Examination of Witness (Questions 200-219)
7 JULY 2004
RT HON
CHARLES CLARKE
MP
Q200 Mr Chaytor: What is the evidence
for the expansion of the academies?
Mr Clarke: The evidence is that
. . . Well, on that basis there is very little evidence, because
the academies are so new. The evidence that exists is that where
there has been very low educational attainment, and in all the
academy areas it is particularly predicated on essentially educational
failure in the past, that is what the academy is all about, what
you need is, firstly, a transformation, which means often a new
school with new leadership and new approaches, and, secondly,
very substantial resource, and, thirdly, a confidence by people
in that community that education is important by going for world
class facilities. In each of those statements, without citing
chapter and verse, I think I can prove to you that there is evidence
for the correctness of each of those assertions as being major
aspects of educational transformation where the failure has been
so acute. As I say, the change, the leadership, the commitment
of resource, the status given to education. On each of these I
think there is evidence. In the city academy programme we are
seeking to bring those together. If you then ask: what is evidence
of the success or otherwise of the city academy programme so far?
It is very little. I think I am speaking, I think I am right in
saying there are only 12 schools that are currently up and running,
and none of them have been long enough to make a systemic assessment
of what has happened in those areas. Some of them have had significant
difficulties in getting started, as one would expect with a programme
which is as radical as it is. The CTCs when they were around,
and some of those are coming into the academy regime, have had
a genuine record of success in their particular locality, which
I think there is evidence for what they have done. They are not
the same as the academies but for a variety of different reasons,
but I think I can claim quite fundamentally that the principles
of the academy form of organisation in dealing with areas where
there has been immense educational failure and deprivation are
well-established by evidence, and I hope that when the city academy
programme has been going for a few years the evidence of how it
is run will reinforce that; but I concede to you that that is
a hope at this stage rather than evidence I can offer.
Q201 Mr Chaytor: But the 2004 departmental
report says the first assessment of the first the wave of academies
will be published later in 2004, and yet today the Prime Minister
is going to raise the expansion to 200 academies. Would it not
have made more sense, if you do believe in evidence-based policy
making, to wait for the assessment of the first wave before announcing
the expansion?
Mr Clarke: You can argue that.
The problem about any process of policy announcement is there
is a timetable in which one is set, and we, in my opinion quite
rightly, are going through a process of announcing a five-year
programme on the timetable that we are. Does that mean we should
postpone that announcement in general in every respect of where
we go on the CSR process? I do not think it can, because we have
a programme of seeking to make progress in those areas. If you
say to me that when the evidence exists in this form we should
revise where we are, of course we should take account of evidence
as it comes through, but I do not think we should simply postpone
any announcements about it.
Q202 Mr Chaytor: It puts a question mark
over the validity of the assessment later this year. It is now
inconceivable that the first annual assessment of the academies
programme would highlight any major weaknesses, because that would
undermine the whole policy of expanding to 200 academies, surely?
Mr Clarke: No, it is not inconceivable
at all, because the assessment. . . It would be absolutely foolish
for a government not to say in truth what the situation was with
a programme, in this case the City Academies programme. I could
point, you could point to areas where there have been significant
difficulties in the academies getting going and starting. That
is undoubtedly the case, and that would be the case, by the way,
for any new school in those areas of major educational disadvantage.
You are talking about an absolute transformation. Does that lead
me to have any lack of confidence in my ability to make the changes?
Not in the slightest, but I think it would be foolhardy—and
I certainly do not do this and nobody else does this either—to
say, "Here is the magic wand I wave. We bestow on this area
where there has been educational deprivation for decades a solution",
the City Academy in this case, "which will suddenly at a
stroke resolve all this." It does not happen like that.
Q203 Mr Chaytor: If the report later
this year does identify strong weaknesses, will that lead to a
change in government policy about the expansion of the programme?
Mr Clarke: It will certainly lead
to a very serious assessment of what the Government is doing in
the programme, and the way in which the programme works, as it
should, and that will be the case in any particular areas to keep
us up to date about our KS 2 flat-lining. When we analyse the
reasons for that it goes through, see what happens this year,
we will look very carefully at what our policies are in that area.
It would be completely foolish not to so; but does that mean we
are frozen and say we can nothing about anything at any given
point? I do not think it does.
Q204 Mr Chaytor: One of the other things
the Prime Minister is likely to say today is that over-subscribed
schools will be allowed to expand. If over-subscribed schools
are allowed to expand, under-subscribed schools must inevitably
contract. How do you reconcile that policy with your concern to
get financial stability across all schools?
Mr Clarke: There is a general
constraint right across the whole system on resources which have
to be allocated at the level of the local authority whether it
is for capital development for new places, or whatever it might
be, or, indeed, for revenue, but the system already in its revenue
reflects where students are, and so schools do fluctuate in size,
I think quite rightly, to meet what parental assessments are of
the schools in their particular area. The question is whether
there should be any capacity for schools which are doing well
to expand if the resources are available. I think that should
be the case. Do I think it will make a dramatic difference in
any given locality, in Bury, for example, and Norwich? Not very
much actually, but I think having that flexibility, of course,
is beneficial.
Q205 Mr Chaytor: Surely, if there is
a 10% expansion in some schools there must be a 10% contraction
in other schools. There is a fixed number of pupils?
Mr Clarke: Yes, of course.
Q206 Mr Chaytor: So how is the funding
formula going to protect the schools that are contracting?
Mr Clarke: The funding formula
already deals with the situation exactly as it has been for years:
that the funding is for less number of students. That is the fundamental
principle that is there, and that is right, in my opinion. I am
not aware of any significant argument that that is the right way
to do it, and that remains. The question is whether the schools
that are doing well should have the capacity to expand or not
in those circumstances. I think there should be much more flexibility
in the system than there now is to allow schools to be able to
expand in those circumstances. But, you are right, any given expansion
has an implication on the rest of the system, not 10%, because
if you have got one primary school expanding in a local authority
of 30 primary schools, or whatever it might be, the 10% increase
in numbers in that particular primary school does not mean a 10%
decrease in numbers in the rest of the system; it means, whatever,
a third of the 1% reduction in the numbers across the system.
So it is the balance that arises that has to be addressed by the
organisation committee, and the local authority in those circumstances,
and that is right.
Q207 Mr Chaytor: The fact remains that
a contracting school is going to see a reduction in its budget.
Mr Clarke: As happens exactly
now.
Q208 Mr Chaytor: Yes, but it is going
to be exacerbated in the future because you are allowing greater
flexibility.
Mr Clarke: Firstly, it is exactly
what happens now. Secondly, yes, because we have allowed greater
flexibility in the way that I am suggesting, it will be exacerbated,
as you describe.
Q209 Mr Chaytor: Will there be some new
mechanism to give stability to contracting schools?
Mr Clarke: Certainly, there is
the mechanism that exists at the moment. When you say "a
new mechanism", the implication of your question, Mr Chaytor,
is that there is a qualitative shift in the proposal to allow
schools to expand compared to the current status quo, and that
is simply not the case. There is a shift because it is implying
greater flexibility, but it is not a qualitative shift in what
happens. It is already the situation. I do not know the situation
in Bury, but if you look at school numbers at schools in Bury—actual
school numbers I mean—they would already be going up and
down according to a series of different factors. What we are saying
is put in more flexibility, which I accept exacerbates the changes
which take place but I do not think it takes it on to a new plane,
and nor do I think it is anything like as dramatic as some fear,
but having greater flexibility in the system will make it work
better for the parents.
Q210 Mr Chaytor: Lastly, Chairman, can
I ask does anybody in the department know the cost of administering
the current admissions system across the country?
Mr Clarke: Perhaps I can ask a
question back. I do not know if we gave evidence to your Committee
on that in the inquiry you have just been doing. If we are asked
that question I do not know the answer to the question as you
ask it now, but I am happy to write to the Committee about it.
Q211 Mr Chaytor: The answer to a PQ I
submitted just a few days ago was that no, the department does
not collect that information. So the issue is, should somebody
not be assessing what it costs to manage the current admissions
system?
Mr Clarke: I think it is a very
interesting process to do. We are waiting for your Committee's
report on this very issue. We will respond carefully when it comes
around. I am grateful to you for reminding me of my answer to
the question that you have asked. The reason why we do not know
is presumably that this is a matter which is run locally in the
way that we do and should reflect the data in that way. You could
argue we should but there is an implication in terms of resource
and bureaucratic burden which applies to that which is presumably
why we have not done it so far. I will look at it and I am happy
to consider the point.[1]
Q212 Mr Chaytor: If the Prime Minister
today is going to announce that more schools can become their
own admission authorities, would it not be a good idea to know
what the cost of administering the system is before making such
an announcement?
Mr Clarke: To some extent, but
I do not think I will overstate that point because every school
will be bound by the code of admissions; no school will be allowed
to be selective in its entry and in the way that it operates.
We are not going down the lines other political parties are going
down in saying that every school should be its own admissions
authority and they will establish whatever selection criteria
it wants irrespective of any other situation. In fact, we reject
that line completely; we think it would be quite wrong to go down
that path. So, again, I think, the implication is nothing like
as substantial as you may be concerned about, but I will look
at this cost issue and see if there is an issue there that needs
to be resolved. I suppose I would want to say that we think the
adjudicator system has worked relatively well in various circumstances,
but I am genuinely, Chairman, waiting for the report of the Committee.
You complained on the Today programme last Friday that
we had not shared the five-year plan with you in the process,
and I took the rebuke in good heart, but I am in the same position
as well with what you are about to recommend on selection admissions.
As I do not know what you are going to recommend I cannot comment
in detail, but the commitment I can give is the one I gave right
at the beginning, that we take it very, very seriously and will
respond properly, including on the issue of costs that Mr Chaytor
has just raised.
Q213 Chairman: Secretary of State, we
could whet your appetite in the sense that there are unintended
consequences. What people do want is clarity on what the Government's
policies are. If the Government is elected on a policy of not
expanding grammar schools and we see an allowance for grammar
schools to change from—when we came into power—117,000
pupils to now over 150,000 pupils (in the age group that is a
3.1% to 4.6% growth in grammar schools) people might say that
was not really what we thought the Government intended in 1997.
That is, perhaps, an unintended consequence of allowing institutions
to grow willy-nilly.
Mr Clarke: That is a reasonable
point for the Committee to make. As I say, I shall await your
report and study it carefully when you do publish on that question.
As far as the general issue of clarity is concerned, I could not
agree more, which is why we are intending shortly to announce
as clearly as we can what our policies are for the next five years
so that people can make their assessment of them and, in particular,
I hope, this Committee will make its assessment of them, with
its strengths and weaknesses in whatever way you think right.
Q214 Chairman: That has whetted your
appetite?
Mr Clarke: It has, yes; I am looking
forward to it.
Q215 Jeff Ennis: Just as a supplementary
to follow on your answer, Charles, in terms of the potential expansion
of academy schools, I can understand and I agree with the logic
behind that expansion as you have outlined it to us. Indeed, in
relation to my two local LEAs, Barnsley is looking at the possibility
of establishing an academy in Mossborough and Doncaster are looking
at the possibility of establishing an academy at Northcliffe,
Conisbrough. So I can understand the logic as you described it.
I really want further reassurance from you, Charles. If I can
put a hypothetical situation to you, if you had an LEA which had
a mixture of reasonably good schools and one or two failing schools,
where the academy scenario might fit into part of the area, if
the LEA came forward with a grandiose plan to close all the secondary
schools and create all new academies within their LEA area, how
would the DfES react to that particular model when that came forward?
Mr Clarke: I would like to agree
simply on the resources basis but it is not remote from reality.
The London Borough of Hackney is not a long way from the situation
you have just described. It is committing the London Borough of
Hackney to trying to get a significant number of city academies
in the borough for exactly the implication that you are giving
there, and part of our whole approach to the London Challenge
has been to encourage a total renewal of the educational offer
that is available in those areas. I think I want to say two things,
if I may, Chairman. There is a confusion in the public debate
about this and one of the problems about it, and I am not criticising
the media on this occasion—I do that in private—is
that there has been a series of links going on which confuses
the two strands. Strand one is the city academy programme which
I was trying to describe in answer to Mr Chaytor, which is, as
it were, a bazooka which is designed to transform education opportunity
in areas where education attainment has been very low, and you
have given a couple of examples in your area of areas where that
is needed. There are resource restraints on that, which is a serious
issue to be addressed, and we are trying in those areas to say
we really have got to turn this around because of years of failure,
and we think the way to do it is in the various answers I gave
to Mr Chaytor in the form of a city academy. That is one strand
of discussion, to which the Government is committing. There is
another strand which is about freedoms of schools and the way
they can operate and the decisions that they take. You could describe
those as academy style freedoms, if I can put it like that, but
it is about principally giving schools the ability to really focus
on the problems that they have to solve—yes, working in
collaboration and working with the rest of the community, and
so on. Something we do want to see generally across the system
is schools able to take those freedoms, and the one that is most
significant is the ability to have a three-year budget and move
it forward, but one can imagine others as well. Those are two
separate things which have got confused in the word "academy"
in terms of the debate that has been flowing around. I am grateful
for the opportunity to just try and set out as clearly as I can
the difference between these two things. In neither case are we
talking about the development of a new elite of schools, which
some people have been concerned about—that there would be
some group of schools which was a new elite. In fact, my first
act as Secretary of State, as the Committee will recall, was to
open specialist school status to all schools that wished to do
so rather than being in competition with each other, precisely
because I wanted to see it as a device which could mobilise all
schools rather than create a sub-group of schools which was an
elite of that kind. I am absolutely committed to the view that
we have to transform schools and performance across the range
rather than saying there is some group in that area. You have
not used this word but it is perverse to think of the city academies
as an elite in that sense, because though they are an elite in
the sense of significant resources, and so on, they are not educating
an elite in any sense of the word whatsoever, they are educating
people from the poorest performing parts of the country in what
they do, and that is what they are trying to change.
Q216 Jeff Ennis: I am a bit nervous about
that reply in terms of the fact that it would be possible, then,
given the response you have just given to me, for an LEA to try
and get more resource into their area over and above their neighbouring
LEAs by just trying to set up a series of academies within their
area.
Mr Clarke: But they have to have
that agreed by the Secretary of State. That is the situation,
but actually the real truth is that the main programme in all
of this is the Building Schools for the Future programme
for secondary schools, which is a programme which has universal
aspiration right across the country for every single secondary
school where we have a defined period at the end where, we hope,
we will have transformed schools in the country. Academies sit
within that, and they are not, as it were, apart from it. So in
the case of Barnsley, for the sake of argument, Barnsley will,
at some point, be a Building Schools for the Future authority
which is transforming all its secondary schools to world-class
standards. That is the investment which the Chancellor announced
in the Budget which is very positive. So it would not be rational
for Barnsley to think, "Well if we bid for all academies
then somehow we can accelerate that process." Nor would it
be rational for any Secretary of State—me or anybody else—to
agree that for Barnsley in that way because we think the Building
Schools for the Future programme is the device to carry that
through.
Q217 Chairman: Secretary of State, just
on that very point of academies, Jeff Ennis, the previous time
you were here, used to complain that with specialist schools the
£50,000 to be raised from private resources was very difficult
in a place like his constituency which has some of the poorest
wards in the country. As I understand it, the earlier academies
all needed quite a big injection of private sector investment,
which was not £50,000 but more like £3 million.
Mr Clarke: Two million.
Q218 Chairman: Will that be necessary
for all these other academies?
Mr Clarke: That is what we are
talking about, yes, and I think it is a very positive thing, actually,
both in terms of the actual money, which is important but, also,
in terms of the relationship with the school and so on. That money
comes not from the local community, normally speaking, but from
a sponsor, and the sponsors are precisely ready to invest money
in the lowest educationally performing parts of the country because
they believe that is the right thing to do, and I pay tribute
to the fact that they do that. So it is not similar to the specialist
school programme in the sense that it is the specialist school
saying, "How can we raise £50,000" (as you know,
I set up, together with the Specialist Schools Trust, a fund where
that could be dealt with); it is more sponsors saying, "We
are ready to put money in with you to really try and improve educational
performance in a particular area of low educational achievement."
Q219 Chairman: There are two concerns,
Secretary of State, about that. One is that sponsors do get a
great deal; they put money in and get a very expensive piece of
educational equipment, if you like—an academy is an expensive
piece of infrastructure. Historically, people quite like it: if
you are Ford and it is Dagenham you have got a link; if it is
ICI in Huddersfield, historically there was a link; and you can
see the Halifax Bank in Halifax. However, there are a lot of places
that do not have that proximity to large businesses. Will that
not be much more of a struggle?
Mr Clarke: It will be, but many
people are prepared to put money in because they believe in the
ideal that I have described, of trying to transform educational
performance in a particular area of historically low attainment.
Also, if I am being candid, Chairman, the extent to which major
employers—of the type you have described, which have particular
links with particular localities (I can think of those in my own
constituency)—have actually put serious resources into their
local schools has been pretty limited. The specialist schools
movement is helping that, to some extent, but I think there is
a lot more that could be done here.
1 Ev 50 Back
|
