| The Education Act 2002 (Modification of Provisions) (No. 2) (England) and The Education (Objection to Admission Arrangements) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2002
|
|
Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire): From what pool of individuals are nursery school governors to be found? I am sure that the Minister is aware that there is often a shortage of governors for primary and secondary schools. If nursery schools are to go fishing in the same pool, I foresee difficulties. Mr. Stephen Twigg: The hon. Gentleman raises a reasonable point. We are all aware of the difficulties, but we want to ensure that nursery schools enjoy the benefits of an effective governing body, as schools have done. I am aware of some nursery schools having voluntarily adopted governing bodies, which have made a powerful and important contribution. We shall be looking to the same people to whom we look to fill other governing body vacancies. I do not underestimate the extent of the challenge that that will present in some parts of the country, but it is important for effective nursery school governance. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West raised some very specific points about the regulations on objection to admission arrangements. To make a general point, we do not want to impose new bureaucracy. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government were creating asymmetry, but the opposite is true. We are attempting to provide a level playing field for different types of school and to limit the bureaucracy of the arrangements. The hon. Gentleman asked why community and voluntary-controlled—rather than voluntary-aided—schools cannot object to the arrangements for other community and voluntary-controlled schools. That is of course because the arrangements are determined not by schools themselves but, by their very nature, at local level by the local education authority. It is important that the local education authority should fully engage schools and their governing bodies in the determination of admissions arrangements; that would be the appropriate opportunity for consultation. Mr. Brady: I appreciate the Minister's point but, to take my constituency as an example, there are eight maintained secondary schools, of which seven are foundation or voluntary-aided schools and only one is a community school. It seems in those circumstances that the local authority is the admissions authority, in a way comparable to any of the other admissions authorities, for only one secondary school. That seems to be clear evidence of asymmetry in the Government's approach. Column Number: 11 Mr. Stephen Twigg: There does seem to be asymmetry in that example, but I imagine that it is fairly unusual for only one school in an area to come under such arrangements. We want regulations that apply in all circumstances. One would hope that there would be a good relationship between that one school and the local education authority as its admissions authority, so that the school would have some influence on the authority's admissions policies. Moving on to the capacity of schools, I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman was so impressed with our document. He raised legitimate points about the implications of schools moving to specialist status and of the 14 to 19 document, which contains a formula upon which the calculations are based. I am not convinced that the change to specialist status or the, perhaps, further-reaching changes in 14 to 19 provision need necessarily be outside the formula. It should be sufficiently flexible and responsive to deal with the issues. I take the point that, under the 14 to 19 proposals, there will be occasions when students will not be in the school. However, it is still likely that, for significant parts of the school week, there will be times when all of the students of a school are in it. Although I am not convinced that there is a problem, we shall keep an eye on the matter. We want to ensure that the potential issue of vexatious objections does not arise. We have made it clear that parents will not be able to object singly—there will be a requirement for a minimum of 10 parents to make an objection—and there will be no merit in parents objecting in a vexatious way because the adjudicator is unlikely to uphold such objections. Nevertheless, we shall keep the matter under review. Because it is important that parents should receive notification, we are requiring publication in a local Column Number: 12 newspaper. However, schools cannot rely simply on the local press; it makes sense to use the mechanisms that are set out.The hon. Gentleman asked why parents may object on grounds only of pre-existing partial selection or admission numbers being below net capacity. Both of those are special cases. The first arises from the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and the second concerns cases in which parents have been given objection rights to low admission numbers. They had that power under the old system, which allowed for the concept of standard numbers. The 2002 Act removes that concept and we wanted to reinstate that right for parents. I am pleased that we have had a good discussion. These regulations, along with those that have been considered previously, make the nightmarish admissions process easier and fairer. I commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Resolved,
|
| |
| Prepared 27 March 2003 | |
