Examination of Witness (Questions 220-239)
7 JULY 2004
RT HON
CHARLES CLARKE
MP
Q220 Chairman: There has been a concern
expressed that the academies open the door to faith organisations,
particularly Evangelical Christian groups, getting a very large
expansion in our urban centres through the route of academies.
That is a concern that I have picked up, and I think other people
have picked up. Is that something that concerns you?
Mr Clarke: Not really. It has
arisen specifically around one particular sponsor of the city
academies, and it is absolutely clear the National Curriculum
is taught; it should be taught and that is how it operates. I
think that is the right way to approach it. Now, if there was
any sense of that National Curriculum being diverted for the reasons
that you are implying, that would be a matter of concern. It would
be a matter not just of concern but a matter that Ofsted would
have to look at when it was looking at the schools and carrying
it through. I would certainly be concerned about that, but I have
to say I have no evidence in any sense whatsoever that that is
happening. I know the concern is there and I understand why you
are reflecting it.
Q221 Chairman: It would worry you, would
it not, if the born again Evangelical group had a series of academies
in, as you said, urban deprived areas where, as we know, very
high numbers of people living there are not of the British faith?
Mr Clarke: It is not so much the
Christian Evangelical thing which is the issue; if the teaching
in the school—that is the issue upon which I would focus—were
suggesting that science, as a way of looking at the world, was
flawed and wrong and that we should be anti-scientific in the
way we look at things, I would be concerned. If there was a view
that somehow science was not the right way to try and understand
the world in which we live, I think that would be very damaging
indeed. I think that would be a matter I would expect Ofsted to
pick up in its review, and I would take any concerns of that kind
very seriously. So my concern, Chairman, would be about what is
actually going on in the school and what the children are being
taught in these areas; it would not be about the identity of the
sponsor of the city academy, if I can put it like that. The test
which would be real for me, and would give rise, certainly as
Secretary of State today, to concerns if I thought it were the
case, would be if teaching was taking place in the curriculum
which was undermining the scientific base of where we stand today.
It would be a matter of concern.
Q222 Chairman: In the City of Birmingham,
which the Committee knows very well, in which ethnic minority
origin pupils are over 40%, you would not worry that a number
of academies would come from that particular—
Mr Clarke: I simply do not think
it is a real description, Chairman. Obviously one could hypothetically
talk about any circumstance. As it happens, I was in Birmingham
on Monday of this week at a specialist school which will become
a science specialist school on Thursday and has got its award,
and the teachers there were talking so positively—by the
way the children were from all ethnic minority groups—and
looking at science in a very, very excited and positive way. So,
almost, my experience is counter-intuitive to what you are describing.
However, if there were some malign force which was trying to sponsor
a vast range of city academies and was dropping them down in urban
centres to promote Christianity at the expense of other religions
and to undermine the scientific base of our understanding of the
world, yes, I would be worried, but I do not believe that is the
case at all.
Q223 Chairman: I think you are parodying
my remarks; I was not talking about a malign influence.
Mr Clarke: I beg your pardon.
Q224 Chairman: I was talking about what
people are talking about, that particular groups are interested
in sponsoring academies.
Mr Clarke: I think we are talking
slightly at cross-purposes, Chairman, because I am aware of one
sponsor who gives rise to these concerns—not in Birmingham
as far as I know. My answer to that question is that the test
is the teaching and learning that is taking place—what is
actually going on in the school—rather than the nature and
beliefs of a given sponsor. That would be my answer. I am not
aware of a concern even of a widespread number of either individuals
or groups or whatever seeking to sponsor city academies with that
motivation.
Chairman: I understand from Jeff Ennis
that there is a link between the evangelical sponsors for his
two.
Q225 Mr Pollard: You said earlier on,
Secretary of State, that there were unprecedented increases in
budgets, but we have various estimates from 3,500 to 8,800 teachers
being made redundant last year. There seems an inconsistency there.
I just wondered why there was that inconsistency and why you believe
that there have been "unprecedented increases" (to use
your own words) and yet schools, according to each of us in our
separate constituencies, are saying there were these difficulties.
Mr Clarke: I put it down to campaigning.
What actually happened was that a large number of organisations—teacher
trade unions, media organisations and others—did quasi surveys
(I would call them) which made suggestions of what might happen
in certain circumstances. Some of them were the front-page lead
in the national papers, some of them were on various TV programmes
and so on, and an environment was created which suggested there
were large numbers of teacher redundancies coming round the corner.
I responded to all of those by saying, "Let us wait and see
what the teacher numbers are", and when they were published
earlier this year I then had a press conference at which I said
to all those very same organisations, "Perhaps you would
be nice enough to report what has actually happened in teacher
numbers rather than what you reported as might happen last year",
which was that all the scaremongering was utterly false. Unfortunately,
for reasons I do not understand, that was not the front-page lead
in all the papers and all the broadcasting out after that press
conference, and there was no sense of saying, "We were wrong"
on those questions that came through, because they were wrong—those
concerns were wrong. They did not happen. If you look at the actual
teacher numbers that came through, I can give you the exact position.
From 1997, if you look at all regular teachers to 2004, year-by-year,
it goes: 399,000, 397,000, 401,000, 404,000, 410,000, 419,000,
423,000 in 2003 and 428,000 in 2004. That is to say, an increase.
Everybody said there was going to be significant decreases. These
are the actual figures from the survey and the annual school census
that came through. Support staff (again from 1997 onwards): 137,000,
144,000, 152,000, 165,000, 189,000, 217,000, 225,000 and 242,000.
Again, an increase in the last year in precisely the way I have
described. The point is these were the increases which came through
when we actually did the census, and they were precisely the figures
which all those surveys which you have referred to, Mr Pollard,
actually said would be going down. They said we would have less
teachers because of the alleged funding crisis that took place.
It did not happen. Now, as I say, you asked me the question and
the reason I gave was campaigning, because actually all the organisations
concerned were campaigning for more resources. I do not mind that,
that is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, but to do so they
have created an, essentially, spurious survey and got news headlines
for that, which actually was not borne out. I am still hoping
today that, maybe, we will see headlines in the papers tomorrow
on education which reports the Prime Minister's speech and deals
with the fact that we have had increases in teacher numbers and
support staff numbers in every school in every part of the country,
because that is the actual story of what has happened.
Q226 Mr Pollard: There are 700 fewer
teachers in primary schools, which you explain is as a result
of falling rolls. Given the Government's early years agenda, would
it not make sense to retain these primary teachers within the
system?
Mr Clarke: I agree and that is
what my answer was to the Chairman earlier. I think the development
(a) of the early years agenda, as you say, Mr Pollard, and (b)
of the extended school approach gives rise to the fact that we
can see more resources going in in these areas, and to see ways
in which we can not just retain individuals—that is a secondary
question—but retain the resource to make it go, and I think
that is precisely the way we should be attacking this problem.
Q227 Mr Pollard: David Normington recently
said to us there is a need for "more qualified people for
under-fives". Is that more teachers or other qualified staff?
Mr Clarke: It is a whole range
of qualified staff, including teachers. This is one of our very,
very biggest challenges, Mr Pollard, and I am glad you have asked
questions about it. The situation is that you have a large number
of professionals working with under-fives: teachers, nursery nurses,
therapists of various kinds (speech therapists, for example) and
community nurses—a wide range of different people working
with under-fives with different qualifications, different expertises
and different roles. A key element in the Sector Skills Council
for people working with children which we have established is
to establish what kind of common core of training and skills we
can build up between the different people, how we can get the
partnership working happening—and the best example of that
is the SureStart initiative where that partnership working is
happening—so that everybody can work well together. Part
of that is teachers but it is only part of the spectrum of different
professionals working with children at that age range, where I
acknowledge—and we have acknowledged publicly—there
is a major investment in resource which is needed to train and
develop those people in a positive way. That is a commitment we
have got going through the CSR process, to really put resources
in hand.
Q228 Mr Pollard: It has been stated regularly
that student numbers are falling. Certainly in the Greater South
East that is not the case at all; in my own constituency student
numbers are going up and all our schools are full. There is a
great imbalance in the system; there are newly qualified teachers
in the North East who cannot get into teaching, never mind jobs,
yet we are short in the South East. How are you going to square
that?
Mr Clarke: Simply by trying to
ensure that we understand the situation better and we signpost
the recruitment opportunities better. You do have the issue you
have described of pupil numbers moving in different ways in different
parts of the country, though there are common places across the
whole age range which is there. To encourage people to move and
to provide incentives we announced a series of measures, for example,
on housing for essential workers in the South East, on which we
are attempting to deal with some of those concerns that were made.
Mr Pollard: In my own constituency, five
head teachers are leaving this year. Some of that is put down
to pressure and burnouts and other things like that. It has been
a concern of mine that head teachers are absolutely key in any
school and if head teachers are suffering this burnout—or
however it is described—how can we tackle that? Should we
have a sabbatical for them, perhaps, every six or seven years,
where they can go and knit or do gardening or whatever they want
to do?
Chairman: Is this for head teachers only,
Mr Pollard?
Q229 Mr Pollard: And Chairmen of Select
Committees, obviously!
Mr Clarke: Most ministers' sabbaticals
are involuntary rather than voluntary, but some are voluntary,
of course, as we know. The situation is I am actually quite in
favour of developing sabbaticals and I have started thinking about
ways in which we can do that, because I think there is a case—not
only for head teachers actually—for having some kind of
refreshment. Some of the trade unions are arguing for that position,
and I think it would be beneficial if we could achieve that for
a variety of different reasons. So I do not dismiss that particular
idea at all. More seriously, however, for head teachers, the head
teacher is the key person. Each of those 26,000 head teachers
are the key people to delivering everything that we have to do,
and we focused very hard on that with the National College School
Leadership, and the Leadership incentive grant programme has been
particularly important in addressing this in various ways. You
have to take it on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, bluntly,
it is good that the head teacher is leaving and creating space
for new blood in that area; in other cases it is outstanding people
who have been burned out by the pressures of the moment and a
rest will help sort the situation—or support from another
colleague, mentoring, or whatever. So it is a horses-for-courses
answer, in my opinion. So I do not think a generalised solution—eg
a sabbatical—solves it, but I think everybody in the whole
system needs to focus on supporting and finding the right head
teacher to lead a school. If I can be candid, Mr Pollard, I think
that means sometimes finding a way to face up to the fact that
a head teacher is not cutting it in a particular circumstances
and, in not cutting it, is letting down the children who are there.
In my opinion we have to create a system which does not tolerate
that, because it is not acceptable, in a role of that absolutely
key nature, that they can stay in that role when they are not
delivering for the pupils in that area.
Q230 Mr Pollard: Much is made these days
of choice, Secretary of State. One of the schools in my constituency,
St Albans' Girls School, is three times over-subscribed, year-on-year,
so two out of those three over-subscribed will not be able to
get their choice. Is it the right description to say "choice"
or should we use some other word?
Mr Clarke: "Choice"
is a funny word. It is used very widely in politics, at the moment.
Part of it is about choice between schools, as you say, and it
remains the case that a very high proportion of people get their
first choice of school, at whatever level it is. I also believe
it is a question of choice within the schools, so that an individual
within a school has got a better ability to identify the curriculum
that is right for them and carry that through (and I think we
have seen some very positive developments recently in that area).
Collaborations between schools—which, for example, the specialist
schools system has encouraged and the excellence in cities programme
has encouraged—is already allowing a wider choice, not between
schools but within the school framework, to help particular individuals
get what they want. I do, in that sense, think choice is the right
word, but I hope the best answer on all choice questions is to
get a high quality school in your locality which you really can
have confidence in. That is what we have to achieve. There are
still communities where that is not the case and that is what
we have to achieve. But I think the idea that there is choice
is important to achieving that in each locality.
Q231 Paul Holmes: Just back-tracking,
for clarification, to some of the previous points made, David
Chaytor was asking you about the new proposals to let popular
schools expand. How would that work in terms of the capital funding?
The two most popular secondary schools in my constituency are
absolutely bursting at the seams. One of the schools' regular
complaint every year is that the independent appeals panel forces
more and more people in which they just cannot take. The only
way they could expand, if they wanted to, would be to build whole
new teaching blocks. How do they get the capital to do that, and
do they get it at the expense of another school with old, clapped-out,
1960s classrooms who were hoping, under the Building Schools
for the Future programme to get them replaced? Does one of
the less fortunate schools lose out in order to build a brand
new teaching block?
Mr Clarke: The short answer to
the question is no; the capital will be allocated in precisely
the same way as it currently is, so the decision will have to
be made—in your case—by the local authority on where
its resource will go. So, is it going to fund the expansion at
the expanding school, or is it going to go, by your hypothesis,
to the clapped-out other school which is there? That resource
will be for the local authority to decide in precisely the same
way. What we are doing, however, is to try and accelerate the
programme so that people are able to expand if they wish to do
so, in principle, but the issue you raise of the capital does
not change fundamentally, because it would be ridiculous to be
in a state of affairs where the local authority was required to
prioritise capital for certain types of situations as opposed
to certain other situations. They will have to look at the situation
in the round and make their judgment in the most appropriate way.
What we are saying is that a candidate for that capital could
be an expanding school in the situation you describe in your constituency—bursting
at the seams. You can come forward and say, "We would like
the capital", but we are not saying you have the right to
have the capital, if you see what I mean—the decision still
has to be made as to whether the money should be spent in that
way rather than the competing demands which you have just described.
Q232 Paul Holmes: So the newly announced
policy of allowing schools to expand might meet a brick wall because
the LEA might say "No, we are going to replace the old 1960s
classrooms rather than let you expand"?
Mr Clarke: That could be the case.
It is not newly announced, we are making announcements later this
week and when we have made the announcements you will be able
to make your commentary. As you are asking me about what has been
said in the situation, as I was saying earlier to Mr Chaytor,
we are not saying that the right to expand carries with it an
automatic entitlement to a chunk of capital to be able to expand
in that way. The capital allocation processes will remain broadly
as they are. That is one of the reasons I was saying to Mr Chaytor,
that I think some of the fears about the increased flexibility
in the system, which I think is desirable, are overstated because,
actually, there will still be that capital constraint. Of course,
it is a substantially expanding capital situation but the capital
constraint will still be there; it has to be allocated according
to priorities which are set by the local authority.
Q233 Paul Holmes: The other question
was on the question of the city academies. You were saying that
it does help to pull in extra money to deprived urban areas, but
are you not overstating the case for that? With the city technology
colleges, under the previous government, they said, "We will
get all this money in from the private sector", but it never
materialised and the taxpayer had to bail out the few that were
set up. With the academies, you are asking the private sponsor
to provide two million but the taxpayer puts £22 million
in and the taxpayer picks up all the on-going costs of maintenance,
staff and everything, but the private sponsor, who has put in
a very small chunk of the overall sum, then gets control over
admissions, the teaching of creationism in science lessons, and
so forth.
Mr Clarke: Let us be absolutely
clear: you are right about the overall balance of funding, and
you are also right—a point not often indicated and is in
sharp contrast to the Conservatives—that the level of funding
per student at the city academy is the same as it is for any other
school in that particular locality, so we are not putting in extra
revenue funding in that way—so it is not saying you get
more money if you become a city academy, or whatever. So in that
sense you are right about the overall financial resource issue.
It is true that we believe that bringing in sponsors of this kind,
and having bodies that work in that way is of itself a bazooka
boost to try and carry the situation through in a positive way.
It does not give the sponsor the right to control admissions because
there is a code of admissions to which all city academies have
to adhere and carry through. There are issues, though, along the
lines Mr Chaytor was asking earlier on, that they can control
the admissions policy but within the code which is established
which has sets of criteria, for example, about special educational
needs and so on, and they cannot violate those core principles.
As far as teaching in schools is concerned and what is taught
in a science lesson, as I said to the Chairman, they all have
to teach in accordance with the National Curriculum and I think
it would be a very serious matter indeed if Ofsted, in its recommendations,
were to say science was being taught in the way you describe and
not being properly taught. I certainly would take that very seriously
and it would not be the right way to proceed, in my view. So the
test I have for how an academy works, from that point of view,
will be based on what is actually happening in the school.
Q234 Paul Holmes: Just on the issue of
choice that you were talking about earlier, if the Vardy Foundation,
who run Emmanuel College, have got the consultancy over teaching
creationism, if they take over the school in Conisbrough and do
the same thing there—I have heard parents on the radio from
there saying "I don't want my child going to a fundamentalist
school which teaches creationism in science"—what choice
does that parent have in a very small town like Conisbrough where
there is not exactly a dozen secondary schools they can pick from?
Mr Clarke: I do not know about
Conisbrough, but you are quite right, in any rural community—or
even relatively rural community—choice is far more limited
than it is in an urban community for simple reasons of geography.
I think the question that really has to be asked is: are parents
who are giving the comments you describe basing their knowledge
on the facts of the situation or are they basing it on a propagandistic
allegation about what is taking place which is actually not true?
I am sorry to be repetitive but I come back to the point I made
to the Chairman, the question is what is actually going on in
the school. The parent has to make a judgment on that basis about
the school. You are quite right to say that choice is much more
restricted in areas where there is much less geographical ability
to operate, but I cannot solve that in any way. I cannot say,
"However large the settlement we are going to have 16 different
schools from which you can choose"—we simply cannot—and
that is a reality of the world in which we are.
Q235 Paul Holmes: From your position
do you not have some responsibility? Even without the creationist
issue, if you have parents in a smaller town or village and their
other local school is a faith school and they say, "I don't
want my child to go to a faith school", what choice is therefore
being offered in that situation? You are encouraging the setting
up of faith schools and academies and so forth.
Mr Clarke: A limited choice, but
that is exactly the situation that exists today. The question
is can we extend the choice. Actually, by federations of schools
and collaborations, I think we can. We are already seeing, particularly
post-16, collaborations of schools. For example, in Norfolk there
is a group of schools 20 or 30 miles apart who are collaborating
on their curriculum—including pre-16, by the way—in
a variety of different ways, and very much post-16. So more choice
will become available than has ever been the case before. You
are absolutely right, if there is a given rural community that
is there and there is a school in that community, choice is very
limited for people living in that community. That is the case,
and I cannot wave my magic wand and solve that. Actually, I think
there is more progress happening in this area—not as a result
of the Government particularly but as a result of technology in
other areas—than there has ever been; we are beginning to
open up choices more in those areas. However, your fundamental
point, Mr Holmes, is true, that choice is extremely limited in
rural areas—that is the fact. Can I add one point to what
I said to Mr Holmes, which is to go back to what I said to Mr
Pollard, that nevertheless choice within the particular school,
choice within the curriculum, can be, and is being, extended,
which is also positive, and that is not affected by the conversation
I have just had with Mr Holmes. That is another area in which
choice is being developed.
Q236 Chairman: Secretary of State, that
may be right but I am sure you have not had time to read our report
on the School Transport Bill yet.
Mr Clarke: I have read it, actually,
yes.
Q237 Chairman: You have read it? That
is very good because you must have got it last night. We point
out in that that the Government does seem to have two minds on
this. On the one hand, you say to the Transport Select Committee,
who looked at the Bill, that you wanted to encourage people to
go to their local schools but, on the other, we have a whole raft
of policies that encourage people to travel further to a diverse
mix of specialist schools and much else. In one sense that does
seem strange to us. It came out very clearly as we took evidence
on the School Transport Bill that the whole thrust of the Government's
agenda on choice does mean people moving around more not less.
Mr Clarke: I do not entirely accept
that. Let me just say, I was going to comment in detail on your
report but perhaps I will do that in due course. I read from the
report that the Committee's view is we should just drop the Bill,
and if that is in fact the case I would be—
Q238 Chairman: No, at no stage did we
say that in the report.
Mr Clarke: You may not have used
those words but that was the whole implication of the report.
Q239 Chairman: No, Secretary of State,
I am sorry. If you want to know what the thrust of the Bill is,
we think, as it is presently framed, it is a missed opportunity.
It is a missed opportunity because it should be much more—not
just about cutting down the school run and traffic congestion
in the mornings—about children's health, walking to school
or cycling to school; it should be more about the environment,
cutting down emissions and global warming, and we believe that
2011 is far too long to wait for real improvements and we believe
that you should actually liberate all education authorities to
come up with innovative, new transport for school plans outside
the 26. We do not say you should scrap the Bill, we think you
should improve it.
Mr Clarke: May we just have a
quick exchange on that, Chairman, because I am very interested
in what you have just said.
|
