Conclusions and recommendations
1. The
web forum provided an opportunity for us to hear the views of,
and communicate with, a broad range of people, including those
based overseas. We regret that SCE staff and schools were not
actively encouraged to participate from the beginning but welcome
the MoD's acceptance that there is no reason why MoD employees
should not contribute to fora of this kind if their purpose is
to relay personal experience rather than comment on Government
policy. We consider the forum to have been a valuable experience
and we intend to build on this experience in future inquiries.
(Paragraph 10)
2. Moving schools
is stressful for all children and frequent moves can have a significant
detrimental impact on young people, particularly on their willingness
to form friendships with their peers. Some schools have developed
imaginative ways to help students settle in to their new schools.
We recommend the DfES work with the MoD to develop best practice
guidance for schools on helping Service children adapt as smoothly
as possible to their new school environment. (Paragraph 19)
3. We are very concerned
that Service children may be falling between the responsibilities
of the DfES and the devolved administrations. They must act in
a joined-up way to ensure continuity of education for children
moving between the different parts of the UK. This is an area
which the DfES needs to address urgently. We also recommend greater
contact between the MoD and those in the devolved administrations
responsible for education. (Paragraph 23)
4. Mobility can negatively
affect a student's educational attainment, particularly in the
lead-up to key stages and GCSEs and A levels. We recommend that
the DfES work closely with the MoD, SCE and devolved administrations
to identify ways to mitigate the impact of mobility. (Paragraph
24)
5. The MoD and local
education authorities should begin planning for the impact that
the creation of Super Garrisons will have on pupil numbers in
schools located near Service bases. (Paragraph 26)
6. We note the importance
of regular communications between deployed Service personnel and
their families. Young people can feel particular anxiety during
this time and their educational attainment and general well-being
can be affected. The provision of communication facilities, and
the regular opportunity to use them, can help both Service personnel
and their families maintain their morale during operational tours.
(Paragraph 32)
7. The difficulties
experienced by some Service families in getting their child assessed
by an educational psychologist for Statementing purposes and the
consequent delays in the provision of support to those children
is unacceptable. Schools and local authorities should give the
needs of Service children with Special Needs equal priority to
those of any other child. (Paragraph 42)
8. We are concerned
at the evidence we have received that SCE lacks sufficient numbers
of educational psychologists. We call upon the MoD to ensure that
SCE schools are able to call on the services of accredited educational
psychologists within a reasonable time. (Paragraph 43)
9. We recommend that
the DfES and the MoD consider introducing, as a priority, a system
whereby Service children with Special Needs are given a Statement
of educational needs which can be taken with them as they move
between schools, and is accepted by schools as the basis for support
which they will provide. The Statement should be time-limited
and reviewed regularly. (Paragraph 44)
10. We note the former
Defence Minister's tentative suggestion of a "Statementing
passport" for Service children with special needs. We recommend
that the feasibility of a Statementing passport be explored further
by his successor. (Paragraph 45)
11. Service parents
need reliable and accessible information when making key decisions
about their child's education. We note the positive feedback we
received from parents who had used the Children's Education Advisory
Service but also the low profile of the CEAS amongst the Service
parents we met. We recommend that the MoD provide the necessary
resources to raise the profile of the CEAS amongst Service families
so that it can provide its important advice service to a larger
number of Service parents. (Paragraph 49)
12. We believe that
in today's information age, a website is an essential conduit
for information between organisations and clients. We recommend
that the MoD provide the CEAS with the necessary resources for
an effective and visible website and that it do so speedily. (Paragraph
50)
13. While it may seem
curious that the MoD should be responsible for providing schools,
it is unquestionably the Department with the closest interest
in the education of Service children and the issues facing them.
We see no reason to call for any change in the status of SCE as
an MoD agency. (Paragraph 59)
14. Both the MoD and
the DfES expressed satisfaction with their current working relationship
with regard to SCE schools, but saw potential for closer collaboration.
We are concerned by the Minister for School's description of the
DfES relationship with the MoD as "hands-off". We believe
closer collaboration and a greater interest in Service children
by the DfES to be essential. (Paragraph 60)
15. The written evidence
we have received, and the contributions posted to our web forum,
were generally positive about the quality of schooling provided
by SCE schools, particularly at primary level. (Paragraph 64)
16. We are not convinced
by the reasons given by the MoD for the governance arrangements
for SCE schools and recommend that the MoD consider the feasibility
of giving Schools Advisory Committees powers equivalent to those
exercised by governing bodies in UK maintained schools. We believe
that this would help to ensure that high standards of performance
are achieved. In the short term, the MoD should take steps to
ensure that members of Schools Advisory Committees assume a more
active role in school life and that they receive appropriate training
to do this effectively. (Paragraph 69)
17. We welcome the
MoD's commitment to give additional funding to SCE to match increases
to the DfES budget, but we are concerned to ensure that this funding
is provided by HM Treasury rather than from already allocated
MoD resources. We expect the Treasury to make available proportional
funding to the MoD whenever it increases the schools budget. We
expect the MoD to ensure that parity funding for SCE schools continues.
(Paragraph 76)
18. It is vital that
the interests of SCE schools are taken into account when DfES
initiatives are introduced, and that SCE is resourced adequately
to implement them. (Paragraph 80)
19. We recommend that
the MoD consider broadening its criteria for deciding which of
its contract workers are eligible for free education in SCE schools.
It appears unfair that some contracted staff, performing important
responsibilities for the Services, are not entitled to free schooling
in SCE schools. (Paragraph 84)
20. We
were surprised to discover that there does not seem to be a clear
working definition of what a Service child is. Without an accepted
definition, a reliable figure for the number of Service children
cannot be determined and decisions about funding for Service children
and the tracking of the educational attainment of Service children,
is not possible. (Paragraph 88)
21. We
recommend that the MoD and the DfES treat as a Service child any
child of school age whose parent has served in the UK Armed Forces
during that child's school career.
(Paragraph 90)
22. We
recognise that many LEAs do not have a significant number of Service
children in their schools and would gain little benefit if the
PLASC included a requirement for schools to identify Service children.
For the DfES to reject the proposal on the ground that a sample
focus group was not in favour is simply ridiculous, and a sad
reflection of the importance which the DfES attaches to Service
children. The collection of data on the number of Service children,
through the national PLASC census, would bring benefit to the
DfES, the MoD, SCE and LEAs. This information would assist the
targeting of resources for Service children more effectively and
enable trends in the attainment of Service children to be established.
(Paragraph 95)
23. We
do not consider its inclusion in the PLASC exercise would prove
unduly burdensome for schools and the benefits it would bring
are considerable. We recommend strongly that the DfES include
a Service children marker in its annual PLASC exercise.
(Paragraph 96)
24. All
LEAs face different challenges and demands on their resources.
Significant disparities in the funding needs of individual schools
exist within LEAs. We believe that it is appropriate that funding
decisions concerning individual schools are made at a local level,
by LEAs, through its locally-determined funding formula. We commend
to LEAs the example of Wiltshire County Council which provides
additional funding for its schools with significant numbers of
Service children. (Paragraph 102)
25. While
we recognise the logistical challenge and the need for occasional
unexpected postings, we recommend that the MoD adopt a more rigorous
target for notice of postings. (Paragraph
105)
26. We
recommend that the MoD consider how parents living abroad can
be assisted better to find schools in the UK, particularly when
their spouse is away on an operational deployment.
(Paragraph 109)
27. We
welcome the commitment by the Minister for Schools that the DfES
would advise local authorities to accept unit postal addresses
from which to apply to new schools. (Paragraph
110)
28. We
note the difficulties that Head Teachers of schools located near
Service bases have experienced owing to poor communication with
the MoD about planned postings. Postings to, and away from, military
bases can have a profound effect on a school's ability to budget
and plan effectively. It is vital that the MoD informs schools
and LEAs as early as possible about its intended postings. There
is an urgent need to improve this aspect of MoD's performance.
(Paragraph 115)
29. We
are concerned that the records of Service children are frequently
transferred between schools well beyond the 15 day requirement
set by DfES regulation. In the age of e-mail and instant electronic
communication, there can be no excuse for not transferring records
within the 15 day regulation. Delays in the transfer of student
records mean that the new teacher has to take additional time
to assess a child and specify suitable learning plans. In extreme
cases delays could harm a child's learning development. We call
on the DfES to take steps to enforce the 15 day requirement for
the transfer of student records. (Paragraph
120)
30. We
recognise the importance of pre-school provision for Service families
in the UK and recommend that the MoD give consideration to this.
(Paragraph 121)
31. Educating
Service children is often referred to in terms of the difficulties
it presents and obstacles to overcome. We note that during our
inquiry we have been told about many of the positive aspects of
educating Service children, which for many teachers proves to
be a satisfying experience. (Paragraph 124)
32. We
recommend that the MoD commission research on the reasons for
lower take-up of CEA among lower-paid ranks. In particular, this
research should focus on any financial or cultural reasons for
the lower take-up of the CEA by lower-paid ranks.
(Paragraph 132)
33. The
two schools have different roles but both are popular: admissions
to the Queen Victoria School and the Duke of York's Royal Military
School are over-subscribed. While the Queen Victoria School and
the Duke of York's Royal Military School are clearly anachronisms,
we see no reason to recommend any change to their status.
(Paragraph 138)
| 
