June 2015, senior inspector Joan Bonenfant said of her:

“Outstanding leadership provided by the inspirational, dedicated headteacher has been the impetus to rapid improvement.”

Mrs Vile also received the Cheshire Headteacher of the Year award a few years ago.

Whitby school’s last two section 5 inspections prior to the most recent one saw it achieve good ratings in both, with an additional section 8 inspection of personal, social, health and economic education being judged “outstanding”. The head’s—Mr Heeley’s—time at Whitby high has seen the school previously receive “good” or “outstanding” ratings; he has been the head for nine of his 16 years at the school. He has worked in schools for over 30 years, 20 of them in senior roles. He has served on numerous working groups to support education. He has been a local authority adviser. Whitby High School is over-subscribed and well respected in the area. The school outperforms many schools classed by the Department for Education as “similar”. In 2019, the school’s position within the Department’s similar schools data placed it fourth out of 19 schools in the local authority area—hardly a failing school.

I mention those achievements because, first, I do not believe that these heads have both suddenly become bad heads overnight; their records show that they have the skills, the vision and the leadership needed to produce well-run schools. Secondly, the first reaction to a poor Ofsted rating is often for the headteacher to consider their position. I know that both heads did that after their inspections, but they both retain the confidence of their governing bodies, the parents and myself.

However, such is the impact of Ofsted inspections that many heads see their careers ended because of a poor inspection. I am not saying that every one of those heads is beyond criticism, and yes, maybe some deserve to go, but we are talking here about careers of maybe 30 years, ended because of an inspection lasting a couple of days. It is because the outcome of Ofsted inspections has so much impact that ongoing concerns about the lack of reliability and consistency of inspection teams and inspectors can no longer be overlooked, especially as, in the experience of the two schools I am talking about, those inspections may not really be a fair reflection of the head’s ability, the journey that the school has been on, or the real challenges that schools face. Critically, when a school feels that it has been unfairly treated during an inspection, it has, in my opinion, no effective way of challenging it, regardless of what Ofsted might say.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am very glad to be able to be in the Chamber for some of this debate. May I reinforce some of the concerns that my hon. Friend is voicing? Concerns about Ofsted have been raised by headteachers in my constituency, including from schools rated “outstanding”. There is a need for a serious look at how Ofsted’s systems are working, to keep the confidence of schools and parents.

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I shall go on to speak about some of the wider implications of my schools’ experiences. I believe she is right; we are hearing similar stories throughout the country. I would like to hear what the Minister believes should be done about that.

I have sat down with the headteachers from both schools on numerous occasions to talk about these inspections and heard from them at first hand about the appalling, horrific way in which inspections have been handled. I have heard about the devastating impact that that has had on staff morale. Good teachers have felt compelled to resign as a result of the findings, prompting expensive, time-consuming recruitment processes. Their replacement may not be a better person.

I have heard how those heads, with a combined total of over half a century in education, with long-standing, impressive track records, feel that they have been traduced. When I suggested to the heads that being a headteacher had many similarities to being a football manager, they agreed. The similarities are there for us to see—chronic job insecurity, being judged by one’s results when it is not a level playing field, and a focus on one’s last performance, rather on the progress that one may have made under that leadership. As many football clubs find, replacing the manager does not necessarily mean that performance on the pitch markedly improves.

What struck me most, and compelled me to act, was that both heads were relaying to me extremely similar experiences. I would go so far as to say that the similarities were concerning and striking in equal measure. The first major concern they both had was the apparent predetermination of their inspections. At Whitby, the head was informed before 9 am on the first day that the inspectors regarded the school as requiring improvement. How can judgments effectively be given before the inspection has begun or evidence has been obtained? Likewise, at the Catholic high school, the opening statement from the inspectors at 9 am on day one of the inspection was that the school results were inadequate. The first question they were asked by the inspectors was whether they were an academy. I think that is a very odd question to ask at the start of an inspection. Both heads, both very experienced people in education, feel that the inspections were predetermined, and that, at the very least, they were carried out in a manner designed to justify an already formed opinion, with much relevant evidence and information apparently being disregarded throughout the inspection. There were also disputes about what some of the staff said to the inspectors during some of the interviews. In some instances, comments that were disputed were used as evidence to justify inspectors’ judgments. Indeed, there were disputes of such importance that some staff felt their words had been misquoted or taken out of context and, as a result, they felt compelled to resign.

There were also distortions of the evidence given to the inspectors. For example, reference to a “large cohort” was in fact one student. This was pointed out in the official complaint, but the evidence was withheld from the headteachers, despite numerous freedom of information requests. There was also a serious concern raised through Ofsted’s complaints procedures about a potential conflict of interest regarding one of the inspectors. This concern was disregarded without further comment. As is normal, both inspections were led by one lead inspector, but it seemed that major decisions were being made by another inspector. Inspectors refused or were reluctant to meet relevant staff, despite being asked to by the school, and in their complaints to Ofsted the schools expressed their general concern that the inspections were carried out in a hostile and aggressive manner. Those concerns were simply dismissed.

There was also a question about why the inspection proceeded in the way it did at all, certainly at Whitby, where the pre-inspection analysis had identified that the school would receive a one-day inspection in February 2019. This fitted with its progress scores for two years being positive, with a two-year improvement. Nobody has been able to explain why this was changed to a two-day inspection and who made that decision. It displays a total lack of accountability and openness. A significant number of schools had better inspection ratings but had worse progress scores. Of course, the heads challenged this inconsistency but again have not been given a satisfactory explanation. They were right to challenge this and to say that consistency, reliability and justice should be cornerstones of the inspection regime.

I understand that an inspector from one of the inspections has been the subject of other complaints or concerns, resulting in at least one headteacher resigning, at the highly successful Bramhall High School. This was a high-profile resignation from a well-respected headteacher, who had spent some of her career in Ellesmere Port. She had successfully transformed a number of schools and this was a very sad loss to the system. We have to ask ourselves: how is forcing someone out of the profession with that track record helping the education system? Of course, I understand that heads will take poor judgments personally, but they are not alone in feeling unfairly treated. I do not normally have parents contact me after an Ofsted inspection, but I have had plenty here. They obviously feel there has been an injustice. The governors also feel the judgments are wrong, and both the diocese and the director of education at the local authority have said that these were the harshest inspections they had ever seen.

The schools know they are not perfect—no school is—but they know where improvements are needed and what is needed to deliver them. The inspection regime offers no practical help to address these issues and there is not a specific external budget they can call upon to deliver the improvements. I ask the Minister: when a school is told it is not up to the required standard, other than replacing the person at the top, what can realistically be done to drive improvements identified as being needed?

That leads me to the so-called stuck schools. In January, Ofsted published research and analysis on stuck schools—schools graded as less than good consistently for 13 years or more. As of August 2019, 210,000 pupils were in stuck schools, which means that two cohorts of children have spent all their primary and secondary education in so-called stuck schools. Ofsted acknowledged its role in this and highlighted the need for inspections to provide judgments that schools could actually use to help them to make improvements, but is it not an indictment of our system that so many children’s entire education has been blighted by the failure to drive up standards? During those 13 years, the Ofsted inspection process has failed to lead to any tangible improvements. Surely that tells us that the approach that inspectors currently have is not necessarily the right one.

Going back to the schools in my constituency, last summer, I went with the heads to meet the Ofsted regional director to raise our concerns, which we were promised would be looked into. Following this meeting, unusually, both schools were quickly revisited by different inspection teams as part of a section 8 NFD—no formal designation—inspection and monitoring visit. The resulting reports following those visits painted a very different picture of both schools. So different are the comments that it has to call into question how both schools could make such rapid improvements in a few short weeks.

Of course, the original inspection ratings remain in place. The subsequent inspections could be viewed as a sop to brush under the carpet the concerns raised about the initial process. Those concerns were at best subject to a cursory investigation by Ofsted. No member of staff was interviewed. Given that part of the complaint was about the hostile attitude displayed, there were clearly matters about which teachers should have been questioned. I think that was the minimum required. The response from the regional director of Ofsted to the complaint was anaemic and showed the problem with an organisation investigating itself.

The heads understandably remain dissatisfied with the response. After all, they would not let their own pupils mark their own homework. They asked the professional association, the Association of School and College Leaders, to arrange a meeting with the national education director of Ofsted to discuss their concerns further. His response was to decline, saying that as the association had already met the regional director, there was nothing to discuss. I know that it is possible to complain via the Independent Complaints Adjudication Service for Ofsted, but ultimately the service cannot overturn inspectors’ judgments, so the result of the inspections—which the heads consider to be flawed, predetermined, and not at all an accurate reflection of their schools—remains on the record.

It is my strong view that Ofsted’s complaints process needs to be urgently reviewed and changed. A new and more rigorous process needs to be introduced, with limited bureaucracy and an independent hearing to redress complaints that are upheld. During that process, schools’ reports should not be published.

Such is the crisis of confidence the current inspection regime is engendering, a grassroots organisation, the Headteachers’ Roundtable, has issued a call to “Pause Ofsted”, as has happened in Wales, while a review takes place to ensure that schools’ accountability systems are fit for purpose. The call has been supported by the National Education Union’s leadership council. Paul Whiteman, the General Secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, has said that

“significant reform of inspection is needed”,

and the NAHT’s national executive committee will be discussing the call from the Headteachers’ Roundtable at its executive meeting in March.

Headteachers are saying that the current regime fails to take into account the individual circumstances of their schools, and I am sure both heads in this case would say that their experience was an example of the systemic disadvantage faced by schools serving poorer communities. Ofsted has known about the issue for a number of years, but has failed to find a way of addressing it effectively. Knowing the effects of high-stakes accountability on retention, especially in those same schools, we must ask ourselves whether the current system is exacerbating those disadvantages, and whether such public flagellation is really the best way to improve school performance.

School leaders’ and teachers’ jobs, and sometimes their whole careers, can be ended because of Ofsted’s inspection grades, so the watchdog owes it to them to be consistent, fair and transparent when deciding its ratings. It has been said that the high-stakes nature of the inspection system is preventing schools from getting on with improving the lives of their staff and students because they must always give priority to what might be looked at in an inspection, such is Ofsted’s all-pervading influence. Some people have even called the inspection regime pernicious. That is not a word to be used lightly, and it is one that should cause us to question seriously whether the current balance is right.

What some call the pernicious impact of an unfavourable inspection can often lead to a head quietly leaving and the system losing a good school leader. How does that help the school to improve? Is the balance between accountability and capacity building wrong? We know that recruiting and retaining the best staff is a challenge at the best of times, so hearing that one of the biggest reasons for people to leave the profession is the impact of an inspection should give us cause to question whether that balance is right.

A 2017 report by the National Foundation for Educational Research on teacher retention and turnover found that the most important school-level factors associated with leaving the profession and moving school were Ofsted ratings and school types. Analysis of the percentage of teachers leaving the profession in 2010 and 2014 showed that the lower the Ofsted rating, the higher the proportion of teachers leaving the profession, and that the rate of leaving the profession was highest in schools rated by Ofsted as “inadequate”. As for the probability of teachers’ moving school, the analysis showed that lower Ofsted ratings were associated with higher proportions of teachers moving to different schools at both primary and secondary levels, with a particularly high rate for schools rated “inadequate”. Taken together, those patterns show that “inadequate” schools have much higher rates of staff turnover than other schools. Ofsted has become too all-encompassing for many of them.

The Ofsted framework has become the means by which every aspect of school life has to be considered. “What would Ofsted say?” is all too often the key question asked by those making strategic decisions in schools. As we have heard, its power is all-pervading, and its judgment is final, even when—as I believe I have set out here—there are serious questions to be asked about its methods.

It is more than 25 years since the current accountability system of Ofsted inspections and school performance tables was introduced, so this seems an appropriate moment to undertake a systematic review of the system to ensure that we have in place the best means by which to continually improve all our schools. Accountability cannot be an end in itself. It should and must lead to improving schools, particularly those serving our most disadvantaged communities. I cannot see how the inspections that my local schools had to endure have helped them to improve. They know the areas that they need to work on; what they need is support and extra capacity, not quick headlines and blame.

I know that those ratings cannot be changed. However, I urge the Minister to give serious attention to the many and widespread concerns that have been raised about Ofsted, and to consider urgently how we can introduce a system that allows legitimate concerns to be independently and transparently examined.

Education and Attainment of White Working-Class Boys

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Ben Bradley]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and I totally agree. The Prime Minister was clear when he said that opportunity is not spread evenly around the country but talent is, and this issue is about how we engage these boys with our education system, to make sure that they see its relevance and to ensure that they see the opportunities they have and can take them.

There is an awful lot to do, and we are already in a position where we have lots of young men in my community who have finished school but will have to go back and receive intervention and support as adults, because they did not receive that throughout their education. We have to understand the lives of many of these boys, in former coalfield communities such as Mansfield.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and also for raising this issue today. In my constituency, which is a very mixed one, I am aware of the disparities and the inequalities in all communities, which is why it has been very important for us locally to look at disadvantage wherever it occurs.

May I just make the point that the issue extends across the country and that we have to look at different communities? Last year, I hosted in Parliament the event “H Is For Harry”, about a young boy who has problems with literacy that are actually intergenerational. That event was very important in saying that wherever inequality, disadvantage or difficulties with education might occur, we need to address that situation and have a public policy response.

[Ben Bradley]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention and I totally agree. As I say, I fully recognise that the challenges I am highlighting in this speech affect many communities and many children from disadvantaged backgrounds, regardless of race or gender. I have said why I am highlighting it in these particular terms today, but she is absolutely right that there is a broader issue that we need to focus on. She also mentioned that kind of parental drive and engagement with schools, which I will come on to.

As I was saying, we need to understand the communities that these boys grow up in. In former coalfield areas such as Mansfield, not so long ago boys generally left school before they were 16, and they went to work down the pit or in a factory. There was a simplistic kind of certainty to that, in that regardless of what happened at school, they would have a job and a career. If someone was lucky, they might get to take the 11-plus and go off to grammar school to do something different. A few children benefited from that route, but then that was taken away as well.

That certainty of career does not exist any more in these communities, but in many cases they have not moved on. Many parents in the poorest communities do not have qualifications and therefore are not able to extol the virtues of school—indeed, they do not necessarily see the point of that education—and they cannot help their children to study because they do not have that level of attainment themselves.

I have schools in my area where 70% of the children are involved with social services, such is the chaotic backdrop to their lives, so school is very far from the top of the agenda for those children. Boys are far more likely to say that school is a waste of time, so we have to engage them in a different way and help them to see the value of school.

[Ben Bradley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I agree. I meet a number of young men who are bright, sharp and intelligent, but they do not have many qualifications and are struggling to find work, struggling to make a positive impact and struggling to see where their lives are going. We certainly need to do more to change that situation in the future and, as I have said, to go back to those guys who have finished school already and support them.

We need to prepare children for the 21st century and update our curriculum so that it is fit for the future. Repetitive tasks and memory tests are no longer relevant for study and even top private schools in America have shown that kids simply do not remember such stuff when they come back from school holidays.

The OECD’s programme of international student assessment rankings show that memorisation remains the dominant learning strategy in British classrooms. I could go off on a massive tangent at this point, and if I did I am sure that I would have a huge debate with the Minister for School Standards on this particular issue. However, I only have 10 minutes to cover things today, so I will try to focus on the headline issue, although there is a broader problem.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He has highlighted a very important point about working-class communities and white working-class boys. I have noticed in my constituency that those boys fall behind, especially after the school holidays, and we also know that a lot of funding that went into school holiday programmes has been cut, so I am starting a campaign to try to bring back more of that activity.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to think about a cross-departmental policy response to this issue, through housing, education and wider afield, so that we make sure that we can reach into and deal with those families that are most at risk, and so that these young boys have the best chance of success?

[Ben Bradley]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention and I agree. There is certainly a disparity that is entrenched when those boys go home over the summer to a household that is not necessarily pushing them to continue to learn and engage, compared with parents who are perhaps better-off and who drive that engagement. We must bridge that gap and I will come on to some of the potential solutions. The point I am trying to make is that we need to create incentives for these boys to learn and to make space in the curriculum, if needed, for something more relevant to them. It would be wrong if we assumed that everyone’s aspiration was to study to degree level. We would do far better to accept that where these boys are getting nothing currently, giving them something of interest and value would be a step forward.

Whether it meets our middle-class aspiration or not is kind of irrelevant; I am talking about choice and variety. Whether we do that through alternative provision or by giving all schools more freedom by offering more vocational and technical education, we have to do something more to show the career value of what they are learning, perhaps by doing it thematically, rather than in subject silos that do not connect with the real world. Everyone needs a certain core knowledge, but outside of that there are lots of different options.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Bradley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. As I have said, less than 9% of boys from tough backgrounds go to university, yet those technical routes are still often viewed as a last resort, despite providing the opportunity to learn valuable skills that lead to job opportunities. In Switzerland, for example, 70% of children undertake apprenticeships, because they are well respected. We talk in the UK about holding such qualifications in equal regard with academic ones, but we do not make them available to all children. When I suggest that we should make them available to all children, I get lots of academics telling me that I am writing off these kids, which does not sound a great deal like equal regard to me.

We need to go in and support apprenticeship routes, which means reforming the levy and supporting traineeships, as well as thinking hard about how we seem to be making even the technical qualifications more traditionally academic now through T-levels and about the other options for those who want genuine vocational or technical education. We need to invest in adult learning and retraining for those we have missed in the system.

We should do more to show these boys the career options out there by offering more meaningful work experience and by giving better careers or skills advice, particularly from professionals who have not taken traditional educational paths to succeed in their career. They need role models who they can look up to, and they need to be aware of all options for their future study. Many do not have those role models at home who they can turn to on education. That leads me on to the next bit of my speech, because it is not solely schools’ responsibility; the issues stem more often than not from home. We are fighting a losing battle if we are forcing boys to be interested in getting GCSEs when their parents think they are a waste of time.

[Seema Malhotra]

rose—

[Ben Bradley]

I have to plough on, or I will run out of time. The challenge, as I have said, entrenches disadvantage, with better-off parents more able to push their children to attain, to do homework and to work hard at school, while those who have the least education themselves or who have chaotic lives struggle to do so.

Early interventions can help. We can refocus where we put our money in early years provision on the most disadvantaged, bearing in mind that currently, a couple earning £200,000 between them can access 30 hours’ free childcare, but a single mum on the living wage working 15 hours a week can only get 15 hours of free childcare. We can encourage nurture provision in a primary setting to ensure children are engaging with school early on and can settle into primary school. That saves all sorts of issues later and draws parents into that school setting early on. We need proper youth work and more trained youth workers to support children and offer direction. Great youth workers are hugely important, and we have the opportunity through the youth investment fund to train thousands more.

When I visit schools in Mansfield, parental engagement is often raised with me as being among the biggest challenges. How do we draw them into the educational environment to support their children at school? The Social Market Foundation, for example, suggests that after-school family literacy classes in primary school would encourage parents to take a more active role in a child’s education. I know some schools do that. My kids go in early for phonics with mum on a Tuesday morning, and I like the sound of that, and I like the sound of using the school setting as more of a community hub to be able to offer other services that push those hard-to-reach parents to come into the school to engage with teachers.

The Department for Education has found that higher rates of exclusions are seen in areas of deprivation. Pupils known to be eligible for and claiming free school meals account for 40% of all permanent exclusions. Again, that is boys from disadvantaged backgrounds. There is a reason why boys more than girls can be disruptive or badly behaved in a classroom setting. Simply using detention or exclusion rarely helps. According to the OECD, boys respond more to a school’s environment than girls. When they are in disruptive, chaotic disorganised settings, their capacity for self-regulation suffers. When they are labelled as the bad kid, they become the bad kid. Often these kids do not have male role models at home. They are confused about masculinity and what it means and their role in society. We need to support them through that, not punish them.

We need to take bold steps fundamentally to change failing schools, which can exacerbate problems, rather than help. A few weeks ago an article in The Sun highlighted so-called dumping grounds, where schools have struggled consistently for a long time even to get out of special measures. We need almost a “Supernanny”-style leadership team capable of taking on these challenges and intervening fundamentally in these schools. We need more incentives for the best teachers to work in such schools, which often exist in the same disadvantaged communities and so cannot attract experienced teachers. It is becoming commonplace for children to have lessons taught by somebody who is not qualified in the subject. Great leaders and great teachers can transform failing schools, and we need to equip them with the resource, the flexibility and the curriculum to deliver real and genuine change.

I wonder whether there is a way to build on interventions such as the London Challenge and offer that kind of resource and impact to the most challenging schools and areas outside London, too. I know that the Government have started on some of those kinds of interventions, and I would be interested to hear more about that from the Minister.

To conclude, I hope we would all agree that we are missing a trick if we are not focusing on ensuring that all children of all ethnicities and backgrounds get access to a good education and to life’s opportunities. That means we cannot continue not to talk about the plight of disadvantaged white boys who are consistently at the bottom of the pile.

We hear a lot in the media and in this place about white male privilege—it seems to overtake discussion a lot—and I challenge those people to come to my community, where men spent their whole lives digging coal underground to keep the lights on, and who are now dying early of lung disease as a result, and talk to them about their privilege. It is their children and grandchildren I am talking about today. They need help, and our communities need help. I hope that this Government’s mission to level up the towns and regions in the UK that have the least includes education as a key priority. I am sure that it does. Unless we grapple with the burning injustice that faces white working-class boys in communities such as mine in Mansfield, we will not be delivering the change that is needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) and for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) for their passionate commitment to wanting to improve the education and life chances of the most disadvantaged pupils in general and, in this particular debate, white disadvantaged boys. The statistics cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield at the start of his speech have driven the Government’s education policies since 2010. Closing the attainment gap between those from disadvantaged backgrounds and their more advantaged peers has driven our obsession with ensuring that children are taught to read effectively at the age of four or five, and that every six-year-old can decode words using phonics. It has driven our desire for children to develop a love of reading and our desire to help them develop a wider vocabulary. It has driven our determination to adopt the practice of the best performing countries in the world in the teaching of mathematics in primary schools, and to improve the cultural literacy of all children, regardless of their background or gender, ensuring they have the vocabulary that will not only help their reading, but will mean they have the knowledge required for academic progress.

As Harold Stevenson and James Stigler wrote in their book “The Learning Gap”, the error is,

“the assumption that it is the diversity in children’s social and cultural background that poses the greatest problem for teaching.”

In fact, a far greater problem is variability in children’s educational background and thus in their levels of preparation for learning the academic curriculum.

[Seema Malhotra]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Gibb]

I am sorry; I will not give way because of the time.

There is a philosophy behind the Government’s drive to close the word gap and the attainment gap, and to level up opportunity, ensuring every child, regardless of background or gender, can fulfil their potential. The philosophy lies behind successful multi-academy trusts, such as the Star multi-academy trust cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln. It has driven our curriculum reforms, our GCSE reforms, and our determination to move this country’s education system away from a so-called competence-based curriculum to a knowledge-rich curriculum.

E D Hirsch, the great American educationist, wrote about the example of France in his most recent book, “Why Knowledge Matters”. He looked at the history of France’s curriculum reforms and the effect of the move away from a knowledge-based curriculum towards a competence or skills-based curriculum in the late 1980s. Comparing standards in 1987 and 2007, all socioeconomic groups saw a decline in standards, with a decline of a third of a standard deviation on average. Strikingly, children from disadvantaged backgrounds saw the greatest fall in standards, with a decline of two thirds of a standard deviation. That is one piece of evidence, but it is part of a pattern of international evidence that competence-based curricula are most disadvantageous to the pupils we are most keen to help.

After 10 years in office, the Government’s education reforms are beginning to show results. Standards are rising and the attainment gap between advantaged and disadvantaged pupils is beginning to close: by 13% in primary and 9% in secondary since 2011. Thanks to our reforms, more pupils are taking core academic GCSEs, more children are reading fluently, and more are attending good and outstanding schools, but, as my hon. Friend so clearly set out, too many pupils still leave school without the qualifications that they need.

We know that synthetic phonics is the most effective way of teaching reading to all children, so we have embedded it in the key stage one curriculum. Following a greater focus on reading in the primary curriculum, England achieved its highest ever score in the 2016 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study. The result was largely attributable to increases in the average performance of boys and lower performing pupils. As Her Majesty’s chief inspector said recently,

“In the schools that teach reading really well, really systematically using phonics, the gap narrows or is even eliminated.”

That is the essence of ensuring that our schools adopt teaching methods and curricula that the evidence suggests narrow or eliminate the attainment gap between advantaged and disadvantaged pupils and between girls and boys.

All children, particularly pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, including white working-class boys, need a knowledge-rich curriculum that introduces all pupils to the powerful knowledge that best prepares pupils for their futures. We see it in schools such as Michaela Community School in Wembley, where the school regards knowledge about the world as essential. Its academically rigorous curriculum has enabled pupils to achieve exceptionally well. In 2019, Michaela’s results ranked among the best in the country, with all pupils, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, making well above average progress. Some 41% of pupils at that school were eligible for free school meals at some point in the past six years, but its progress 8 score of 1.53 is one of the highest in the country, and its EBacc entry was 84%.

It is a similar story at Dixons Trinity Academy in Bradford with its unrelenting focus on improving the life chances of its pupils. The academy offers a rigorous knowledge-rich and evidence-based curriculum, which has seen it right at the top of the league tables over the past few years. Similarly, we can look at the work of leading multi-academy trusts such as Outwood Grange Academies Trust, which time after time radically improves schools that have had a long history of entrenched failure. That MAT provides long neglected communities in this country with the transformational education that they need.

My hon. Friend noted in his speech that the standard of education suffers when schools lose their grip on behaviour. I absolutely agree, which is why we have bolstered the powers of teachers and headteachers to deal with unruly pupils. I also agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital that this country has a world-class technical route for pupils to pursue technical and vocational training. Our reform of apprenticeships puts technical and vocational education on a par with academic study for the first time, in tandem with T-levels.

Apprenticeships ensure that people can gain the training and qualifications that they need to enter the job market and ensure that employers can access the skills that they need to make the country globally competitive. T-levels are at the centre of our plans for world class technical education, preparing students for entry into skilled employment or higher levels of technical education in areas such as engineering, manufacturing, health, science, construction, and digital. They will ensure that all post-16 students can make an informed choice between high-quality options that support progression, whatever their attainment or aspirations. We have made real progress since 2011, particularly in improving the education of disadvantaged children and those of lower attaining pupils as well.

In conclusion, I share my hon. Friend’s deeply held belief in the power of education to transform the life chances of pupils, particularly those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. Although I know there is more to do, the Government’s school reforms and plans to improve technical education through T-levels and the proposed £3 billion national skills fund are the right ones for every pupil and student in our education system, including the most disadvantaged pupils.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I certainly agree; I know that my hon. Friend is a passionate advocate of IT literacy.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), for visiting Space Studio West London in my constituency to see young people making robots and getting involved in other engineering projects such as sustainable energy. My mobile phone was charged wirelessly this morning by an invention of theirs.

Does the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), agree that employability comes from having practical learning? Will he join me in trying to make sure that creativity is encouraged in all our schools? Will he support my arts and makers fair, which will showcase work by young people across Hounslow?

School Funding

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Liz Twist]

Yes, I most certainly agree with the hon. Lady.

The headteacher and governors at Portobello Primary School also said that the impact of real-terms budget reductions has made it harder to deliver specific interventions with pupils; that it is increasingly difficult to provide personal and emotional support for vulnerable pupils; that they have lost decades’ worth of experience and curriculum knowledge; and that they are finding it harder and harder to take children on educational visits and purchase up-to-date teaching resources and equipment.

Due to these redundancies, staff are taking on extra duties and the local community are supporting the school by fundraising. I applaud the commitment of the staff of Portobello, who are doing everything they can for the children in their care. Most headteachers in my constituency could tell a similar story; it simply is not good enough that schools are not adequately funded to provide an outstanding education.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way.

[Sir David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order. May I ask Members on the Benches at the sides to come forward to speak, so that the microphones can pick them up?

[Seema Malhotra]

Thank you, Sir David. My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. Given the feedback that I have received from schools in Hounslow, in my own constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), I know that the pressures and demands, particularly regarding the special educational needs of the most vulnerable, could now become the next national issue, just as adult social care has been in crisis because of the lack of places. In my constituency and the rest of Hounslow, although we could provide over 1,200 places with the extra investment and funding that has come, there are more than 2,000 children with educational and healthcare plans. Does she agree that is a concern?

Relationships and Sex Education

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones]

All of this is about trying to reach a sensible compromise.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Helen Jones]

I want to make a little progress.

One thing to note is that primary schools are not obliged to teach sex education, but it is recommended that they take steps to prepare children for puberty. As puberty happens much earlier in children now, that seems sensible. Crucially, on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), the guidelines say that schools must take into account the religious beliefs of their pupils when drawing up their programmes, and that faith schools may use their faith to inform their teaching. In fact, the guidance suggests that a dialogue should take place on issues regarded as contentious.

When I taught years ago, that is exactly what we did; it is not new in any way. I spent my teaching career in Catholic schools. We would teach—particularly our older children—what the Church taught and what others believed, and we would have a debate about it. There are good reasons for that. First, schools do not want to produce people who cannot put forward a rational argument, and faith schools certainly do not want to produce children who cannot defend their faith. Secondly, I have yet to find anyone who can stop a teenager arguing about any of this.

There are, of course, those who say that all this should be down to parents, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) mentioned. Parents are clearly crucial in all this and should be partners with schools. However, let us be honest: some parents do not do it, and some increasingly find themselves all at sea in dealing with online risks, domestic violence, grooming and so on. I was struck, even years ago, by the amount of wrong information and misinformation that children have in their heads. That was before the internet.

[Helen Jones]

I do. As I said, all of this is about trying to reach a sensible and reasonable compromise between competing issues.

[Seema Malhotra]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Helen Jones]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I must make a little progress, because lots of people want to speak.

Before the internet, children had enough wrong information in their heads. With the rise of the internet and stuff available at a few clicks, it is essential that we give children a proper education that protects them from some of the wrong information and ideas online, and that shows them what good, healthy relationships look like. Research from the Children’s Commissioners shows that many of our young people do not know what a healthy sexual relationship looks like and do not understand the concept of consent. That is very dangerous. It is why four Select Committee Chairs wrote to the Government in 2016 asking for relationships and sex education to be made mandatory in schools; it is why the Women and Equalities Committee, in its inquiry into sexual harassment and sexual violence in schools, asked for the same thing; and it is why that request is supported by Members from across the House.

This is about applying a bit of common sense to this situation and looking at the world that our children are growing up in, which is not the same one that we grew up in. I say with great respect to parents who think that their children are not seeing all this online stuff that, although they may think that they are controlling what is on their children’s phones or iPads, they are not controlling what their children see with their friends or what is passed around in the playground and so on.

It is shocking that 28% of 11-year-olds have viewed pornography. Unless we want them to grow up thinking that what they see is normal and a proper relationship, we need to do something about it. By not doing anything, we are not leaving our children innocent. We are actually leaving them to the worst possible teacher: the internet.

[Seema Malhotra]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Helen Jones]

I really must make some progress. I am sorry.

Of course, many parents want schools to be involved in teaching RSE, as do many young people. Research done for Ofsted in 2013 showed that many secondary school pupils felt that too much of their education was on the mechanics of reproduction, and that there was not enough about emotions, relationships, dealing with pornography and so on.

Prior to the debate, the Petitions Committee met some young people in Parliament’s education centre. As one of them said to us, “If you’re opted out, you can just google it.” That is the problem we face; that is the reality of life. Nevertheless, it is true that parents have a right to request an opt-out from sex education for their child, which the guidelines say should be automatically granted in primary schools and should be granted except in exceptional circumstances in secondary schools. I was quite concerned about that, but I have actually been convinced by something sent to me by the Catholic Education Service, which supports the opt-out on the ground that it gives heads the opportunity to discuss with parents why the lessons are important and why it is much better for children to be there, rather than getting a garbled version from their friends in the playground. That approach clearly works, because the opt-out rate in Catholic schools is very low, at about 1 in 7,800 children. That is in a faith-based education system.

That opt-out applies to the sex education element, not to personal, social, health and economic education or relationships education, and not to stuff in the science curriculum, which is part of the national curriculum. It is also true—certainly in the draft guidelines and I presume the formal ones—that the Government suggest that children can opt back in three terms before they reach the age of 16. Case law no longer supports an automatic and continuing opt-out, so we need to reach a sensible balance on when young people can decide for themselves.

All parents face this problem, whether in deciding when children can go to the shops on their own or when their children are deciding on a career. It is hard. I remember the first time we allowed my son to walk up the road on his own to post a letter; we were hanging out of the bedroom window, keeping an eye on him for as long as possible. However, as parents, we have to realise that, while our job is to try to set our children on the right path, they will eventually make their own choices, which may not be the same ones that we would make.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. One does not want to see that level of abuse continuing down the generations, but those issues can be picked up by other measures and dealt with in that way.

[Seema Malhotra]

Could the hon. Gentleman explain how he sees that happening? I will give him an anecdotal statistic from my constituency. I asked a headteacher of a primary school how many children in one class he thought might be subject to seeing domestic violence at home. His answer was five or six, which is pretty staggering. It shows a huge risk in the environments that many young children are growing up in.

[John Howell]

I am afraid that I do not know the answer to the hon. Lady’s question. I will not attempt one off the top of my head, but will think about it for a little bit.

I believe that we already take away so much from childhood. We should fight against the sexualisation of children—that applies to all children. I see a need to address some of these issues, but I do not see that the details of reproductive sex should be part of the compulsory situation.

There is a lot of good in the proposals for relationships education. I will give two examples, the first of which is mental health. I have always had a great interest in the mental health of children at schools in my constituency. One only has to look at incidents of children’s mental ill health to see that we do not want the child to continue to be distressed.

We live in a completely different age to that in which I was brought up. We live in an age in which there is a tremendous amount of social media—it is almost impossible to get away from it. That can produce the problems of pornography. There is a need to have some awareness, but that is an area in which the parents can be involved in a big way.

The second issue is online grooming. I come from a county that has had a major online-grooming scandal over the past few years. Seven individuals abused many girls—I have no idea how many, but the BBC claimed that hundreds of girls could have been abused in that way. I would like evidence to show what effect relationships education could have had in that situation. Could it have prevented that abuse from taking place or were parents in a better position to deal with it?

There are different types of relationships, of course. One cannot pretend that schools exist in a vacuum. One cannot pretend that we do not have lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender relationships. I have been very supportive of them. We have to acknowledge that that is the legal situation in the country. We need to talk about the fact that different forms of relationships exist and make that fact clear.

We are not asking for sacred religious texts to be rewritten or torn up. The role of Ofsted, which was mentioned earlier, is absolutely crucial in that respect. I urge the Government to instruct Ofsted to take a sensitive approach in recognising the nature of faith schools, and to work with the schools to deliver a better view of the way in which they deliver education. That means that schools need to be able to teach—they have a duty to teach—what is allowable under the law without having to approve it. That is the situation at the moment.

In making these remarks I have been advised by the Jewish Community Council and the Torah Education Committee, which run a number of Orthodox Jewish schools. It should be taken as a positive sign that they have reached out, because they are concerned about the effects of the regulations and would like to work with the Government to take them forward. Above all, it is important to remember that we are not asking them to tear up the Torah in order to take this forward. We are asking them to work with the Government to come to a proper solution.

Relationships and Sex Education

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

I must add the hon. Lady, too, to the growing list, and yes, and we have already been listening to those expert organisations, some of whom create their own materials to help in teaching, running assemblies and so on. To be clear, it is not possible to withdraw from the parts of the curriculum that are connected with knowing where to get help or about the dangers that exist online and off. As I said, in primary school everyone will be going through relationships education, which will include staying safe online and offline. Relationships education includes awareness of where to go for help and of what is acceptable and what is not. These days, consent is a much broader question than it was, because of the online world, sexting and all such developments, and all children will be made aware of those matters.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, welcome the statement, and perhaps I may add to the list of those who have campaigned for relationships and sex education in primary and secondary and for some of the updating that has now happened: in my role as shadow Minister with responsibility for preventing violence against women and girls, I have worked closely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper).

May I pick up on the particular point about prevention of violence against women? The Secretary of State alluded to some of the things that are in the guidance on abusive relationships, but there is evidence that a growing number of young people—teenagers and those just a little older—are subject to violent relationships. To what extent will resources be provided for specialist training and for organisations such as the Hollie Gazzard Trust—founded in memory of Hollie Gazzard who was 20 years old when she was killed by her ex-partner—to ensure that young people, boys and girls, understand the difference between an abusive and a healthy relationship?

[Damian Hinds]

Yes, this is fundamental. Understanding healthy relationships, what constitutes a positive relationship and what is not reasonable to have happen are the fundamental elements running through relationships education guidance. It starts with one’s relationships with family and friends, and as children get older it goes on to intimate relationships and so on. Specifically on the guidance, I am open to hearing from all organisations, including the one that the hon. Lady mentioned.

Presidents Club Charity Dinner

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Anne Milton]

I know the Secretary of State will want to look at all aspects of this, not least the due diligence. The hon. Lady is right, but hearing sexist language in the playground and in schools is just the tip of the iceberg. The stories of sexual abuse, rape and harassment happening in some of our schools are shocking.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

In light of the fact that a departmental non-executive director and a Minister attended this despicable event, does the Minister agree that it may be time for a review of the ministerial code of conduct and of the seven principles of public life to ensure that they reflect the commitment to the standards of equality and decency that we expect from our public servants? That will set an example and send a message to society as a whole.

[Anne Milton]

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is looking at a number of issues, and I believe the code of conduct is being reviewed. The tragedy is that we should not need a code of conduct, but we clearly do. It is a tragedy that we need it. Why do people need to be told to behave appropriately? Why do they need to be told not to use sexist or racist language? Why do they need to be told where the boundaries are? People clearly do, and that is the sadness of it. I am robust and angry, but a little bit of me is also extremely sad.

Social Mobility

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is another great idea that I hope the Minister will respond to, and it shows the extent to which these policy areas need to be looked at across the piece.

Tackling social mobility also means looking at difficult issues such as inheritance tax, transport spending and social care. All those policies need to be looked at through the lens of social mobility. However, today I will focus on a few areas for which the Minister has responsibility, and for which the evidence and action needed are known and relatively straightforward. The first is early years, which colleagues and the Minister will know is a bug bear of mine, so I hope they will allow me to expand on that for a moment. It is well documented that by the time children reach the age of five there is already a big gap in school readiness or development between those from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers. Action for Children found that more than half of children from low-income families do not reach the expected milestones by the age of five. Often that gap is never fully closed during a child’s schooling.

Given that we know some of what works, why are we not doing more? Over the past 20 years we have made some progress through family support services, Sure Start centres, quality early education and targeted approaches, such as the offer for two-year-olds. However, in recent times and with what is upcoming, the agenda seems to be moving backwards.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that one of the Departments that needs to be brought into this conversation is the Home Office? I am thinking specifically about incidents of domestic violence, which have been increasing in my constituency. Experiencing and being a victim of domestic violence impacts on children, particularly very young children, and their educational attainment.

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Being in a domestic violence setting at home can have the most profound impact on the outcome of any child. We need to link that with children’s services and other family support services. She is absolutely right.

The Government’s emphasis is now almost entirely on childcare support for working families. That is a laudable aim in itself, but it perhaps focuses huge resources away from social mobility outcomes. Almost all the money for the 30 hours of free childcare for working families and tax-free childcare will go towards better-off families. Those policies are taking the Government’s focus away from other issues. By definition, the most disadvantaged do not get the extra support, and the delivery of the new policies is also having a real impact on quality institutions

Oral Answers to Questions

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I gently say that achieving gender equality is good for everyone. For example, the introduction of shared parental leave allows men to take time away from the workplace to bond with their new children. There are issues to be addressed for women, as discussed in this place earlier today. Names of Committees are a matter for the House and are considered with the Procedure Committee in the normal way.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister confirm whether he has received any representations from anyone from a BME community about their happiness or otherwise of the title of the Women and Equalities Committee? As a member of the BME community, may I say that I am very happy with the name of the Women and Equalities Committee?

[Michael Ellis]

The hon. Lady’s contentment has been noted. No such representations have been made. If any are made, they will be considered very carefully.

School Funding: Greater London

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to have this short debate on the impact of funding changes on London’s schools. I apologise to the Minister for his drawing the short straw of having to respond to a debate at midnight, although I suspect that this will be the first of many such debates.

London Members of Parliament have some grave concerns, although I know that other parts of the country are affected by changes to the funding formula and by the wider squeeze on schools funding. In my constituency—this experience will be replicated widely, particularly in London—the story of school progress over recent years has been one of the great public policy successes. In the mid-1990s, our school estate was crumbling. We were teaching children in badly ventilated, overheated and old-fashioned buildings that had not received investment for decades. I remember when North Westminster community school, which was a sprawling three-centred school, achieved in the last year before its closure just 18% GCSE grades A to C, including English and maths. It was one of the worst results in the country. I remember when half our secondary schools and a number of primary schools were in special measures, despite some frankly heroic efforts by a number of teachers and heads. I remember when there was virtually no provision at all for pre-school education.

Over the course of the past 15 years, the situation was transformed by a number of measures, including the London challenge programme—a focused management and good practice sharing policy that, under the inspirational leadership of Tim Brighouse, was widely understood to be a key factor in driving change in London schools. The transformation was also brought about by the new infrastructure, with magnificent new buildings across the city. It was brought about by the investment that went into the Sure Start children’s centres and the early years programme. Critically, it was brought about by money. The additional funding that went into London schools was used particularly to invest in teaching and improved teacher pay; in support for schemes such as Teach First; and in generally giving headteachers the ability to marshal resources to support a better learning environment. We have seen the outcome of that investment —both human and resource investment—in the hugely improved outcomes in school performance across the capital.

In the days before the London Challenge, London was the worst performing region in the country at key stage 4 level. By the end of that programme and the additional investment that accompanied it, we were the best performing region. Yet we know that the job is not done. Despite the improvements, there are still too many children who are not going into secondary school having achieved the standard at primary that is our benchmark. Across the country as a whole, we are still not managing to close the gap in attainment with some of our competitor nations. That is, as the last few hours of debate have confirmed, more of a challenge to rise to than it was previously. More than ever, the country as a whole but London in particular requires an education system that will allow us to be a world leader creatively, technically and economically, with an education system to support that.

The pressures and challenges that face London education are as great as ever. We have problems of deprivation that are still acute, and problems of churn. I appreciate very much that the Government have, for the first time, introduced a churn or pupil mobility indicator into the funding formula. I remember having an Adjournment on this very topic 10 years ago, when I wanted a factor of mobility to be brought into the funding formula for policing, for health and for education. I welcome the introduction of the indicator, but none the less schools face enormous pressure in some cases. I know of primary schools where not a single child at key stage 2 was there at the completion of the key stage 1 process. This is a very real difficulty for schools. We know of the challenges of English as an additional language and, critically, of the higher salary, building and other operating costs that London schools have to face. Even my borough of Westminster—the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who was a Westminster councillor, will recognise this—despite its reputation as the glittering centre of the capital that people see with Oxford Street and, indeed, the Palace of Westminster and so forth, has the seventh highest child poverty in the whole country.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. The impact of child poverty on educational attainment is very much the subject and the driver of the work we are doing in Hounslow with Hounslow’s promise. Does she agree that there is tremendous concern about comments I have heard from headteachers suggesting that schools may be reluctant to accept pupils with significant needs, who may also be quicker to be excluded, because those schools do not have the resources to deal with some of their in-depth needs? Will she, with me, congratulate Hounslow Council, which tonight, with Tory and Labour councillors together, has called on the Government to consider again the impact that these changes will have on Hounslow schools’ ability to maintain the highest standards in quality of provision?

[Ms Buck]

I am happy to congratulate Hounslow Council, and I completely endorse what my hon. Friend has said. I will come in a second to the comments of headteachers and councillors from across London who have expressed their dismay about the effect of the funding formula changes.

I want to finish what I was saying about the level of deprivation. I think that it is either not understood or glossed over by too many of the representatives from the shires, who want to negotiate a better funding settlement for their own schools—that is something that I completely understand and appreciate—but who do not always recognise the extent of the expense and the pressures faced by the capital city, which is experiencing a redistribution away of funding to meet those needs. Seven of the 10 local authorities with the highest levels of poverty in the UK are in London, so it is horrifying that the new Government formula for distributing schools funding hits London particularly hard. In briefing me for this debate, London Councils and the Mayor of London have made it clear that they are extremely concerned about that.

A higher proportion of London schools—an estimated total of 1,536—will see a reduction in funding than in any other region. Seventy per cent. of London schools face a fall in funding, compared with 58% of schools in the north-west and 53% in the west midlands—and the figures for those areas are bad enough. Eight of the 10 local authorities that face the highest percentage losses in funding are in London. Worst affected are councils known for high levels of deprivation and challenge, such as Hackney, Camden, Lambeth, Lewisham, Haringey, Tower Hamlets and Hammersmith.